Not if you're abandoning this sinking ship of course though.
In the dingy and rowing away, but still within earshot.
If you're asking myself why am I laving it's beacouse a conversation with someone who ignores what you say or misquotes you ins't fun and has no purpose at all. Keep reading...
I never claimed that my sources were all perfect. My only claim is that I have sources. And say whatever you like I'll take the BBC's report on a subject over you saying "I've read a book and it proves I'm right" any day of the week.
And I don't have?
I never claimed BBC or other are part of some "big plot". But misinformation is quite common, even with big names. How do you think tehy get the information they air? A producer troust the journalists, who trusts his informant, who trusts that harward professor who wrote things in his book, who based his book on the book of person Y, etc.. If the lowest link in the chain doesn't have accurate information, then all the above, even if their motives are honest, are reporting false information.
I can give you severa examples (tied to Croatia in one way or another, jsut to keep on topic):
A Croatian musucian, Marko Perović Thomspon is having a tour in the USA. Half the newspapers there (Sun, New York Times, etc..) call him a neo-nati supporter who was inticing croats to proform war crimes with his songs. That comes based off complaints from some local Serb groups who don't like him and the Simon Weisenthal Center. Apparently, during one of his concerts 4 people were seen carrying extremist emblems, and thus he msut be a anti-semite singer. 4 out of several thousands.The irony is even greater if you listen to his songs. Not a word of hatered in them..
Example 2 - some historians base their numbers off hte documents by Slavko Štrivac, founder of Veritas. He supplies numbers of dead in the conflict based on his reasearch. He's also the lead supplier for documetbs and said numbers for the Haage court.
Yet according to hte Croatian Memorial Center, who has been going over his numbers systematicly, and they proved that over 475 people on the list have not been killed by the HVO, but were either dead before, were killed in inter-serb conflicts (there were quite a few setbs who refused to help the invaders, and were branded as traitors) or died of natural couses. And they have still a lot of names to check.
Ah so now we're back to paranoia again. You still haven't said who these people are or even what they say that backs you up.
Neither have you..but journalists and historians, judges, ex-politicians...mostly from Croata, alltough some are foreigners.
I've already said numerous times that the Hague War Crimes trials are being poorly run. You still have failed to prove what this has to do with a plot by the EU to reunify Yugoslavia.
And again, you aren't reading what I say. Why should I even bother to continue. Statements from the high-raking ex-officials of the court that the court is POLITICAL
and that some coutries have ben making secret deals (Like USA gettin a wanted war criminal, Mladić out of Seriba) are far more than just "badly run court".
In case you didn't notice I wasn't even even asking for proof. Your claim is that the EU had some Machiavellian plan to reunify Yugoslavia. Tired of the fact you wouldn't provide proof I simply asked what your sources had seen which supported this. In other words, simply state your theory and don't even bother backing up with proof. Simply say what of this mysteriously covered up stuff you have been on about for 3 pages led you to the conclusion that there was a diabolical plan. You could have told me that they found a UN had a lab where they were breeding 10 foot tall supersoldiers with the words "One Yugoslavia!" stamped across their chests at this point and it still would have been better than what I've gotten out of you in the past 3 pages.
And again...you misunderstood me. The scope of this thread has increased since hte begning, so you probably assumend that the "I know and I have hard proof" encompassed everything I said. Let me clarify this then:
I know a few things
I (well, not my directly) have hard proof some things
I have weak proof for the rest (this mainly includes the new Yugoslavia)
This makes sense, no?... since proving something of such a grand scope would require a awfull lot of hard evidence. What I have is hunderds (literary) small things spaced over a period of several years. Each by itself not very significant, but when you start putting them together you can see a pattern. Still, it's not hard evidence, rather circumstantial one, but that what I belive anyway.
Do you honestly belive that a historian who lived in the country/region and thus knows it's history, geography and people isn't better adapt at writing about what happened in some region than a researcher who pops in for 2-3 months, gathers some data and goes away, writing his conclusions on the other side of the world.No I don't. And that's why I'm so suspicious of the fact that you can't prove your case![/qiuote]
Did I say *I* was the historian? Nope. I can prove various aspects of my case, however it is hard for the reasons I mentioned before - namely that you will have a hard time finding it. I somehow doubt books like "Vrieme Krivokletnika" or "Gospodari Kaosa" are printed where you live...
And yes, the fat that I live here and have traveled around the country during the war DOES mean I know what I'm talking about better than half the so-called historians.
Yet you've made some absolute howlers of mistakes which the so-called historians wouldn't have made.
I'm not a historian. I'm trying to get a point across, not tripple-check if the date I wrote is correct. Howlers of mistakes? In your dreams maby..
If the patient refuses to prove he's rational then it's the doctor who is correct, right?And how would you prove that?
It's your analogy. Pick you favourite way.
There really isn't one. It boild down ot whom you belive as both CAN be true.
The real irony is I would have achieved a lot more since it takes me longer to reply cause I actually do some research.
Despite your constant poking and attacks at my charachtrs carefully wowen into your posts I kept this as civil as possible. Mostly due to the fact that youre a moderator.
But I can see any research you do and your memery are clearly selective. There is no point in continuing this discussion - I can just as well talk to a wall. Let this thread be locked.
Oh, wait - that not how it's gonan end! In the long tradition of debates in which kaj here is a participant the htread will NOT be locked before he posts and long and contrived post, full of attacks and misquotes. then it will be locked, so it cannot be replied to and he'sll have the last word.
Let's see if history will repeat itself, shall we?
P.S. - I'm still willing to bet my life you're the one who changed my title.