Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Srebrenica massacre remembered


Eldorado

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, stevewinn said:

When the war of the giants is over the wars of the pygmies will begin. and it sure did - and that about sums up the Balkans, going as far back as WW1. Its the Slavic blood, Belarus, Russia, Ukraine. Czech Republic, Slovakia. Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia. what a right bunch.

In other words, you lost the war by proxy. Ex-Yu, another project of greatly British politics, meant to mimic your own kingdom, failed. 

(Not to mention you apparently failed geography.)

I'm pointing and laughing at you. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

Of course we are sympathetic to those who have seen the horrors of war,

Ok Gollum... :blink:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"

Quote

The prime minister said "we owe it to the victims" to remember Srebrenica and "to ensure it never happens again"."

the problem is he is not in a position to ensure it either way,  just pr bullcrap, 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aztek said:

"

the problem is he is not in a position to ensure it either way,  just pr bullcrap, 

Wow genus that was such a brilliant comment, did you find that on cereal box/

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, stevewinn said:

When the war of the giants is over the wars of the pygmies will begin. and it sure did - and that about sums up the Balkans, going as far back as WW1. Its the Slavic blood, Belarus, Russia, Ukraine. Czech Republic, Slovakia. Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia. what a right bunch.

Yet, all of them put together, they cannot come close to the number of athrocities and murders that your "giant" has done to get were you are now.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/13/2020 at 9:07 AM, Cookie Monster said:

But yes it was from all sides:

Bosnian War Crimes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_genocide#:~:text=Currently%2C former Bosnian Serb leaders,Count 1%3A Genocide.

Serbian War Crimes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbia_in_the_Yugoslav_Wars

Croatian War Crimes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_War_of_Independence#War_crimes_and_the_ICTY

While I realise this is an emotional topic for people from each side, that doesnt change history. Facts not emotions please. With the Serbs they did more war crimes than the others, but the others got stuck in too.

 

Croatia did not attack Serbia, never set a foot on their country. 

Bosnia never attacked Serbia, never set a foot on their country.

Both, Croatia and Bosnia, were attacked by Serbia AFTER both countries held a referendum (like BREXIT) and the majority choose in a DEMOKRATIC AND CIVIL way to seperate from the SOUTHSLAVIC UNION.

Now, put yourself in the same position, if after Brexit, the EU was to attack UK and you had to defend yourself on your own soil. Would you still equaly blame both sides?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, odas said:

Croatia did not attack Serbia, never set a foot on their country. 

Bosnia never attacked Serbia, never set a foot on their country.

Both, Croatia and Bosnia, were attacked by Serbia AFTER both countries held a referendum (like BREXIT) and the majority choose in a DEMOKRATIC AND CIVIL way to seperate from the SOUTHSLAVIC UNION.

Now, put yourself in the same position, if after Brexit, the EU was to attack UK and you had to defend yourself on your own soil. Would you still equaly blame both sides?

The difference is that Brexit was a legally held referendum.

In our country Scotland presented a case to have an independence referendum, it was deemed a valid argument, so they got their referendum and voted to stay in the United Kingdom.

Croatia and Bosnia were like Catalan in Spain. You didnt persuade the Yugoslavian government to let you have an independence referendum, you went ahead and had one anyway. Then declared your independence. Your actions were illegal under international and domestic law meaning that legally Serbia was entitled to put down what was essentially a rebellion. Just like Spain took no nonsense over Catalan. It declared the referendum result void and arrested the politicians involved. If a rebellion had occurred then NATO wouldn`t have intervened.

This is also why NATO forces did not intervene in the Former Yugoslavia because to do so would actually have been illegal under international law. The UN gave its backing for a peace keeping force to go in and stop each side committing war crimes against the others which it did under the UN flag. It wasn`t until Serbia finally crossed the line with war crimes in Kosovo that it became legal under international law to intervene. At which point NATO declared war on Serbia and went into Kosovo.

Serbia`s war against Croatia and Bosnia wasn`t illegal. Its leaders were not punished for that. Its leaders instead found themselves at the Hague for the war crimes. And they were joined by many leaders from Croatia and Bosnia too who had also been at it. We did not and will not take sides in a civil war. NATO only intervened to stop a humanitarian blood bath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

The difference is that Brexit was a legally held referendum.

 

Serbia`s war against Croatia and Bosnia wasn`t illegal. 

Our referendums were legal. 

Ex-Yu constitution defined Yugoslavia as the socialist federal republic consisting of 6 socialist republics and 2 autonomous provinces. Each constitutive republic had the right of self-determination and the right to end the union. 

Once the first republic ended the union, it was Serbian dictator that was going against the YU constitution. 

The war Milošević started was illegal, not only because ex-Yugoslavian army - whose resources Serbia illegally seized - targeted civilians with genocidal intentions, but also because Serbia engaged against independent countries that used their constitutional rights following democratic procedure and were internationally recognized.  

Which is why your pro-Serbian misinterpretation of NATO inaction in ex-Yu in 1990's is not just hilariously biased, but also legally completely wrong. NATO didn't intervene automatically because no NATO country (yet) was involved. Any intervention was one truly sensitive issue, especially since the ex-Yu was seen not just as small-scale model of the USSR, but also of your monarchy.  

As your post clearly shows too, it was your political option (not the population of your country) that was hindering any international effort that would help us defend ourselves against your pet dictator and his heavily armed ghouls.      

 

I was armed with shock and disgust while Serbian howitzers (stolen from the ex-Yu stock that was supposed to be divided legally) were pulverizing my town. 

I survived. 

Your fantasy didn't. Because it's immoral, historically backwards, based in ridiculous myths of supremacy and overall stupid. 

Which is why you're unable to draw any realistic conclusion out of it. Serve you right. Brexit harder. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

The difference is that Brexit was a legally held referendum.

In our country Scotland presented a case to have an independence referendum, it was deemed a valid argument, so they got their referendum and voted to stay in the United Kingdom.

Croatia and Bosnia were like Catalan in Spain. You didnt persuade the Yugoslavian government to let you have an independence referendum, you went ahead and had one anyway. Then declared your independence. Your actions were illegal under international and domestic law meaning that legally Serbia was entitled to put down what was essentially a rebellion. Just like Spain took no nonsense over Catalan. It declared the referendum result void and arrested the politicians involved. If a rebellion had occurred then NATO wouldn`t have intervened.

This is also why NATO forces did not intervene in the Former Yugoslavia because to do so would actually have been illegal under international law. The UN gave its backing for a peace keeping force to go in and stop each side committing war crimes against the others which it did under the UN flag. It wasn`t until Serbia finally crossed the line with war crimes in Kosovo that it became legal under international law to intervene. At which point NATO declared war on Serbia and went into Kosovo.

Serbia`s war against Croatia and Bosnia wasn`t illegal. Its leaders were not punished for that. Its leaders instead found themselves at the Hague for the war crimes. And they were joined by many leaders from Croatia and Bosnia too who had also been at it. We did not and will not take sides in a civil war. NATO only intervened to stop a humanitarian blood bath.

Serbia's President was tried for "Crimes against Humanity and Genocide " along with many other Serb's, 90% of all war crimes according to the UN were committed by Serbia. You seriously need to go back to school, because if your math, reading and writing skills are anything like your grasp of historical events, your IQ must be in the single digits!!!:yes:

Here is a link for you that will explain what you fail to realize:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

The difference is that Brexit was a legally held referendum.

In our country Scotland presented a case to have an independence referendum, it was deemed a valid argument, so they got their referendum and voted to stay in the United Kingdom.

Croatia and Bosnia were like Catalan in Spain. You didnt persuade the Yugoslavian government to let you have an independence referendum, you went ahead and had one anyway. Then declared your independence. Your actions were illegal under international and domestic law meaning that legally Serbia was entitled to put down what was essentially a rebellion. Just like Spain took no nonsense over Catalan. It declared the referendum result void and arrested the politicians involved. If a rebellion had occurred then NATO wouldn`t have intervened.

This is also why NATO forces did not intervene in the Former Yugoslavia because to do so would actually have been illegal under international law. The UN gave its backing for a peace keeping force to go in and stop each side committing war crimes against the others which it did under the UN flag. It wasn`t until Serbia finally crossed the line with war crimes in Kosovo that it became legal under international law to intervene. At which point NATO declared war on Serbia and went into Kosovo.

Serbia`s war against Croatia and Bosnia wasn`t illegal. Its leaders were not punished for that. Its leaders instead found themselves at the Hague for the war crimes. And they were joined by many leaders from Croatia and Bosnia too who had also been at it. We did not and will not take sides in a civil war. NATO only intervened to stop a humanitarian blood bath.

Du musst mental zurückgebremst sein, das ist lustig:D

Edited by Manwon Lender
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

Our referendums were legal. 

Ex-Yu constitution defined Yugoslavia as the socialist federal republic consisting of 6 socialist republics and 2 autonomous provinces. Each constitutive republic had the right of self-determination and the right to end the union. 

Once the first republic ended the union, it was Serbian dictator that was going against the YU constitution. 

The war Milošević started was illegal, not only because ex-Yugoslavian army - whose resources Serbia illegally seized - targeted civilians with genocidal intentions, but also because Serbia engaged against independent countries that used their constitutional rights following democratic procedure and were internationally recognized.  

Which is why your pro-Serbian misinterpretation of NATO inaction in ex-Yu in 1990's is not just hilariously biased, but also legally completely wrong. NATO didn't intervene automatically because no NATO country (yet) was involved. Any intervention was one truly sensitive issue, especially since the ex-Yu was seen not just as small-scale model of the USSR, but also of your monarchy.  

As your post clearly shows too, it was your political option (not the population of your country) that was hindering any international effort that would help us defend ourselves against your pet dictator and his heavily armed ghouls.      

I was armed with shock and disgust while Serbian howitzers (stolen from the ex-Yu stock that was supposed to be divided legally) were pulverizing my town. 

I survived. 

Your fantasy didn't. Because it's immoral, historically backwards, based in ridiculous myths of supremacy and overall stupid. 

Which is why you're unable to draw any realistic conclusion out of it. Serve you right. Brexit harder. 

Its how events were seen here.

Its a long-time ago for me to remember, but when the civil war was on the news here we weren`t taking any side. Not until Serbia went way to far in Kosovo, then the rhetoric for an intervention ramped up. If anything our focus was on Russia. We had worries about a conflict with Russia and where watching live standoffs between British and Russian soldiers wondering if they would start shooting at each other.

We weren`t pro-Serbia, to be completely honest I dont think most Brits even knew where Serbia was on a map. It wasn`t an interest of ours, had very little impact on our lives, it simply wasn`t an important place to us. Without being rude to Serbians it was a small and insignificant place most of us had never heard off.

My country likes to save people from human rights abuses, we see it as part of being a good global citizen. We are still a  top tier nation that packs a punch. Of course we believe in ourselves, especially with the history we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Du musst mental zurückgebremst sein, das ist lustig:D

Not as slow as Biden thanks!

Edited by Cookie Monster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cookie Monster said:

Not as slow as Biden thanks!

Oh I didn't say you were slow!! Obvious you need a course in languages, I think you should first start with English.:D 

  • Haha 3
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

The difference is that Brexit was a legally held referendum.

In our country Scotland presented a case to have an independence referendum, it was deemed a valid argument, so they got their referendum and voted to stay in the United Kingdom.

Croatia and Bosnia were like Catalan in Spain. You didnt persuade the Yugoslavian government to let you have an independence referendum, you went ahead and had one anyway. Then declared your independence. Your actions were illegal under international and domestic law meaning that legally Serbia was entitled to put down what was essentially a rebellion. Just like Spain took no nonsense over Catalan. It declared the referendum result void and arrested the politicians involved. If a rebellion had occurred then NATO wouldn`t have intervened.

This is also why NATO forces did not intervene in the Former Yugoslavia because to do so would actually have been illegal under international law. The UN gave its backing for a peace keeping force to go in and stop each side committing war crimes against the others which it did under the UN flag. It wasn`t until Serbia finally crossed the line with war crimes in Kosovo that it became legal under international law to intervene. At which point NATO declared war on Serbia and went into Kosovo.

Serbia`s war against Croatia and Bosnia wasn`t illegal. Its leaders were not punished for that. Its leaders instead found themselves at the Hague for the war crimes. And they were joined by many leaders from Croatia and Bosnia too who had also been at it. We did not and will not take sides in a civil war. NATO only intervened to stop a humanitarian blood bath.

WRONG on all counts. See Hellen's reply. Please educate yourself with facts before you post such nonsens.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Du musst mental zurückgebremst sein, das ist lustig:D

Er is ein spinner. Mehr muss mann nicht ueber ihn sagen.

Edited by odas
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, odas said:

Er is ein spinner. Mehr muss mann nicht ueber ihn sagen.

wir müssen aufhören, auf Deutsch zu sprechen, es ist gegen Forumsregeln, ich will dich nicht in Schwierigkeiten bringen.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

wir müssen aufhören, auf Deutsch zu sprechen, es ist gegen Forumsregeln, ich will dich nicht in Schwierigkeiten bringen.

Yeah I know. No problem. But it is nice to stay in touch with this beautiful language. Btw. I just rewatched Die Grosse Flatter. 4.5 hours on Youtube. All three episodes in one shot. Brings back memories. Not sure if you ever watched it but was huge at that time when I was a jugendlicher.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Serbia's President was tried for "Crimes against Humanity and Genocide " along with many other Serb's, 90% of all war crimes according to the UN were committed by Serbia. You seriously need to go back to school, because if your math, reading and writing skills are anything like your grasp of historical events, your IQ must be in the single digits!!!:yes:

Here is a link for you that will explain what you fail to realize:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War 

Few issues with your claim.

The primary issue is you are looking at a very narrow aspect of the conflict that occured and trying to expand it to apply to the entire conflict.  Specifically the Bosnian war instead of the wider more general conflict of the Yugoslav wars which was made up of the Ten-day war, Croatian war of independence, Bosnian war, and Kosovo war along with two post war insurgencies.  All of those four wars despite being given different names all overlapped and part of the same conflict and trying to just use data from one and expand it to the entirety of the conflict is just inaccurate.

You might not want to criticize people for math, reading, writing, and understanding of history when your own is quite questionable.  This isnt the first time you have conflated one aspect of the conflict with the entire conflict and have used links and quoting in a way that can best be described as intellectually dishonest or at worst showing you dont actually understand the conflict at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

Few issues with your claim.

The primary issue is you are looking at a very narrow aspect of the conflict that occured and trying to expand it to apply to the entire conflict.  Specifically the Bosnian war instead of the wider more general conflict of the Yugoslav wars which was made up of the Ten-day war, Croatian war of independence, Bosnian war, and Kosovo war along with two post war insurgencies.  All of those four wars despite being given different names all overlapped and part of the same conflict and trying to just use data from one and expand it to the entirety of the conflict is just inaccurate.

You might not want to criticize people for math, reading, writing, and understanding of history when your own is quite questionable.  This isnt the first time you have conflated one aspect of the conflict with the entire conflict and have used links and quoting in a way that can best be described as intellectually dishonest or at worst showing you dont actually understand the conflict at all.

Well I would say that I respect your opinion, but that would be disingenuous just like your comment are above. You say that I am looking at a very narrow aspect of the Conflict:D now that is funny, then you say I am trying to expand it to the entire conflict:D Both the Ten-day-war and the Croatian War of Independence were actually not Preludes to the larger Conflict the Bosnian War, which you admit above. How is possible to expand the Bosnian War beyond what it was it was the largest conflict fought in what was once Yugoslavia? 

While the 10-day-war did occur first, it occurred from Jun 1991 to July of 1991in reality it was a completely separate issue, this conflict erupted when the Serbian League of Communists leader was elected as President of Serbia his name was Slobodan Milosevic. Serbia started this conflict because they wanted independence from the Yugoslavian Government so actually this was not a National conflict that covered the entire country, it was in fact a reginal conflict since it was fought between the Serb's and the Government. 

The Croatian war of independence, however started like the previous conflict, Croatia want to become a independent state. This caused The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Serbian coalition forces to try and occupy Croatia, but this failed, then the Serb's tried to set up a separate state with Croatia. In January of 1992 there was a cease fire and Croatia was recognized as a independent state, however, in 1995 to further operations were carried out which set the boarders of Croatia that still exist today. So yes this conflict did expand into the Bosnian War.

The Bosnian war erupted on 6 April 1992, this conflict was started by the Bosnian Serb's, which created  conflict country wide which ended in December 1995. All independent Nations were involved, either by being attacked and defending themselves or by being an aggressor and attacking other Republics within what was once Yugoslavia. Now I have ask how did I expand the Bosnian War over the other conflicts since the Bosnian War was the main conflict. you say all four wars over lapped you are greatly mistaken technically only two over lapped and they were the Croatian War of Independence and the Bosnian war this according to the years when these conflicts overlapped each other. The other two conflicts did not cause the Bosnian war, or the Bosnian War was the caused of future wars in the Former republic of Yugoslavia. So since you made the claims prove me wrong, if you can? 

Now your inclusion of the War in Kosovo, is a separate issue, this conflict did not include all of what was once called Yugoslavia. This conflict was between the Serbian forces and a Albanian rebel force, this conflict was fought within the borders of Kosovo, hence the name ( Kosovo War ) and it didn't have a single thing to do with the other conflicts. So I have no idea why you accuse me of expanding a single part of the conflict when that is exactly what you have done by including this, now unlike you I am not going to start the foolish name calling game, I find it very unprofessional on your part and I do not need to do so to make myself feel superior. My Criticism of the other member in question is really none of your business, his action and his comments deserved a response which he received. While I did not expand my explanation of the conflict like I did here doesnt make me intellectually dishonest, however it may make me lazy.

While I doubt you will respond to my comments, because I have proven yours wrong that is ok. I know it is hard for you to admit you mistake and unlike you I dont need confirmation of that from you to know you were wrong. I also need no confirmation for you to let me know I am right because I have already proven that fact, and you helped me do it!! But, I think in the future, if you disagree with something I have said, remember their is no need for your disrespectful commentary like I said it very is unprofessional and it has no bearing on any comments I have made to you. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, odas said:

Yeah I know. No problem. But it is nice to stay in touch with this beautiful language. Btw. I just rewatched Die Grosse Flatter. 4.5 hours on Youtube. All three episodes in one shot. Brings back memories. Not sure if you ever watched it but was huge at that time when I was a jugendlicher.

No I have not watched it, but I will check out when I find time, man I wish I was Wieder jung. I agree German is a beautiful language, however, I am very rusty using it these days, both speaking and writing. I focus at this time is perfecting Korean, and learning as much Chinese as possible. Learning to speak it as a child, along with English has always given me the ability to use when I need to, and to quickly become fluent again when I am in a situation that requires it. When I was stationed in Germany in the 1980's, I had not really used the language regularly for more than 15 years. However, once I was in Germany, I was almost fluent again in a little over a month or so. 

Well again thanks for the post and I certainly enjoyed the conversation, Mein Freund!!!:)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

Few issues with your claim.

The primary issue is you are looking at a very narrow aspect of the conflict that occured and trying to expand it to apply to the entire conflict.  Specifically the Bosnian war instead of the wider more general conflict of the Yugoslav wars which was made up of the Ten-day war, Croatian war of independence, Bosnian war, and Kosovo war along with two post war insurgencies.  All of those four wars despite being given different names all overlapped and part of the same conflict and trying to just use data from one and expand it to the entirety of the conflict is just inaccurate.

You might not want to criticize people for math, reading, writing, and understanding of history when your own is quite questionable.  This isnt the first time you have conflated one aspect of the conflict with the entire conflict and have used links and quoting in a way that can best be described as intellectually dishonest or at worst showing you dont actually understand the conflict at all.

Oh and by the way, I thought you may like this, it is something I came upon a while back and added to my online Library as a research resource for the subject at hand. I forgot I even had until today when I was going through my Library.

file:///C:/Users/Craig/Downloads/450864.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

Few issues with your claim.

The primary issue is you are looking at a very narrow aspect of the conflict that occured and trying to expand it to apply to the entire conflict.  Specifically the Bosnian war instead of the wider more general conflict of the Yugoslav wars which was made up of the Ten-day war, Croatian war of independence, Bosnian war, and Kosovo war along with two post war insurgencies.  All of those four wars despite being given different names all overlapped and part of the same conflict and trying to just use data from one and expand it to the entirety of the conflict is just inaccurate.

You might not want to criticize people for math, reading, writing, and understanding of history when your own is quite questionable.  This isnt the first time you have conflated one aspect of the conflict with the entire conflict and have used links and quoting in a way that can best be described as intellectually dishonest or at worst showing you dont actually understand the conflict at all.

Your post does not make any sense. I read it three times and it seems to me that you are contradicting yourself in each sentence. Maybe the wording.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

No I have not watched it, but I will check out when I find time, man I wish I was Wieder jung. I agree German is a beautiful language, however, I am very rusty using it these days, both speaking and writing. I focus at this time is perfecting Korean, and learning as much Chinese as possible. Learning to speak it as a child, along with English has always given me the ability to use when I need to, and to quickly become fluent again when I am in a situation that requires it. When I was stationed in Germany in the 1980's, I had not really used the language regularly for more than 15 years. However, once I was in Germany, I was almost fluent again in a little over a month or so. 

Well again thanks for the post and I certainly enjoyed the conversation, Mein Freund!!!:)

Now don' tell me you were stationed in Wiesbaden? That would be amazing. That is my "Home" City.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, odas said:

Now don' tell me you were stationed in Wiesbaden? That would be amazing. That is my "Home" City.

Sorry I was stationed in Karlsruhe, it was a fantastic City. But I actually spent most of my tour in Grafenwohr, I was involved in Hazardous material clean up. At the end WWII the German Military buried a large quantity of Chemical Munitions at different locations on the ranges. I was involved in the decontamination and cleanup operations, it was really mess, first EOD had to render the rounds safe and then we had to cleanup the hazard. While in country I also went to Flensburg and visited some of family members, it was the first time I ever met them and it was really great. My parents came from the Flensburg area and they were married in Flensburg.

Take Care Mein Freund!!!:)

Edited by Manwon Lender
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

@DarkHunter  Well I would say that I respect your opinion, but that would be disingenuous just like your comment are above. You say that I am looking at a very narrow aspect of the Conflict:D now that is funny, then you say I am trying to expand it to the entire conflict:D Both the Ten-day-war and the Croatian War of Independence were actually not Preludes to the larger Conflict the Bosnian War, which you admit above. How is possible to expand the Bosnian War beyond what it was it was the largest conflict fought in what was once Yugoslavia? 

While the 10-day-war did occur first, it occurred from Jun 1991 to July of 1991in reality it was a completely separate issue, this conflict erupted when the Serbian League of Communists leader was elected as President of Serbia his name was Slobodan Milosevic. Serbia started this conflict because they wanted independence from the Yugoslavian Government so actually this was not a National conflict that covered the entire country, it was in fact a reginal conflict since it was fought between the Serb's and the Government. 

The Croatian war of independence, however started like the previous conflict, Croatia want to become a independent state. This caused The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Serbian coalition forces to try and occupy Croatia, but this failed, then the Serb's tried to set up a separate state with Croatia. In January of 1992 there was a cease fire and Croatia was recognized as a independent state, however, in 1995 to further operations were carried out which set the boarders of Croatia that still exist today. So yes this conflict did expand into the Bosnian War.

The Bosnian war erupted on 6 April 1992, this conflict was started by the Bosnian Serb's, which created  conflict country wide which ended in December 1995. All independent Nations were involved, either by being attacked and defending themselves or by being an aggressor and attacking other Republics within what was once Yugoslavia. Now I have ask how did I expand the Bosnian War over the other conflicts since the Bosnian War was the main conflict. you say all four wars over lapped you are greatly mistaken technically only two over lapped and they were the Croatian War of Independence and the Bosnian war this according to the years when these conflicts overlapped each other. The other two conflicts did not cause the Bosnian war, or the Bosnian War was the caused of future wars in the Former republic of Yugoslavia. So since you made the claims prove me wrong, if you can? 

Now your inclusion of the War in Kosovo, is a separate issue, this conflict did not include all of what was once called Yugoslavia. This conflict was between the Serbian forces and a Albanian rebel force, this conflict was fought within the borders of Kosovo, hence the name ( Kosovo War ) and it didn't have a single thing to do with the other conflicts. So I have no idea why you accuse me of expanding a single part of the conflict when that is exactly what you have done by including this, now unlike you I am not going to start the foolish name calling game, I find it very unprofessional on your part and I do not need to do so to make myself feel superior. My Criticism of the other member in question is really none of your business, his action and his comments deserved a response which he received. While I did not expand my explanation of the conflict like I did here doesnt make me intellectually dishonest, however it may make me lazy.

While I doubt you will respond to my comments, because I have proven yours wrong that is ok. I know it is hard for you to admit you mistake and unlike you I dont need confirmation of that from you to know you were wrong. I also need no confirmation for you to let me know I am right because I have already proven that fact, and you helped me do it!! But, I think in the future, if you disagree with something I have said, remember their is no need for your disrespectful commentary like I said it very is unprofessional and it has no bearing on any comments I have made to you. 

@DarkHunter Now I took the time to repsond to your comments, I did so respectfully not responding after the comments you made is very rude and unprofessional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.