«

[a1s]

now I will not deny that he is a war criminal and an overal bad man, but please tell me what would any of you do in his place? (I'm not talking about the dying in prsion part, but about his actions in the 90s)

[Romano]

Originally posted by a1s@Mar 12 2006, 03:00 AM
...but please tell me what would any of you do in his place? (I'm not talking about the dying in prsion part, but about his actions in the 90s)

Negotiate

[Himmler]

CTRL+ALT+DEL

[a1s]

Originally posted by Romano@Mar 12 2006, 04:15 AM
Negotiate

right... and if they want far too much?

[Chuck the plant]

Originally posted by Himmler@Mar 11 2006, 09:06 PM
ahem..death is an escape route ..the easiest way .it's sad that you see death in a tragic way

Whenever I said I find it "tragic" :blink:

I said that he's dead. He's not here anymore, so why still worry about him?
That's really ALL I said.

Oh, and by the way, it's only an "escape route" if you believe in any kind of reincarnation or afterlife... something which I regard to be much MORE tragic, since it often enough clouds the view on one's actual life...

[Sebatianos]

Well many people say this isn't a good thing. That he should have faced the final verdict and do the time in jail...

1) Imagine the court would find him innocent (however small, the possibility was there).

2) For a dozen years he was the one who represented an entire nation (many of his people were against his politic, but he still had supporters). Finding him guilty could have been a sentence for the entire "brainedwashed" population (those who suported him simply because they didn't know any better).

3) He died in jail. All who were wronged by him should find at least some comfort (I know that's not the best word for it) in that fact. I mean, he didn't die in his summar cottage out in the coutryside, but in jail!

4) History will judge him and I think it will judge him more harshly then any court could.

I think it's actually better that he died. Sure, there may not be final clousure, but let's live and let die. Maybe now life will be able to go on... I mean with the final court decision I'm sure (no mater what the court would decide) there would be people that would use this decision against the other side. I know it's hard to do, but maybe now people will be able to forget that the war even took place (I know, just wishful thinking).

[laiocfar]

To all ppl that is asking who was this guy, he was the serbian leader from the Kosovo´s War. As in all parties of the Balkans, inside of them there are small factions that only fight to rob/rape/kill the other party. Slobodan Milosevic wasn´t famous for be tolerant with opposition and other parties. He was carried by the force to La Haya to be judge.


Some things are very fishy here. Last week one of the principal witness of the case agaisnt Slobodan was found dead and it was say that he has killed himself. And now Slobodan himself was found dead(still isnt clear how or why).

Sebatianos, to be judge and convited by La Haya court isnt important. Its clear that La Haya only serves to sentence war-losers, the biggest crime of Slobodan or any other that are in La Haya was to lose, not to kill or anyother real bad action. A verdict from La Haya wouldn´t make change the minds of nobody because La Haya is the court of war winners.


To everybody who readed this, Sorry by bad engkish

[Rogue]

Originally posted by a1s@Mar 11 2006, 08:00 PM
now I will not deny that he is a war criminal and an overal bad man, but please tell me what would any of you do in his place? (I'm not talking about the dying in prsion part, but about his actions in the 90s)

Are you telling that war/genocide was his only option?

Slobodan came to power with promis of 'Great Serbia', and he was working on it, together with YU army and Serbs in Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia. Over 200K dead in Bosnia, many thousends in Croatia and Kosovo all hepened under his rule...

[Iron_Scarecrow]

Originally posted by Partizanka@Mar 12 2006, 10:44 AM
I am glad he is gone

I can't help thinking about the Marge impersonator when Bart becomes Burns' heir.

[Sebatianos]

Originally posted by laiocfar@Mar 12 2006, 09:22 AM
Its clear that La Haya only serves to sentence war-losers, the biggest crime of Slobodan or any other that are in La Haya was to lose, not to kill or anyother real bad action. A verdict from La Haya wouldn´t make change the minds of nobody because La Haya is the court of war winners.

Yaeh right. That's why you have people from Croatia and Serbia standing trial (maybe you should read point 6 first)...

Just for the record:

1) I'm what's considered a Yugo-nostalgic (someone who trys to remember only the good things from the ex-united country), so trust me - I'm trying to be as non-bias here as possible.

2) Milošević started gathering the Mitings of truth all around Yugoslavia. Their sole purpose was to strengthen the Serbian nationalism in order for Serbia to rule Yugoslavia. The balance of power within the unified country was equal. 1 vote for each republic + 1 vote for each authonomic theritory (8 votes all together). First Serbia demanded 3 votes, becauss both authonomic theritories (Kosovo and Vojvodina) were within the boarders of the broader Serbia. This gave Serbia 3 out of 8 votes. Next they wanted 1 vote for Bosnia, because there were many Serbs there and 1 vote for Croatia (many Serbs there), which would give Serbia 5 votes - the majority - Serbia could decide what the entire country could do. That's why Slovenia & Croatia decided to leave the unified country - they saw no option for them to remain, because their inner independence was severely threathened (it was under attack from the early 60s anyway).

3) In 1991 the civil war in Yugoslavia officially started (Slovenia and Croatia declared independence). The army started the war, by ocupying the boarder crossing between Slovenia and neighbouring countries. This was still the regular army, which was the "people's army" and many of them decided not to follow orders to attack the people they were trained to protect against the outside enemy.

4) At this point Milošević started sending para-military forces from Serbia into regions where there was a large Serbian population outside Serbia (mostly Krajina around Knin in Croatia).

5) A bloody war broke out. If you were to declare winners and loosers of this war, the statistic would be simple: all lost, but the countries who finally gained independance became winners. Their goals were reached. These would be Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Macedonia and Maybe Montenegro (I'm not sure what their goals were/are). The situation in Montenegro isn't completely resolved and Kosovo is currently under international forces... The side that could be declared the loosing side is Serbia.

6) And finally to come and reply to your statement! Tudjman died before the Haag war crime tribunal, Izedbegović also. Milošević was the only one of the three presidents of the countries in war that was still alive, so he was on trial. Is it because he was on the loosing side? No, it was because he was the only one still alive. There are Croatian and Bosnian people on trial as well. Perhaps you've heard of general Ante Gotovina? He's considered a Croatian war hero because he brought them victory!!! He's considered a winner!!! But he is on trial!!! On the other hand Ratko Mladić - Serbian general - who lost the war, isn't on trial (because they can't even find him). So how can you claim only loosers are on trial???