[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Could very well be. But his ideas wasn't to get rid of the problem, but the people.

How do you get rid of the problem when the problem is the people?

This is actually quite an important discussion, because what happened there will happen again, Europe-wide this time. Von is already showing signs that he believes his people can do no wrong, and this is where things like this start.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Doofy

How do you get rid of the problem when the problem is the people?

Actually those people have just been brainwashed and fooled. The solution is to de-brain-wash them.

This is actually quite an important discussion, because what happened there will happen again, Europe-wide this time. Von is already showing signs that he believes his people can do no wrong, and this is where things like this start.

I wouldn't be too concerned with what von thinks over-all. He will cheer for "his side" regardless of what they do. And find ways to justify their actions.

They BOTH have evil intentions. One side had more power and ability.

If he thinks HIS side wouldn't have mass murdered the serbs if they could have, he is deluded as well.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I would just like to take this space to say OMG WTF LOL!!!!1!!!! And, tear my own hair out.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Again, not impossible. If either of them got WMDs, they could have. (Why was Hitler looking to get nukes also? More power!)

Sigh. As I mentioned: it's a comparative power struggle. It was impossible for Hussein to get enough military power to compare with probably even a top-10 world list. Unlike Hitler.

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, your primary argument was they weren't comparable people. I said they were of the SAME ilk, they just didn't have all the resources Hitler did. And we stopped them before they could.

...wow. This is just completely, and utterly, wrong. It's amazing. I was the first person who started the whole debate about Milosevic, Hussein and Hitler by posting Stoessinger's quote calling them the three truly evil dictators in modern history. I also called your original post about Hussein and Milosevic being "stopped" incorrect, because resources and political power was what was truly at the bottom of the issue.

Have you gone back and read the thread, Kevin? Your endless excuses for making completely incorrect statements are almost amazing.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Your opinion. Others in the know, believe otherwise.

It doesn't matter. Whether he got WMDs or not was irrelevant to my argument, which is why I said that. My argument was, because of his country's weakness on the world scene, his gathering of WMDs would have been irrelevant in comparison to any of the world's greater military powers. Thus, in no possible way could he have been the threat that Hitler was.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Um, Israel isn't being led by a megalomanic like Hitler, Saddam, etc. So that sir was a horrible straw-man comparison.

...again, wow. I wasn't comparing them. I was clearly using Israel as an example of a tiny country, with a small (yet amazingly well-trained and funded) military force which, despite any significant gain of WMDs by Hussein, would still be more (militarily) powerful than Iraq. It was an example of how weak Iraq truly was on the world scene. Hussein was less powerful than even a tiny country like Israel, let alone Britain, Pakistan, China, the ubiquitous US or any number of countries we could name. This relates directly to my argument above.

Originally Posted by Kevin

The only FACTS in tyhe matter is, all 3 of them were murderous genocidal megalomaniacs that would have gotten more dangerous had we let them. Heck Even BILL CLINTON the superstar himself said Milosevic and Hitler were alike. He even was being called "Hitler of the Balkans,"

Have you not yet caught on to the fact that I'm agreeing with you here? It's incredible. I post how Milosevic, Hussein and Hitler have been linked as "truly evil," and you go off arguing with me about how they were. . .all. truly. evil. I'm almost speechless.

Originally Posted by moonmonkey and Kevin

I think you mean second best.

No. I think any historian would argue that Germany had the best-trained and overall best army in the world from ~1938 to (at least) 1942. Their tactics were innovative and superior to any in existence, and their leaders and command structure were razor-sharp.

If you're referring to the US, then you would be wrong. It was simply not in a battle-ready state until some time after Pearl Harbour (at the end of 1941, of course). In addition, the ramping-up against Japan honed its Navy and Marine forces, but its Army would take slightly longer to reach full combat efficiency.

greg

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Please see my earlier reply about the definition of evil. It doesn't, and shouldn't, be based on merely the total number of deaths. That he in fact did not have the "means" to emulate Hitler is irrelevant.

greg

This I completely agree with. My response was to the guy who said they didn't become modern day Hitlers because we stopped them in time. That Milosevic as a person was as bad as Hitler, and that he could do as much damage if he were in his shoes, I think is true.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Do you not think that those early writings could have been influenced by 700+ years of conflict between the two peoples?

Amusing to read justifications like that. Not dissimilar to those who deny holocaust really.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

I would just like to take this space to say OMG WTF LOL!!!!1!!!! And, tear my own hair out.

I suggest you go take some meds and come back. Your spinning in making you abuse yourself.

Sigh. As I mentioned: it's a comparative power struggle. It was impossible for Hussein to get enough military power to compare with probably even a top-10 world list. Unlike Hitler.

Again, that is YOUR OPINION. One not based on FACT. So for you to say YOUR OPINION is somehow factual, and that it devalues mine is totally silly.

What you are doing is "I believe my opinion, and not yours, therefore I just invalidated yours"

That doesn't cut it.

I have shown were other people in the KNOW at the time (You were what 17?) felt the SAME WAY, and that is WHY they did it. Now you can argue that you THINK they are wrong. And that is fine. But your OPINION doesn't invalidate the reasons or what they believed. This is the 3rd time I have HAD to say this to you. What is so hard to understand about that?

...wow. This is just completely, and utterly, wrong. It's amazing. I was the first person who started the whole debate about Milosevic, Hussein and Hitler by posting Stoessinger's quote calling them the three truly evil dictators in modern history. I also called your original post about Hussein and Milosevic being "stopped" incorrect, because resources and political power was what was truly at the bottom of the issue.

No, you didn't called out ANY OF MY POSTS. You just said "wrong"

You said my post was incorrect by saying YOUR OPINION was more valid than mine WITHOUT BACKING IT UP. I actually SHOWED were people at the time that wanted to stop him THOUGHT THAT VERY THING! So yes, they stopped him because they thought he would eventually BECOME ANOTHER HITLER.

Now your opinion that he could never have, is just your opinion. DIG?

It doesn't matter. Whether he got WMDs or not was irrelevant to my argument, which is why I said that. My argument was, because of his country's weakness on the world scene, his gathering of WMDs would have been irrelevant in comparison to any of the world's greater military powers. Thus, in no possible way could he have been the threat that Hitler was.

And here is where you are running in Circles. What makes a gov have more power? What caused us to Win WII? What caused people to back down?

In Germany's case it was their massive army. But as soon as someone got NUKES, their army was IRRELEVANT. Because someone else had MORE POWER.

When a country gains nukes, they gain POWER and CONTROL that they wouldn't have had before. Understand?

That is WHY Saddam was searching for WMDs. He knew if he HAD them, he had MORE CONTROL and more power.

I was clearly using Israel as an example of a tiny country, with a small (yet amazingly well-trained and funded) military force which, despite any significant gain of WMDs by Hussein, would still be more (militarily) powerful than Iraq.

That would be irrelevant! He didn't want WMDs to attack Israel. He wanted them FOR POWER! Israel having WMDs too is irrelevant.

It was an example of how weak Iraq truly was on the world scene. Hussein was less powerful than even a tiny country like Israel,

YES AT THE TIME! Had they gotten WMDs they would have grown. JUST LIKE ISRAEL DID!

Israel ALSO knew this. That is why Israel got rid of Saddam's attempts to MAKE nukes.

Have you not yet caught on to the fact that I'm agreeing with you here? It's incredible. I post how Milosevic, Hussein and Hitler have been linked as "truly evil," and you go off arguing with me about how they were. . .all. truly. evil. I'm almost speechless.

No you are just NOW agreeing with me about certain things, after the fact.

If you're referring to the US, then you would be wrong.

You are correct. The US didn't get the "Power" till we got the WMDs.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Busemann

This I completely agree with. My response was to the guy who said they didn't become modern day Hitlers because we stopped them in time. That Milosevic as a person was as bad as Hitler, and that he could do as much damage if he were in his shoes, I think is true.

Agreed.

I am betting Shortcut wont go into a tirad about it like he did me though.

Someone has a chip on his shoulders.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Actually those people have just been brainwashed and fooled. The solution is to de-brain-wash them.

I wouldn't be too concerned with what von thinks over-all. He will cheer for "his side" regardless of what they do. And find ways to justify their actions.

That's the problem - it's not just Von, it's the millions of Vons who live amongst us. This is how things like the Balkans get started. But you can't de-brainwash them.

Originally Posted by Kevin

If he thinks HIS side wouldn't have mass murdered the serbs if they could have, he is deluded as well.

I'm absolutely sure that they did. And let's not forget that his side is into mass murder on a regular basis anyways (9/11, 7/7, Madrid).

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Amusing to read justifications like that. Not dissimilar to those who deny holocaust really.

I think you need to go look up the difference between "justification" and "observation".

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Doofy

That's the problem - it's not just Von, it's the millions of Vons who live amongst us. This is how things like the Balkans get started. But you can't de-brainwash them.

You can de-brainwash some, depending how far along they are. Some are though as you say, too far lost to see the truth.

I believe that once we start self deluding ourselves, we lose the ability to see right from wrong.

If we stay in this state for too long all hope is lost.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I think you need to go look up the difference between "justification" and "observation".

Right, you can observe WHY someone did something, without justifying it.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Right, you can observe WHY someone did something, without justifying it.

Not if it doesn't go along with their argument

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Kevin, I can't understand your mindset. I really can't. It's beyond anything I can imagine. For you to post things which are clearly against everything I've said, or to keep posting incorrect things, just astonishes me. Unfortunately, it's impossible to argue with you at all – you clearly have the time and ability to just keep saying the same thing, over and over, and ignoring any objections that are brought up. In effect, you win the "post war" because you can simply post more than anyone else, and thus it's impossible for an opponent to keep up with your laundry list of mistakes. You require absolute, quoted proof of everything, and no one has the time to go back and keep finding posts to quote. It's insane.

An example from your last post:

You claim nukes were the reason "you" won WWII...when, of course, that is incorrect. Germany had been already defeated before the Manhattan project came to fruition. So, in fact, had Japan – they just didn't want to admit it. The dropping of the two nuclear bombs merely put a quick end to a war which was already in effect over. The US and Russia could have waited around and starved Japan into surrender, or risked hundreds of thousands of their own troops invading Japan. . .either way, the Allies had won, and without the "power" of WMDs. Then you end by saying the US didn't get "power" until they got nukes...that, of course, is patently untrue. The US had perhaps the greatest standing army in the world by the time Germany surrendered (Russia was certainly more than competetive, although it lacked any naval component). They had enough power to take on Japan and Germany at the same time. To say they didn't have power is absolutely ridiculous. Nuclear weapons were merely a technological "end point" of a power struggle which had existed since civilization, and of which the US was firmly on top even before their discovery.

See what I mean? These inaccuracies aren't really terribly central to your argument, but you throw them in as some sort of "proof" – even though they're wrong. When I call you on them, you introduce new, also incorrect arguments while at the same time telling me my "opinions" aren't correct. How is that possible? How can you say it's only my "opinion" that Iraq could never be a world power? You go on and talk about how Hussein was stopped before he could become a world power, but that's entirely my point; Hitler, because of his resource and nation base, couldn't be stopped. You support my argument by claiming that Hussein in fact DID have WMDs – and of course, this is my point: even with them, he was not even able to put up an iota of resistance against the US! Don't you see what I'm saying? You're proving my arguments for me, but at the same time telling me how wrong they are! I'm flabbergasted.

It's little falsehoods like this that really drive me. You make sweeping generalizations, and then interject them with comments which are totally false. Since you post so much, it's impossible to point out all the things you argue which are incorrect – I'd need to essentially sit here all day and keep re-reading and re-quoting every one of your posts. You seem to be the only person who can consistently do that.

Thus: you win the honour of being the first person Ive ever blocked. I've had enough of your constant inaccuracies and statements which simply aren't true. I've also had enough of your constant arguments which merely go 'round and 'round in circles. I've also had enough of your constant tendency to completely ignore any argument which is not in accordance with your view of the issue – much like, for example, the global warming thread I've mentioned so much, in whch you just don't post after I link an article which seems to refute your views of the issue. You simply will not listen to any sort of reason or viewpoint which is not in accordance with your own.

I've also discovered that I have a fatal flaw – I can't back down. When you keep saying things which are not correct, I can't help myself – I need to post, and try to correct the inaccuracy. What I've discovered is, no matter how logical any argument I make is inevitably twisted and misinterpreted and nitpicked, and we just end up with the escalating post war. I hate people who do that "post-list-quoting" thing, and now I'm doing it myself. It's ridiculous.

Good-bye, Kevin. And, although I won't be able to see it, the thought of you responding to this post to somehow prove that you're still right makes me giggle like a schoolgirl.

greg

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Kevin, I can't understand your mindset. I really can't. It's beyond anything I can imagine. For you to post things which are clearly against everything I've said, or to keep posting incorrect things, just astonishes me.

No substance Personal attack that really has nothing to do with what is being disussed.

Unfortunately, it's impossible to argue with you at all – you clearly have the time and ability to just keep saying the same thing, over and over, and ignoring any objections that are brought up

No substance Personal attack that really has nothing to do with what is being disussed.

In effect, you win the "post war" because you can simply post more than anyone else, and thus it's impossible for an opponent to keep up with your laundry list of mistakes. You require absolute, quoted proof of everything, and no one has the time to go back and keep finding posts to quote. It's insane.

No substance Personal attack that really has nothing to do with what is being disussed.

You really suck at this.

An example from your last post:

You claim nukes were the reason "you" won WWII...when, of course, that is incorrect.

No, in YOUR OPINION that is incorrect. Neither side WOULD BACK DOWN till we had nukes.

Germany had been already defeated before the Manhattan project came to fruition. So, in fact, had Japan – they just didn't want to admit it.

! Both sides were being beaten before the project. Not defeated.

The fact that Germany had a MORE POWERFUL ARMY and we STILL defeated them because WE HAD MORE POWER goes to prove my point as well.

LOL! The dropping of the two nuclear bombs merely put a quick end to a war which was already in effect over.

Wow that is some double speak. "The bomb put a quick end to a war, that was already over"

How can one put a quick end to something if it was already over?

You are contradicting yourself now shortcut. This is known as a SPIN.

The US and Russia could have waited around and starved Japan into surrender, or risked hundreds of thousands of their own troops invading Japan. . .

Yes this was the options we had during the war. We decided to end it quickly instead. Obviously if there was those two options, the war wasn't over.

If we had already "Won" we wouldn't have had to!

either way, the Allies had won, and without the "power" of WMDs.

No, the allies were in the process of winning. As you even said yourself. It wasn't till the nukes got placed was it over. Like I said.

Then you end by saying the US didn't get "power" until they got nukes...that, of course, is patently untrue.

No, that is TRUE. No one would give up till we got them. That sir is power. Having such beasts in our possession gave us the advantage everyone knew they could not come against.

That sir is power.

The US had perhaps the greatest standing army in the world by the time Germany surrendered (Russia was certainly more than competetive, although it lacked any naval component). They had enough power to take on Japan and Germany at the same time. To say they didn't have power is absolutely ridiculous.

These are two different types of power. Our army was obviously not powerful enough to get people to quit and admit defeat. The only power we had that caused such a admittance was nukes. Without the nukes, the war would have went on longer. Our army couldn't have stopped it so soon. It was the WMDs (power) that cause people to shake in their boots.

as far as the rest of your post went, it was basically repeating the same with more verbal masturbation.

AGAIN, the only thing you have done is give us your opinion, and tell us ours is wrong just because it doesn't follow yours.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Hee hee hee...I feel so liberated right now. This Ignore feature is fan-freakin'-tastic.

greg

[Kevin]

Yeah using an ignore feature in the middle of an argument consists of someone saying "NAY NAY NAY I CAN'T HEAR YOU" while putting one's fingers in their ears during an actual discussion.

I am sure it does feel liberating TO YOU.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Kevin

In Germany's case it was their massive army. But as soon as someone got NUKES, their army was IRRELEVANT. Because someone else had MORE POWER.

When was the first atomic bomb ever detonated?
When did Germany capitulate?

[Kevin]

Tetenal irrelevant. As many people knew we were on the brink or had gotten it. There was a race going on to see who was gonna get em first. This was one of the main discourages of WWII near the end.

My point was, the allied forces won WWII in the end, because of teh nukes.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

What's to debate?

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Tetenal irrelevant.

Well, that convinces me.

[Chuckit]

TETENAL irrelevant. Nukes bad.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Well, that convinces me.

Ah how dishonest. As that isn't all that I said.

Tsk tsk.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Doofy

That's the problem - it's not just Von, it's the millions of Vons who live amongst us. This is how things like the Balkans get started. But you can't de-brainwash them.



I'm absolutely sure that they did. And let's not forget that his side is into mass murder on a regular basis anyways (9/11, 7/7, Madrid).

Balkans, 9/11, London Bombings, Madrid, French riots, attempted assination of the Pope, Cyprus, Turkey/Armenia, Israel, Chechnya, Kenya, India/Kashmir, E.Timor, etc..... and thats just whats going on today.

Lets not forget the ethnic clensing and mass exodus of Christians, Jews, Zorastrians, and many more from what we now consider the "Muslim" world.

Check the stats....find the number of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Persians, etc living freely(citizens with full voting rights) in the Muslim world. Now look at the west....how many hindus, budhists, jews, christians, muslims,etc live freely on our shores ? and yet one faction wants to set bombs off all over the place. Why ? brainwashed ? you got that right !!! get rid of that source of evil.

[Monique]

That it would be 10, 10,000, 100,000, 1,000,000, 800,000 or 11,000,000; they are still victims, they are still genocide victims, it is still ethnic cleansing. Nothing justified it, nothing should excuse it. Hitler, Hussain, Milosovic, the Hutus in Rwanda are guilty; they have the right to a lawyer but they are still guilty of wanting to exterminate people.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

I await your realization of these issues with bated breath.

greg

That you know it is "BATED" breath and not "baited" is to your credit.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Monique

That it would be 10, 10,000, 100,000, 1,000,000, 800,000 or 11,000,000; they are still victims, they are still genocide victims, it is still ethnic cleansing. Nothing justified it, nothing should excuse it. Hitler, Hussain, Milosovic, the Hutus in Rwanda are guilty.

Actually, the point is that Slobby isn't guilty. Only "under suspicion". Innocent until proven guilty, right?

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Actually, the point is that Slobby isn't guilty. Only "under suspicion". Innocent until proven guilty, right?

By that train of thought... Hitler was also not guilty.

While I agree, innocent until proven guilty... I feel history will show that he was guilty of ethnic cleansing.

[Monique]

I guess he was just misunderstood by us all; and the camps in Serbia were there because Muslims ran out of places to vacation in. Doofy why are you defending that guy?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Monique

I guess he was just misunderstood by us all; and the camps in Serbia were there because Muslims ran out of places to vacation in. Doofy why are you defending that guy?

Because I can see the problems he was facing by having a large bunch of people living in his territory who weren't compatible with his culture.

And because I don't believe that half the crap which went down was his fault - I mean, you're aware that the KLA would commit genocide on villagers who refused to join/support them and then make it look like it was the Serbs who did it in order to garner western sympathy, right?

And because it's all going to happen again, probably sometime within our lifetimes. And next time, it won't be the Balkans - it'll be London, or Madrid, or New York, or your home town.

It's really quite simple: islam is incompatible with western society. Any time there's sufficient numbers of adherents to it living in western society, you're going to end up with the Balkans. It really is that simple.

[Monique]

You just excused every ethnic cleansing that ever happen on this planet.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Saddam had been in power for 24 years and is currently touching, what, 70 years. His army turned out to be a joke, and he possessed no WMDs. He spent tons of money and resources pampering himself and his closest with huge palaces and a life in luxory. He was a rotten man, but hardly a Hitler. Not even close

Milosevic was higher on the "evil scale" than Saddam imho

http://www.geocities.com/dtmcbride/h...html#dictators

Biggest Killers

M = Millions
K = Thousands

Mao 20 - 50 M
Stalin 20 - 40 M
Hitler 15 - 21 M (6M Jews)
Lenin 4 M
Chiang, Kai-shek 2 - 10 M
Pol Pot 2 M
Marshal Tito 200 - 500K
Ceausescu, Nicolae 400 K
Idi Amin 300 K
Milosevic, Slobodan 200 - 300 K
Mussolini, Benito - 250 K
Saddam 150 K - 1.5M
Marcos, Ferdinand 250 K
Franco, Francisco 22 K
Juan Batista 2 K
Fidel Castro 15 K - 65 K
Augusto Pinochet 3 K
Ayatollah Komeni 10 - 20 K

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Monique

You just excused every ethnic cleansing that ever happen on this planet.

No, I didn't.

I excused the defensive, non-lethal ones with regard to certain peoples who have proven time and time again that they can't live with the rest of us in peace and harmony.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

http://www.geocities.com/dtmcbride/h...html#dictators

I believe those numbers attributed to Slobby are wrong.

Even some socialists agree with me:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/no...koso-n09.shtml

And here's another interesting read:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAL503A.html

[TETENAL]

Doofy, keep your BNP bullshit for yourself.

[Kevin]

Tetenal there is no need to be like that. Doofy is just questioning something. He isn't saying it didn't happen or denying it.

It isn't something that is cut and dry.

[yakkiebah]

Doofy, most of the war crimes commited(Srebrenica massacre) by the Serbs was during the war in Bosnia not in Kosovo.
The video vW posted was from this time(1991-95). However in the Kosovo war, genocide did not happen.

Also Islam was not the reason why the war in Bosnia started. However lot's of Islamic extremist entered the battle later on. Wich contributed to the war in Kosovo.

Currently Kosovo has become a hot bed of radical Islamist. And a growing problem for Europe in general.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Doofy, keep your BNP bullshit for yourself.

What BNP BS is that? The link I posted to which resides on a site called "World Socialist Web Site"?

Or the "BNP BS" that islam is incompatible with western culture and that multi-culturalism leads to strife? The recent events relating to free speech and cartoons back me on the first issue. Trevor Philips, the head of the Commission For Racial Equality in the UK backs me on the second.

The events of the last 800 years in the Balkans are proof that what I'm saying is the truth, however unpalatable you may find it.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

Doofy, most of the war crimes commited(Srebrenica massacre) by the Serbs was during the war in Bosnia not in Kosovo.

In Bosnia, it was a war - poop happens. Now, the Geneva Convention might try to sterilise war but it just can't be done - would we have won WW2 if the Geneva Convention was active from 1920?

The reported reason NATO went to war with Slobby was to stop genocide in Kosovo (nothing to do with Bosnia) - something which a lot of people believe was complete BS.

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

Also Islam was not the reason why the war in Bosnia started. However lot's of Islamic extremist entered the battle later on. Wich contributed to the war in Kosovo.

Currently Kosovo has become a hot bed of radical Islamist. And a growing problem for Europe in general.

The whole area is a problem because it's an islamic frontier. If you don't believe me, go see if you can find any other areas in the world, bar Turkey, where islam butts up to the rest of the world and there aren't similar problems.

[yakkiebah]

Originally Posted by Doofy

In Bosnia, it was a war - poop happens. Now, the Geneva Convention might try to sterilise war but it just can't be done - would we have won WW2 if the Geneva Convention was active from 1920?

The mass murdering(+raping) of civilians should be stopped. Yes, wars will be wars but some lines should never be crossed. We should have bombed the sh1t out of Serbian troops back then but we didn't. We failed.

WW2 was a total war, a huge difference, civilians weren't involved in producing weapons like it happend in WW2.

The reported reason NATO went to war with Slobby was to stop genocide in Kosovo (nothing to do with Bosnia) - something which a lot of people believe was complete BS.

True, that's what i was trying to point out in my first post in this thread.

The whole area is a problem because it's an islamic frontier. If you don't believe me, go see if you can find any other areas in the world, bar Turkey, where islam butts up to the rest of the world and there aren't similar problems.

I'm not saying Islamism isn't a problem but to say it was the main cause of fükking up the area in the past 800 years would be historically incorrect.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

I'm not saying Islamism isn't a problem but to say it was the main cause of fükking up the area in the past 800 years would be historically incorrect.

It's been a while.

Oh. And I didn't say "islamism", I said "islam". The sectioning off off some "radical" sect of islam so as to make the rest of it innocent is a fallacy. islam has always been an expansionistic cult with misery and strife at its borders.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Because I can see the problems he was facing by having a large bunch of people living in his territory who weren't compatible with his culture.

And because I don't believe that half the crap which went down was his fault - I mean, you're aware that the KLA would commit genocide on villagers who refused to join/support them and then make it look like it was the Serbs who did it in order to garner western sympathy, right?

And because it's all going to happen again, probably sometime within our lifetimes. And next time, it won't be the Balkans - it'll be London, or Madrid, or New York, or your home town.

It's really quite simple: islam is incompatible with western society. Any time there's sufficient numbers of adherents to it living in western society, you're going to end up with the Balkans. It really is that simple.

Well said! I'm in absolute agreement!

cheers

W-Y

[Spliff]

Hitch writes about Milosevic in Slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2137950/

No Sympathy for Slobo
Let's not forget Milosevic's many crimes.
By Christopher Hitchens

During the siege of Sarajevo or the mass deportations from Kosovo, the news of a sudden stoppage of the heart of Slobodan Milosevic would have occasioned a joyous holiday in many other hearts. And the idea that he might one day die in prison would have been excellent tidings for a future generation and was the intended effect of his long and convoluted trial. But the news that he has succumbed randomly is bad news, as was the illness that overtook one of his original judges and helped protract the process in the first place. One can see, forming in the swamps of nationalism and superstition, a myth of martyrdom dimly taking shape.

This would be the worst outcome, since Milosevic began and ended, as all such dictators do, by ruining his own people and degrading his own country. It was on April 24, 1987, that, as an ambitious Stalinoid bureaucrat, he journeyed to Kosovo and made a toxically demagogic appeal to the Serbian minority. It was on June 28, 1989—the 600th anniversary of the Serbian defeat in Kosovo by the Turks—that he returned to the territory and made a hysterical speech to a mass rally. During his ignoble presidency, Serbia became a banana republic, and his predecessor, Ivan Stambolic, was later "disappeared" and found in a shallow grave. Serbian death squads were used against fellow Serbs and also "deniably" deployed in Bosnia and elsewhere. By the end of it, the Serbian minorities in whose name he had launched a regional war had been ignominiously expelled from their ancient homes in the Krajina region and in Kosovo itself. Only a Serb can truly feel the depth of the cultural and political and economic damage that he did, and the brave crowds of students who demonstrated in Belgrade in March 1991 shouting "Slobo Saddam" had it exactly right.

Or almost exactly right. Milosevic did not have quite the psychopathic power of a Saddam Hussein or an Osama Bin Laden. He was that most dangerous of people: the mediocre and conformist official who bides his time and masks his grievances. He went from apparatchik to supreme power, and though he rode a tide of religious and xenophobic fervor, it is quite thinkable that he never really cared about the totems and symbols that he exploited. In office and in the dock, he embodied the banality of evil. In the excellent 1995 book The Death of Yugoslavia, written by Laura Silber and Allan Little, and in the fine BBC TV series that accompanied it, you can actually see the petty tactics and cynical opportunism that he employed like a sluggish maggot at the heart of the state that just keeps eating remorselessly away. He apparently had only one true friend, his adorable ideologue of a wife, Mirjana Markovic, who used to cheer him up about his big-eared and stone-faced appearance and about the suicide of both of his parents. Beware of those resentful nonentities who enter politics for therapeutic reasons.

The highlights of his more lurid criminal career ought to be briefly set down before anyone tries to airbrush them. He arranged for his own entourage to be pelted with stones in Kosovo in 1987 (this we have on film) so that the provocation could appear on Belgrade television and isolate the civilized elements in the ruling party. He made a secret agreement with his equally disgusting counterpart Franjo Tudjman of Croatia for a sort of Stalin-Hitler carve-up of Bosnia, and thus empowered the very Croatian extremists who later turned on Serb civilians. He entered into a collusion with fascist and irredentist groups, among them Bosnian Serbs and Belgrade Serbs, which deliberately threw Bosnia into civil war and gave us the modern (and euphemistic) term "ethnic cleansing." He hijacked the national army of a unitary state and used it to attack the autonomous republics within that state. He very nearly destroyed two of the urban cultural treasures of Europe: Dubrovnik and Sarajevo. He emptied the treasury of Serbia and reduced its citizens to poverty and paranoia. He and Saddam were the only two heads of government to welcome the failed coup against Mikhail Gorbachev. Eventually, he went even further and ordered the mass expulsion of the majority population of Kosovo, who were herded onto trains and forced onto the roads; an act that would, if successful, have lethally destabilized the two neighboring states of Albania and Macedonia. And at that very belated point, the Western powers decided they had had enough of him and brought about his removal from Kosovo and his removal from power.

It is worth remembering, however, how much the "realists" had relied upon him until then. Negotiators David Owen, representing the European Union, and former U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance thought he was a necessary "partner for peace." Henry Kissinger and Lawrence Eagleburger pronounced him to be the man to do business with and steadily opposed any intervention. It took an act of ultimate irrationality on Milosevic's part before NATO decided to overrule Russian and Chinese and U.N. objections and put an end to fascism and racist murder in their own backyard. And, of course, by then most of the damage had been done, and it is now the anti-realists who inherit the ghastly, laborious job of cleaning up the mess, digging up the mass graves, restoring essential services, and pacifying inflamed tribal and confessional feelings.

Some friends and colleagues of mine have testified against Milosevic and his henchmen in The Hague and had the satisfaction of seeing the slaughterers and torturers confronted by their victims. An enormous archive of atrocity has been amassed and videotaped and cataloged, and one day history will be very grateful for it. No denial or revisionism will be possible in this case. It would be nice to think that it was this relentless accumulation of evidence that stopped Milosevic, who was often confronted by former colleagues in the witness box, from making the long and self-pitying speeches that have served Saddam Hussein as a model tactic. It would also be nice to think that it is what eventually killed him. But he probably suffered his last spasm feeling sorry only for himself, and now we will have the final sordid task of preventing others from feeling a misplaced sympathy for him also.

[Monique]

Doofy and Weyland:

These are racist comments.

It is totally stupid to make a blanket statement about one billion people. Really all Muslims cannot function in Western society.

That was they use to say about the Jews, and over 6 million dead later some Germans are seeing how wront they were about the statements that Jews stole land and property, they were there for world domination, etc.

There are many but many Muslims that live around the world very peacefully and you would never know if they are Muslims or not.

Should we open concentration camps because you assume that all Muslims are there to get you. How many children are you ready to kill to fit in your all white, christian society. Are the Jews allow in?

And Milosovic is responsible because he was the leaders of those murderers and he gave the orders, and the idea of ethnic cleansing was is idea.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Monique

Doofy and Weyland:

These are racist comments.

It is totally stupid to make a blanket statement about one billion people. Really all Muslims cannot function in Western society.

That was they use to say about the Jews, and over 6 million dead later some Germans are seeing how wront they were about the statements that Jews stole land and property, they were there for world domination, etc.

There are many but many Muslims that live around the world very peacefully and you would never know if they are Muslims or not.

Should we open concentration camps because you assume that all Muslims are there to get you. How many children are you ready to kill to fit in your all white, christian society. Are the Jews allow in?

And Milosovic is responsible because he was the leaders of those murderers and he gave the orders, and the idea of ethnic cleansing was is idea.

We're just going by history and current events. Muslims cannot embrace western culture. That is the issue, not their religion as such. Although it is their religion that makes it impossible for them to embrace western society.

Everywhere there are muslims living with other cultures there is trouble in one form or another. Even where there are just muslims. There may be wars, guerrillas, terrorists or despotic dictators. It just seems to follow muslims more than any other religion.

Hindus, Christians and Bhuddists live in peace. Jews are having their conflict with the muslims down in Israel, but other than that they are a peaceful people.

cheers

W-Y

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Or the "BNP BS" that islam is incompatible with western culture and that multi-culturalism leads to strife? The recent events relating to free speech and cartoons back me on the first issue.

That's exactly your BNP BS I'm talking about and you spout it out over and over again. I'll tell you what: A national health care system or laws that protect women from rape are not fascism. But dislocating people because of their race or religion is. You are a fascist.

Originally Posted by Doofy

The events of the last 800 years in the Balkans are proof that what I'm saying is the truth, however unpalatable you may find it.

800 years prove that multiple ethnicities can live together just fine. It's the nationalists that messed things up horribly.

[zwiebel_]

Some peoples complete lack of understanding of the Balkans, leads to more crap being posted. Some individuals on this forum believe that the right is on their side, no matter what and arguing with them is pointless. Educated people will find that reading into facts from more reliable sources would be more enlightening.

Slobo is dead, too bad the trial did not finish on time. The two other executioners, Ratko and Radovan, will be next, dead or alive. Whoever groups Bosnian Muslims and Bosnia into the category of a radical islam staging point should get a reality check, or better yet, jump of a bridge (preferably a really high one), because those are the future Slobos and the likes that preach intolerance and ethnic/religious superiority.

My heart goes out to the Bosnian, Croatian, and Serb mothers that lost their sons for Slobos ideology of "Greater Serbia", and the countless victims of this pointless episode of bloodshed in the Balkans.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by zwiebel_

Some peoples complete lack of understanding of the Balkans, leads to more crap being posted. Some individuals on this forum believe that the right is on their side, no matter what and arguing with them is pointless. Educated people will find that reading into facts from more reliable sources would be more enlightening.

Slobo is dead, too bad the trial did not finish on time. The two other executioners, Ratko and Radovan, will be next, dead or alive. Whoever groups Bosnian Muslims and Bosnia into the category of a radical islam staging point should get a reality check, or better yet, jump of a bridge (preferably a really high one), because those are the future Slobos and the likes that preach intolerance and ethnic/religious superiority.

My heart goes out to the Bosnian, Croatian, and Serb mothers that lost their sons for Slobos ideology of "Greater Serbia", and the countless victims of this pointless episode of bloodshed in the Balkans.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Monique

Doofy and Weyland:

These are racist comments.

It is totally stupid to make a blanket statement about one billion people. Really all Muslims cannot function in Western society.

That was they use to say about the Jews, and over 6 million dead later some Germans are seeing how wront they were about the statements that Jews stole land and property, they were there for world domination, etc.

There are many but many Muslims that live around the world very peacefully and you would never know if they are Muslims or not.

Should we open concentration camps because you assume that all Muslims are there to get you. How many children are you ready to kill to fit in your all white, christian society. Are the Jews allow in?

And Milosovic is responsible because he was the leaders of those murderers and he gave the orders, and the idea of ethnic cleansing was is idea.

Consider FUGU! I would never try it because the chance exists that an accident could happen. It's a risk that I don't wish to take.

What Doofy seems to be saying is that, more often than not, Islamic societies expand and devour or obliterate the non-Islamic cultures around them. Many people are willing to see only the beautiful aspects of Islam and believe the negative parts of Islam aren't that bad. Others believe that Islam is always a negative force because it can not abide any other culture. It MUST prevail over, AND at the expense of, any other culture or society.

If we knew, with near 100% certainty, that Islam could not co-exist with liberal democratic secular states would Milosevic's actions still be considered barbaric? Or would they be considered self defense?

Would you gamble by eating FUGU? Even though eating it CAN be fatal, the track record of fatal ingestions have been pretty low in the past 40 years. Compare that record with the record of Islamic conquest in the past 40 years. Would you feel safer eating FUGU, where chefs are specially trained for a period of time, in the ways to assure delicious and non-fatal ingestion? Or would you feel more comfortable knowing that an Islamic nation exists at the edge of your country?

Fugu: Do you dare?
One man’s delicacy is another man’s stomachache.
But what about a delicacy that can kill?

by Patrick Totty

There are delicacies and there are delicacies. Many of the foods that bring a smile or moan of delight to some people bring retches to others. The thought of cheese sickens as many people as the thought of burying an egg in special clay, ”cooking” it through enzymatic action, then eating it straight out of the shell.

But nobody dies from their pet delicacies.

Well, almost nobody. The exception is Japan, where the food cult that has grown up around the poisonous fugu puffer fish has become one of the obligatory stopping places on the road to Japanese machohood. The flesh of the fugu is wondrously tasty, but the liver is poisonous – so poisonous that each one packs enough punch to kill 30 people in a matter of seconds.

Throw in a few more complications: The ovaries of the female fugu are poisonous, too, and hermaphroditism tends to run in the family! Plus, there are 20 varieties of fugu to choose among.

Supposedly the danger is mitigated by superbly trained chefs who specialize in cutting away the dread parts while preserving the appearance and tastiness of the fish. But, accidents happen. In some cases, an informed chef will warn eaters not to partake but they’ll insist on doing so anyway. In 1958, a particularly bad year for the fugu eaters cult, 176 Japanese diners took their last bites ever. In other cases, try as he might, a chef misses paring away a fatal strip of fugu flesh by perhaps only millimeters.

All of this is quite legal. The Japanese, like any other sovereign people, are fond of their peculiar institutions. They have no desire to eliminate the delicious danger of fugu eating. So, the next time you turn your head at the thought of some delicacy that offends your taste, think of how much worse it would be if the merest sliver of it, cut slightly the wrong way, could kill you.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Monique

Doofy and Weyland:

These are racist comments.

It is totally stupid to make a blanket statement about one billion people.

Racist? Really?

So which race am I one about? The Arabic muslims? The Asian muslims? The African muslims? The white boy muslims? I mean, you know that vW is whiter than I am, right?

[aberdeenwriter]

Monique, I think it might be more accurate to use the word, "Islamophobic." Yes, I know that word doesn't pack the same emotionally loaded wallop as 'racist,' but you do strive for accuracy, right?

Then, after using the word, "Islamophobia" (instead of 'racist') the question might be, "What reasons might justify a fear or apprehension of Islam?" Or, "what evidence would show any non-Muslim's Islamophobia to be irrational or unfounded?"

Once you get to that point you'll be ready to re-join the debate and have your posts paid attention to. IMHO.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

That's exactly your BNP BS I'm talking about and you spout it out over and over again.

I tell it like I see it. If those thoughts happen to coincide with those of the BNP, then fine. I also believe that Paris is the capital of France. Does the fact that probably most members of the BNP also believe that Paris is the capital of France make that BNP BS?

No, what's happened here is you've tried to close the argument by tarring me with associations with the idiots in the BNP. Don't worry, I understand, it's the last refuge of those who can't argue their viewpoint on its own merits because the facts are all against them.

Originally Posted by TETENAL

I'll tell you what: A national health care system or laws that protect women from rape are not fascism.

What on earth are you blathering on about?

Originally Posted by TETENAL

But dislocating people because of their race or religion is.

Unless that religion is a threat to the stability of the society it's in.

Originally Posted by TETENAL

You are a fascist.

No sir, I'm anti-facist. And that's precisely why I don't like islam. There's no other reason.

Originally Posted by TETENAL

800 years prove that multiple ethnicities can live together just fine.

Wait. You haven't just tried to tell me that the last 800 years of Balkans history up until 1990 was all fine and dandy, have you?