Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: achtung on October 17, 2007, 02:20:18 am
-
So first we piss of Turkey by reminding them of the genocide of the Armenians and now they're threatening to send troops into Northern Iraq.
Next Russia agrees to back Iran's nuclear program and back the country should it be attacked.
Then we effectively piss of the Israelis by saying we want a Palestinian state NOW.
Oh and didn't we screw up some nuclear fuel deal with India? Yeah...
Is there any way to fix this ****?
-
Getting rid of Bush would be a good first step
-
Getting rid of Bush would be a good first step
:nod:
-
Gotta wait until '08.
Trust me, I am looking forward to it.
-
I'm not about lately, but i just had to pop in to >
Getting rid of Bush would be a good first step
See ya soon guys :D
-
Preferably, replace him with someone who doesn't mind saying it like it is, even if that hurts 'important' members of certain political parties' credibility.
*Sees hornets rising from their nest*
*Grabs can of Raid*
*Flicks lighter in front of stream* :drevil:
-
So first we piss of Turkey by reminding them of the genocide of the Armenians....
And you consider that a bad thing? Everybody is Germany this and that! Alright we committed genocide but so did Turkey! Anybody complaining about them? No! :mad:
-
So first we piss of Turkey by reminding them of the genocide of the Armenians....
And you consider that a bad thing? Everybody is Germany this and that! Alright we committed genocide but so did Turkey! Anybody complaining about them? No! :mad:
It's all well and good taking the moral high ground, but look at the big picture here: Turkey is a strategically necessary ally to the United States, and she's in a position to seriously complicate matters in Iraq at the moment (if that's even possible at this point :rolleyes:). There is quite literally nothing the United States can gain by condemning the Armenian genocide out of the blue like this, and can serve to only hurt matters at a really bad time.
Genocide is bad, well all know that. Arbitrarily damaging foreign relations with a valuable ally - and doing so in the middle of a diplomatically hairy situation - is both misguided and just plain idiotic.
If nothing else, Congress could have at least waited for a good time to demonstrate how "in touch" they are with humanitarian ideals. Heaven forbid they could do it in a way that would actually do something good, like outlawing torture as an interrogation method, but I guess they just can't think of anything better to do with all those excess car batteries than strapping them to the testicles of alleged enemy combatants. :doubt:
-
The whole Turkey and Israel thing is just a Democrat strategy. They WILL NOT let there be ANY success in Iraq. The whole thing makes me want to punch somebody in the face. That congress could be SO STUPID to do something like this..... unbelievable. The Democrats have never liked the Kurds nor the Israelis.... why? Because they support the U.S. But nooooOOOooooo we can't be nice to people who like us... we have to be globally neutral citizens. We should give the same kind treatment to people who want to kill us and kill our allies. Cuz its all about neutrality, right?
-
It's all well and good taking the moral high ground, but look at the big picture here: Turkey is a strategically necessary ally to the United States, and she's in a position to seriously complicate matters in Iraq at the moment (if that's even possible at this point :rolleyes:). There is quite literally nothing the United States can gain by condemning the Armenian genocide out of the blue like this, and can serve to only hurt matters at a really bad time.
You realize, of course, that an attitude such as this is pretty much what lead to the Holocaust, correct?
Turkey is full of ****, unless they seriously want to face up to the US in open warfare. Northern Iraq is the best part of the country to be in right now, the most stable, the most prosperous, the friggin' success story, if they honestly think the US Army is going to let them just walk in they deserve what happens.
Russia...I don't know what to make of that. If you'd actually been paying attention to stuff, the US hasn't pushed particularly hard on the subject. France and Germany have been making threats, though. If the US were to take a harder line perhaps Russia would back down. Besides, what are they going to do? Attack France when the Charles de Gaulle steams up the Persian Gulf and starts launching strikes on Iranian targets?
You say we want a Palestinian state like it's news or something. Where were you for the Dayton accords?
India was not, and is not, a friend of the US.
Next plz.
-
Bush isn't as bad as we may think.
Pearl Harbor made the US join WW II, kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese, Germans and Italians and we are all happy they did it, because China and Australia aren't a Japanese province, and Europe isn't a Nazi state today (being born in Poland, I'm VERY thankful that the US joined the war).
The WoT, although looks bad in the media, cost us (from day 1 untill today) the men and resources that would be used in...
5-6 weeks in the Western Europe front alone.
It's just that a news report about US soldiers taking pictures or playing soccer with Iraqi kids doesn't make a sensation.
The Democrats, on the other hand, are a lot worse than we may think- calling ILLEGAL immigrants 'citizens' and talking about giving them a right to vote is one thing (having to legally live 8 years in Chicago to become a US Citizen- this hurts me a bit).
Their pacifist theory of co-existence with people who understand only terror and strengh (suicide bombers anyone?) will only lead to escalation of violence, just as Chamberlain's 'appeasement' led to WW II.
Si vis pacem, para bellum, as the Ancient Romans used to say.
What I'd like to see is a Republican POTUS, and a rep. majority in congress. Now is not the time to care about illegal immigrants or to talk to terrorists.
-
Preferably, replace him with someone who doesn't mind saying it like it is, even if that hurts 'important' members of certain political parties' credibility.
*Sees hornets rising from their nest*
*Grabs can of Raid*
*Flicks lighter in front of stream* :drevil:
Funny, isn't that what people like you said Bush was?
Well you got what you wanted, now reap what you sow.
Take responsibility for your own mindset and worldview's consequences for a change.
-
By removing a strategic ally from the Iraq war, the Democrats are hoping to force Bush's hand and get a withdrawal going. As to Turkey going into Iraq, it looks like Bush is trying to smooth things over by giving them leeway to head their troops in, as long as it's not a massive amount of them, according to the AP.
-
Pearl Harbor made the US join WW II, kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese, Germans and Italians and we are all happy they did it, because China and Australia aren't a Japanese province, and Europe isn't a Nazi state today (being born in Poland, I'm VERY thankful that the US joined the war).
It's worth noting that because of Hitler's strategic blundering Germany had won, then turned around and lost before the US even declared war. There was a documentary called "how hitler lost the war" and also a book called "lost victories" by former field marshal Von Manstein. As for Italy, they surrendered before the Allies invaded them, not like they were great allies to begin with.
calling ILLEGAL immigrants 'citizens
Bush did that.
Their pacifist theory of co-existence with people who understand only terror and strengh (suicide bombers anyone?) will only lead to escalation of violence, just as Chamberlain's 'appeasement' led to WW II.
It is also worth noting that much of this can be directly linked to actions the US itself has done. 9/11 was the ending link of a chain that goes all the way back to when the US overthrew the democratic government of Iran in the 50's and installed the Shah (if you don't believe me google "operation ajax").
But this situation is hardly like Europe in 1938. Germany was a strong, advanced industrial state with an axe to grind with the other western european powers, this is not the same thing.
What I'd like to see is a Republican POTUS, and a rep. majority in congress.
We had both not too long ago, and the results were disasterous. The republicans lost their majority in congress for good reasons.
-
Bush isn't as bad as we may think.
Pearl Harbor made the US join WW II, kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese, Germans and Italians and we are all happy they did it, because China and Australia aren't a Japanese province, and Europe isn't a Nazi state today (being born in Poland, I'm VERY thankful that the US joined the war).
The WoT, although looks bad in the media, cost us (from day 1 untill today) the men and resources that would be used in...
5-6 weeks in the Western Europe front alone.
It's just that a news report about US soldiers taking pictures or playing soccer with Iraqi kids doesn't make a sensation.
The Democrats, on the other hand, are a lot worse than we may think- calling ILLEGAL immigrants 'citizens' and talking about giving them a right to vote is one thing (having to legally live 8 years in Chicago to become a US Citizen- this hurts me a bit).
Their pacifist theory of co-existence with people who understand only terror and strengh (suicide bombers anyone?) will only lead to escalation of violence, just as Chamberlain's 'appeasement' led to WW II.
Si vis pacem, para bellum, as the Ancient Romans used to say.
What I'd like to see is a Republican POTUS, and a rep. majority in congress. Now is not the time to care about illegal immigrants or to talk to terrorists.
Just to be clear...Pearl Harbor stirred the US as a nation to go to war against both Germany and Japan but Roosevelt and most of the US intelligence community was already "at war" almost two years before Pearl Harbor and that the chief instigator of this, Roosevelt, was a Democratic president.
Republicans...Democrats...neither really have a monopoly on declaring or fighting wars. Just looking briefly at some of the major US conflicts and who was leading at the time and you'll see there really isn't one party that can claim ownership (and the Democrats score for better or worse for World War I, II, Korean War, and Vietnam). What the Republicans have done really well in the last 10 years is brand themselves as the party that is "tough" and "can fight wars" and "protect America" and really its been a fantastic job on the part of the people they have employed but history is a little less clear. The right sort of leadership, regardless of party, will get whatever jobs need doing done in the best possible manner.
-
What the US needs is not partisan politics based on chest-thumping and rhetoric, but actual serious reform. The problem is neither party is willing to do this (as serious change = political suicide), which will only make America's problems worse.
-
Are you saying democracy doesn't work? :drevil:
-
Preferably, replace him with someone who doesn't mind saying it like it is, even if that hurts 'important' members of certain political parties' credibility.
*Sees hornets rising from their nest*
*Grabs can of Raid*
*Flicks lighter in front of stream* :drevil:
Funny, isn't that what people like you said Bush was?
Well you got what you wanted, now reap what you sow.
Take responsibility for your own mindset and worldview's consequences for a change.
That's not what I meant at all... I think Bush's policies (well most of them) are pretty good. It's just he's too nice... the President should be more careful to be sure he gets his reasons behind his policies across to the public. And those who try to twist or ignore the facts should be flamed after a few warnings. (No, I don't mean bawled out... I mean logically have their arguments shredded on national broadcast, and then their motives called into question if the circumstances deem it prudent.)
-
**BREEEEE** **BREEEEE** Rant Alarm **BREEEEE** **BREEEE** (potential bad language)
It is indeed about the individual administration elected to the executive office. Good write-up, IceFire. Kosh: You're missing a very important point. The Shah of Iran situation was extremely stable and was the best it had ever been until Carter came into presidency, and cut all support from the Shah, effectively turning it into a terrorist state. There are more factors to it, however. A very large portion of it is _how_ the war is fought (including how it is "sold"). Many of you have probably had that job where you're told to accomplish a task, and are given certain rules regarding it. We've had rules that made sense... and we've had rules that were complete bull****. Rules that caused nothing to get done most of the time, but following them will get you "good marks." Its the inherent system of a bureaucracy. Even being in a high-up position, those rules are freaking HARD to change. It takes personal experience in the field and an intimate understanding of WHY the rules are there, and when it really is good to break them. [off-topic, but that is one reason the Americans and some of their allies were so incredibly effective in WWII as opposed to the Germans. Sure, the Germans were the best trained in the world, but they didn't know how to adapt and be resourceful. They were so stuck on following the chain of command that when **** went down, everything fell apart.]
Today, the United States Military is in the same dilemma in that regard that the Germans had in WWII. The soldiers fighting over there can't lift a ****ing finger to save their own life or that of an Iraqi without getting it cleared all the way back to congress. All of this because why??? Bureaucracy and politics.
Here's my opinion... take it or leave it; Bush worked miracles with the economy post 9/11. That goes entirely unsung. Of course, for the MSM, the only good news is bad news. I was and still am a strong supporter of the War in Iraq. But I've got serious issues with how Bush and congress handled it (sure, ok **** happens in war all the time - no war has ever come close to being fought perfectly). But I'm pissed because the same mistakes they made are the ones that are ALWAYS being made in this new world political atmosphere. Example: Now unfortunately I don't know enough about the events leading up to the Vietnam war to say whether I agree with the justification or not... but that is besides my point. Once the U.S. got into Vietnam, support was cut right from under them. They were, essentially, not ALLOWED to succeed. They weren't given the equipment or reinforcements they needed. Who do I blame? Yes.... the Hippies. And say what you want about that war itself, but because the troops were pulled, millions of Vietnamese (yes millions) were killed within days by the Vietcong. Again, justified or not... it was an extremely poorly fought war. Bureaucracy and politics.
P.S. jr2 - Bravo. We're falling further and further away from democracy. We need to be having REAL DEBATES.
-
The Shah of Iran situation was extremely stable and was the best it had ever been until Carter came into presidency, and cut all support from the Shah, effectively turning it into a terrorist state.
So the massive public uprisings against a brutal dictatorial regime were because of Carter? :wtf:
off-topic, but that is one reason the Americans and some of their allies were so incredibly effective in WWII as opposed to the Germans. Sure, the Germans were the best trained in the world, but they didn't know how to adapt and be resourceful. They were so stuck on following the chain of command that when **** went down, everything fell apart.
The German army's problem was that after the defeat of France Hitler assumed total and absolute control over absolutly everything they did. Why? He didn't trust his generals. The Germans were quite resourceful, when they were allowed to be.
-
Here's my opinion... take it or leave it; Bush worked miracles with the economy post 9/11. That goes entirely unsung.
You seem to like bringing 1936-onwards Germany into this discussion, so perhaps we could get you to point out the other famous leader who's efforts in greatly improving his nation's economic and military might often go unsung?
-
The German army's problem was that after the defeat of France Hitler assumed total and absolute control over absolutly everything they did. Why? He didn't trust his generals. The Germans were quite resourceful, when they were allowed to be.
This doesn't tally with the defeat in France itself, or for that matter experience in Russia. Hitler became de facto Army Supreme Commander after Stalingrad. There is no denying the Germans were smart, but their command structure was crippled at levels far lower than der Fuhrer. Corps and division command, with a few noteable exceptions, were weak, and junior officers/NCOs were in some senses very good, in other senses very poor.
And in a lot of ways the US Army was simply better-designed. Organizationally it was extremely well thought-out (irony: the US organizational setup for armored divisions, often considered the best in the world, was developed at a time when they had no tanks). It has been said that had it been a US Army force that conducted Operation Barbrossa, Moscow would have been taken. This is probably true, since much better attention was payed to logistical and maintainance work, but on the other hand it also probably would never have been launched, since the US Army also was much better at use of intelligence. As Chief of the Army Staff Franz Halder lamented on the 100th day of the Russian campaign: "When we began this campaign we counted on a force of 160 large enemy formations. We have already encountered 220."
-
The Shah of Iran situation was extremely stable and was the best it had ever been until Carter came into presidency, and cut all support from the Shah, effectively turning it into a terrorist state.
Congratualations, you have jsut been brainwashed.
Whenever I hear something like that it makes me wanna puke.
Who the hell gives out those brands?
When's hte last time the US administration actually had some PROOF against a country it's accusing of something?
-
When was the last time the word "terrorist" actually meant something?
Considering the Armenian genocide a genocide is close to the best thing the US Congress has done in years, although they should also have added the ousting of Native Americans to that category as well. Turkey, the second largest military in NATO has a huge military, it would be idiotic for the both US and Turkey to have any kind of conflict, because the result could be the WWIII that people are trying to prevent.
War between two huge military forces, both with nukes = bad thing.
-
War between two huge military forces, both with nukes = bad thing.
Since when does Turkey have Nuclear Weapons?
-
They don't
They do have >1,000,000 troops
-
Yes but you wrote
both with nukes
Turkey does not have nukes.
-
The Shah of Iran situation was extremely stable and was the best it had ever been until Carter came into presidency, and cut all support from the Shah, effectively turning it into a terrorist state.
Congratualations, you have jsut been brainwashed.
Whenever I hear something like that it makes me wanna puke.
Who the hell gives out those brands?
When's hte last time the US administration actually had some PROOF against a country it's accusing of something?
I think you misunderstand me. The point I was trying to make with that statement was tied into the original topic, and the rest of my post. President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964: "What is going on in Iran is about the best thing going on anywhere in the world." President Carter with the Shah of Iran, New Year's Eve 1977 toasted Iran as "an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world." Want more reading? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1886755/posts (bias there is a bit heavy, but most of the facts are straight. Gimme a break, I didn't take a lot of time to find it. :nervous:)
I never said that the Shah of Iran was perfect. I said that the "situation was extremely stable and was the best it had ever been until Carter came into presidency, and cut all support from the Shah, effectively turning it into a terrorist state."
Were there human rights violations under his rule? Absolutely. But it is absolutely nothing compared to what it was before and what it is now.
I'm not focusing on the situation itself - I'm focusing on how Carter handled it. And he handled it badly. VERY BADLY. There are times and ways to chastise an ally, and there are sure as hell times and ways not to.
It is pretty much what is being done with Turkey right now. Only the basis for the whole Turkey thing is much much much more ridiculous. But hopefully, the repercussions won't be as extreme as they were with Iran 30 years ago.
-
Yes but you wrote
both with nukes
Turkey does not have nukes.
:eek2:
Whoops... my bad
Still I think we can all agree that neither Turkey nor the US can afford open warfare, and that things could easily spiral out of control from there.
-
Were there human rights violations under his rule? Absolutely. But it is absolutely nothing compared to what it was before and what it is now.
I doubt there was much of a difference.
I'm not focusing on the situation itself - I'm focusing on how Carter handled it. And he handled it badly. VERY BADLY. There are times and ways to chastise an ally, and there are sure as hell times and ways not to.
In what ways? Again, the message I'm getting is that Carter is somehow responsible for the Shah's overthrow........
-
Were there human rights violations under his rule? Absolutely. But it is absolutely nothing compared to what it was before and what it is now.
I doubt there was much of a difference.
I'm not focusing on the situation itself - I'm focusing on how Carter handled it. And he handled it badly. VERY BADLY. There are times and ways to chastise an ally, and there are sure as hell times and ways not to.
In what ways? Again, the message I'm getting is that Carter is somehow responsible for the Shah's overthrow........
Then your doubt would be misplaced.
And yes, Carter was largely responsible for the Shah's overthrow.
-
Hazaanko, I was reffering to you calling Iran a terrorist state.
Such labels are really not called for.
-
Again, the message I'm getting is that Carter is somehow responsible for the Shah's overthrow........
And again, you're right.
Without support the Mulla's made a revolution and now the president of Iran openly declares that Iran must destroy Israel, with all means available (so guess why they're researching atomic energy? - Right, you can't make a nuke having huge oil supplies, because oil gives only energy for less destructive things, like running cars or powerplants)
Hazaanko, I was reffering to you calling Iran a terrorist state.
Such labels are really not called for.
I have to disagree here, for the reason I've wrote above.
-
He said the Isreal should be destroyed, not that they will do it, now and with any means.
Their president may be driven, but that doesn't make a whole country a nest for terrorists.
-
Half the crap they are dealing with in Iraq (well, more than half) comes from Iran. Go figure.
-
Hazaanko, I was reffering to you calling Iran a terrorist state.
Such labels are really not called for.
I'll concede this - "Terrorist state" is over the top and not really accurate. But then again, the term "terrorist state" isn't really clearly defined anywhere... I'm just referencing the numerous allegations and incidents surrounding their supplying of weapons to terrorists in Iraq and being a major source of terrorist propaganda.
-
Considering the Armenian genocide a genocide is close to the best thing the US Congress has done in years, although they should also have added the ousting of Native Americans to that category as well.
I've always thought the fairest solution to the entire debacle is for the USA to censure Turkey for the Armenian thing followed by Turkey turning right around and censuring the USA for their treatment of the Native Americans. :D
-
Considering the Armenian genocide a genocide is close to the best thing the US Congress has done in years, although they should also have added the ousting of Native Americans to that category as well.
I've always thought the fairest solution to the entire debacle is for the USA to censure Turkey for the Armenian thing followed by Turkey turning right around and censuring the USA for their treatment of the Native Americans. :D
Hahahaha thats awesome :yes:
-
Half the crap they are dealing with in Iraq (well, more than half) comes from Iran. Go figure.
Proof please.... :nervous:...What? nothing? :eek: I'm shocked! :eek2:
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCIRI#Iranian_support
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Dawa_Party#2003_American_Invasion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quds_Force
Since it's 12:30 AM here, I don't feel like searching for anything better.
-
Pearl Harbor made the US join WW II, kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese, Germans and Italians and we are all happy they did it, because China and Australia aren't a Japanese province, and Europe isn't a Nazi state today (being born in Poland, I'm VERY thankful that the US joined the war).
The WoT, although looks bad in the media, cost us (from day 1 untill today) the men and resources that would be used in...
5-6 weeks in the Western Europe front alone.
It's just that a news report about US soldiers taking pictures or playing soccer with Iraqi kids doesn't make a sensation.
That sentence is far from being beautiful...
This statement isn't 100% valid. The US would have entered the war, Pearl Harbour or not. The "Italy/Poland would have been a German province" thing doesn't work. Germany had virtually no chance of invading the US. The UK "survived" just because it's an island. The USA would have win the war. The original borders would have been restablished either after the armistice or during the advance.
As for Italy, they surrendered before the Allies invaded them, not like they were great allies to begin with.
Uhm...:
1) The Allies didn't "invade" Italy. They liberated it. Only Mussolini's fanatics(a handful)thought they were invaders. The others treated them like liberators(they were, in fact, liberators). Even Mafia supported the Allies :nervous:
2) The second part is true. Absolutely true. Italian "equipment" wasn't even comparable to German, American or English equipment. Mussolini's fanatics overwhelmed the Allies with the numbers, but were easily dispatched because of the lack of equipment. The whole Alliance was badly managed, Hitler hated Italians(he was Austrian...) and I don't know why that ***** of Mussolini decided to become Hitler's *****. Italians were like Shivans. Sacrificable. They have been treated more as baits than Allies. What a stupid Alliance. Fortunately, the Resistance got rid of Benito.
Back on topic...the USA can survive without Allies. I don't criticize Bush and I consider most accuses the result of a "parroting" more than the result of thinking. "Bush is idiot", says A. "Bush is a ****** idiot!", say B, C, D, E [...] Z-5182. He demonstrated that there's someone with balls around. A pacifist President would bring more problems.
-
Then your doubt would be misplaced.
And yes, Carter was largely responsible for the Shah's overthrow.
Proof?
2) The second part is true. Absolutely true. Italian "equipment" wasn't even comparable to German, American or English equipment. Mussolini's fanatics overwhelmed the Allies with the numbers, but were easily dispatched because of the lack of equipment. The whole Alliance was badly managed, Hitler hated Italians(he was Austrian...) and I don't know why that ***** of Mussolini decided to become Hitler's *****. Italians were like Shivans. Sacrificable.
Not just that, the fact that they exhausted their army by invading Ethiopia before the war even started didn't help them either.
I don't criticize Bush and I consider most accuses the result of a "parroting" more than the result of thinking.
So pointing out the incompetant bumbling during Katrina, the corruption and mismanagement in Iraq (not to mention the dubious claims for us being there to begin with), and vetoing a bi-partisan bill to extend SCHIP (which provides healthcare to extremely poor children) is "parroting"?
EDIT: forgot to reply to this part
-
This humble Republican has one question:
1.) What, exactly, has Congress done since the re-elections nearly, what, NINE months ago?
-
The same thing they did before the election: Rubber stamp whatever Bush wanted. :doubt:
-
Don't be ridiculous. They rubber-stamped what Bush knew he could get them to rubber-stamp, namely, 1/2 of what they should have done. :p
-
Yeah i pretty much thought the US declaration movement on Turkey was pretty stupid. Basically because singling out Turkey out seemed pretty lame. Unless we are going to roll out every act of brutality and genocide then it seems hypocritical. Nearly every European nation has a hell of a lot of skeletons in the closet from the days of their dominance and imperialism. Unless they are going to pull out the Belgian Congo, India, China, the Conquistadors and every other misadventure in human history it seems moot. "We have the Maxim Gun and they have not" isn't as funny as it sounds and "The sun never sets on the British Empire" didn't happen because they were nice about it. But to be fair we've only had a couple hundred years to screw up and they have thousands:p. Not to mention our own black marks. If you ever want to get sick to your stomach try reading about the genocide of the North American Tribes, The Earth Shall Weep is a good place to start. It's rather brutal to realize that we succeeded at what the Third Reich tried to accomplish in Russia. Not to mention we still suppress the American Indian because when we quarantined the tribes on the crappiest land we could find we didn't realize later down the road they had important natural resources. I am not saying we should suppress history, and i am not trying to single anyone out as "the greatest offender" (people shouldn't be blamed for the sins of the father). But officially going after Turkey for something that happened under the Ottoman Empire is foolish when our history and those of our closest allies(even when they don't like us much) are littered with the half buried examples of humanity at its worst.
-
Name one country that doesn't have examples of humanity at its worst in its (not so distant) history. Oh. None. Riiight. We know this... welcome to (fallen :p ) planet Earth.
-
Name one country that doesn't have examples of humanity at its worst in its (not so distant) history.
Switzerland?
-
Stealing gold from Jews who were sent to the concentration camps and refusing to give it back to the few survivors doesn't count in your books then?
-
Name one country that doesn't have examples of humanity at its worst in its (not so distant) history.
Switzerland?
A country of this planet, so no Switzerland! :P
Stealing gold from Jews who were sent to the concentration camps and refusing to give it back to the few survivors doesn't count in your books then?
Azz... :eek2:
Not just that, the fact that they exhausted their army by invading Ethiopia before the war even started didn't help them either.
Sounds new to me(it doesn't mean you're not right) ;)
So pointing out the incompetant bumbling during Katrina, the corruption and mismanagement in Iraq (not to mention the dubious claims for us being there to begin with), and vetoing a bi-partisan bill to extend SCHIP (which provides healthcare to extremely poor children) is "parroting"?
It is a fact that most accusers simply "copy and paste" things the others say. It happens everywhere. People who barely know the name "Derek Smart" say "Derek Smart is *****, ***** and *****". Something similar happens with Bush. When people act like parrots, their opinions lose sense and validity.
-
Stealing gold from Jews who were sent to the concentration camps and refusing to give it back to the few survivors doesn't count in your books then?
Sweden then?
-
Yeah, cause the vikings were famed for sailing across the North Sea to help people keep warm on the cold winter nights, relieve them from the tension of hoarding gold and help women with their problems conceiving. :p
-
Name one country that doesn't have examples of humanity at its worst in its (not so distant) history.
Croatia?
-
Yeah, cause the vikings were famed for sailing across the North Sea to help people keep warm on the cold winter nights, relieve them from the tension of hoarding gold and help women with their problems conceiving. :p
Well, that's not so recent... :nervous:
What has Iceland done while we're at it?
-
Move Vikings
-
Stealing gold from Jews who were sent to the concentration camps and refusing to give it back to the few survivors doesn't count in your books then?
You rang ?
Yup, we have our own dark chapters of history during WW2. Not to mention the centuries before when swiss people were mostly known as mercenaries throughout Europe, spreading havoc wherever the pay was best.
-
Name one country that doesn't have examples of humanity at its worst in its (not so distant) history.
Croatia?
You forget the massacre of thousands of Italians who lived near the borders, so no Croatia :P
-
Croatia?
Given that Croatia actually gave the world the term Ethnic Cleansing and is responsible for the genocide of somewhere between 300,000 and 1.7 million Serbs during WWII I'd say that they're one of the countries least able to claim to be blood free.
-
Croatia?
You forget the massacre of thousands of Italians who lived near the borders, so no Croatia :P
Technicly, that wasn't the Croatian state, but rather Yugoslavia. Governemnt and military was under serbian control, commies ya know.
And IIRC, we are talking about governemnt sanctioned killings - like attacking another country and planned genocide, right?
Not abunch of drunk, stoopid folls comitting a war crime or something back in the woods.
-
Croatia?
Given that Croatia actually gave the world the term Ethnic Cleansing and is responsible for the genocide of somewhere between 300,000 and 1.7 million Serbs during WWII I'd say that they're one of the countries least able to claim to be blood free.
Lies.Bloody lies.
1.7 million serbs during WW2???? Heck, there even werent that many Serbs then to begin with.
There was only one event like that, if I'm not mistaken and the total number of dead wasn't over 30,000.
Croatia has nothing to do with ethnic cleansing.
In fact, it one of the very few countries that forged it's kingdom and expanded wihtout war. In it's whole history (over 1400 years) Croatia has never attacked another country.
-
Name one country that doesn't have examples of humanity at its worst in its (not so distant) history. Oh. None. Riiight. We know this... welcome to (fallen :p ) planet Earth.
Brazil.
-
Lies.Bloody lies.
1.7 million serbs during WW2???? Heck, there even werent that many Serbs then to begin with.
There was only one event like that, if I'm not mistaken and the total number of dead wasn't over 30,000.
Croatia has nothing to do with ethnic cleansing.
In fact, it one of the very few countries that forged it's kingdom and expanded wihtout war. In it's whole history (over 1400 years) Croatia has never attacked another country.
Are you ****ing kidding me?
Are you seriously trying to claim that Jasenovac (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/1673249.stm) concentration camp is a fabrication?
Besides surely one case of genocide is enough for you to lose the argument.
-
No, Jasenovac happened. That's what I was talking about - but it was 3000 dead or so.
Damn ustaša - they were crazy buggers, as nuts as Stalin. Thankfully they didn't stay in power for long.
But I'm asking you to name one country Croatia attacked/invaded.
-
Did I ever say that they had invaded anyone?
The point under discussion which you interjected the name of your own country into was
Name one country that doesn't have examples of humanity at its worst in its (not so distant) history. Oh. None. Riiight. We know this... welcome to (fallen :p ) planet Earth.
And you think that the presence of a concentration camp in Croatia doesn't qualify as an example of humanity at it's worst?
Not to mention the amusing way you've gone from
There was only one event like that, if I'm not mistaken and the total number of dead wasn't over 30,000.
to
No, Jasenovac happened. That's what I was talking about - but it was 3000 dead or so.
with no evidence whatsoever. I suppose next time you're going to tell me that there was only one man in the camp and he had cancer anyway so it was a mercy killing! :rolleyes:
I actually bothered to look up some details before I posted (evidently more than you've done) and the BBC article is actually the lowest figure I could come up with. A team of investigator from Auschwitz put the total at 600,000 and several other reports put the figures much higher.
-
Um, ok. So we have established that there is not likely one country that hasn't committed genocide in its' existence. What else is there to speak of?
-
Um, ok. So we have established that there is not likely one country that hasn't committed genocide in its' existence. What else is there to speak of?
Ahem.
Name one country that doesn't have examples of humanity at its worst in its (not so distant) history. Oh. None. Riiight. We know this... welcome to (fallen :p ) planet Earth.
Brazil.
-
I'm half Angolan so the fact that I can only find references in the native language isn't as big a problem as it was for Croatia. :p
http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/brasil/ult96u323017.shtml
And that's even without dealing with the death squads who are killing street children.
I'll let someone else deal with the next one though. :)
-
I'm half Angolan so the fact that I can only find references in the native language isn't as big a problem as it was for Croatia. :p
http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/brasil/ult96u323017.shtml
And that's even without dealing with the death squads who are killing street children.
I'll let someone else deal with the next one though. :)
There are no death squads here, do you have source on that?
-
http://www.stephenbrookes.com/international/2006/4/18/the-murder-of-rios-street-kids.html
First one I could dig up.
-
Did I ever say that they had invaded anyone?
The point under discussion which you interjected the name of your own country into was
Name one country that doesn't have examples of humanity at its worst in its (not so distant) history. Oh. None. Riiight. We know this... welcome to (fallen :p ) planet Earth.
And you think that the presence of a concentration camp in Croatia doesn't qualify as an example of humanity at it's worst?
My bad..I though was this was about invastion/agression against other countris and mass-approved exterminations.
I actually bothered to look up some details before I posted (evidently more than you've done) and the BBC article is actually the lowest figure I could come up with. A team of investigator from Auschwitz put the total at 600,000 and several other reports put the figures much higher.
Pft. Don't belive anything you read.
More that half the people on that list were killed somewhere else or were alive (some them probably still are) and were just added on the list to infate the number.
Unfortunately serbs excell at propaganda and we suck, so false information like that don't surprise me at all.
I'd love to educate you on the history and political turmoil in this area, yet for you to to evein begin to understand it all I would need days of typing and posting. The situation here is comlicated beyond belief and trying to explain it to someone who unfamiliar wiht it is...well...like trying to explain quantum physics to the some african native who never seen a white man.
-
So without evidence you're trying to claim you know better? :lol:
I'll believe the BBC and the work of historians who have spent their entire life doing investigations into the holocaust over your unsubstantiated ramblings any day.
-
He's trying to drag you down to his level. But that's not going to happen.
On a side note...with no offense...I would listen at what other historians have to say, opinions and ways to interpret things change...
-
I'm happy to listen to both sides of the argument but Trashman isn't supporting his argument so for all I know he's making it up as he goes along. Now if he can present credible evidence putting the figure below the 300,000 total I'm happy to hear it.
-
He's trying to drag you down to his level.
And then beat him with experience? :P
/me runs
-
I'm happy to listen to both sides of the argument but Trashman isn't supporting his argument so for all I know he's making it up as he goes along. Now if he can present credible evidence putting the figure below the 300,000 total I'm happy to hear it.
Such things can't be confirmed. We don't know how to deal with big numbers(when talking about the Universe, when talking about Geology, when talking about genocides)and, at the end, we can't imagine the difference between 300,000 and 350,000 casualties.
They're equally tragic.
He's trying to drag you down to his level.
And then beat him with experience? :P
/me runs
Yes, Es-cargo-t 5. And I will then return where I started! :P
-
Such things can't be confirmed. We don't know how to deal with big numbers(when talking about the Universe, when talking about Geology, when talking about genocides)and, at the end, we can't imagine the difference between 300,000 and 350,000 casualties.
They're equally tragic.
There is however a huge difference between 300,000 and 3000. Wanna try saying that only 60,000 Jews died in the holocaust and see how far that gets you?
-
There's a big difference, but we rarely talk about true tragedies. Stalin killed more Ebrews than Hitler. Thousands of Italians died because of Tito and his nationalism. They're nothing but "numbers" to us. These discussions are sad.
-
http://www.stephenbrookes.com/international/2006/4/18/the-murder-of-rios-street-kids.html
First one I could dig up.
I stand corrected.
There's a big difference, but we rarely talk about true tragedies. Stalin killed more Ebrews than Hitler. Thousands of Italians died because of Tito and his nationalism. They're nothing but "numbers" to us. These discussions are sad.
I disagree, they may be numbers for you, but for the thousands who knew people who died in those tragedies they're not. If you think the discussion sad, dont be a part of them.
-
You forgot the chinese, you pissed them off talking to dalai lama
-
You forgot the chinese, you pissed them off talking to dalai lama
Don't you just love how two people have a conversation and a nation goes ballistic... and other times millions of people's lives are quietly extinguished (*coughIranVietnamcough*) and hardly a word is uttered about them? Seems like the U.S. offends the world at the drop of a hat these days.
-
You forgot the chinese, you pissed them off talking to dalai lama
Don't you just love how two people have a conversation and a nation goes ballistic... and other times millions of people's lives are quietly extinguished (*coughIranVietnamcough*) and hardly a word is uttered about them? Seems like the U.S. offends the world at the drop of a hat these days.
That I agree with.
-
You forgot the chinese, you pissed them off talking to dalai lama
Don't you just love how two people have a conversation and a nation goes ballistic... and other times millions of people's lives are quietly extinguished (*coughIranVietnamcough*) and hardly a word is uttered about them? Seems like the U.S. offends the world at the drop of a hat these days.
Remember, tradition and religion means more than a person's life! :)
:sigh:
-
You forgot the chinese, you pissed them off talking to dalai lama
Don't you just love how two people have a conversation and a nation goes ballistic... and other times millions of people's lives are quietly extinguished (*coughIranVietnamcough*) and hardly a word is uttered about them? Seems like the U.S. offends the world at the drop of a hat these days.
Remember, tradition and religion means more than a person's life! :)
:sigh:
That's essentially the whole idea here. We are all ethnocentric to some degree and that causes problems.
-
I love you man. I love you GUyuzzzzzz
Man, I love this Lunesta stuff......
-
...Is made for sleeping with. Go rest. ;)
-
There is however a huge difference between 300,000 and 3000. Wanna try saying that only 60,000 Jews died in the holocaust and see how far that gets you?
Every death is tragic, being 1 or a million.. And that was a typo..the number should be 30000.
What I'm irritated about is the placing of all balme on our dorstep, for what we did and didn't do, and the lies that circle about.
In order to understand everything you'd need to know the history and relationships between the people in this region. I'd take way too long to explain that, so I'll try and skip that. I'll just give you a few fact to ponder on:
1. Ever since Croatia joined Yugoslavia (and even before that the same thing happened with other unions we rushed inot), Croats had no say in what was going on. Alltough Yugoslava was supposed to be a losoe federation, every important position was filled with serbs. All the higher ranking military officers, government officials, etc. were Serbs, except a few exceptions that you could count on one hand. Most of the military was serbs too. So a lot of thing that were commanded and exectuted by serbs ended up on our soul.
2. Most historians never set foot in Croatia. the few that did talked to 3 people and that's it. Hardly historicly accurate. Whole population of villages were reported dad by Sebs, yet the vilalges and it's people are still there, alive and well. A lot of names of dead on the lisits are dead from previous wars*. As I said, Serbs** have a great propaganda, and they aren't the only ones involved in the media war either. AS to the accuracy of historians, one little tidbit is more that enough to see just how plaing wrong they are. Most of them refer to the conflict as a "civil war". If you look up under the civil war definition, you'll see that's just plain wrong.
*There have been reserches and documentaries done about it, but they are very slow to leak out inot the world. Internet publications is still in it's infancy here I'm afraid.
**I don't want anyone to think that I hate Serbs. I had quite a few good friends before the war. Still do. In fact, some of htem are visiting from Belgrade this month. FYI, I'm refering to the more extremist ones.
3. Britain has been a royal pain in the a** for my country since forever. In fact, they have been working against us for decades. Look a bit in their part in the little massacre called Srebrenica. I would rather turst a četkink (extremist serbian soldier) than anything the brit government sez.
4. The victors don't write the history, the powerfull ones do. Our history is being re-written for us. More than enough evidence for it is hte travesty known as Haag. Just reading a bit about it is enough to see that it's a faulty, politicly influenced travesty whos sole purpose is to equalize blame. The "higher powers" are not interested in truth. You have to ask yourself why would anyone want to do that?
Becosue he higher powers didn't want Yugoslava to break up. Even now we're being pushed into a "new Yugoslavia" by the EU.
5. The level of extremism and tensions here go back hunderds of years. It's hard for anyone to understand, heck I don't understand how can something like that happen.
I'll give you a few small examples.
Two neighbours in a village, friends. known eachother for over 30 years, their children married eachother. When Croatia declared independance and the Serbsian forces were on the move the serbian neighbour took up his rifle and killed his croatian nehgbour and his family.
Or how about a 80 years old grandma runing around with a old WW1 rifle wanting to kill croats, then baking cookes for the serbian forces that buthered every croat in the village?
How can you even comprehand that? It's worse than those terrorist sleepers! Now if people are willing to do that, you'd really think they would think anything of giving false testimonies? Tehy couldn't win in a normal armed conflict, so now tehy're out fgting a meda war...and sady, tehy are winning.
just ponder on those thnigs for awhile...
EDIT: Just for hte record I think the number of 6,000,000 jews dead a bit inflated. Some time ago I did a little research out of curiosity, looking up the pupulations lists made just before the war for various countries Germany invaded. It's been a while but methinks the total number of jews in those countries was below 6 million.
-
A bit of spell checking needed perhaps?
-
Why? It's a complete load of unsubstantiated paranoid bollocks. Spell-checking it won't help that.
Actually while I'm here, What part did the British play in Srebrenica?
-
Ah, well I'm trying to be neutral here.
-
EDIT: Damned forum logging system made me post in to wrong topic!
-
Why? It's a complete load of unsubstantiated paranoid bollocks. Spell-checking it won't help that.
So is everything that comes out of your mouth, yet you don't see me nagging.
Unsubstantiated? Not in the least.
All you have to do for confirmation is make a chronological analysis of the EU's actions from the begining of the conflict till know.
Actually while I'm here, What part did the British play in Srebrenica?
Thousands of refugees surrenderd to them so they would escape from the serbs. They pleaded to them so they wouldnt turn them back to the serbs. Which they did anyway, knowing what would happen. Massacre happened.
EDIT - my bad, that wasn't Srebrenica, I wrote the wrong name. Srebrenica has "only" around 8000 dead. Teh even I was refering to happened at the end of WW2 - Bleiburg.
-
So is everything that comes out of your mouth, yet you don't see me nagging.
Unsubstantiated? Not in the least.
All you have to do for confirmation is make a chronological analysis of the EU's actions from the begining of the conflict till know.
The EU didn't exist during WWII. What the hell are you talking about? :confused: And you need to look up the meaning of the word Unsubstantiated.
Thousands of refugees surrenderd to them so they would escape from the serbs. They pleaded to them so they wouldnt turn them back to the serbs. Which they did anyway, knowing what would happen. Massacre happened.
EDIT - my bad, that wasn't Srebrenica, I wrote the wrong name. Srebrenica has "only" around 8000 dead. Teh even I was refering to happened at the end of WW2.
So what was the right name? Besides that is one event at the end of WWII (assuming it's not another fabrication). It hardly qualifies as
they have been working against us for decades.
And that's before we get into the fact that the BBC is pretty independent of the British government anyway.
-
The EU didn't exist during WWII. What the hell are you talking about? :confused: And you need to look up the meaning of the word Unsubstantiated.
Not that war! I'm refering to the war in Croatia.
Look how long it took for EU to do anything.
Look at what the NATO forces actually did in Croata once they got there...bloody nothing
Look at several staged incidents near the end of the war (like that famous Tudjmans hankerchief that turned out to be a total lie, f'course the media were quiet about that)
Look at the way EU treats Serbia and how it treats Croatia
Finally, the pieace de resistance - the Haag court. It takes a blind, deaf, paralyzed and lobotomized man not to see it's a travesty.
Why all this? Becosue no one wanted to see Yugoslavia go (especially the british and french). That's why they didn't react in the begining, they hoped Croatia would lose the war. When we won insted then another tactic was born - media and political pressure to demean us and force us into another Yugoslavia. "Balkania" is allready forming.
-
And you think that this (even if I believed it for a moment) would cause the BBC to lie about the number of people who died in a concentration camp? :lol:
-
And you think that this (even if I believed it for a moment) would cause the BBC to lie about the number of people who died in a concentration camp? :lol:
Not them.
I question their sources tough.
You're not really lying if you think the info you have is correct...well, you are I guess, but that's beside the point.
-
Oh, please change the topic..
How about how badly the U.S. is doing in terms of Middle Eastern politics (not including Iraq and possibly not Iran)?
-
Hasn't it offended practilcy everony there?
How much worse can it get? :lol:
-
Ah, well you seem very intent on continuing an argument. That's why I thought of bringing up another hot topic.
-
Ah, well you seem very intent on continuing an argument.
The only thing missing is aldo_14 :lol:
-
What I want to know is how there can be dumbass governments like Turkey denying the Armenian genocide and things like the Yugoslavia conflict and everyone hates America for causing relatively few deaths. You'd think people would at least get pissed at the US for things like turning back shiploads of Jewish refugees and slaughtering Native Americans.
I also want to know how someone can go from "every death is tragic" to "we didn't kill that many"
-
What I want to know is how there can be dumbass governments like Turkey denying the Armenian genocide and things like the Yugoslavia conflict and everyone hates America for causing relatively few deaths. You'd think people would at least get pissed at the US for things like turning back shiploads of Jewish refugees and slaughtering Native Americans.
I also want to know how someone can go from "every death is tragic" to "we didn't kill that many"
Um, alright. That first part of the comment isn't really taking in other views. Most other countries don't like America because of its' attitude as being a cop for the world. Granted, these 'few deaths,' as you phrased it, would be a secondary reason but you do realize that other countries want to take care of their problems themselves.
For the second part, that quote must've been made from someone who is trying to deny actions that have occurred. It's only a form of justification for their morale. It seems rather obvious who might say this.
-
Ah drunkness :doubt: sorry just got back from a concert when I wrote that... I'll come up with something intelligable in a few hours / days.
-
For the second part, that quote must've been made from someone who is trying to deny actions that have occurred. It's only a form of justification for their morale. It seems rather obvious who might say this.
Tell me mr. psychoanlaist, who might say that? I'm dying of curiosty.
And jsut FYI - I'd liek to point ut that I was tehre from the begning to the end. I've seen a lot of things happen. I've seen some things happen that the EU/NATO denied that happened. I KNOW they're lying about some things.
Not that it changes anything in the long run.
-
Ah. Yet another unverifiable source of information. Yet another attempt to claim you know the truth and documented sources are wrong.
Your country has been an independent nation since the end of the war and yet you still have no proof? Who are you going to blame for that?
-
F'courese...why belive a eyewitness when you have books written by historians who never set foot in the place?
Sadly, knowing something is one thing, and proving it another.
As for other things I said - most are easily veryfiable.
The Haag being a politcal court whos legal system no sane country in the world would adopt - you have critis written by established lawyers all over the wrold as well as some ex-court employees, including one judge and 2 assistants to the chief prosecutor.
NATO actions during the war? Als oeasy to confirm. Name ONE thing they did during the conflct?
As for other proof. It doesn't help that our president has been giving secret documents to Haag by truckloads wihtout consulting anyone or that our government is a bunch of suck-ups who odn't dare to go agaisnt what the big players say, regardless how harmful lit is for the country in the long run.
It's times like this I wish I lived in Serbia. Their politicans, as crazy as they may be, at least got some BALLS!
-
If you want to claim that the Hague war crimes tribunals are being run badly that's one thing. But to ascribe this to some Machiavellian plan to keep the Croats down and force a reunification of Yugoslavia is paranoid fantasy. There's a huge difference between inept and malicious behaviour and you've not proved at all that it's the latter which is going on.
The same goes for NATO's actions during the Balkan wars. No one in the NATO countries was interested in getting dragged into a European Vietnam. The general desire of the UN, NATO and the EU wasn't a reunification of Yugoslavia but simply a wish that you'd stop killing each other. The role of the UN was to act as peacekeepers and to try to get both sides to agree to a ceasefire. Not to fight the war on the side of whoever they thought was correct.
I should point out that when KFOR did directly intervene in Kosovo that was similarly a disaster. Funny how the same EU that you claim is on the side of the Serbs and trying to reunite Yugoslavia would act to prevent that from happening isn't it? I suppose you're going to tell me next that the plan was to let the ethnic Albanians run the Balkans.
-
A lot of little things Kaj.
One thing might be a conincidence...two? Ok.. several? Not bloody likely.
If no one is trying to force us into another YU, why then are we "encouraged" to sing trade, legal and other treaties that affect ONLY the countries out of former YU, despite the fact that we'll be entering EU soon? What's the point of those region-centered deals?
As for the "Hague war crimes tribunals are being run badly" - not badly, politicly. Multiple employes of the court have stated that the court was political in nature - both in selecting the proosecutions and handling and collecting evidence. Florence Haartman (chief assistant to Carla Del Ponte) even published a book about it.
You want more? How about this - Both Croata and Serbia have ben given specific conditions that HAD to be met before talks about joining the Union could start. Croatia had to deliver general Gotovina (who is innocent b.t.w.) and Serbia had to deliver Mladić and Karadžić. Croata did deliver gotovina and the joining talk were postponed as moe conditions have been thrust upon it, while talks with the Serba started despite her not fulfilling the conditions. Same treatment my ass.
Oh, b.t.w. - realistcly Serbia couldn't fulfil lthem, since Mladić isn't in Serbia - he was securely taken out of the country by foreign agents (americans or brits, cna't remeber which atm). A little tidbit that's also from the said book.
The only thing NATO did during the war was watch... and it even sucked doing that. They just watched as Serbs shelled croatian villages - so much for peacekeeping.
I can tell you a few things some of the DID do, but I rather not...since they fall into the "crimes" category.
Kosovo was another matter. The cat was out of the bag and by that time they couldn't not intervene and still end up looking like the good guys. Milošević also overplayed is hand.
Tehre's more that enough evidence for msot of the stuff, but it's damn hard to come by.
And there's a lot more. I only mentioned some of the more known and bigger things.
-
Apparently you don't understand the difference between a peacekeeper and a peacemaker.
-
For the second part, that quote must've been made from someone who is trying to deny actions that have occurred. It's only a form of justification for their morale. It seems rather obvious who might say this.
Tell me mr. psychoanlaist, who might say that? I'm dying of curiosty.
And jsut FYI - I'd liek to point ut that I was tehre from the begning to the end. I've seen a lot of things happen. I've seen some things happen that the EU/NATO denied that happened. I KNOW they're lying about some things.
Not that it changes anything in the long run.
I'll take the psychoanalyst comment as a complement. Either way, you and I both know who might say this. Examples: Bush, his cabinet, the military generals who haven't quit, anyone who is in a war for an apparently "righteous" cause.
The way I see this, you could start a flame war rather easily because of how obsinate you are in keeping your position yet you never show any real proof of what you say. List sources, write a book if you have to since your personal experiences are valid. Either way, think before you act.
-
Of course the real irony is that if you check his facts you find that they're wrong. For instance Croatia was allowed into talks about EU membership in October 2005 but Gotovina was arrested in December.
Now while I won't deny that Croatia was instrumental in that arrest it shows what a load on nonsense Trashman is talking. Especially as Croatia is actually considered an official candidate for EU membership while Serbia continues to languish in potential candidate status.
Furthermore talks with Serbia over entrance to the EU were suspended for over a year due to their refusal to hand over Ratko Mladić.
And I think that should make it obvious why I continually ask Trashman to provide support for his statements. As soon as you investigate them you find that they're nothing more than a pack of lies and/or hazy recollections.
-
The way I see this, you could start a flame war rather easily because of how obsinate you are in keeping your position yet you never show any real proof of what you say. List sources, write a book if you have to since your personal experiences are valid. Either way, think before you act.
Well, I mayself am thinking, than you very much...alltough I can't guarantee for you.
Kepping my position? Why would I sway in my position if it's the truth? Regardless if I can come up with some proof in 5 minutes or not, this is not a court and you are not the jury.
I listed several examples where if you do a little google seach, you can find some of the proof you ask for (more specificly the HAAG court and the EU's handling of Croatia & Serbia.) Not all of it tough.
Eyewitness accounts apperenty are worth nothing and most relevant documents are allready in poseation of Haag (and I doubt they'll surface). There are a few others alltough I don't know how sucesfull you'd be in looking for them on the net, or translating them if you found em.
And why would you consider a few links proof anyway? Any page I link you to could be falsified or pictures of documents could be too.
You wanna know why I'm so obsinate? Becoause I'm sick of the lies I hear, I'm sick of hearing my country, our generals, our people (and some of my friends) dragged trough mud.
THINK what you want...
I know better.
-
Of course the real irony is that if you check his facts you find that they're wrong. For instance Croatia was allowed into talks about EU membership in October 2005 but Gotovina was arrested in December.
Now while I won't deny that Croatia was instrumental in that arrest it shows what a load on nonsense Trashman is talking. Especially as Croatia is actually considered an official candidate for EU membership while Serbia continues to languish in potential candidate status.
Furthermore talks with Serbia over entrance to the EU were suspended for over a year due to their refusal to hand over Ratko Mladić.
So I messed up on the date - big deal.
It's not like Gotovina was the only condition... Yes, we were allowed the talk (probably becouse they knew he wasn't in Croata by that time).
Seriba has been cut a LOT of slack as long as it was playing along... which wasn't really for long. It's foreign rehtoric becam colder again, especially with this Kosovo crisis. Serbia had the balls to stand up to the EU on some accounts and it's paying the price for it.
It's not the hading over of Mladić, as he isn't in Serbia.
And I think that should make it obvious why I continually ask Trashman to provide support for his statements. As soon as you investigate them you find that they're nothing more than a pack of lies and/or hazy recollections.
I don't wanna start a flame war, so I'll refrain from saying things to you that normally wouldn't even show up on the boards.
I don't lie....EVER.
-
Don't you just love how the phrase 'he lied' 'she lied' is thrown around today like its going out of style?
-
So I messed up on the date - big deal.
It's not like Gotovina was the only condition... Yes, we were allowed the talk (probably becouse they knew he wasn't in Croata by that time).
Seriba has been cut a LOT of slack as long as it was playing along... which wasn't really for long. It's foreign rehtoric becam colder again, especially with this Kosovo crisis. Serbia had the balls to stand up to the EU on some accounts and it's paying the price for it.
It's not the hading over of Mladić, as he isn't in Serbia.
You messed up on a lot more than the date. Your entire argument is full of holes. Serbia isn't expected to gain entry into the EU for at least 5 more years and 8 is a much better prediction. Croatia might get it in 3. So how does that fit in with your claims that Serbia is getting preferential treatment?
And what Kosovo crisis are you speaking of?
And I think that should make it obvious why I continually ask Trashman to provide support for his statements. As soon as you investigate them you find that they're nothing more than a pack of lies and/or hazy recollections.
I don't wanna start a flame war, so I'll refrain from saying things to you that normally wouldn't even show up on the boards.
I don't lie....EVER.
I said it's one or the other. Maybe it's hazy recollections that you vaguely remember as being true. However you present them as fact. And when I check up on them they are false. So either you lied or you simply can't be bothered to check your facts. Either way that completely undermines your position. You've stated with almost every post stuff that you claim to know. And you have not verified a word of it. And the one time I was in a position to check your facts I find them to be wrong. Which makes the rest of your statements dubious at the very least.
Which is why I continually ask you to prove your positions. It's not my job to prove them. It's yours. I prove my arguments. Not yours.
I know better.
That's the problem. You don't You just think you do. If your theories were actual truth when I'd checked up the stuff you know I would have found that it was correct.
Or are you going to claim that I'm also part of the EU plot to keep Croatia down? :lol:
-
You messed up on a lot more than the date. Your entire argument is full of holes. Serbia isn't expected to gain entry into the EU for at least 5 more years and 8 is a much better prediction. Croatia might get it in 3. So how does that fit in with your claims that Serbia is getting preferential treatment?
And what Kosovo crisis are you speaking of?
Was getting preferential treatment..and who said it had only to do with the joining talk. There's lot of other stuff.
Kosovo independace? never heard ofthat?
I said it's one or the other. Maybe it's hazy recollections that you vaguely remember as being true. However you present them as fact. And when I check up on them they are false. So either you lied or you simply can't be bothered to check your facts. Either way that completely undermines your position. You've stated with almost every post stuff that you claim to know. And you have not verified a word of it. And the one time I was in a position to check your facts I find them to be wrong. Which makes the rest of your statements dubious at the very least.
Which is why I continually ask you to prove your positions. It's not my job to prove them. It's yours. I prove my arguments. Not yours.
I'm not asking you to belive me, I'm asking you to stop calling me a liar.
I don't know what you've been checking or how you been checking, but only one thing came false (the joining date thing) so calling everything I post false is ..well.. not nice to put it mildy.
Secondly, I don't have to prove anything. This is a forum discussion, not a court proceeding. I am free to say things I belive/know are right and am under no obligation to prove anything.
I know better.
That's the problem. You don't. You just think you do.
If your theories were actual truth when I'd checked up the stuff you know I would have found that it was correct.
[/quote]
That's the problem. You don't know sh**. You just think you do. You think a 5 minute net surf makes you an expert on a subject? Or do you just enjoy trying to prove me wrong in every single thread?
You can't even check upon half the stuff like that, as it would take a far more in-depth research and field work.
I'm aslo wondering what kind of checking you did do. Did you look into the Florence Hartman and othet HAAG ex-empoyes? You didn't? Or you did, but you "conviniently" forgot to mention it, since it isn't in your favor?
I live here. You don't. If the serbian army marched trough my town I'll know that, regardless of what's on the net. You won't.
Belive me, don't belive me, I don't give a damn Kaj.
It's not like your oppinion matters to me at all. I've said my piece. Good night.
-
Secondly, I don't have to prove anything. This is a forum discussion, not a court proceeding. I am free to say things I belive/know are right and am under no obligation to prove anything.
Bull****. You can claim whatever you want but if you have nothing to back it up with, your beliefs are worth nothing.
-
Secondly, I don't have to prove anything. This is a forum discussion, not a court proceeding. I am free to say things I belive/know are right and am under no obligation to prove anything.
Bull****. You can claim whatever you want but if you have nothing to back it up with, your beliefs are worth nothing.
He lives there. That counts for something in my book, if nothing more than honest consideration.
-
Bull****. You can claim whatever you want but if you have nothing to back it up with, your beliefs are worth nothing.
He lives there. That counts for something in my book, if nothing more than honest consideration.
That doesn't mean he should expect us all to take him at his word without giving us the least bit of proof to back up his claims. A link to well-supported online info, a quote from a book, anything.
-
He lives there. That counts for something in my book, if nothing more than honest consideration.
Which means that you must also consider the element of local bias. The fact that he's from Croatia and claims that Serbia (which his country recently fought a war with) is getting preferential treatment must be treated as biased on the grounds that he is likely only hearing one side of the story. I very much doubt that the Croatian media is going to be completely unbiased when it comes to who is getting a fair deal between their own country and an old enemy like Serbia.
That doesn't mean that his "on the ground" views are automatically wrong but simply that the element of bias means that he can't simply say that he's there and therefore he's saying is correct without supporting his views. Cause there is a huge influence on him to see Serbia as getting the best of everything.
and who said it had only to do with the joining talk. There's lot of other stuff.
You did! You said it had to do with the joining talks
Both Croata and Serbia have ben given specific conditions that HAD to be met before talks about joining the Union could start. Croatia had to deliver general Gotovina (who is innocent b.t.w.) and Serbia had to deliver Mladić and Karadžić. Croata did deliver gotovina and the joining talk were postponed as moe conditions have been thrust upon it, while talks with the Serba started despite her not fulfilling the conditions. Same treatment my ass.
.
If not the joining talks what are you saying wasn't preferential treatment with that last line?
Oh and that line about the talks being postponed was also incorrect. Basically almost that entire statement was false. The EU demanding all 3 suspects were handed over was the only truthful element in that. And even in that case the talks started again in both cases without the suspects being handed over.
Since you're trying to ascribe a malicious motive to all this, you got a lot more wrong than just the dates.
Kosovo independace? never heard ofthat?
Hardly a crisis yet although it is a cause for concern. But the fact still remains that you have yet to prove any of your claims that Serbia is getting a deal over EU membership Croatia isn't. And your one attempt to prove it was a complete farce as pretty much every fact in it was provably false.
I'm not asking you to belive me, I'm asking you to stop calling me a liar.
I will when you stop quoting as fact stuff you don't know is true. How about adding some IIRCs and AFAIKs to the stuff you aren't certain about? Surely that is more honest than misrepresenting stuff you don't know as if it were true?
That way at least I have an idea what you are claiming to be true and what you think is true. Because right now you're stating every word as a proclamation from on high and pretty much everything I've looked up has been wrong.
I don't know what you've been checking or how you been checking, but only one thing came false (the joining date thing) so calling everything I post false is ..well.. not nice to put it mildy.
Not one thing. The entire list
1) There were only 30,000 Serbian deaths due to ethnic cleansing during WWII - False - All data I can find puts the figures at least 10 times as high as this.
2) You claimed that all these deaths occurred at Jasenovac. - False - Even the highest figures for Jasenovac come in at less than the total number of Serbs killed in Croatia during the Holocaust.
3) You claimed that Croatia didn't have a high enough Serbian population for the numbers to be that high. - False - Every estimate of the population of the time puts the Serbian population at 30% of the 6 million people in Croatia at the time.
4) You claimed that Croatia has nothing to do with ethnic cleansing. False - The term itself is derived from Ustaše's use of the word cleaning to rid Croatia of the Serbian population by death, expulsion and assimilation.
The list just goes on and on. With most of your pronouncements being either suspect or flat out provably wrong. So I'm treating everything you post as wrong unless I can be bothered to look up for myself. Because every time I have looked it up you've been wrong. Now maybe I am wrong about all the stuff I've said above. But at least I've bothered to check up my facts.
Secondly, I don't have to prove anything. This is a forum discussion, not a court proceeding. I am free to say things I belive/know are right and am under no obligation to prove anything.
Fine but if you don't wish to prove it I'm under no obligation to treat it as anything other than paranoid fantasy.
That's the problem. You don't know sh**. You just think you do. You think a 5 minute net surf makes you an expert on a subject? Or do you just enjoy trying to prove me wrong in every single thread?
You can't even check upon half the stuff like that, as it would take a far more in-depth research and field work.
I'll quite happily admit I'm not an expert. Neither are you.
You however have challenged the expert opinion. And you've not given any proof that you are correct. When it comes to picking who to believe I pick the experts.
I'm aslo wondering what kind of checking you did do. Did you look into the Florence Hartman and othet HAAG ex-empoyes? You didn't? Or you did, but you "conviniently" forgot to mention it, since it isn't in your favor?
I can't spend all my time checking up on your nonsense. What specifically are you claiming that she has to say that supports your position? Remember that I've already claimed that the Hague war crimes trials are being very poorly run. My issue is with your claim that it's part of some EU plan to force Croatia to be part of some new Yugoslavian state. What did they say that backed up that claim?
I live here. You don't. If the serbian army marched trough my town I'll know that, regardless of what's on the net. You won't.
When have I ever said that they didn't? The Serbs committed all kinds of war crimes during that war. I'll go in just as furiously against anyone who tries to deny it or change the figures to suit them.
-
Trashman, write a book.
-
Which means that you must also consider the element of local bias. The fact that he's from Croatia and claims that Serbia (which his country recently fought a war with) is getting preferential treatment must be treated as biased on the grounds that he is likely only hearing one side of the story. I very much doubt that the Croatian media is going to be completely unbiased when it comes to who is getting a fair deal between their own country and an old enemy like Serbia.
That doesn't mean that his "on the ground" views are automatically wrong but simply that the element of bias means that he can't simply say that he's there and therefore he's saying is correct without supporting his views. Cause there is a huge influence on him to see Serbia as getting the best of everything.
The majority of the time (not ALL the time) I would still take somebody's info from somebody who had actually experienced something even if they were biased . There is no 'unbiased information.' Everything you take in is going to have some kind of spin... is not going to contain all the pertinent information/etc.
Considering I have no reason to distrust Trashman, and a very large list of reasons to distrust the UN..... .... ...
-
Fine, that's your choice. But even if you trust Trashman he hasn't actually said what you should trust him on. All he's said "I know stuff. I've seen it myself" and then used that to justify the stuff he has claimed. Stuff he didn't actually see with his own eyes (like a massive plot to reunify Yugoslavia or inflated death counts at Jasenovac).
In other words he's like a eyewitness saying "That guy there did it!" and when you ask him for more details on how the crime occurred or what he actually saw, he simply says "Why are you asking me for more details? I already told you he did it! I WAS THERE!"
Trashman pointed out that the Serb army marched through his town. How does that back up his claim that the EU were supporting the Serbs? Even his eyewitness reports don't back anything up because they have no substance. All they prove is that he was in Croatia during the war, and I've never disputed that.
-
Kaj, have you ever considered what you consider proof?
In your own previous post you said you "proved me wrong" in regards to X and Y, by looking it up on the net.
What kind of a proof is that? A sentance you read or quted from some webpage?
Heck, I could edit the Wikipedia page and add a fef zeroes to the casualites numbers or make or hakc another webpage, and you would go around merrily quoting that same number to people in other discussion, calming it as a fact.
You have never seen a document or a signed witnesss accout, I don't think you even saw a scan of a documnet or something - in other words you're taking someone elses words as a fact, and then attacking me for not providing proof.
I told you where you cna find some (regarding Haag). As for other things, I do have a few books, one a whopping 400 pages ("Vrijeme Krivokletnika") fileld with scans of documents, correspondence between politicians and generals and signed eyewitness accounts. AFAIK, its not on the net, but i havn't checked.
Now I could scan a few pages, but it's on croatian so I doubt you'll understand a word. I could translate it for you but I doubt you wuld belive me.
Even if I did find and post a english version (hm..come to think of it, I do belive a few documents were on english - correspondence with some NATO general and politicians), I bet you would say it's falsified. It's a possibility. But then again, when's the last time you checked if your information is correct, insted of just quting other people? Could your information be false?
This is precisely why you should refrain from calling people liars. Do your homework first.
Trashman pointed out that the Serb army marched through his town. How does that back up his claim that the EU were supporting the Serbs? Even his eyewitness reports don't back anything up because they have no substance. All they prove is that he was in Croatia during the war, and I've never disputed that.
No, no, I used that as an example. Thankfully Serb forces didn't enter it - if they did I doubt I would be in any position to type this.
All he's said "I know stuff. I've seen it myself" and then used that to justify the stuff he has claimed. Stuff he didn't actually see with his own eyes
I've seen some stuff myself, not all of it of course. I can't be in two places at once. I did see and read documents and talked with people whom I would trust with my life who did see other things.
I could tell you of a few minor incidents that I did witness ( and that officially never happened acccording to hte EU, or happened differently), but I can't really prove them to you now. There are people who cna confirm it, heck I'm sure there's footage out there that still hasn't seen the light of the day - but right now, right here (especially over the internet), no I can't prove it.
Writing a book? Books on the subject have allready been written but they remain very low-profle. And if I write a book, when will I mod? You DO want to see FOW3, don't you?
That doesn't mean that his "on the ground" views are automatically wrong but simply that the element of bias means that he can't simply say that he's there and therefore he's saying is correct without supporting his views. Cause there is a huge influence on him to see Serbia as getting the best of everything.
double edged sword.
It's like that deal with a patiet dying froma painfull, uncurable illnes who wants to die and a doctor who thinks he's crazy.
Is the patient uncapable of making a rational decision becoause of the pain? After all, who want's to die anyway.
Or is it exactly the pain that makes his decision far more rational than normaly? After all, only he konws best how much he can take and how much it hurts!
I don't stick to croatia media b.t.w - during the war i watches Serbian news as well, as well as BBC, Al Jazera, CNN and otehr news networks.
Croatian media is especially sucky now...it's back to one party one-mindness.
-
Just two things:
It is proved that some articles of the Wikipedia have been "corrected"(please note my sarcasm). I had a discussion in an Italian forum about this worrying event(the Vatican was involved, you can't imagine how many people hate it). I said that old encyclopaediae are better. You can trust books, you can't trust the Internet.
I don't know if the articles mentioned come from the Wikipedia - I just want to remember recent episodes involving sites in which everyone can modify stuff.
Also, I think people who experienced certain events should have more consideration. We remember the massacre of Ebrews mostly thanks to the Ebrews themselves. We would have easily forgotten them. It's also true that people sometimes exaggerate to attract some attention, we can't ignore it. Historicians also make differences, everyone knows of the bad conditions of British workers during the Industrial Revolution(s), no one knows of the even worse conditions of Italian citizens, not even workers... in 1700-1950. I don't know of foreign historians who talked about the subject. This is just an example.
-
Kaj, have you ever considered what you consider proof?
In your own previous post you said you "proved me wrong" in regards to X and Y, by looking it up on the net.
What kind of a proof is that? A sentance you read or quted from some webpage?
Better proof than that which you have so far provided. None whatsoever.
In terms of proof you have provided none. I have therefore provided infinitely more. :p
Heck, I could edit the Wikipedia page and add a fef zeroes to the casualites numbers or make or hakc another webpage, and you would go around merrily quoting that same number to people in other discussion, calming it as a fact.
You couldn't do that with the BBC website though. That's what got us onto your paranoid nonsense about how you couldn't trust the BBC because they were part of the same EU plot to keep Croatia down.
And ironically enough you couldn't edit the wikipedia page. It's protected against change due to the fact that holocaust deniers keep coming along and changing the number. Fortunately I don't rely on wikipedia.
You have never seen a document or a signed witnesss accout, I don't think you even saw a scan of a documnet or something - in other words you're taking someone elses words as a fact, and then attacking me for not providing proof.
I'm taking the word of a large number of people who know the subject better than me and who can provide credentials proving that they know the subject better than me as fact. Who are your sources?
I told you where you cna find some (regarding Haag). As for other things, I do have a few books, one a whopping 400 pages ("Vrijeme Krivokletnika") fileld with scans of documents, correspondence between politicians and generals and signed eyewitness accounts. AFAIK, its not on the net, but i havn't checked.
I've already asked you what the **** I'm supposed to be looking up about the Hague trials. You didn't bother to answer. You simply told me to go look up the Haag again. Look up what? I'm waiting to see what theory you have that it's part of a conspiracy. So far you haven't even been able to tell me what the conspiracy even is, nor how it relates to your claim that the EU want to make a Yugoslav state.
As for the book what is it proof of? Hell for all I know the book is 100% the truth and you haven't understood it. Again all you're doing is quoting a source and saying that it supports you. I'm still not seeing how. What does the book itself say that proves you are correct? Even if I can't prove whether or not the book actually says it at least hearing what the book does say would be a step in the right direction because it's not "Trashman says"
But then again, when's the last time you checked if your information is correct, insted of just quting other people? Could your information be false?
Could be. I wouldn't dream of saying that every source I've found is infallible or 100% accurate. You on the other hand seem to be insisting that the sources you can't produce or verify are.
This is precisely why you should refrain from calling people liars. Do your homework first.
I gave you an either/or. You're the one who's picked one of those an insisted that it's the one you aren't. Personally I tend to believe it's the hazy recollections one because when I have checked up on things I've found them to be different from the truth but in a way that could be due to remembering it incorrectly.
Which is why I've repeatedly told you that you need sources to back up everything you say. If you bothered to check them you wouldn't get things wrong. And then I might actually believe you from time to time.
All he's said "I know stuff. I've seen it myself" and then used that to justify the stuff he has claimed. Stuff he didn't actually see with his own eyes
I've seen some stuff myself, not all of it of course. I can't be in two places at once. I did see and read documents and talked with people whom I would trust with my life who did see other things.
I could tell you of a few minor incidents that I did witness ( and that officially never happened acccording to hte EU, or happened differently), but I can't really prove them to you now. There are people who cna confirm it, heck I'm sure there's footage out there that still hasn't seen the light of the day - but right now, right here (especially over the internet), no I can't prove it.
See! You just did it again. I've seen stuff. My friends have seen stuff. So I'm right.
What have you seen? How does it prove you're right?
You keep saying NATO/EU covered stuff up. So what? How does that prove you're right? I don't doubt that they covered all sorts of stuff up cause they didn't want to look as inept, or they didn't want to look helpless or they didn't want to make themselves a target for attacks from either army. But how does that prove that there was a systematic campaign by the EU/NATO/UN to ensure that Yugoslavia reformed. And how does that prevent your country from doing its own unbiased investigation into Jasenovac and finding out the truth?
Are you going to answer me this time or are you going to say yet again that the fact that you live in Croatia means you can claim that it's true and not provide an explanation?
That doesn't mean that his "on the ground" views are automatically wrong but simply that the element of bias means that he can't simply say that he's there and therefore he's saying is correct without supporting his views. Cause there is a huge influence on him to see Serbia as getting the best of everything.
double edged sword.
It's like that deal with a patiet dying froma painfull, uncurable illnes who wants to die and a doctor who thinks he's crazy.
Is the patient uncapable of making a rational decision becoause of the pain? After all, who want's to die anyway.
Or is it exactly the pain that makes his decision far more rational than normaly? After all, only he konws best how much he can take and how much it hurts!
If the patient refuses to prove he's rational then it's the doctor who is correct, right?
I don't stick to croatia media b.t.w - during the war i watches Serbian news as well, as well as BBC, Al Jazera, CNN and otehr news networks.
Croatian media is especially sucky now...it's back to one party one-mindness.
Nonetheless you live in a culture which is shaped by Croatian media more than any other. And I assume that's a typo and you're not actually telling me that you watched Al Jazeera during the war in Croatia. :D
-
Alrighty then. I suppose Karajorma has gotten his piece but he might want more. Trashman has also gotten his piece but he is definitely raring for more.
This is about as close to an intellectual(?) flame war as I can imagine. Frankly, it's sad thinking it that way.
-
Better proof than that which you have so far provided. None whatsoever.
In terms of proof you have provided none. I have therefore provided infinitely more. :p
So you STILL havn't checked out that Haage thing?
And many I ask, what proof you have provided? You also said you READ/CHECKED that it's false. Anyone reading this forums has only your word.
You couldn't do that with the BBC website though. That's what got us onto your paranoid nonsense about how you couldn't trust the BBC because they were part of the same EU plot to keep Croatia down.
Hacking impossible? plase.... :rolleyes:
BBC has never aired false information (knowingly or not?) NEVER? Well really.. :rolleyes:
I'm taking the word of a large number of people who know the subject better than me and who can provide credentials proving that they know the subject better than me as fact. Who are your sources?
The same..other people with credentials, myself, some people I know..
Alltough ironicly, creadentials don't prove people actually nkow what they're talking about.
Not to mention tha credentails can aslo be easily forged.
I've already asked you what the **** I'm supposed to be looking up about the Hague trials. You didn't bother to answer. You simply told me to go look up the Haag again. Look up what? I'm waiting to see what theory you have that it's part of a conspiracy. So far you haven't even been able to tell me what the conspiracy even is, nor how it relates to your claim that the EU want to make a Yugoslav state.
You aren't reading. Florence Hartman. Other ex-employees. Heck, Carla Del Ponte erself has a questinable career. Ruanda demanded her removed from their caseses becouse of her incompetence.
See! You just did it again. I've seen stuff. My friends have seen stuff. So I'm right.
What have you seen? How does it prove you're right?
What are you, blind? I allready said that ATM I can't prove what I've seen, so theres no point in it, especially with this attitude.
Just..forget it K. What I've seen doesn't matter now and woudkn't bring anything to this discussion anyway, except for more accusations from you that i dont' have proof.
And how does that prevent your country from doing its own unbiased investigation into Jasenovac and finding out the truth?
Are you going to answer me this time or are you going to say yet again that the fact that you live in Croatia means you can claim that it's true and not provide an explanation?
Oh, there have been investigations, but the data isn't really coming out... I blame it on the current situation in the state.
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.
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.
[
If the patient refuses to prove he's rational then it's the doctor who is correct, right?
And how would you prove that?
Nonetheless you live in a culture which is shaped by Croatian media more than any other. And I assume that's a typo and you're not actually telling me that you watched Al Jazeera during the war in Croatia. :D
Among other things.. I was allways interested to hear how hte world seez things and percives us...suffice to say I was dissapointed.
Mah...You know Kaj...if I used the time I spent on these debates with you (reading, writing, checking data) on actual modding, my campaign woulld have been finished by now. I all our debates nothing has come out of them, and most have turned into flame wars.
So I'm abandoning this sinking ship.
-
I am from Slovenia and as I remember it was only the US that opposed the independence of Croatia and Slovenia from YU not the EU or NATO.
I still remember how then United States Secretary of State James Baker sad that neather Slovenia or Croatia would be recognized for 50 years.
But the EU (especially Germany and Austria) did help us in our independence and without them we would still be in a war that would have left us in even bigger sh*t then we are in right now.
thats my 2 cents
-
I think someone should split this discussion, there might be people who have something to say around.
"De Indipendentia Croatiae" or something similar :P
-
Better proof than that which you have so far provided. None whatsoever.
In terms of proof you have provided none. I have therefore provided infinitely more. :p
So you STILL havn't checked out that Haage thing?
And many I ask, what proof you have provided? You also said you READ/CHECKED that it's false. Anyone reading this forums has only your word.
I'm happy to provide proof for anything I've said on this thread as I've looked up every single thing. I've not bothered mainly because I know you never bother to read them so it's a waste of my time to cut and paste the links in after I've finished reading them myself. If you want proof I'll post it.
Not if you're abandoning this sinking ship of course though. :p
You couldn't do that with the BBC website though. That's what got us onto your paranoid nonsense about how you couldn't trust the BBC because they were part of the same EU plot to keep Croatia down.
Hacking impossible? plase.... :rolleyes:
Is that really the best you can do? The BBC might have false information on it cause it's been hacked? Or I might have hacked the BBC website just to win a forum discussion? :lol:
BBC has never aired false information (knowingly or not?) NEVER? Well really.. :rolleyes:
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.
The same..other people with credentials, myself, some people I know..
Alltough ironicly, creadentials don't prove people actually nkow what they're talking about.
Not to mention tha credentails can aslo be easily forged.
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.
You aren't reading. Florence Hartman. Other ex-employees. Heck, Carla Del Ponte erself has a questinable career. Ruanda demanded her removed from their caseses becouse of her incompetence.
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.
What are you, blind? I allready said that ATM I can't prove what I've seen, so theres no point in it, especially with this attitude.
Just..forget it K. What I've seen doesn't matter now and woudkn't bring anything to this discussion anyway, except for more accusations from you that i dont' have proof.
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.
Oh, there have been investigations, but the data isn't really coming out... I blame it on the current situation in the state.
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!
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.
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.
Mah...You know Kaj...if I used the time I spent on these debates with you (reading, writing, checking data) on actual modding, my campaign woulld have been finished by now. I all our debates nothing has come out of them, and most have turned into flame wars.
The real irony is I would have achieved a lot more since it takes me longer to reply cause I actually do some research. :p
-
Not if you're abandoning this sinking ship of course though. :p
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. :p
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.
-
Meh, you're n00bs at arguing. A true Intellettual FlamingTM, something I'm proud of, follows:
Predefinito Ecco, leggete questo!
Citazione:
Orginalmente inviato da matteee
si ma il peso del tavolopoggia tutto sulle gambe, mentre il peso della torre era tutto sotto...sarabbe + sensato dire che al tavolo è stata tolta una consistente parte di piano (una spessa sfoglia...) non una gamba per intero, la struttura inferiore della torre era intatta...
Beh, insomma...l'aereo ha distrutto delle strutture portanti ed è penetrato all'interno della struttura, creando degli spazi vuoti e facendo in modo che piccoli crolli siano possibili. A questo punto, non credo che il peso si sia scaricato sulla base delle torri.
Citazione:
Orginalmente inviato da matteee
qua ho da ridire, anche se gli usa hanno silenziato i mass-media, ciò non vuol dire che le prove siano state del tutto accreditate...prendere per vero qualcosa senza ascoltare ogni fonte disponibile non è mai una buona cosa
Tu dici?
Citazione:
Fra complottisti e non, oltre 3 mila libri, 628 mila siti Internet e molti film parlano dell'11 Settembre.
Fonte: Focus, Febbraio 2007.
Alla faccia dell'occultismo!
Citazione:
Orginalmente inviato da matteee
mmh italiani molto probabilmente filoamericani...difficile trovare qualche perito imparziale che dia totalmente ragione ad una o l'altra parte, perchè sicuramente avrà cercato prove a favore della propria idea... e mi sembra anche logico? ognuno porta acqua al proprio mulino...
Certo. Tutti quelli che non vanno dietro alle Leggende Metropolitane (TM) sono filo-Americani. Eh già...
Ora scrivo qualcosa che ho letto su Focus, spero che basti...
P.S. Perché non ti decidi a rendere i tuoi post più piacevoli da leggere? Ma he ti costa iniziare una frase con una lettera maiuscola, quando serve?!? Stai attento, ho la mezza idea di Reputare Negativamente queste scorrettezze :P
Fonte: Focus, Febbraio 2007.
Un sondaggio condotto a Luglio da Scripps News Service dimostrò che, a 5 anni dall'11 Settembre 2001, un americano su 3 non crede che 19 dirottatori abbiano potuto mettere in ginocchio la più grande potenza mondiale. Un po' per eccesso di fiducia nella tecnologia: la convinzione che i mezzi militari funzionino alla perfezione, come dicono gli "esperti" del Pentagono. E un po' anche per (inconscio?) razzismo: gli arabi non possono aver portato a termine un attentato simile. In molti, insomma, credono che sia stato un complotto.
A metà del '300, però, il filosofo Inglese Guglielmo di Occam disse che, quando un fatto può essere spiegato in diversi modi, le spiegazione più convincente è quella che richiede il minor numero di ipotesi successive.
Il principio è detto del "rasoio di Occam". Insomma, non è necessario trovare spiegazioni metafisiche e fenomeni fisici, "non occorre rendere complesso ciò che all'evidenza è semplice". Applicando questa regola alle tesi più diffuse dei "complottisti", abbiamo ottenuto alcune risposte, quelle che seguono. Sperando che risultino abbastanza semplici e convincenti pure per i nostri lettori.
Le spiegazioni ufficiali date adal governo degli Stati Uniti ai fatti dell'11 Settembre 2001 hanno ricevuto una serie di obiezioni. Ecco le principali.
Secondo Leslie Robertson, uno dei due progettisti del World Trade Center, le 2 torri erano state costruite per resistere a un incidente con un Boeing 707, l'aereo più grande a quei tempi in uso. Perché allora, dicono i sostenitori del complotto, le torri sono crollate dopo l'impatto?
I Boeing 767 (peso: 81 tonnellate) che colpirono le due torri sono del 20% più pesanti dei 707 (62 t) e avevano entrambi appena fatto il pieno. Leslie Robertson stesso spiegò, infatti: << non avevamo previsto un incendio alimentato dal carburante>>.
Secondo gli autori del film Inganno globale, le cariche esplosive sono l'unica spiegazione possibile del crollo delle 2 torri. Anche i vigili del fuoco affermarono di aver udito esplosioni. E poi ci sono gli sbuffi dalle finestre che precedettero il crollo.
La prima a crollare fu la torre 2 (torre sud), colpita per seconda, più in basso. Un Boeing 767 ha un'apertura alare di 47,57 m e ogni lato delle due torri era lungo 63 m: l'impatto distrusse quindi gran parte delle putrelle perimetrali di un lato. Quanto ai 48 profilati d'acciaio a T e a H del nocciolo dell'edificio, D. Shyam Sunder, direttore del Building and Fiire Research laboratory dell'Institute of Standards and Technology di Gaithersburg, Maryland, ha calcolato che almeno 10 profilati di 4 piano fossero stati più o meno danneggiati. Il Boeing 767, infatti, è altro 15,85 metri, e ogni piano delle due torri era alto circa 3,79 metri.
<<Se non si fossero incendiati i 37.800 litri di carburante, la torre sud avrebbe probabilmente retto>> spiega Danilo Coppe, esplosivista dell'Istituto ricerche esplosivistiche di parma, che ha oltre 500 demolizioni controllate al suo attivo. <<Per far cedere l'acciaio basta "snervarlo", risultato che si ottiene a 450°C: una temperatura sicuramente superata nell'incendio. Inoltre l'acciaio trasmette il calore molto bene. Quindi se nel centro dell'incendio c'erano 1,500 °C, ce ne saranno stati 1,000 al piano di sotto e 850 a quello ancora inferiore. Insomma, lese le strutture portanti di 4 piani, sono state "ammorbidite" le altre. Su questo punto indebolito gravava però la massa dei piani superiori. Sopra al 77° piano c'erano ancora 33 piani, cioè un grattacielo più alto del Pirelli di Milano>>. Non c'è da stupirsi allora che dopo circa 50 minuti di surriscaldamento, i 4 piani indeboliti dall'impatto abbiano ceduto di schianto, sotto il peso dei piani superiori. Ma le strutture sottostanti, capaci di sopportare il grattacielo fermo, non erano in grando di reggere l'energia cinetica di quello stesso edificio.
Per capire il concetto basta immaginare la differenza di "peso" fra un mattone appoggiato sulla testa e uno che arriva sulla testa cadendo da 4 piani. Edurardo Kausel, docente di ingegneria ambientale e civile al Massachussets Institute of Technology di Cambridge (Usa), ha stimato l'energia generata dal collasso di ogni torre. Con una massa di circa 500 mila tonnellate e un'altezza di circa 411 metri, si arriva a un'energia potenziale totale di 10^19 (10 seguito da 19 zeri) erg, cioè circa l'1% dell'energia rilasciata da una piccola bomba atomica. Una volta messo in moto questo meccanismo, anche strutture intatte come quelle dei piani inferiori non erano in grando di reggere. Ecco perchè il grattacielo si è consumato "come un cerino". Perché non si può trattare di una esplosione controllata? <<Le demolizioni controllate funzionano meglio quando di massimizza l'effetto della forza di gravità, concentrando le cariche nei piani inferiori della struttura>> spiega Brent Blanchard che lavora per la Protec, una delle maggiori aziende di demolizioni al mondo: 1,000 demolizioni in più di 30 Paesi. <<Se si guardano bene i video e le foto del crollo della torre 1 e della torre 2, si vede che l'edificio ha iniziato a cadere esattamente nel punto in cui sono entrati gli aerei. I piani inferiori sono rimasti intatti finché non sono stati coinvolti nel collasso di quelli superiori. Nelle demolizioni controllate avviene il contrario: gli edifici si consumano dal basso>>.
<<L'ipotesi degli esplosivi>> continua Blanchard <<regge solo se si ipotizza che siano stati piazzati in anticipo esattamente nei piani colpiti dagli aerei (cosa non agevole da prevedere) e che le cariche abbiano resistito sia all'impatto del Boeing, sia al calore dell'incendio>>. Quanto agli sbuffi di "fumo" dalle finestre, gli edifici abitati sono composti al 70% di aria e solo al 30% di strutture e contenuti. Quando un piano collassa, l'aria viene espulsa orizzontalmente dalle finestre, dove incontra meno resistenza. Nel caso della torre 1 e 2, è documentato che abbiano ceduto le putrelle centrali prima di quelle peimetrali, con un anticipo di circa 3 piani. {c'è un'apposita immagine, molto esauriente, ndr Mobius}
L'aria e la certa degli uffici, espulse dalle finestre apparentemente intatta, causavano l'effetto della "deflagrazione". Quanto ai rumori molto forti, possono sembrare esplosioni, ma i sismografi del Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory della Columbia University di Palisades (New York), che hanno registrato il crollo della torre 1, della torre 2 e della torre 7, non hanno registrato vibrazioni indipendenti. Inoltre le leggi della fisica dicono che detonazioni sufficienti a demolire colonne di acciaio sarebbero state individuate dai sismografi.
Un caso a parte è quello della torre 7, un grattacielo di 47 piani che crollò alle 17:20 di quello stesso giorno. Secondo il film Inganno globale, era uscita indenne dall'attentato e crollò lo stesso. Perché? Perché come gli altri fu fatta crollare con l'esplosivo.
Secondo la ricostruzione ufficiale la vicenda ha una diversa spiegazione. Il crollo della torre 1 aveva infatti investito lo spigolo sud-orientale della torre 7 scavando una voragine che dal 18° piano andava fino alle fondamenta. La facciata lesionata, quella sud, era rivolta verso le torri: un'area alla quale era impedito a tutti l'accesso, ed è quindi visibile solo in 2 foto, mentre tutti hanno visto la facciata nord, intatta, che rendeva apparentemente inspiegabile il crollo. Dopo la caduta della torre 1, le fiamme divamparono per 7 ore, alimentate da una fuga di carburante sotto pressione. <<Voragine e fiamme spiegano ampiamente il crollo dal basso della torre 7>> dice Coppe.
Successivamente al crollo della torre 7, durante un documentario della tv PBS, Larry Silverstein, proprietario dello stabile, parlò di "pull it". Secondo Inganno globale, "pull" è un termine tecnico che significa demolizione controllata e quindi Silverstein avrebbe ammesso di aver autorizzato la demolizione.
Gli esperti di demolizioni controllate escludono che il termine "pull" sia usato in questi casi. Il solo contesto in cui viene usato è per edifici di pochi piani, quando vengono letteralmente "tirati" (to pull, appunto) con lunghe funi legate a bulldozer; mentre assai più frequentemente il termine "pull" viene usato per indicare l'evacuzione degli edifici. Dara McQuillan, portavoce di Silverstein, precisò il giorno successivo che intendeva "dare ordine ai pompieri di uscire dall'edificio divenuto troppo pericoloso".
Altro caso controverso quello dell'aereo contro il Pentagono. Il buco del muro dell'edificio è largo 19 m, l'apertura alare del Boeing è di 38 m. Com'è possibile? Thierry Meyssan in L'incredibile menzogna e in Pentagate sostiene che il buco è compatibile con un missile Tomahawk{Missile cruise. Potete trovare una dettagliata descrizione in Inglese e in Italiano }, o con un piccolo aereo telecomandato senza pilota.
Nella dirittura d'arrivo sul bersaglio, il "velivolo" ha abbattuto 5 pali della luce: 2 con l'ala destra e 3 con l'ala sinistra {anche qui c'è un disegno, ndr. Mobius}. L'apertura alare del Boeing 757-223 è di 38,05 metri, quella di un Tomahawk è di 2,7 metri: incompatibile quindi con i danni ai pali di entrambi i lati.
Il volo 77 colpì il Pentagono alle 9:38 di mattina, quando i suoi 20 mila dipendenti erano al lavoro e l'autostrada che corre lì vicino era piena di traffico. I testimoni oculari quindi sono stati decine di migliaia e tutti asseriscono di aver visto un Boeing dell'America Airlines volare ad "altezza frumento" (cioè raso terra) prima di schiantarsi contro la parete del Pentagono. Charles Spinney, ufficiale dell'aviazione che ha lasciato il Pentagono dopo aver rivelato per anni le stravaganze finanziarie del ministero della Difesa, ha affermato che <<le foto dell'aereo che colpisce il Pentagono esistono. Sono state prese dalle telecamere dell'eliporto (con la H nel disegno, ndr) {Non so come postarlo, questo disegno XD, ndr Mobius}. L'autista del veicolo dal quale ero uscito in quel momento ha visto l'impatto con tale precisione cha ha persino distinto i volti terrorizzati dei passeggeri ai finestrini>>. Di quei 58 passeggeri e dei 6 membri dell'equipaggio, decollati alle 8.20 sul volo 77, dall'aeroporto Dulles di Washington, oltre che dei 125 dipendenti del Department of Defense (che ha sede nel Pentagono) vittime dell'impatto, i medici legali hanno effettuato il testi del Dna, confrontamdolo con quelli dei parenti per identificare i resti carbonizzati delle vittime e restituirle alle famiglie.
Inoltre, fra i frammenti ritrovati nel buco nel Pentagono erano chiaramente riconoscibili le ruote, un pezzo del carrello di atterraggio e parte della fusoliera{il "tronco" dell'aereo... praticamente tutto quello che rimane se si escludono le ali e i timoni, ndr Mobius}. La documentazione sul Pentagono è limitata per motivi di sicurezza: non bisogna dimenticare che è la sede del ministero della Difesa{Già, ho proprio detto questo in precedenza, ndr Mobius}. Quanto all'assenza di rottami dell'aereo, Jacques Rolland, ex generale dell'aeronautica, ex pilota da caccia ed esperto della corte d'Appello di Parigi per incidenti aeronautici, ha spiegato che ci sono due tipi di crash aerei. Il primo è quando l'aereo impatta contro il suolo con un'angolazione minore di 45°. In questo caso si può dire che l'aereo precipita "piatto": più l'angolazione è bassa più i rottami sono numerosi e schizzano in una vasta area. Il secondo tipo è quando l'angolazione di impatto è fra 45° e 90°, come avviene in picchiata o negli avvitamenti. In questo caso il velivolo si chiude "a cannocchiale" su se stesso, nel cratere che ha creato e che sarà più o meno ampio a seconda della consistenza del terreno{anche in questo caso ci sono immagini molto chiare, ndr Mobius}. Nell'impatto sul terreno morbido il volo 93, che i dirottatori fecero cadere in picchiata su Shanksville, in Pennsylvania, creò un cratere di 35 metri. Reso verticale (la parete del Pentagono) quello che nell'esempio era il terreno orizzontale, il risultato non cambia. Il muro del Pentagono, più resistente, ha ceduto solo per 19 metri. Quanto alle ali, hanno una struttura a spina di pesce fatta di longheroni, che per motivi aerodinamici non è fissata alla carlinga ad angolo retto, ma verso la coda{Avete capito? Io spero di sì XD, ndr Mobius}. Il rivestimento esterno è in genere di 1-3 mm di lega di alluminio: resiste poco al calore. Distrutti nell'urto i longheroni che reggono le ali, queste si sono raccolte lungo l'asse dell'aereo: le loro ceneri sono nel cratere. Al momento della collisione, infatti, le ali contenevano ancora mezzo pieno, circa 20 mila litri di cherosene. Quanto al foro, quello che all'esterno appare come una breccia di 19 metri dall'interno è un tunnel che ha sfondato ben 3 dei 5 anelli concentrici in cemento armato rinforzato di cui è fatto il Pentagono. Nelle foto circolate, quelle prese dal satellite, si vede solo il danno al primo anello, di cui ha ceduto il tetto. Negli altri anelli il tetto ha resistito e il danno non è visibile.
Meno facile spiegare l'abilità del pilota improvvisato, capace di mantenere il velicolo "ad altezza frumento".
<<Inizialmente avevo perplessità sulla capacità del pilota di mantenere il velivolo a pochi metri da terra>> spiega Leonardo lecce, docente di strutture aeronautiche dell'Università Federico II di Napoli. <<Ma in un recente viaggio all'Office national d'études et de recherches aérospatiales{Ufficio Nazionale degli Studi e delle Ricerche Aerospaziali, ndr di quel Grande Amatore di Mobius che sta imparando il Francese!} di Tolosa, centro d'addestramento avanzato per piloti, dirigenti e responsabili mi hanno assicurato che sui velicoli moderni come il Boeing 757-223, ciò è fattibile anche per un pilota non espertissimo>>. {Nella trasmissione televisiva che ho seguito sono stati addirittura tirati in ballo i simulatori per computer tramite i quali il futuro kamikaze ha potuto "addrestrarsi da solo", ndr Mobius}
Forse la perplessità più diffusa riguarda il volo United Airlines 93, quello in cui i passeggeri si ribellarono e da cui partirono, secondo un recente film, telefonate verso i parenti. Fu abbattuto da aerei Usa?
I dubbi sono durati due anni, finché la commissione si è accorta che gli ufficiali del Norad (North American Aerospace Command) {Comando Aerospaziale Americano, ndr Mobius} e della Faa (Federal Aviation Administration) {Amministrazione dell'Aviazione Federale, ndr Mobius} avevano mentito sostenendo sotto giuramento di aver reagito rapidamente e che dopo i due primi dirottamenti si erano levati in volo i jet pronti ad abbattere il volo UA93 se avesse minacciato Washington. Falso, tanto che alcuni commissari volevano deferire i falsi testimoni alla giustizia {come la mettiamo ora, mateee? XD, ndr Mobius}. <<Che figura avrebbe fatto il governo, se avesse ammesso che a un'ora e 25 minuti dal primo attacco non era ancora in grado di fermare il quarto aereo dirottato?>> ha detto John Azzarello, membro della commissione a spiegazione delle false testimonianze.
Le registrazioni audio del quartier generale del nord-est del Norad hanno infatti dimostrato senza ombra di dubbio che i militari non ebbero mai sotto controllo gli aerei dirottati: seppero del volo AA11 solo 9 minuti prima del suo impatto contro la torre nord; del volo UA175 contemporaneamente all'impatto contro la torre sud, del volo AA77 con 4 minuti di anticipo rispetto all'impatto nel Pentagono e del volo UA93 alle 10:07, quando si era già schiantato al suolo da 2 minuti. Se non altro per questo motivo, non possono averlo abbattuto.
I caccia dovevano intercettare gli aerei dirottati, come fecero con quello del campione di golf Payne Stewart. Secondo un portavoce del Norad, da quando la Faa segnala un dirottamento, <<il Norad ci mette pochi minuti per raggiungere qualsiasi punto degli Stati Uniti>>. Nel sito web dell'US Air Forces {Forze Aeree degli Stati Uniti, ndr Mobius}, si sostiene che un F-15 {F-15 Eagle...<pignolo mode off> XD, ndr Mobius} <<può salire a 8,840 metri in soli 2 minuti e 5 secondi e può volare a 3mila km/h {o.O manco fosse un SR-71 o il celeberrimo Aurora(che tra l'altro forse non esiste!!!)..., ndr Mobius}. Quindi, se fossero state seguite procedure normali, il volo 11 avrebbe dovuto essere intercettato alle 8:24, e comunque non dopo le 8:30, 18 minuti prima di andare a sbattere nella torre>>.
Nel 1999 alcuni jet in ricognizione rintracciarono l'aereo del campione di golf Payne Stewart che non rispondeva alla torre di controllo. In quel caso però il transponder dell'aereo, cioè l'apparecchio che comunica costantemente agli uomini radar nome del velivolo, posizione, velocità, altitudine, rotta e destinazione, era acceso, e quindi era facile localizzarlo. Ciò nonostante i jet ci misero un'ora. Ma se il transponder è spento (e la prima cosa che fecero i dirottatori fu spegnere i transponder) l'apparecchio diventa un anonimo puntino sul monitor. Quanto al tempismo del Norad, nel gennaio 2002 Charles Bishop, un giovane pilota di 15 anni, colpì un grattacielo di Tampa col suo Cessna . Anche in questo caso l'allarme giunse al Norad 15 minuti dopo la collisione e i jet arrivarono sul luogo dell'incidente 45 minuti dopo.
Ora datemi il Premio Nobel "Per le Dita più Resistenti". Ho impiegato tantissimo tempo per trascrivere l'articolo, per favore scrivete dei commenti seri.
EDIT: Ho tolto il primo Quote.
EDIT2: "Labor Limae".
:p
-
Could you please correct this, so I can read that?
Default Here, read this!
Quote:
Orginalmente sent by matteee
But is the weight of everything on tavolopoggia legs, while the weight of the tower was everything ... sarabbe + sensible to say that the table has been removed part of a consistent plan (a thick sheet ...) Not a whole leg, the bottom of the tower structure was intact ...
Well, in short ... the air has destroyed the structures and penetrated inside the structure, creating empty spaces and ensuring that small collapses are possible. At this point, I do not believe that the weight has been downloaded on the basis of the towers.
Quote:
Orginalmente sent by matteee
I fault here, even if they use silenced the media, this does not mean that the tests were fully accredited for true ... take something without listening every available source is never a good thing
You say?
Quote:
Among complottisti or not, more than 3,000 books, 628 thousand Internet sites and many film speak September 11.
Source: Focus, February 2007.
At dell'occultismo face!
Quote:
Orginalmente sent by matteee
Hmmm Italians very pro-American ... probably difficult to find any expert giving totally impartial reason to one or the other party, because surely have sought evidence in favor of his idea ... And I think even logical? Each brings water to his mill ...
Sure. All those who are not behind the Legends Metro (TM) are filo-Americani. Eh already ...
Now I write something that I read in Focus, which I hope is enough ...
P.S. Why not you decide to make your posts more pleasing to read? But he will coast to begin a sentence with a capital letter, when needed? ! ? Be careful, I have the idea of half Reputare Negativamente these flaws Tongue
Source: Focus, February 2007.
A poll conducted in July by Scripps News Service showed that, five years from 11 September 2001, an American of 3 does not believe that 19 hijackers have been put in the knee greatest world power. Something for excessive confidence in technology: the conviction that military work to perfection, as they say the "experts" of the Pentagon. And some even for (unconscious?) Racism: the Arabs can not have carried out such an attack. In many, in short, believe that it was a conspiracy.
In the middle of'300, however, the English philosopher William of Occam said that when a fact can be explained in several ways, the most convincing explanation is the one that requires the least number of assumptions above.
The principle is known as "razor of Occam." In short, there is no need to find explanations metaphysical and physical phenomena, "there is no need to make things complicated all'evidenza is simple." Applying this rule to the most popular theory of "complottisti", we got some answers, those who follow. Hoping that are quite simple and convincing well for our readers.
The official explanation given adal government of the United States to the facts of 11 September 2001 have received a number of objections. Here are the main ones.
According to Leslie Robertson, one of the two designers of the World Trade Center, two towers were built to withstand a crash with a Boeing 707, the largest plane in use in those times. Why then, say supporters of the conspiracy, are the towers collapsed after the impact?
The Boeing 767 (weight: 81 tons) that struck the two towers are 20% heavier of 707 (62 t) and had both just full. Leslie Robertson explained himself, in fact: <<we had a fire fed by fuel>>.
According to the authors of the film Deception global, explosive charges are the only possible explanation of the collapse of the two towers. Even the firemen said that he heard explosions. And then there are the windows sbuffi that preceded the collapse.
The first was the collapse tower 2 (the south tower), hit second, lower. A Boeing 767 has a wingspan of 47.57 m and each side of the two towers was 63 m long: the impact destroyed so much of the perimeter beams of one side. As 48 profiles steel T and H core of the building, D. Shyam Sunder, director of the Building and Fiire Research laboratory of the Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Maryland, has calculated that at least 10 sections of 4 plan had been more or less damaged. The Boeing 767, in fact, is 15.85 meters, and each floor of the two towers was about 3.79 meters high.
"If they had not burned the 37,800 liters of fuel, the south tower would probably rectum>> says Danilo Cups, esplosivista of research esplosivistiche of parma, which has more than 500 controlled demolitions to his credit. <<To divest the steel enough "snervarlo", a result which can be obtained at 450 ° C: a temperature certainly exceeded nell'incendio. In addition, the steel transmits the heat very well. So if the fire in the center were 1.500 ° C, there have been 1.000 on the floor below and 850 that still lower. In short, the injured structures of 4 plans were "softened" the others. At this point, however, weakened weighed mass of the upper floors. Up to the 77th floor there were still 33-storey skyscraper that is a highest of Pirelli in Milan. " No wonder then that after about 50 minutes of warming, 4 floors weakened from the crash have succumbed to the weight of the upper floors. But the underlying structures capable of withstanding skyscraper firm, were not in the big stand of the kinetic energy of the same building.
To understand the concept just imagine the difference in weight between a brick rests on the head and one that arrives on the head by falling 4 floors. Edurardo Kausel, professor of civil and environmental engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge (USA), has estimated the energy generated by the collapse of each tower. With a mass of about 500 thousand tons and a height of about 411 meters, we arrive at an energy potential total of 10 ^ 19 (10 followed by 19 zeros) erg, which is about 1% of the energy released by a small Bomb. Once set in motion this mechanism, even intact structures such as lower floors were not big to handle. That's why the skyscraper was consumed "as a cerino." Why not can be a controlled explosion? <<The demolition work best when controlled to maximize the effect of the force of gravity and focused positions in the lower floors of the structure>> says Brent Blanchard working for the Protec, one of the largest demolition companies in the world: 1,000 demolitions in more than 30 countries. <<If you look good videos and photos of the collapse of Tower 1 and Tower 2, we see that the building began to fall exactly at the point where they entered aircraft. The lower floors remained intact until they were involved in the collapse of those superiors. In controlled demolition, the reverse: the buildings are consumed by bottom>>.
<<The hypothesis of explosives>> continue Blanchard <<stand only if it is believed that they have been placed in advance exactly in the plans affected by aircraft (this is not easy to predict) and that the charges have resisted both the impact of Boeing, both the burning heat>>. As for sbuffi of "smoke" from the windows, the buildings are inhabited compounds to 70% of air and only 30% of structures and contents. When a plan collapses, the air is expelled from the windows horizontally, where he met less resistance. In the case of Tower 1 and 2, it is documented that have yielded the central beams before those peimetrali, with an advance of about 3 floors. (Image is a very comprehensive, ndr Mobius)
The air and some offices, expelled from the windows apparently intact, caused the effect of "explosion". As for noise very strong, may seem explosions, but the seismographs of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University in Palisades (New York), who recorded the collapse of a tower, the tower of Tower 2 and 7 have not registered vibrations independent. Moreover, the laws of physics say that detonations enough to demolish steel columns were detected by seismographs.
A special case is that of Tower 7, a 47 storey skyscraper that collapsed at 5:20 p.m. that same day. According to the film Deception global output was free and collapsed after the same. Why? Because like the other was done with the explosive collapse.
The reconstruction official story has a different explanation. The collapse of a tower had invested the southeastern edge of the tower in July digging a chasm that from 18th floor went down to the foundation. The facade of lesions, the south, was facing the towers: an area which had prevented all access, and is therefore visible only 2 photos, and all have seen the north facade, intact, which made the seemingly inexplicable collapse. After the collapse of a tower, the flames erupted for 7 hours, fed by a fuel leak under pressure. <<Voragine flames and largely explain the fall from the bottom of the tower 7>> says Cups.
Following the collapse of Tower 7, during a PBS television documentary, Larry Silverstein, owner of the building, spoke of "pull it." According to Global Deception, "pull" is a technical term that means controlled demolition and then Silverstein acknowledged that he had authorized the demolition.
Experienced controlled demolitions exclude that the term "pull" is used in these cases. The only context in which it is used for buildings of a few plans, when they are literally "pulled" (to pull precisely) with a long rope tied bulldozers; While far more frequently the term "pull" is used to indicate the evacuzione buildings. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein, clear the next day that it intended to "give orders to firefighters leaving the building became too dangerous."
Other portions of the controversial case against the Pentagon. The hole in the wall of the building is 19 m wide, the wingspan of Boeing is 38 m. How is it possible? Thierry Meyssan in The incredible lie and Pentagate claims that the hole is consistent with a missile (Tomahawk cruise missile. You can find a detailed description in English and Italian), or with a small remote unmanned plane.
In the home straight on target, the "aircraft" has broken down five light poles: 2 with the right wing and 3 with the left wing (even here there is a plan, ndr. Mobius). The wingspan of the Boeing 757-223 is 38.05 meters, that of a Tomahawk is 2.7 meters: therefore incompatible with damage to poles on both sides.
Flight 77 struck the Pentagon at 9:38 am, when its 20,000 employees were at work and the highway that runs near there was full of traffic. The eyewitnesses were then tens of thousands, and all claim to have seen a Boeing Airlines from flying to "high wheat" (ie razed land) before crashing against the wall of the Pentagon. Charles Spinney, an officer of which has left the Pentagon revealed after for years eccentricities financial Defense Department, said that <<photos that the plane hit the Pentagon exist. Have been taken by cameras dell'eliporto (H pictured, ndr) (I do not know how post, this plan XD, ndr Mobius). The driver of the vehicle from which I had left at that time saw the impact with such precision cha even separate the faces of terrified passengers windows>>. Of those 58 passengers and six crew members, on August 20 off the flight 77 from Washington Dulles, as well as of 125 employees of the Department of Defense (which has its headquarters in the Pentagon) of the victims, doctors have performed the legal texts of DNA, confrontamdolo with those of relatives to identify the charred remains of victims and return to their families.
Moreover, among the fragments found in the hole in the Pentagon were clearly recognizable wheels, a piece of the truck landing and the fuselage (the "trunk" the plane ... Virtually all that remains except the wings and rudders, ndr Mobius). Documentation on the Pentagon is restricted for security reasons: we must not forget that is the headquarters of the Ministry of Defense (Yes, I have said this before, ndr Mobius). As for the absence of Fructuoso, Jacques Rolland, a former general of aeronautics, a former fighter pilot and expert of the court of Appeal of Paris for aircraft accidents, explained that there are two types of air crash. The first is when the plane impacts against the ground with an angle less than 45 °. In this case, you can say that the plane falls "flat" means more angle is low scrap are more numerous and schizzano in a wide area. The second type is when the impact angle is between 45 ° and 90 °, as in beaten or avvitamenti. In this case the aircraft closes "telescope" on himself, in the crater that has created and which will be more or less depending on the broad consistency of the soil (here too there are very clear images, ndr Mobius). Nell'impatto on soft ground the flight 93 that the hijackers did fall into beaten on Shanksville, Pennsylvania, created a crater of 35 meters. Reso vertical (wall of the Pentagon) in what was the horizontal ground, the result does not change. The wall of the Pentagon, more resistant, sold for only 19 meters. As for the wings, a structure with herringbone made of spars, which for aerodynamic reasons is not fixed to Cockpit at right angles, but at the tail (Do you understand? I hope so XD, ndr Mobius). The skin is usually 1-3 mm aluminum alloy: resists little heat. Distrutti nell'urto the spars Guiding wings, they have collected along the route the plane: their ashes are in the crater. At the time of collision, in fact, contained the wings still half full, about 20,000 liters of kerosene. As for the forum, outside what appears to be a breach of 19 meters from a tunnel that has far exceeded 3 of the 5 concentric rings reinforced concrete reinforced referred is the fact the Pentagon. In circulated photo, taken by the satellite, you may only see the damage on the first ring, which sold the roof. In other rings has resisted the roof and the damage is not visible.
Less easy to explain the skill of the pilot improvised, capable of maintaining the velicolo "height wheat."
<<Initially had doubts on the ability of the pilot to keep the aircraft a few meters from the ground>> explains Leonardo lecce, professor of aeronautical structures at the University Federico II of Naples. <<But in a recent trip in the Office National d'Etudes et de recherches aérospatiales (Office of Studies and the National Research Council Space, ndr that Great Amatore of Mobius who are learning French!) In Toulouse, advanced training center for pilots, managers and directors have assured me that the modern velicoli as the Boeing 757-223, it is feasible even for a pilot not espertissimo>>. (In the television broadcast that I followed were even pulled in dance simulator computer through which future suicide bombers could "addrestrarsi alone, ndr Mobius)
Perhaps the most widespread doubts on the United Airlines flight 93, one in which passengers rebelled and from which departed, according to a recent films, phone calls to relatives. It was shot down by U.S. aircraft?
Doubts lasted two years, until the Board has found that officials of Norad (North American Aerospace Command) (American Aerospace Command, ndr Mobius) and Faa (Federal Aviation Administration) (Federal Aviation Administration, ndr Mobius) supporting had lied under oath that he had responded quickly and that after the first two hijackings were raising flying jets ready to overthrow the flight UA93 if Washington had threatened. False, so that some commissioners wanted to refer the false witnesses to justice (as we now mateee? XD, ndr Mobius). <<That figure would make the government had admitted that to one hour and 25 minutes from the first attack had not yet been able to stop the fourth hijacked plane? >> Said John Azzarello, a member of the committee to explain the false testimony .
The audio recordings headquarters northeast of Norad have proved without a shadow of doubt that the military had not ever under control aircraft hijacked: flight AA11 succeeded only 9 minutes before its impact against the north tower; Flight UA175 at the same impact against the south tower, flight AA77 with 4 minutes early in relation to the Pentagon and the flight UA93 to 10:07 a.m., when it had already crashed to the ground by 2 minutes. If only for this reason, may not have culled.
The hunt had to intercept the hijacked planes, as did with the golf champion Payne Stewart. According to a spokesman for Norad since the Faa indicates a hijacking, <<your Norad us a few minutes to get anywhere States Uniti>>. The website (Air Forces Air Force of the United States, ndr Mobius), it is claimed that an F-15 (F-15 Eagle ... <pignolo mode off> XD, ndr Mobius) <<may climb to 8 , 840 meters in 2 minutes and 5 seconds and can fly to 3mila km / h (o.O miss was a SR-71 or the famous Aurora (which among other things perhaps there !!!)..., ndr Mobius). So, if they had been followed normal procedures, the flight 11 was supposed to be intercepted at 8:24, and not after 8:30, 18 minutes before going to hit in the tower. "
In 1999 some jets on reconnaissance plane found the golf champion Payne Stewart that failed to respond to the control tower. In that case, however, the performance of the transponder, the device that is constantly communicating men behalf of radar aircraft, position, speed, altitude, course and location, it was turned on, and then it was easy to locate. Nevertheless, we put the jet hour. But if the transponder is turned off (and the first thing they did was turn off the hijackers transponders) the equipment becomes an anonymous dot on the monitor. As for the timing of Norad, in January 2002 Charles Bishop, a young pilot of 15 years, struck a skyscraper in Tampa with his Cessna. Again the alarm came to Norad 15 minutes after the collision and the jet arrived on the site 45 minutes after the accident.
Now gimme the Nobel Prize "For more Dita Resistant." It took me a long time to transcribe the article, please write comments seriously.
EDIT: I have removed the first shares.
EDIT2: "Labor Limae."
-
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?
You called for the thread to be closed after you post. And then try to claim I should have no right of reply because it would deny your right to reply? :lol: :rolleyes:
Well sorry, that's not going to happen. I've several times taken a forum poster to task for attempting to use such underhanded tactics. In a two person discussion you don't get to give a lengthy reply and then close the thread or call for it to be closed. I consider that to be cowardly and have said so on numerous occasions.
P.S. - I'm still willing to bet my life you're the one who changed my title.
You bet wrong mate. I didn't do it. :p
Your user title changed in early July. I only became an admin in early August (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,48606.0.html)
Hazy recollections and a lack of effort doing research strike again! :p
-
Could you please correct this, so I can read that?
:wtf:
It wasn't supposed to be translated, this is not a discussion about 9/11. A post like that is to disencourage the others.
That's the only way to win a Flame WarTM, if you exclude bans.
-
Could you please correct this, so I can read that?
:wtf:
It wasn't supposed to be translated, this is not a discussion about 9/11. A post like that is to disencourage the others.
That's the only way to win a Flame WarTM, if you exclude bans.
Dang, man. That's very good. I should start quoting that post from now on.