June 03, 2005
Serbian Civilian Murders Broadcast on TV, Leads to Arrests
Amateur video taken of war crimes committed by Bosnian Serbs against civilians has been aired on Serb and Bosnian TV for the first time. I first saw this story at my yahoo mail account. I see Hysciene is also covering it here. I'm going to archive the story and the photos below since The AP has a tendency to take them down after a week or so.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
AP:
Shaken and in tears, Nura Alispahic said Friday she turned on the TV to watch the news — then saw a gruesome video of the shooting deaths of her teenage son, Azmir, and five other Muslims from Srebrenica by Serb forces in July 1995.WARNING: The following images are graphic and show gruesome war crimes."I saw with my own eyes when these animals killed my son. He was only 16 1/2. No one can understand how I feel," she told The Associated Press.
Bosnian television broadcast the amateur video, apparently made by Serb troops, on its late-evening news Wednesday.
It showed six Muslim civilians taken from a truck with their hands tied behind their backs, with paramilitary forces yelling "Yalla! Yalla!" — a term used by Bosnian farmers to herd livestock.
The victims were lined up on a hillside. Four were shot — one by one — in the backs. Two others were ordered to carry the bodies into a barn, where they, too, were killed.
"I saw him. He was second in the row. They were pushing him," his mother said. "He turns, and I see him and it was my Azmir.
"Seconds later, they shoot him. He falls," said Alispahic, 60, sitting beside her daughter, Magbula, in their room in a refugee camp near the northern town of Tuzla.
Her other son, Admir, also was killed during the war. He had been wounded in Srebrenica and evacuated to Tuzla. Shortly after he was released from the hospital, he was killed during a shelling of the town.
As many as 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were killed when Bosnian Serb troops overran the eastern Bosnian enclave of Srebrenica nearly 10 years ago in Europe's worst mass killing since World War II....
U.N. prosecutors contend the killings were carried out by the Serb paramilitary unit known as the Scorpions somewhere on Mount Treskavica near the wartime Bosnian Serb capital, Pale.
The Scorpions allegedly were under orders from Serb police in Belgrade and the link could directly tie Milosevic with the crimes committed in Bosnia....
Several Serb TV stations broadcast the video Wednesday, and it could change the way Serbs think of the wartime killings. A somber pro-Western President Boris Tadic told the nation the images were "proof of a monstrous crime committed against persons of a different religion. And the guilty had walked as free men until now, walked among us."
In Belgrade, many expressed shock and disgust. Some believed the video was a trick and would not speak about it...
Police in neighboring Serbia-Montenegro have arrested at least eight men they say are shown in the video, said Rasim Ljajic, head of the Serbia-Montenegro government body in charge of cooperation with the U.N. war crimes tribunal.
Munira Subasic, a representative of the Association of Mothers of Srebrenica, told AP in Sarajevo that the other victim recognized by his mother from the video was 17-year-old Safet Fejzic...
She said they also want the entire video broadcast worldwide. "It is very important to show to the world the crimes committed here. Such genocide cannot and must not be unpunished."
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
Posted by: Rusty at
01:42 PM
| Comments (140)
| Add Comment
Post contains 627 words, total size 6 kb.
1
Wait aren't you glad that the muslims got killed? Didn't you want to nuke Mecca? Its hard to believe any sympathy from you towards muslims when you spend so much time defecating on the Koran.
Posted by: Jim at June 03, 2005 02:17 PM (FzCFs)
2
No, I did post that the threat of nuking Mecca might be a rational deterrent to Islamic terrorism. I don't want anybody to die. I'm a humanist, which is why I hate Islam, which enslaves the individual to the community of believers. Any religion which will not let the adherent leave without the threat of death is evil in my eyes.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 03, 2005 02:22 PM (JQjhA)
3
Yet these muslims were killed BECAUSE they were muslim. You say "any religion which will not let the adherent leave without the threat of death is evil in my eyes". Well, I think the racial genocide shown above fits into that category. But I guess no one cares about religious persecution when its against muslims. Perhaps you should start flushing other holy books besides the Koran.
Posted by: Jim at June 03, 2005 02:32 PM (FzCFs)
4
I don't get your point. I'm posting this to show the evilness of the act. But Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Muslims are not RACIALLY different in any meaningful sense of the word. This was ETHNIC genocide, though, which is equally evil.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 03, 2005 02:38 PM (JQjhA)
5
They were killed because they were muslim. You can try to tip toe around it all you want but the fact is that you spend all of your time talking about evils of Islam while ignoring the evils of other religions.
Posted by: Jim at June 03, 2005 02:43 PM (FzCFs)
6
That is a pretty horrific act for a mother to see on TV, it shows that just about all types of intolerance leads to suffering.
Posted by: dave at June 03, 2005 02:43 PM (fsJ2z)
7
They were murdered because they were Muslims, but not because those who killed them were particularly religious. You have the effect right, just not the cause. They were murdered for ETHNIC reasons, but ethnicities are social constructs and religion just happens to coincide with ethnicity in this case.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 03, 2005 02:52 PM (JQjhA)
8
If these men were JEWISH the whole USA and UK would be in that country fighting another war.
Posted by: EREN at June 03, 2005 02:54 PM (VP5BU)
9
OK Jim, since you are apparently such an expert on the evils of 'other religions', perhaps you would care to enlighten us on how the religion of these murderers played a part in this execution? Did I miss the part where the asswipes yelled 'praise Jesus' before cutting down these folks, or is it something else?
The fact that we helped to end the slaughter of Muslims is apparently proof that the US, and most especially Rusty, hates Muslims.
Posted by: Defense Guy at June 03, 2005 02:54 PM (jPCiN)
10
I would argue that only someone who never kills another person should never be killed. As for murderers and people who order genocide...hang 'em high.
Posted by: osamabeenthere at June 03, 2005 02:55 PM (B9hEP)
11
"Any religion which will not let the adherent leave without the threat of death is evil in my eyes."
The Christian religion agrees with this statement and condemns violence in its name. Islam does not.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 03, 2005 02:57 PM (x+5JB)
12
Nice marginalizing there. Oh and I guess since the murderers weren't yelling "god is great" then they didn't do it for religious reasons. You seem to know a lot about their motives.
Posted by: Jim at June 03, 2005 03:01 PM (FzCFs)
13
I am not the one making the claim that the murderers killed for religious reasons. That's you Jim.
Posted by: Defense Guy at June 03, 2005 03:07 PM (jPCiN)
14
Obviously the murderers in this video didn't care what Christianity says did they YBP?
Defense Guy, yes the US did something but AFTER countless muslims were wiped out and cleansed out by rape camps. And this was after we swore genocide would never occur again. EREN is right.
Besides, all it takes for you guys to hate an entire religion is 20 "muslims" and a few airplanes.
Posted by: Jim at June 03, 2005 03:09 PM (FzCFs)
15
"Obviously the murderers in this video didn't care what Christianity says did they YBP?"
Exactly, Jim. I couldn't have said it better!
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 03, 2005 03:11 PM (x+5JB)
16
Why don't you tell me the reasons then Defense Guy since you know so much about them. I see muslims being killed and I kinda assume its because they are muslim. I also think its hilarious how just because they don't yell "praise jesus" leads you to assume that their actions were NOT religious based. Hey maybe if the terrorists didn't yell "allahu akbar" all the time you guys would start flushing down bibles. Oh wait, thats the point. They want to make this a religious war. And they have achieved their goal.
Posted by: Jim at June 03, 2005 03:15 PM (FzCFs)
17
We got that with subtitles, they called them 'Muslim-sons of mules' when looking down the ditch in which the executed were all lined up dead.
Posted by: A Finn at June 03, 2005 03:19 PM (lGolT)
18
And Islam doesn't say you should kidnap innocent people and behead them. Months ago a high ranking ayatolla issued a fatwa against those that are preventing the rebuilding of iraq. You see the terrorists and insurgents don't care what Islam says or doesn't say. They are murderers. Now you see my point.
Posted by: Jim at June 03, 2005 03:19 PM (FzCFs)
19
"They were killed because they were muslim. You can try to tip toe around it all you want but the fact is that you spend all of your time talking about evils of Islam while ignoring the evils of other religions."
This is your quote Jim. Don't try to turn it around now and say I am making the claim. If you have proof that these folks killed for religious reasons, then by all means share with the class.
Posted by: Defense Guy at June 03, 2005 03:20 PM (jPCiN)
20
JIm, no I don't see your point because you are incoherent.
Posted by: SPQR at June 03, 2005 03:23 PM (xauGB)
21
So if they killed them becaue they were Muslims, then that sounds like garden variety bigotry to me. If they did so because they are told by their religion that it is right to do so, then your point is well made.
Posted by: Defense Guy at June 03, 2005 03:24 PM (jPCiN)
22
Okay Defense Guy you win! You are right. They must have looked at them funny! I mean, it must be a coincidence that they and the hundreds of thousands like them that were killed all happen to be muslim.
Posted by: Jim at June 03, 2005 03:25 PM (FzCFs)
23
But the problem with Islam is not limitied to the small numbers of Zarqawi, as you cite, it is the problem of every Islamic country that does not allow the free exercise of relligious expression.
No one condones mass-murder, and please do not read into my intentions anything otherwise.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 03, 2005 03:25 PM (JQjhA)
24
No Jim, it doesn't say anything about killing an unbeliever !
Koran 47:4
When you meet the unbelievers in the Jihad strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly. Then grant them their freedom or take ransom from them, until War shall lay down her burdens.
Not to mention Mohammed himself witnessed the mass beheading of a Jewish tribe, and married a women, after slaughtering her husband, and father!
Posted by: dave at June 03, 2005 03:26 PM (fsJ2z)
25
Again, you are right that they were killed for being Muslim, but not because they 'practiced Islam'. Religion can be both an ethnic identity and a choice of practice. The 'Serbs' killed the 'Bosnians' because they were of a different ethnic identity just as they killed the 'Croats' for the same reason, although both happened to be Christian.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 03, 2005 03:29 PM (JQjhA)
26
No Jim, it is hearltess and evil that they were killed. I would not argue that point with you. I do not advocate the death of a muslim because he is a muslim. That would be pointless and wrong.
But I am not the one saying that other religions are evil and using this as a means to prove my point. That is my point of contention with this. If the killers did this for reasons grounded in their own religion, then your point is accurate. If not, then it is just stupid homicidal bigotry.
Posted by: Defense Guy at June 03, 2005 03:30 PM (jPCiN)
27
Islam does not say its okay to murder people. Extremists intrepret it that way. Their actions should not reflect on the entire religion. Because Islamic countries are ruled by Islamic fundamentalists doesn't mean that a third of the world believes in the same bullshit. Don't read into their intentions otherwise.
Posted by: Jim at June 03, 2005 03:32 PM (FzCFs)
28
Finn,Eren
It was the US that sent it's sons to stop this killing. We were the ones who spilled our blood to stop it.
The EU sat on their ass and held our coats.
Posted by: Brad at June 03, 2005 03:32 PM (B54Lt)
29
The Popes limited and harrassed Islam first...(yes yes, way too far in the history-point indeed)
Anyway, they were told to do so by their both religious- and earthly-matter leader, Slobodan Milosevic, who made it very clear that they need to die because they were Islamic instead of Catholic Serbs.
Posted by: A Finn at June 03, 2005 03:36 PM (lGolT)
30
Jim,
No one is saying the majority of Muslims condone murder, but being a moderate fascist still makes you a fascist. Italy, it will be remembered, did not participate in the Holocaust yet they were fascists nonetheless.
'Extremist' countries, like, er, EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY THAT HAS A MAJORITY POPULATION??????????????????
'Seculer' Turkey: against the law to openly proseletyze any other religion besides Islam
'Moderate' Indonesia: Against the law to convert a Muslim or even give a Bible to a Muslim
'Moderate' Jordan: Ditto.
There is NOT ONE EXCEPTION to this in the Muslim world. NOT ONE.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 03, 2005 03:37 PM (JQjhA)
31
Dave, I can't read arabic so I don't know if a translation of that verse (if it even exists) is correct. But I do know that whats going on right now is not a real jihad. Because some idiot terrorist calls it a jihad and islamic rulers turn a blind eye to it (because it benefits them) does not mean that a third of the world believes they should pick up a knife and attack an infidel. Islam can be intrepeted in different ways. So can the bible. You can't let the actions of the few reflect on an entire religion. Im done with this. There is no point arguing with you.
Posted by: Jim at June 03, 2005 03:39 PM (FzCFs)
32
Umm... So NATO is just a US operation? Good thing we didn't join. Besides, Finland has about 3'000 soldiers in the Balkan right now, and most of them have been there since 1995.
Posted by: A Finn at June 03, 2005 03:40 PM (lGolT)
33
Jim,
Do you know what is more ignorant -- shooting the messenger because you do not like the message, or ignoring the message itself?
Posted by: dave at June 03, 2005 03:41 PM (fsJ2z)
34
"The Popes limited and harrassed Islam first...(yes yes, way too far in the history-point indeed)"
Finn: The Crusades were a reaction to Moslem encroachment on the Holy Land.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 03, 2005 03:43 PM (x+5JB)
35
Yes, Finn is right, it is a NATO operation, although it is 'illegal' to most leftists because, you know, the UN wouldn't approve it. Oh wait, these things are only 'illegal' when leftist don't like what is being done!
PS-NATO would not have acted either without US involvement. The bombing campaign was done at the insistence of the US and British and reluctantly agreed to by, wait for it, here it comes, have you geussed it yet, THE FRENCH.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 03, 2005 03:44 PM (JQjhA)
36
Oh wait, 3'000 soldiers in Bosnia(-Hertzegovina goes with the name I think) since '95, 500 in Serbia(-Montenegro the same thing), just rebuilders in other ones.
Posted by: A Finn at June 03, 2005 03:45 PM (lGolT)
37
Question:
How many Finns on the front line when the fighting was taking place?
answer 0
It was just a murderous TV show all of Europe watched.
Posted by: Brad at June 03, 2005 03:45 PM (B54Lt)
38
Dave - what???
Rusty - if only you would try to preach reform to fundamentalist islam instead of flushing korans.
Posted by: Jim at June 03, 2005 03:48 PM (FzCFs)
39
Hey, we were taking care of the air support and supply routes during the war, and our ground forces secured Croatia, Slovenia and Macedonia right after the war started.
Posted by: A Finn at June 03, 2005 03:49 PM (lGolT)
40
"Islam can be intrepeted in different ways. So can the bible."
That's why it's dangerous, and that's why Catholic Christianity has a single body to interpret what Christians profess to be a divinly-inspired text--one that St. Paul says CAN cause confusion if open to individual interpretation.
Islam has no one authoritative voice to condemn anything.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 03, 2005 03:49 PM (x+5JB)
41
Jim--I agree that the flushing thing is asking for trouble. And the U.S. already has enough of that.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 03, 2005 03:52 PM (x+5JB)
42
Finn
I think the fighting took place in Bosnia/Serbia.
Posted by: Brad at June 03, 2005 03:52 PM (B54Lt)
43
You know, there's a bit over 5 million of us and almost 220 million of you, so you can't expect us to do as much as you in an operation that we don't even HAVE TO get dragged into since we're not in NATO.
Posted by: A Finn at June 03, 2005 03:53 PM (lGolT)
44
It's not my job to help them understand their religion better. It is my job to, well, write whatever the hell I feel like and make fun of the enemies of liberty.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 03, 2005 03:54 PM (JQjhA)
45
Rusty: I sense some hostile vibes, man.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 03, 2005 03:57 PM (x+5JB)
46
We moved into Bosnia/Serbia from Croatia, Slovenia and Macedonia, which we stopped from being conquered by Milosevic first. So we missed a week or two of the fighting in the frontlines. We did show up right after and stayed to this day. You can't blame us for wanting to save 3 other countries before marching into the one already being NATOed.
Posted by: A Finn at June 03, 2005 03:57 PM (lGolT)
47
Finn, on behalf of, well, me, I'm glad Finland is finally no longer scared of the Soviets and has the freedom to participate in this type of operation. Thanks.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 03, 2005 03:57 PM (JQjhA)
48
Yeah, we do our best to get into every conflict that has a big international organisation involved.
Posted by: A Finn at June 03, 2005 03:59 PM (lGolT)
49
Slobodan was dealing with the tide of Islam in the tradition of Vlad the Impaler...I have to admit, sometimes I wonder, given the fact the overwhelming majority of terrorism is rooted in Islam, maybe this is what it will take to turn it back...maybe we need a well placed Nuke or two....Why did the US intervene there is the former Yugo republics...there is no oil. No contracts for Haliburton...why should we spend our tax dollars, and even worse, send our finest young people into harms was...and then why is that, when we go into a muslim country, suddenly, saving innocent lives is no longer even remotely considered as an option for the motive.
There is no radical Islam. The muslims who try to kill us are being good muslims, by the definition in their own sacred book....a book so sacred, even unsubstantiated rumors of flushing it causes murderous riots.
Posted by: Mr. K at June 03, 2005 04:03 PM (MIO/V)
50
Yet you do not just make fun of the enemies of liberty. You make fun of a third of the world's population. I am glad you elaborated on your job description however. I was confused this whole time.
Posted by: Jim at June 03, 2005 04:03 PM (FzCFs)
51
And yet the leaders of Islam say that the religion is incompatibale with democracy. I suppose we all have our own definitions of liberty...
Posted by: Defense Guy at June 03, 2005 04:04 PM (jPCiN)
52
"The muslims who try to kill us are being good muslims"
Damn it, I've been saying this all along!
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 03, 2005 04:05 PM (x+5JB)
53
What is the exit strategy for the quagmire in Bosnia? 
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at June 03, 2005 04:10 PM (xkIHW)
54
To Europe,
YouÂ’re welcome. I never heard the thank you.
Bosnians are now sending their sons to kill Americans in Iraq. We are despised in Europe. Screw the Europeans, they only what our blood and money when it suits them.
Posted by: Brad at June 03, 2005 04:10 PM (B54Lt)
55
Finn will wise up as soon as he finishes his 3 year compulsory term in the military and gets his college education in return. Maybe He'll get to go to Bosnia on a minesweeping detail and get to put his money where his mouth is. Be careful Finn. Look up Pekka and see what the US was really like.
Posted by: Howie at June 03, 2005 04:13 PM (D3+20)
56
It's not the religion, it's the people who are incompatible with democracy. People in the desert have to stick together to survive, and that has moulded behaviour to accepting the leaders commands and not making decisions about big things on a personal level. They reject having disagreeing groups delaying the process of making decisions and want either one man or one group to run things.
Posted by: A Finn at June 03, 2005 04:20 PM (lGolT)
57
Howie, I'm not running for officer or special forces, so I'll settle for 6 months in the infantry training facilities, perhaps I'll qualify to sniper class or pioneers and get training in long range rifles, trap explosives and sabotage.
Where should I look up Pekka to get the information you have about what US was really like? You got me interrested, but google gives way too many links.
Posted by: A Finn at June 03, 2005 04:31 PM (lGolT)
58
Oh, must be this. Pekka Haavisto lead the war damage investigators and ended up with:
Three sites in Bosnia are still radioactive to the extent that they pose a risk to human health. The radioactivity comes from depeleted uranium (DU) in ammunition used extensively by NATO during 1994 and 1995
Yeah, knew about this. Uranium ammo is a pretty bad weapon if you ever want to make peace with your enemies or the people being liberated...
Posted by: A Finn at June 03, 2005 04:37 PM (lGolT)
59
"training in long range rifles, trap explosives and sabotage."
Knowing about these things is useful at keeping me alive and aware of threats if I get sent to a conflict. I'm not saying I necessarily need these skills to do the things they are thought for. They are for defense situations and slowing down enemy advance, as well as cutting their supply lines.
Posted by: A Finn at June 03, 2005 04:53 PM (lGolT)
60
A Finn - its the religion...a religion contrived by desert people. Islam makes the hideous desert culture of the Arab, and makes its practice the rule for all behavior. Too bad all those Persians, Indonesians, Africans, and others have never stopped to realize that Islam is great - but only if you are an Arab male.
For everyone else, it sucks, and needs and deserves to be flushed...but shit upon, pissed upon, and burned, first.
Posted by: Mr. K at June 03, 2005 05:29 PM (eMTpm)
61
>>>"Islam does not say its okay to murder people. Extremists intrepret it that way."
Jim,
Serbians don't go around killing people in the name of christianity, as much as you'd like to believe they do. You have not a shred of evidence to support that accusation. But muslims do go around murdering people in the name of Allah, and I have ample proof of that.
Also, I couldn't care less what the Koran says or doesn't say. If extremist muslims are killing people in the name of their religion, then I have a problem with their religion. If moderate muslims can find the time and energy to condemn Koran flushings but not to condemn terrorism in the name of that same Koran, then I have a problem with their religion too.
Posted by: Carlos at June 03, 2005 06:42 PM (paKD6)
62
"Can't we all just get along?..." MUHAHAHAHAHA! Man, this thread is burnin' up like hemorrhoid on jalepeño corn dogs!
Posted by: osamabeenthere at June 03, 2005 07:10 PM (B9hEP)
63
Jailers splashed Koran with urine - Pentagon
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-06-03T234507Z_01_N03279142_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SECURITY-GUANTANAMO-KORAN-DC.XML
Posted by: Anna at June 03, 2005 07:29 PM (pB2IF)
64
Liberal splashes crucifix with urine-- wins prize:
http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/502.html
Posted by: Carlos at June 03, 2005 07:48 PM (paKD6)
65
Nothing like with what really matters in the scope of things to really get peoples' dander up: The struggle between not flesh and blood, but with principalities and powers.
On Sunday April 24th 1994, Pope John Paul II recommended this prayer be used by all Catholics as a prayer for the Church when he said:
"May prayer strengthen us for the spiritual battle we are told about in the Letter to the Ephesians: 'Draw strength from the Lord and from His mighty power' (Ephesians 6:10). The Book of Revelation refers to this same battle, recalling before our eyes the image of St. Michael the Archangel (Revelation 12:7). Pope Leo XIII certainly had a very vivid recollection of this scene when, at the end of the last century, he introduced a special prayer to St. Michael throughout the Church. Although this prayer is no longer recited at the end of Mass, I ask everyone not to forget it and to recite it to obtain help in the battle against forces of darkness and against the spirit of this world."
Saint Michael the Archangel,
Defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host -
by the power of God -
thrust into hell, Satan, and all the evil spirits,
who roam through the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.
Pray it and see what happens.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 03, 2005 08:58 PM (btDjS)
66
A Finn, you are posting a lot of complete nonsense here. First of all, depleted uranium is not a radiation hazard. Depleted uranium is just uranium in which the small amount of U235 has been removed. The resulting U238 has a half-life on the order of billions of years. That means that it decays so slowly that it takes billions of years for half of the uranium to radioactively decay. This is no more dangerous than a chunk of cement.
The claims that depleted uranium pose a radiation hazard is a fraudulent claim. It is a junk science that is being flogged by anti-war moonbats.
Your comments about christianity attacking islam first is historically false. Islam swept out of the arabian peninsula and conquered christian-held lands centuries before the first crusade was organized.
Posted by: SPQR at June 03, 2005 09:21 PM (xauGB)
67
Given your previous opinions on Kevin Sites or Pantano, you're a laugh mate. So what's your beef with the Serbian racist war-crime "scorpions"?
They were not member of the USMC. Moral turd.
Posted by: Screw_US_morals at June 03, 2005 10:17 PM (zLWNS)
68
BTW, I'm in the midst of reading "Infiltration", by Paul Sperry. (http://www.sperryfiles.com/)
Just when I thought I knew every crazy muzzie angle, Sperry throws me a curve ball. Basicaly, we're in deep pc camel shit!
One of the many interesting points of the book, counts the number of times "love" is mentioned in the Bible vs the kooo-ran. The Bible mentions "love" 350+ times, with 15 or so references being to love god. The kooo-ran mentions "love" maybe 10 times, with 6 of the references being to love god. The Bible focuses more on love flowing through god, and suggests that we love our enemy. The kooo-ran stresses love of god, and killing infidels to prove your love of god.
So much for that religion of peace concept! 
Posted by: Princess Kimberley at June 03, 2005 11:45 PM (o2hAT)
69
*waves hand in air*
Oh, and my mantra is "Nuke the Kabba". I lost all sympathy when this relgion declared war on my country, 9-11-01. I have been looking for good in the religion, but so far, it escapes me.
Posted by: Princess Kimberley at June 03, 2005 11:53 PM (o2hAT)
70
YBP
The moral anchor of the Jawa report.
Posted by: Brad at June 04, 2005 12:03 AM (pO1tP)
71
Jim, if you cannot distinguish between hatred of an ideology (Islam) and hatred of people who happen to believe in such ideology, then you have some screws loose or missing.
There is nothing racists or ethnicist about hating Islam.
Do not confuse denounciation of Islam and the Koran with attacks on peoples. Nobody wishes people to die, just because they happen to believe in something, no matter how asinine.
Posted by: Mohammad Karimollah at June 04, 2005 12:10 AM (nGZO6)
72
Hey Princess, an entire religion didn't declare war on your country. If they did then we would all be gone by now, trust me.
As for your efforts to find good in the religion, you are not trying hard enough. Its very easy to find its flaws when they are blown out of proportion with references to terrorists and human rights violations.
"Nobody?" Ha. Trust me Mohamamd there are some people who post here who do. And they just feed off this shit.
Posted by: Jim at June 04, 2005 04:46 AM (FzCFs)
73
'Senate and the people of Rome', sure, uranium lying around and absorbing in to the ground and wildlife isn't harmful, it just gives the environment a healthy green glow... The radiation hazard is official information from UN Environment Programmes Post Conflict Assessment Unit, and I'll take their word over yours anytime.
Posted by: A Finn at June 04, 2005 07:54 AM (lGolT)
74
And if depleted uranium is so safe, why do we have to bury it mile deep into solid rock?
Posted by: A Finn at June 04, 2005 07:56 AM (lGolT)
75
>>>"Hey Princess, an entire religion didn't declare war on your country. If they did then we would all be gone by now, trust me."
I can trust that you'll be wrong. Typical cowering limp-wristed Liberal. What is that entire religion going to use to destroy you, prayer beads and urine-stained korans?
Why do muslims worldwide find time to protest Koran desecrations but no time to protest terroris committed in that same koran's name? The truth is obvious. Islamic terror doesn't cause them offense. You Libs are getting played.
Posted by: Carlos at June 04, 2005 08:05 AM (tFXpR)
76
>>>"And if depleted uranium is so safe, why do we have to bury it mile deep into solid rock?"
Finn,
consider yourself just another victim of Leftist disinformation. You need to double check and triple check anything a Leftist tells you because they are prone to lying, or are just plain stupid.
What you are talking about is SPENT nuclear fuel, which is entirely different than depleted uranium. Depleted uranium is so harmless that you can basically eat it:
http://usinfo.state.gov/mena/Archive/2004/Feb/11-575985.html
Our military uses DU in tank shells, but also in tank armour. DU also has civilian applications such as keels for yatchs because of its density:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste
Posted by: Carlos at June 04, 2005 08:23 AM (tFXpR)
77
Finn:
Yes this must have been a Friday afternoon thread. I'm not sure where to find Mr. Huttenen. I did see him listed on classmates.com one time. He did bring pictures from Finland. Pretty awesome landscapes. He was an exchange student at my High School. I'll look around on Monday and see what I can find. But he is the one who told me that Finns get to do a little service and also thereby earn the right to a college education. I'm home right now and at 56k I just can't take it. Maybe I'll get over being a cheap bastard so I can get his email off classmates. Thank the good Lord I have him to compare you to so I don't get the wrong idea about all of Finland. He He he he. Looks like this was a fun thread. I did find out that the commander of this bunch did pray for strength against his enemys at the beginning of the tape right before they wasted these guys at least that was the translation on NPR. But Pekka did miss Finland and was prety much ready to go back home and see his family after a year. So Finland must be a pretty good place to be. Take it easy and if it's that easy take it twice. See I don't hold a grudge very long.
Posted by: Howie at June 04, 2005 08:29 AM (D3+20)
78
SPQR, Arabs didn't 'sweep out of the arabian peninsula and conquer christian-held lands' to spread Islam, they just wanted more land, riches and the safety of not having a huge Byzantium Empire gathering forces at their border to do take more land and riches from them. Byzantium lands were already mostly Arab-populated and Muslimizing, so it's not really conquering Christian lands, more like siegeing an opportunity to capture lands that are friendlier to you than to those who already rule them. And most importantly, no one had declared Jihad on Christianity before Popes declared Crusades on Islam. The first Jihad was that of the greatest Arab leader of all time, Saladin, and that drove out the Crusaders from Arab lands for about 500 years
Well, the reason for the sudden loss of interest in Holy Land was Mongols kicking Muslim and Russian ass and ruling Middle East until the WWI, when the Ottoman Empire fell. Few years after you became interrested in the oil and started participating in the already messed up situation of the power vacuum Ottoman Empire left. Finally, Gulf War ignited the ancient Jihad-spirit, which is the reason (not you, the Jihad-spirit) for most problems with Islam, like fanatics and terrorism.
All checked history, actually have the lukio -'high school'- history books to back it up. The history might've been taught differently back when you were in school, but those were times of nationalism and secrecy, so most things have been corrected into their current form even in your history books now that they won't cause that much mess in fragile foreign politics and national bride.
Posted by: A Finn at June 04, 2005 08:29 AM (lGolT)
79
Oh, so a personal friend Pekka... I thought you meant the war damage reporting leader in the UN.
Posted by: A Finn at June 04, 2005 08:33 AM (lGolT)
80
By what I've heard, most Finns in the exchange student programs going to US or Canada come back with pretty positive thoughts. Few things are a common complaint though: they say it's way too crowded and parfumed in the cities and that they couldn't avoid noise anywhere.
Posted by: A Finn at June 04, 2005 08:41 AM (lGolT)
81
... not to mention that Americans try to make an eye contact and get too close when talking. That, in Finland, is reserved for the people you live with, not random people you meet every now and then.
Posted by: A Finn at June 04, 2005 08:44 AM (lGolT)
82
>>>"they just wanted more land, riches and the safety of not having a huge Byzantium Empire gathering forces at their border to do take more land and riches from them."
Finn,
Yes, we know the muslims wanted more land, but you basically got it backwards. The Byzantines were there first, so it was THEY who were scared of the "gathering threat" from muslim armies to the east. The Byzantine empire's territories had for hundreds of years included Greece and the Balkans, Asian Minor (present day Turkey), and also the Holy Land. These were effectively christian provinces. They eventually did fall to these muslim armies to the east.
You can try to justify muslim conquest by saying they were scared of "gathering forces", but the opposite is true. Byzantium was there first, and they were conquered by the muslim horde. The Crusades were a response to this "gathering threat" and an attempt to take back what long had been considered christian lands.
Posted by: Carlos at June 04, 2005 08:48 AM (tFXpR)
83
Wow finn is on. Only problem with me looking up Pekka for you is that you might find out what a little punk I was at that time.
Posted by: Howie at June 04, 2005 09:00 AM (D3+20)
84
I'm not trying hard enough??? How f*cking hard should you try, before you come to the conclusion that if you have to try that hard, it's probably not worth the effort???
How many times does the koran mention "love"?
Posted by: Princess Kimberley at June 04, 2005 09:02 AM (o2hAT)
85
I can assure you that Pekka was about as far from the bright lights and city noise as you can get. They don't call this area bumfuct Egypt for nothing.
Posted by: Howie at June 04, 2005 09:07 AM (D3+20)
86
Carlos, Byzantium got too weak to spread west, so they were moving east. When they reached Persian borders, Arabs understood they were a threat even to the mightiest country in Arabia, waited for their chance and took over the whole Empire after they crushed its armies in Arabs' own lands where they had advantage.
Constantinople held it's ground, so Crusades weren't for freeing Greece and the Balkans, they were taken over later after Venizes merchants bribed a group of Italian Crusaders to loot Constantinople, so Venize would strenghthen it's position as the number one trade center in Mediterranean. Shortly after losing Constantinople the Crusades ended, since the peoples of East Europe were moving out of Mongols way to West Europe and Crusade-countries now had problems on their own land as well and couldn't handle Popes' wars.
Posted by: A Finn at June 04, 2005 09:23 AM (lGolT)
87
Yeah, Finns try to get exchanged to states that don't have too many people in them, but unfortunately it seems like it's mostly the east coast that wants to trade it's kids to Scandinavia.
Posted by: A Finn at June 04, 2005 09:26 AM (lGolT)
88
Finn,
You are correct that when Constantinople finally fell, European efforts to recapture the Holy Land ended. And you are correct that the Byzantine empire was too weak to spread-- but they were too weak to spread in either direction.
The muslims, however, were not, and that's precisely why these muslim armies conquered Byzantine provinces in Syria and the Holy Land, and eventually Constantinople itself. Constantinople was weak, and that's precisely why Byzantium could not protect it's christian provinces in the middle east, including great christian cities like Antioch and Acre.
The Byzantine empire at that time consisted of what was left of the old Roman Empire in the East, therefore the borders with Persia had already been established hundreds of years earlier. Persia too, by the way, was conquered by the muslims, and it's Zoroastrian religion destroyed in favor of Islam by the same invasion that captured Byzantine christian lands.
Posted by: Carlos at June 04, 2005 09:36 AM (tFXpR)
89
A Finn:
The very first Jihad was declared by Mo against the Jews of Medinah. Islam was spread by warfare. After the conquest of the Arabian peninsula, it spread throughout the rest of the middle east by warfare.
Conquered peoples were still "free" to practice their own religion - provided it was monotheistic and they pay the jizyah tax...and they were relegated to being second class citizens at best. Most converted as a result.
Congratulations on having tolerated history classes in Finland. But you should consider reading more history. And go right to the source for Islam. Read the Quran, and the hadiths.
Posted by: Mr. K at June 04, 2005 09:38 AM (N6INI)
90
Hahaa, I said no Jihads on Christianity before Crusades. I knew about the Mo-insident so I specifically said Christianity. Mos jihad is a jihad with a small J, it was a local movement, a Jihad is a religion-wide movement against the targets of the Jihad everywhere in the world.
Islam was spread with imams preaching the faith in the soon to be conquered countries, so when the invasion came, the people were already part Islamic and the troubles after the invasion were easy. Acting nice, yet qualifying ones with different religion as second class citizens made the rest think it's better to join Islam after they had seen what the Crusaders did to Muslims they captured. Muslims were gentlemen to the peoples they conquered and avoided material damage, so people had more to fear from the returning Crusaders with plans to eradicate all Muslims and heavy siege weapons than their invaders.
Qu'ran has bloated the events into miracles like the Torah (Old Testament to Christians), so it's not a very reliable source about history or the way things really were/are.
Posted by: A Finn at June 04, 2005 09:59 AM (lGolT)
91
>>>"Islam was spread with imams preaching the faith in the soon to be conquered countries, so when the invasion came, the people were already part Islamic and the troubles after the invasion were easy."
That is just pure ignorance, what else can I say. Islam was spread through the sword.
Convert or die, or pay a dhimmi tax and live.
Posted by: Carlos at June 04, 2005 10:01 AM (tFXpR)
92
And of course I mean with heavy siege weapons, why would the Crusaders eradicate their easiest way to get back the lost castles...
Posted by: A Finn at June 04, 2005 10:06 AM (lGolT)
93
The imams planted the seed, the swords took the land, and the change of opinion about the invaders spread the religion.
Posted by: A Finn at June 04, 2005 10:08 AM (lGolT)
94
Convert or die was the Christian way of getting more people in their religion, Muslims knew that and used partial freedom of religion to show they have a smarter, better religion than the brutal one forced on them at sword point way back when or recently.
Posted by: A Finn at June 04, 2005 10:11 AM (lGolT)
95
And I'm talking historical times here, now it's reversed.
Posted by: A Finn at June 04, 2005 10:12 AM (lGolT)
96
The Serbs didn't kill the muslims for being muslim, they killed them because it's the only effective way of dealing with muslims. Here's a little experiment you can make: Go to any Western city and proclaim that you are a muslim, and see how you get totally ignored. Go to a muslim city and proclaim Christianity, and see how you get slaughtered like a dog. Nobody should care about what happened to these scum, they were executed probably after getting caught raping and pillaging somewhere.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 04, 2005 10:14 AM (0yYS2)
97
>>>"Muslims were gentlemen to the peoples they conquered and avoided material damage..."
Finn,
When Saladin conquered Jerusalem, he allowed many to leave in peace after paying a ransom, but many of the poorer inhabitants who could not pay a ransom were sold into slavery. Yes, he was a perfect "gentleman."
>>>"The imams planted the seed, the swords took the land, and the change of opinion about the invaders spread the religion."
That's historically unprovable, and sounds like nothing more than the usual apologies for the cruel past and present Arab history.
Posted by: Carlos at June 04, 2005 10:20 AM (tFXpR)
98
There is a big difference in proclaiming being a member of a religion and proclaiming the religion itself. Besides, go to a US trailor park to proclaim you're a Muslim and you'll get beat up pretty surely.
Posted by: A Finn at June 04, 2005 10:20 AM (lGolT)
99
Slavery is always a better choice than death, since it doesn't stop your existence and offers possible chance of returning to normal life after buying yourself free or marrying slave masters kin. And the way of spreading has already been proved, I read a lot of studies about it when I was doing research on Islam for the foreign religions-course in lukio.
Posted by: A Finn at June 04, 2005 10:25 AM (lGolT)
100
>>>"Convert or die was the Christian way of getting more people in their religion..."
That may have been true in some parts of already-christian Europe, but that is not how the early church spread throughout the middle east, nor how it spread after christianity became the official religion of Rome.
You have repeatedly shown just enough knowledge about history to be dangerous, but not accurate.
Posted by: Carlos at June 04, 2005 10:25 AM (tFXpR)
101
Before Christianity people in Romes Middle East were allowed to worship their own gods, so naturally they didn't take it very well when there was suddenly a change of mind and everyone had to become Christian. If they didn't convert the Roman legions made sure they were never heard of since, unless they were Jews and had the special right not to convert.
Posted by: A Finn at June 04, 2005 10:33 AM (lGolT)
102
Finn,
The saddest part is that you actually do think you know what you're talking about.
Posted by: Carlos at June 04, 2005 10:34 AM (tFXpR)
103
Carlos, the saddest part about you is that you're running out of things to object my views with and have to start trying to make me think I'm wrong about this without any material to actually do it with.
Posted by: A Finn at June 04, 2005 10:37 AM (lGolT)
104
A temporary silence... See ya. Kid brothers turn
Posted by: A Finn at June 04, 2005 10:48 AM (lGolT)
105
Finn,
The Crusades have always been a passion of mine, and I would continue this with you because I enjoy passing on my knowledge of history. But I recognize when somebody is talking out of his ass, so I consider this an exercise in futility.
Posted by: Carlos at June 04, 2005 10:49 AM (tFXpR)
106
Carlos:
Both you and Finn make good points...a big distinction I would draw is that Islam was contrived completely by a statesman and politician (Mo) to conquer and subjugate people. Christianity was usurped by polticians, including popes, to do the same thing. The teachings of Jesus are truly peaceful for all people. Mo's teachings are peaceful, but only to Muslims.
I see Islam as totalitarian communism in the guise of religion. One of the reasons it was popular is because of its appeal to the poor. The intention of the zakat was to redistribute wealth (sound familiar?)...and Finn is correct that Imams went into other lands and began winning converts. This made it easier when the jihadis came along. And this goes on to this day: muslims freely travel about the west, setting up enclaves, missions - sleeper cells. Of course they are afforded all the protections and liberties required under the laws of the western world...but this is a one way street. Christians, jews, buddhists, and others may not go into the islamic world and proseltyze. Penalties vary from imprisonment to death, depending on whether it is Turkey or what was formerly the Afghanistan of the Taliban.
And Finn - Of course none of the "holy books" can be considered as sole sources for history. But you need to read them if you wish to pretend to explain the motivations of historical figures - Salidin, the popes, whomever - in the context of religion.
Posted by: Mr. K at June 04, 2005 11:27 AM (YBNt7)
107
Finn, your knowledge of history is bizarre. Byzantium/Rome first occupied the area of modern Israel/Jordan/Syria hundreds of years before Mohammad was even born. At the time, the arab peoples were a few ragtag desert tribes. The conflict between the Persian empire and the Byzantium likewise occurred hundreds of years before. By the time of the founding of Islam, Byzantium had been stable and not expanding at all for centuries.
Your statements about depleted uranium are simply false. The UN report is hysteria and junk science that contradicts basic physics. It has no credibility ( which isn't surprising since the UN put it out ) U238 has a half-life of four and a half billion years. That's a simple fact.
Depleted uranium is not buried underground, its too valuable.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at June 04, 2005 11:32 AM (xauGB)
108
Mr. K, you have a rare understanding of history, keep posting please!
Finn, you need to add more tinfoil.
Robin, as to Mr. K, I ask you to please post more, there are too many who come here with nothing but ignorant dogma and know nothing of reality.
Islam delenda est.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 04, 2005 12:25 PM (0yYS2)
109
I can only speak for myself, but isn't Serbia a further indication that the US, aside from some individual people (you'll find them anywhere), is NOT at war with Muslims, but with its fanatical adherants and the philosophy they follow? I mean, c'mon, our military has not deliberately targeted anyone for simply being Muslim. Only those who use that religion to further their goal of "killing the infidel". They've, in fact, been Muslim protectors (Serbia) simply because what was done to them was wrong. To criticize the US because they did so "AFTER countless muslims were wiped out and cleansed out by rape camps" is disengenuous unless of course you're willing to criticize the rest of the world for not doing it in a "timely" manner.
And to get back to the first comment; to imply that Rusty thinks it was a good thing to kill these young men in cold blood on the side of a hill with their hands tied just because they were Muslim is pretty bold.
Rusty's statement, quoted above, is true. Why is it so hard to understand that he hates the "religion" and not the people who DON'T use it to kill and enslave? Those Muslims who live peaceably with others and have no designs to "take over the world" may be worthy of scorn for some of the ridiculous beliefs, but not worthy of death. And I think Rusty has made that pretty clear.
And one last thing. Why are some using a distant past of Christianity as a comparison with modern Islam? The only reason for using this at all in an argument would be to lend justification to what the fundamentalists are doing now in a modern age. Because it certainly has no bearing on the the rightness or wrongness of any of it. What the Christians did then was acceptable to many but it was never right. And what the Muslim fanatics are doing now is just as wrong. Period.
Posted by: Oyster at June 04, 2005 01:42 PM (YudAC)
110
Some popes did abuse their power. There have been good ones and some not so good, but it's important to remember that Jesus was quite dogmatic in His teachings and came to earth to start a Church to be run by a visible head. That head--the pope--should call those who profess to be members on the carpet should they do wrong. Islam does not have anyone to do this. This is only one of the reasons it's dangerous.
Rusty needs to try to reform it? Aegrescit medendo.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 04, 2005 01:54 PM (968TG)
111
Excellent points, Mr. Oyster.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 04, 2005 01:55 PM (968TG)
112
YBP:
I agree that the lack of a central authority figure in Islam is a huge challenge to reform of the religion. It is the reason we will never hear a collective decry of the jihad ideology. There is no single voice that can do so. The loudest voice is, unfortunately, Osama's.
But, as a lifelong Catholic, I have to say that your statement about the popes is a huge understatement. The medieval popes were absolute wild men. There were orgies in the vatican...bloody nepotistic succesions...I can't even get started. These guys were case studies in the political abuse of a gentle religion...
Posted by: Mr. K at June 04, 2005 02:03 PM (9/QIE)
113
Yay, you guys wrapped things up nicely while I was having a barbeque.
Oh and Robin, I wrote:
"When they reached Persian borders, Arabs understood they were a threat even to the mightiest country in Arabia, waited for their chance and took over..."
I didn't even think Islam existed before the 'and' here, they started waiting for a chance to crush 'em after the Empire moved right next to Persia. Waiting took a long time, Islam was eventually the catalyst for striking the Empire at it's weakest.
I have the physics books here to say depleted uranium is only as harmless as other heavy metals like led and mercury, then again I have the UNs opinion on the matter saying they are a radiation hazard. Next time I'll believe the international organisation, but I go with the science now.
Posted by: A Finn at June 04, 2005 03:15 PM (lGolT)
114
Mr. K: As I was not present to personally see things of this sort, I prefer to stick to understatement and err on the side of caution. The dark forces love scandel. Regardless, there were also extremely pious individuals during the period, like Gregory XII, Urban VI, and Pope Pius V, and I didn't want to generalize.
Pax!
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 04, 2005 03:34 PM (EiVzF)
115
Finn, indeed I would consider U238 to be a heavy metal with the usual toxicity of such. Consider that tungsten, the alternative for tank armor penetrator cores, isn't going to be healty to breath or ingest either.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at June 04, 2005 04:17 PM (xauGB)
116
YBP - fair is fair, there were some pious popes...and the escapades of the hedonistic ones are well documented, no need to have been there.
here is an internet bio of one of them...http://www.biography.ms/Pope_Alexander_VI.html
Posted by: Mr. K at June 04, 2005 04:20 PM (+uqDc)
117
Mr. K: From what we know, it seems he was a disgrace to his office. And it is just because his office demanded such holiness that his life was utterly incongruous. Yet the Church continues, despite the best work levied against Her by the dark forces...
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
An impartial appreciation of the career of this extraordinary person must at once distinguish between the man and the office. "An imperfect setting", says Dr. Pastor (op. cit., III, 475), "does not affect the intrinsic worth of the jewel, nor does the golden coin lose its value when it passes through impure hands. In so far as the priest is a public officer of a holy Church, a blameless life is expected from him, both because he is by his office the model of virtue to whom the laity look up, and because his life, when virtuous, inspires in onlookers respect for the society of which he is an ornament. But the treasures of the Church, her Divine character, her holiness, Divine revelation, the grace of God, spiritual authority, it is well known, are not dependent on the moral character of the agents and officers of the Church. The foremost of her priests cannot diminish by an iota the intrinsic value of the spiritual treasures confided to him." There have been at all times wicked men in the ecclesiastical ranks. Our Lord foretold, as one of its severest trials, the presence in His Church not only of false brethren, but of rulers who would offend, by various forms of selfishness, both the children of the household and "those who are without". Similarly, Ho compared His beloved spouse, the Church, to a threshing floor, on which fall both chaff and grain until the time of separation. The most severe arraignments of Alexander, because in a sense official, are those of his Catholic contemporaries, Pope Julius II (Gregorovius, VII, 494) and the Augustinian cardinal and reformer, Aegidius of Viterbo, in his manuscript "Historia XX Saeculorum", preserved at Rome in the Bibliotheca Angelica. The Oratorian Raynaldus (d. 1677), who continued the semi-official Annals of Baronius, gave to the world at Rome (ad an. 1460, no. 41) the above-mentioned paternal but severe reproof of the youthful Cardinal by Pius II, and stated elsewhere (ad an. 1495, no. 26) that it was in his time the opinion of historians that Alexander had obtained the papacy partly through money and partly through promises and the persuasion that ho would not interfere with the lives of his electors. Mansi, the scholarly Archbishop of Lucca editor and annotator of Raynaldus, says (XI, 4155) that it is easier to keep silence than to write write moderation about this Pope.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 04, 2005 04:45 PM (+dzYh)
118
Again, no arguments that there have been pious popes. But the papacy was as political as it was religious in its early days - back when they were crowning emperors. I got the Catholic perspective on the papacy and the church in grades 1 through 12. In college, I went to a presbyterian affiliated college, and took a course called the Reformation...that is where I learned some new lessons about the Church. The big, overall point is, never accept the actions of the Catholic Church (or really, any church for that matter) even today, as being fully benevolent and in line with the teachings of Christ.
My father, long deceased, would tell me "I am not a Christian, I am a Christ-ologist and Christ-ophile. I never understood what he meant. But I think I get it now.
Posted by: Mr. K at June 04, 2005 07:02 PM (97iT7)
119
hey ignorant idiots! the OFFICIAL score just came in, thanks to the Interior Ministry! The final tally? 3000 them, 12000 US!!! We win!!!!!!! Are you happy now??? No...oh you want to run up the score some more? Teach them a lesson huh? Thought so.
.
.
.
.
.
When will it end?
Posted by: Jim at June 04, 2005 07:06 PM (FzCFs)
120
>>>"When will it end?"
You were under the impession that you would live to see the end of war? Silly boy, there's no such thing as Utopia.
Posted by: Carlos at June 04, 2005 07:31 PM (UWO6N)
121
Jim:
Here is a great article by another ignorant idiot, one with a PhD in classics from Stanford. I doubt that it will reach you, as a fool convinced against his will is of the same opinion, still.
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson060305.html
Posted by: Mr. K at June 04, 2005 07:42 PM (uYIMY)
122
Jim, do you have any coherent points to make?
Posted by: SPQR at June 04, 2005 07:59 PM (xauGB)
123
SPQR - I can't help it if your feeble mind doesn't grasp anything.
Carlos - shouldn't you be checking the closets and under your bed for those blasted Libs? Paranoid child.
Posted by: Jim at June 04, 2005 11:24 PM (FzCFs)
124
I grasp anything that is expressed in english sentences that at least approximate coherence.
That doesn't seem to include your postings.
Posted by: SPQR at June 04, 2005 11:51 PM (xauGB)
125
Mr. K: It seems obvious that one would learn a different perspective on Catholicism from a presbyterian affiliated college. The misinformation is abundant, all the way down to the statement that Catholics worship statues. What may seem like purely human political motivations may also be the Holy Spirit's guiding the papacy. We only see the human aspect from this level. I guess we're going to differ on our trust in the Church. Despite the failings of some of its human elements, it is still the unreproachable Bride of Christ, and, in spirit, certainly in line with the teachings of Christ.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 05, 2005 08:15 AM (k8ypM)
126
"hey ignorant idiots! the OFFICIAL score just came in, thanks to the Interior Ministry! The final tally? 3000 them, 12000 US!!! We win!!!!!!! Are you happy now??? No...oh you want to run up the score some more? Teach them a lesson huh? Thought so."
More body counts? We get enough of that in the daily liberal press. Does wonders for moral.
Liberals need to get the big picture.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 05, 2005 08:19 AM (k8ypM)
127
"ignorant idiots"? Isn't that a bit redundant? Did Greg have his IP changed and come back as "Jim"?
Greg is bad at math.
Jim is bad at math. (Muslims do not comprise 1/3 of the world's population. At least, to me, that's what it sounded like he's saying.)
Greg would start a post with calling everyone a derogatory name.
Jim starts a post with calling everyone a derogatory name. (ignorant idiots)
Greg contradicted himself all the time.
Jim shows evidence of contradicting himself. ("...I guess since the murderers weren't yelling "god is great" then they didn't do it for religious reasons." followed by "...the murderers in this video didn't care what Christianity says." This one is important because he implies they killed for the Christian religion yet loosely admits there is no basis in the religion for justifying it. However, some Muslims DO kill for the religion and there is plenty in the Koran to back it up and give them justification. So which is worse? An implication that some killed for the Christian religion or the other who proclaims loudly that they do, in fact, kill for their religion? Another's way of propping up Jim's argument by saying subtitles showed them calling them "Muslim sons of mules" does not indicate that they did it for their religion. Perhaps that they did it in protest of a religion, but not on behalf of another. Sorry, this one took longer to explain.)
Greg had no problems with double standards.
Jim has no problem with double standards. ("As for your efforts to find good in the religion, you are not trying hard enough." This is implying that it's OUR duty to find good in the religion, but not them. Afterall, they are the ones emphasizing the bad aspects of it, not us.)
I rest my case. Now someone prove he isn't Greg.
(This post was strictly for entertainment purposes for SPQR, YBP, Carlos, et al. Nothing said here in any way means that they are my personal opinions, even if they are. Of course, he isn't Greg. Unless Greg was already posting as two people. But the parallels are interesting nonetheless.)
Posted by: Oyster at June 05, 2005 11:14 AM (YudAC)
128
Sir Oyster: Greg indeed does move in mysterious ways, but I sense it's two birds of a different feather. (Mixing metaphors, I know.)
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 06, 2005 06:52 AM (rbUGD)
129
one of the 5 ´victims seen on the horrible video was safet fejzic from Mosice, Srebrenica county, and he was identified as such by both relatives and a dna-analysis. now, the problem remains that the exhumation of him and the other 4 victims took place 2 years before the so called srebrenica-massacre, namely on the 28th of april 1993 in Botinska Bara, Trnovo county.
maybe it's time for a commentary?
Posted by: mladjo at June 19, 2005 07:45 AM (6yzaI)
130
When are people going to remember the countless number of innocent serbs who lost their lives and stop portraing them as mad killers? No time soon is my guess!
Posted by: bogdana at August 12, 2005 01:58 PM (7Zask)
131
when people watch these videos and the listen to what the tv reporters say they think thats it but there is a always two sides of the story the reasons why the 8,000 bosnian muslims were killed is because in that part of srebrenica there were terrorist who would come out at night and kill serbian innocent children and their mothers just coz people were tired of that something had to be done they had to do it because there terrorists didnt have feelings they send their own children to kill serbian people and the orthodox priest who was shown in the video never said in his own words that "Go kill those muslim" or anything like that he just gave them a proper blessings so they dont get hurt and thats it in future if you are gona report something get your story straight and dont think the way the reporters or other tv reporters want you to think because in the end they get paid to make bullshit up
Posted by: Tiger at August 19, 2005 02:03 AM (ZqvMv)
132
Im writing this because i see alot of ppl hate muslims and serbs but the real reason why serbs killed them was "payback" if u like go back 70 years and im talking about Croats too and u will relize that even in that time serbs we killed and exectued in 1991 everyone was yelling we will revenge the 1941 and 1943. Reminder in 1943 a whole middle grade school was executed by nazis and lets not forget that Croats "ustasa" were with nazis where about in Jasenovac 300 000 serbs and 100 000 roman ppl were executed same way as Jews. I just want u to know something bc u might porbably think bc im a serb i say this but take a look backwards and u will see. Same as the Srebrenica executions which was comited buy serbs but where are the serbs that were executed just a week before that nobody mentions them now do they 21 villages of population above 700 ppl a serb vilages were all burned to ashes but Naser Oric a comadant of a Bosnian 505 divison. Srebrenica was another PayBack for that. Now u can also find a audio clip which states that CIA agent was in Serbia before the war and on audio file the agent clearly states that Serbs will be impossible to stop and that Serbs will crush croats and muslims if America and Germany does not supply rifles and other kinds of weapons. I was 18 when the war started i live in US and i did go back i felt it was my duty to protect my ppl. I never said that Serbs were not killers but plz understand that Muslims and Croats were too. My familiy was executed by Croats and dumped 500 km away from the scene where crime was commited now i wonder how come CNN or BBC never said anything about the executed serbs. I ahve no hate against a Turkis muslim iraqi or what ever but do not mention Bosnian muslims or Albaninas because all of them are not real muslims if u trace their roots a 200 years back u can see that their great great great grandpa was a serb who got converted buy Turkis empire and become a muslim. Half of those videos that u seen on CNN or BBC were serbian civilians who got executed and what hurts me the most the reporter says they are muslims and that serbs did it thats what FUCKED up SERBS the reports someone who is in America watching and has no idea who is who and he thinks my god look what those serbs are doing with out even knowing that those ppl killed he sees are serbs. Thats what hurts me the most and i will never stop noone ever tells the story right If only something could show up and show that half of those videos were executed serbs and then the whole nation could see for serbs it could show that we are a nice ppl and not all killers how we are potrited. I've seen so many weird things like serbian soldier killed and they would dress him up as their soldier that is sad can u imagine what kind of a discrase is that. In kosovo 1999 Serbs captured 3 Albanians and Albanians Captured 3 serbs and there was exchange from prison camp Albaninans returned unharmed but Serbian soldiers returened mulated in coffins and noone ever show that and said aha what is going on here. I now live in US i dont say American ppl are bad but there are ppl who are same goes for everyone. I live here since 1996 but one thing American people have to understand the truth but unfortunetly the truth will never be revealed. Serbs will stay killers and the whole world will hate them and muslim and croats will stay the victims of a Serbian Dream for UNITED SERBIA and their empire. PLZ READ THIS IF U LIKE IF U DONT I DONT BLAME U I HAVE WRITTEN ALOT BUT TAKE SOME TIME AND READ IT AND THINK ABOUT IT A BIT IM SURE U WOULD UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPEND. THANK YOU
Posted by: Serbian at October 04, 2005 11:52 PM (Wfphm)
133
The tanks that were in Croatia and Bosnia were Serbian tanks.
Milosevic started the wars in Jugoslavia.
That`s why the Serbian people themselves eventually took the power away from him.
So Milosevic is to blame for this all.
Serbian is right , Croatians and Busnian muslims massacred Serbs in ww II.
That doesn`t give anyone the right to murder people whom are tied and defenceless.
Does it make you a man when you kill someone who can`t defend himself?
It makes you a coward I believe.
Both sides were wrong ,but one side started all of this (the Serbs).
Just like Hitler started the wwII.
The allies fought back ,just like the muslims did against the troups of Milosevic.
Nobody can win from muslims.
Muslims are not afraid to die , but are only afraid of God.
No matter what people do or say Islam is the way.
Islam will never lose.
Peace.
Posted by: ilias at October 11, 2005 09:54 AM (vqV62)
134
i've lived through the war i came to the United states in 1999. 1992-1994 the serbs were dominating the war, killings in Prijedor(my home)(hambarine for life). Moving to Zenica, seeing the Bosnian army unite and become stronger by the day. And then when we start to kill yall i dont wanna use bad language here, the United States stops the war. And i do appricate that it was right. So if your a Serb and ur sayin all these things of how it wasent your fault, well it was. And the Bosnian Muslims fighting back, something we had to do. And should have kept on doing. But the war is over, but its something i will never forget. As a child running away from Bombs,bullets, and ducking of snipers while going to school. Something i hope dosent happen to no one anymore. just wanted to say my opinion on this.
Posted by: Ermin Crnkic at October 12, 2005 11:37 PM (Z1J+g)
135
MOTHER FUCKER WHOS SNIPER KILLED A GROOM IN SARAJEVO WHO HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WITH WAR AND YET HE WAS KILLED BEACUSE HE CELEBRATED HIS WEDDING C'MON. Muslims and Croats are not ppl they are butchers who swore to knife,bomb,and gun that will kill anything that is serbian so STFU u all ever saw was news in which media said oh serbians did this serbians did that WHY ARE NOW ALL THE GENERALS AND OTHER COMMANDERS THAT WERE THERE IN UN SAYING THAT MUSLIMS AND CROATS did massacres over serbs and that serbs suffered the most massacares WHY all of the SUDDEN they like serbs plz spear me THAT SHIT. I HOPE THERE IS ANOTHER WAR AGAINST MUSLIMS AND CROATS i hope i pray to god that we kill you and avange everything that was done to us in the war. U cry about SREBRENICA HAHAHAH if NASER ORIC didnt kill those people in Modrica and Derventa and around the villages SRebrenica would never happen. IS IT A CRIME TO DIFFEND YOUR PEOPLE WITH EVERYTHING YOU GOT. I DONT THINK SO. YOU JUST WAIT there will be another war we just wait for that one and trust me it will be double as much Dead muslims and croats you'll see. Everything that MEDIA covered were half serbian civilians who are beaing portraited as muslims hmmmm. Media had a big impact on that war and portrayed serbians as buchers. For 62 days i have need in POW camp for 62 i was carried out by the people who were prisoners with me for 62 i did not stand on my legs because i was tortured and beaten untill the serbian army freed us and when someone like this or any american or what ever it is starts talking LIKE HE KNOWS spare me that bullshit u dont know nothing all u know what TV told you. I hope there is another war and A HUGE REVEANGE FOR ALL THE MASSACRED SERBS THAT WERE BUTHCERED IN COLD BLOOD I HOPE EVERY BOSNIAN MUSLIM AND EVERY CROAT BURNS IN HELL FOR WHAT THEY HAVE DONE SERBIA WILL RISE AGAIN DONT U WORRY. AND WHEN WE RISE WE WILL EXECUTE ALL AND U ASK ME IF ITS A A COWERDLY THING TO KILL A MAD WHO IS TIED NO ITS NOT ONCE U SEE WHAT THEY DONE U JUST WONNA SAY PAY BACK TIME
Posted by: Serbian at October 13, 2005 03:09 PM (Wfphm)
136
7Jebo ti ja mater srbsku, u need to shut the fuck up, thats why Atif Dudakovic was beating the shit out of yall in 1995 , and if American dident step in wit the dayton peace accord we would be IN SERBIA WITH BEOGRAD as a city in BOSNIA BITCH,And the BOSNIAN KINGDOM will step in again. Just like the turks came in , we will finishe wha we started bitch .
Posted by: Ermin Crnkic at October 16, 2005 04:32 PM (Z1J+g)
137
Jebem ti mater srpsku , nigga wha u kno bout that. Atif Dudakovic could have took over Serbia if the dayton peace accord wasent signed. So shut the fuck up.
Posted by: Salahudin Serific at October 16, 2005 04:40 PM (Z1J+g)
138
ahhahaahahhaah You Guys Keep Saying that this guy would have taken over serbia, after the war is over haahhahahaah. why didnt he do anything he had 5 years b4 the papers were signed? cuz he couldnt do anthing and no bosnian has balls to even try taking anymore of serbian land.
Posted by: Cetnik at October 23, 2005 06:07 PM (tceng)
139
fo u dumb ass Cetnik the dayton peace accord was signed in fuckin 1995 , and Dudakovic formed his army in 1994 u dumb ass hoe. And in a year he freed Bihac,Zenica,Sarajevo,And almost prijedor but dayton stopped him u dumb fuck
Posted by: Ermin at October 25, 2005 06:29 PM (Z1J+g)
140
Piss off fucking Muslim shit! Return to your real religion or move out to Turkey or fucking Saudi Arabia! Got it! You have no future on Balkan at all. Fire and Adriatic see is waiting for you. Yours sincerely SrpskaSila
Posted by: SrpskaSila at November 02, 2005 03:32 AM (jtWQd)
111kb generated in CPU 0.1158, elapsed 0.2125 seconds.
118 queries taking 0.1946 seconds, 384 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
118 queries taking 0.1946 seconds, 384 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
