videos with the danes in Musa Qala, Afganistan

"CNN, which is run by Jews" already there I start to get surspicius about the independes of these site and I have seen those pictures before and no I did not see the pictures of the camps from CNN, dont you think we have our own independe news media in Denmark, do you think that we only sit and watch CNN all day and believe what we see? you still have to learn about westen culture then, we have our own news media in Denmark, a independe media
I have in no way defende the muslims, the muslims commited crimes as well, everybody commited crimes down there, BUT IT DONT MAKE IT RIGHT!!!! why do you think that both croatians, serbs and bosnians is on trial in Haag in Holland? but we still need Mladic and Karazdic (names might be misspelled)
We stopped the wars and you are bitching about it, so what I see is a angry nationalist that run on hate against the west, which we have seen so often before

 

http://actuajihad.wordpress.com/2006/03/20/an-important-video-jihad-in-bosnia/
Ok,tell me then,coz i see now that u admit that all sides there done the crimes,what is actualy truth.Where r high polititians from bosnia,and croatia in haag? Nobody is charged,and u can see on video above that Muslim leader Izerbegovic accepter Jihad fighters in bosnia.Карађић аnd Младић Was charged for war crimes,one as a president of RS,otther as high commander.Serbia search them,and they will be in hagg,sooner r later.Otther thing is if we dont want to send them in Hag,bu dont forget that now in Serbia rule pro-western polititians who tryed to locate them.Hasim Taci,albanian UCK (KLA) leader was responsible for many civilian serb casulties,he was relesed from hagg,with constantation that there is not enought evidence,and Serbia provide the tons of materials.Just think about double standards.

 

and its still not NATO´s fail, blame your neighbours then, you started all this be blaming NATO and bitching around because our troops are doing their job in Afghanistan and they are doing it well, everybody did crimes in bosnia and kosovo, its no secret, everybody in the west know that, what we did was stopping the wars and then you bitch about it, you rather wanted the wars to continue? you rather wanted more people to get killed?
and now we are trying to clean up in Afghanistan and then you bitch about that, you want the Talabans to get back into power, the same Talabans that want to control everything in people's every day life?
And yes you points out crimes made by bosnians and croats and muslims and others down there, those were crimes, but it still in no way justifies the crimes that the serbs commited, so what is your point? is it that the crimes the serbs commited are justified simply because other did warcrimes? or because they were commited by serbs?
No crimes can be justified and if you have any problems with the USA, then blame the USA and take the discussion with them, not the danish troops doing their job in Afghanistan

 

Intresting view on the Dutch involvment in Afghanistan:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/ ... 062.0.html

 

Unlike the rest of us sinissa is actually from Serbia, I would think that his views on the situation there hold more weight as he has the benefit of the experience... At least we can listen to what the Serbs really think about NATO etc. etc, or we could just blow it off as conspiracy theories and communist crap like we are doing now... I wouldn't say that he is being anti-western... he's just not being pro-western either, he's being Balkan Is that a problem? like I've said many a time before there's a difference with being anti western and not being pro-western... Sinissa is not being pro-western which is OK, its not a crime... And this forum is being very anti-anti-western... Why should we shout down opinions simply because they are not grounded in the ideals of liberalism and democracy? Just because he doesnt agree with American policy, doesnt give you the right to accuse him of hating America & the west... Theres a difference, can you see it? I'd like to see any one of you prove , like you said, that sinissa hates the west, otherwise you should withdraw those statements.

I think it is

I agree, annoying isn't it... IMHO eastern armor is the best.

 

If you think so, and can back it up, then post away. Somebody put forward a very strong case for the T-64 being the best tank of the 1980s recently (was that you Smeg?)

For me at least, the tendancy towards Western armour is for 2 reasons:

1) lack of knowledge. Most of our members are 'Western', and thanks to the Cold War decent info on Soviet or Chinese armour is hard to come by.

2) real-life experience. Typically, where Western & Soviet armour has clashed on battlefields the Western armour has generally fared better. And yes, there are a whole host of reasons for this aside from 'tank a is better than tank b', and those are admitted to when this argument is used.


Point 1) can only be addressed by those with knowledge. To my mind, the main purpose of this forum is the sharing of knowledge and the educating of ignorant people like me ( ). If you have knowledge of something, please please please post it. Otherwise how will we ever learn?

 

As somebody who only followed what the BBC said about events before/during/after the breakup of Yugoslavia...

The basic run of events seemed to be:

Tito dies, the strong grip his regime had on the country dissolves, the various factions want independance. But, the factions are very intermixed. There is no obvious way to distribute the land without somebody getting annoyed. Hotheads (and they exist everywhere) start using force to achieve their goals. It descends into factional warfare. It then descends into very nasty factional warfare.

The basic trend of reporting focussed very much on how mixed communities who had lived in peace together for years were now fighting each other, and isn't that really strange & scary.


Our Geography teacher once used the breakup of Yugoslavia to demonstrate how 'Nation States' is an impossible idea.


I freely admit that my knowledge on the whole thing is very hazy, and gleamed entirely from the media (even the BBC are not perfect ), and if you can oppose my impression with fact I would be happy to hear it.

Europe deliberately destabilising Yugoslavia and provoking conflict simply because you were economically strong? I'd need some quite impressive proof (or in fact any proof) before subscribing to that, I'm afraid.

 

Yes that was me I'm a big fan of cold war armor and I encourage people to put in more votes and post on their favourite tank...

The reasons I like eastern armor best are purely subjective... I like the idea of mobility and speed, and eastern tanks seem to be built for that... Generally they are faster, have a longer operational range and traverse offroad much better, though if anything they are somewhat lacking in the protection department... Western tanks generally are much better protected, but heavier and slower...

 

people that dont think russian armor is great should they be forced to say so then?
you cant blame people for say what they think about different tanks, even if it seem to be one-sited, you cant come and say that the discussion is unfair just because people say what they think about russian and westen tanks, some like russian tanks, some like the westen tanks better, but you cant called it a unfair discussion just because most seem to like westen tanks

and you cant justified warcrimes you own side made duing a war by pointing out the warcrimes the other side made, a warcrime is a warcrime

 

Actualy i pointed mostly on WWII period,where russian armor was suprime from western ones.But modern russian armor is allso good,problem is that coflicts where russian vs western armor was mostly on disandvantage for russian ones (like iraq) so it was not really any full scale western vs russian.Considering war crimes,i dont deny them ,but most of that who done it on Serbian sides r on trials,what is not case in any western war crime.Allso as i say,there is hipocracy that (mostly US,and GB) protect human rights,they protect only they own interests.U wanna evidence that somebody from outside provoke breaking of Yugoslavia? Search UPOK.Alot underground warenhouses with weapons,and ammo was found in croatia and bosnia,and they r 20y old.Otther thing,they could not do that withouth support from foreign countrys ,financial and political.What is point of NATO? Once it was cold war product against eastern pact.Eastern pact was broken,but NATO stay.For what point?UN got the legitim power to send troops to protect peace somewhere,not NATO.WHen nato do it it is agression.Attack on Iraq-why? They said that sadam had a chemical weapons,i looked reporters there with gas-masks,but what they find? So is it reason that inteligent services r so bad that they can mistake that much r something else? Why B-2 Spirit hited chinese embasy in Serbia,with precise bombs?They called i accident,but 3-4 bombs droped there.U cant accedently shoot a man more then once...

 

Iraq is NOT a NATO operation, it was NOT NATO that attacked Iraq, why does people always mix things up? Iraq is a USA led operation, Afghanistan is a NATO led operation
NATO have so far not attacked anybody with out reason, NATO attacked Serbia because of the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo and NATO attacked Afghanistan and the talabans because of 9/11 attacks, so NATO is NOT the aggressor, the aggressions were already made

Precission weapons is not that precis that people think, the is a margen of error on them and it still also a human that have to make the dicession to drop the bombs, not a robot, not a computer, but a human, so errors and mistakes will always be made, its not perfect but sure alot better that the large scaled capet bombning duing ww2, and with the chinese ambassady I dont know if it was mistake or what, I was not the guy that made the dicession to drop the bombs and I was not in the plan that droped the bombs, but why should NATO bomb the chinese embassady on purpose and risk a full scala war with China? you can drop 3 bombs by mistak on the same target, if the pilot believed it to be a legal target that have to be destroyed, just look in Iraq, to kill one terrorist they used 2 large bombs, so its not unsual to use more then one bomb on a target, but I dont know enough about that episod to say if it was a mistake or not

UN cant send troops anywhere with out the member countries agree on doing so and UN dont send troops to a place with out the agreement from all the involed parts in the conflict because they have to stay neutral, so UN is many times useless to stop a conflict, just take a look on Sudan and the Dafur region, UN want to send troops but they cant because the Sudanese goverment dont want them, so UN dont have the power to send troops and stop the conflict there

And when NATO attacked Serbia, they had green light from UN and when NATO attacked Afghanistan they had green light from UN, so NATO had legitim power to attack in both cases, it was NATO that made the attacks because UN is not military strong enough simply because there is to many countries with their own political angenda so the ROE for UN troops are never strong enough to stop a war
UN can protect the peace, as you say, but in Bosnia, Kosovo and in Afghanistan there was/is no peace, so whats to protect? you have to have a peace to protect first before you can send in peacekeeping UN troops, just look how it went in the early 1990s in Bosnia when it was on UN troops there, but no peace, the war went on and people still got killed
When its a NATO operation the ROE is strong enough to stop a war, its simply you shoot on somebody then we will blow you away

(sorry for misspelling, are a little busy here with other stuffs as well)

 

Um, have you noticed that we generally hail the T-34/85 as one of the 3 top contenders for 'best tank of WW2', or that the JSIII is usually cited as the 'best tank that never quite made it to WW2' (alongside the Centurion)

Generally, Western Allied and German tanks get more discussion it is true, but where have WW2 Soviet arms been slighted?

If you are willing to argue the case that Russian armour was supreme, go do so, we have an entire WW2 armour section

Frankly, I'd be glad if you did, we need some new debate in there.

 

Just posted there Btw,ur wrong for serbia,i dont know english translation but on serbian is "savet bezbednosti" (i hope that TISO can translate that) did not aproowe NATO strikes on serbia,and he is only legitim to do it,so it was act off agression.Why western countryes blackmail the serbia with financial and political support if we sue NATO on international court?Just try to find that it was NATO decision.Afganistan talibans r US product after all.And honestly i my main goal is not NATO,it is US,NATO is just tool in US hands.One exsample.When Israel invaded Labanon,US was prepared 2 convict Israel for agression,but US used veto on that.


P.S. i find it,savet bezbednosti=security council

 

you are wrong on that NATO is a tool of USA, very wrong, USA asked NATO to go in Iraq in support of the USA troops and NATO said NO, that clearly show that NATO is not a tool of USA, do you think that the Germans or French or Turkey would like USA to discide over their troops, no way on this planet would that happen....and what have NATO to do with Israel?????? nothing, Israel is not a member of NATO and the whole situation between Israel and its neighbours have nothing to do with NATO

And NATO was legitimed on attacking Serbia, the situation in kosovo was an act of aggression, the war was started, people were already killing each other there, so dont come and say that NATO attacked with no reason, the moment the killing started in kosovo it was legimited for NATO attack to try to stop it and NATO did not start the killing in Kosovo, the muslims and serbs did that and the reason why NATO attacked Serbia was because Milosevic did not wanted to negociate about peace, he did not wanted to make an peaceful agreement over the situation in Kosovo, so he had to learn the hard way, there was peace talks in Paris over the situation in Kosovo and Milosevic clearly did not want to make a fair agreement for all parts, even Russia agreed that Milosevic had to learn it the hard way

Im not defending USA politics, many in Europe dont agree with the USA, but we dont hate USA just because they sometime do thing we dont agree on, hate brings nothing good, we try to take the democratic discussion with them instead
USA dont discide over the danish troops, the only ones that do that is the danish parlement, so Denmark nor NATO is not a tool of USA

and yes talaban was a product of the USA, they are a product of the cold war from Russian's invasion in Afghanistan duing the 1980s, they were used to fight the russians in the cold war....and it was also the USA that removed them from power again

 

Ok,now i sound as a broken record.Try 2 remember this:
1.On paris peace negotians,one off demands was that NATO troops enter Serbia,not just kosovo,but whole serbia.Serbian demands was that UN not nato troops enter only kosovo,not whole serbia.I dont support Milosevic,but take it real,if he agree on NATO demands he accepted ocupation off serbia.I repeat again-he asked UN troops on kosovo,not NATO on whole Serbia.When he refused that,NATO agression start.Against that act in security council was China and Russia as full members.So if u make institution,who is supreme in international afairs and laws,and he dont aprowe ur action,and u do it anyway,so breake that rule,u breake law,and in this case u made agression.U r free 2 check my claims if u dont trust my words.
2.When i spoked about Israel and lebanon,i tryed 2 point how US protect only the interest ,not human rights.I did not mention NATO there.

 

Milosevic said that Kosovo was a Serbia dometic problem and the world had to stay out of it, NATO did not want to occupied the whole of Serbia, that was no political will for that in the NATO countries, NATO wanted troops in Kosovo to stop the killing and Milosevic did not want to have NATO troop in kosovo because he saw it as Serbia ground and therefor a Serbia problem, Kosovo was/is Serbia ground, but the whole situation became a world problem when the killings started, do you think that Europe could sit back with their hands in the lap and see all the killing in their own backyard, specially after the war in Bosnia where UN failed with a big F, no way they could accept that, NATO never demanded to enter whole of Serbia, Russia would never have accepted that, and Russia took part in the peace talks in Paris, and do you think NATO would risk anything with Russia? you think Moscaw would like to see NATO troops marching through Belgrad? no way

UN is not supreme in intenational law, UN only works as long it have full support from its members, UN cant force anybody to do anything, UN can make some disscisions but the member countries dont have to follow them, just take a look at Iran and NorthKorea, UN have made the discission that the world have to be able to see their on going neuclear program, to see if its a peaceful program as they claim, but none of those two countries accept that discission to let in UN inspectors

you did mention NATO there, you mention that NATO is tool of USA and then you came with an exsample that can be seen as an exsample on how NATO is tool of USA

you know all the bad things that is going on in the world is not USA fail like some would like people to think, its very commen to paint USA as the big demon to protect own interrest, like staying in power in their own country or to pictures their own wrong doing as right, its called propaganda and its mostly just lies and half truths

 

It appears that sinissa paints a rather "simplified" picture of the UN, NATO-role and the events surrounding the Serbs and Croats, doesn't it Jens? I truly believe the UN/NATO was fully justified in their efforts to stop the madness that ruled that region of the world.

Believe me, if the many different nations that make-up NATO felt compelled to intervene, it must have been slaughter on an unprecedented-scale. After all, the Iraq War should illustrate that even as NATO-allies, we rarely agree on anything!

You are loosing credibility with me sinissa. I'd like very much to hear some of your insights about the Bosnian-Serbs and Croats... but you're too busy spewing garbage about how the NATO Forces attacked without provocation, and paint all events with your anti-Western rhetoric.

The American people tend to open their hearts--and wallets--to support those affected by famine and war... around the world. To my knowledge, none of our shipments of food, supplies, money and medicine have been refused. Our citizens come from all-corners of the world. Something seems to attract them to our shores.

You should come visit the USA... I'd be glad to host you, and give you some fresh insights to ponder. Of course you just might find what you learn here at-odds with your current skewed, and biased perspective of our nation.

Tim

 

just one little correction Hoosier, my name is Jens, not Jen, note the 's' in the end, Jen is a girl name, Jens is a boy name

but I agree, it seem to be a very smplified picture of NATO and also of USA, its like when something bad happens to ones own nation it must be USA and NATO's fail and wrong doing, not ones own nation that might be wrong
If the world was so simpel as that then we could solve all problems in the world very easy, but its not that simpel

 

Hossier dont get me wrong,i know some really nice american ppl,who r my werry good friends,but most off them r just 2 arrogant.I dont judge about somebody i dont know.I got some bosnian muslim,and croats as werry good friends,they commning to visit me in serbia next summer.So i know that they r good ppl,but main problem for US is that they dont give shit what they goverment do,80% of Us ppl newer heard for kosovo,Yugoslavia,etc.I woul really like 2 visit USA like any otther country,but unfortunaly Visa regime is 2 strict and complicate for Serbs,and i dont eawen think how costly that can be.Usualy foregners r suprised how serbia is safe,and how warm ppl here r.
I just wanna 2 ask u all something,is it NATO campaing ower serbia aproowed by UN r not? Dont forget that UN is most important peace organization in the world.
Anotther thing:Kosovo patther can easy be used as argument in N.Ireland,Catalonia,Checnia,and alot otther hot regions in world.UN resolution 1244 guarantee that kosovo is part of serbia,and international laws guarantee that borders can not be changed.What if something like that heapen?

 

Borders can be changes if there is held a referedum by the people in kosovo about independes, its called DEMOCRACY, if they vote about it and disscide to be independe then they shall be so, that what intenational law also say
Just look Montengro, they voted for independes and now they are, same goes for Kosovo