What is happening in Kosovo at the moment?

silverharp

I gather sometime around now Kosovo was going to decide to go independent or not. The international community doesn't support it and if they do I guess the Russians and Serbs could play silly buggers. Any updates?

Morlar

silverharp wrote: »

I gather sometime around now Kosovo was going to decide to go independent or not. The international community doesn't support it and if they do I guess the Russians and Serbs could play silly buggers. Any updates?

Russia Spain Greece and a few others have spoken against Kosovo breaking away from Serbia but the USA thinks its peachy !

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7136233.stm

"Russia, a strong backer of Serbia, has warned against a unilateral declaration of independence.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said recognition of a unilateral declaration of independence would "create a chain reaction throughout the Balkans and other areas of the world".

But Kosovo's ethnic-Albanian leaders have support from many European countries and the United States in their push for independence from Serbia. "


"Belgrade also fears discrimination against ethnic Serbs would go unpunished in an independent Kosovo.

Nato was criticised after it failed to prevent riots by ethnic Albanians in 2004 in which Serbs were attacked. Nineteen people died in the violence. "

Oddly on the wiki page for Serbia the ethnic breakdown part for Kosovo shows 'no data'

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1b/Serbiaetno03.png
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/europe/serbia_montenegro_pol_97.jpg

mike65

I imagine clip-board mechants proberbly reckoned it was more than thier lives were worth to pose questions on such tricky maters.

Mike.

Morlar

mike65 wrote: »

I imagine clip-board mechants proberbly reckoned it was more than thier lives were worth to pose questions on such tricky maters.

Mike.

Thing is that data is on the bbc link at the bottom of the page.

Tea drinker

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ethnic_groups_in_Kosovo

Select the group you want to lookup.

Tea drinker

Kosovo now called Kosova?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7140000/newsid_7145400/7145431.stm?bw=nb&mp=wm&news=1&ms3=6&ms_javascript=true&nol_storyid=7145431&bbcws=2

Morlar

Tea drinker wrote: »

Kosovo now called Kosova?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7140000/newsid_7145400/7145431.stm?bw=nb&mp=wm&news=1&ms3=6&ms_javascript=true&nol_storyid=7145431&bbcws=2

According to gordon brown and the beeb apparently now it is indeed 'kosova'. The other part of that which stood out for me was sarkozy - 'everybody knows kosovan independence from serbia is inevitable'. Am I the only person who thinks this is guaranteed to cause a war at some point ? I dont get where carving up countries with centuries of tradition and history in order to appease seperatists minotiries became a sensible thing to do.

cold_filter

Morlar wrote: »

According to gordon brown and the beeb apparently now it is indeed 'kosova'. The other part of that which stood out for me was sarkozy - 'everybody knows kosovan independence from serbia is inevitable'. Am I the only person who thinks this is guaranteed to cause a war at some point ? I dont get where carving up countries with centuries of tradition and history in order to appease seperatists minotiries became a sensible thing to do.

Lets hope not! I'm here until the 8th of January and i am not a solider so if Serbia decides to invade it won't be good for me!

BlitzKrieg

Am I the only person who thinks this is guaranteed to cause a war at some point ? I dont get where carving up countries with centuries of tradition and history in order to appease seperatists minotiries became a sensible thing to do.

Your talking about the Balkins here, the area gets its borders redrawn ever half century or so. And the Albanian Kosovons are not the minority in the Kosovo area of Serbia.

besides the last war in Kosovo was because the *separate minorities* were being ethnic cleansed out of the country.

TBH I havnt seen Kosovo since 2002, back then the majority of the country had taken a very sharp knife to cut out every piece of Serbia out of itself, from the currency (at the time they *unofficially used the deutchmark,) to the majority of the infrastructure. Of course this left the area in a state where they relied on the UN and occupying armies to keep the economy turning.

Now that was back in 2002, if the place has finally got itself out of that vicous circle and is got something resembling an economy without neither the Serbian government or the UN/EU, then I wouldn't be against it becoming an independent country. But it was considered at least 10 years away getting back on its feet in 2002 I doubt its ready now.

wes

Morlar wrote: »

According to gordon brown and the beeb apparently now it is indeed 'kosova'. The other part of that which stood out for me was sarkozy - 'everybody knows kosovan independence from serbia is inevitable'. Am I the only person who thinks this is guaranteed to cause a war at some point ? I dont get where carving up countries with centuries of tradition and history in order to appease seperatists minotiries became a sensible thing to do.

Why not? The main issue is creating fair borders. Look at the mess with the Kurds split between 3 different countries. These so called separatist movements, tend to be people who weren't consulted when borders were drawn up in the first place. So why ignore the centuries of culture and tradition of the Kosovans in this case? They don't like the borders and weren't asked about them when they were made. So why should they abide by them?

I rarely agree with Sarkozy, but he is dead on the money with this one.

Morlar

wes wrote: »

Why not? The main issue is creating fair borders.

The main issue is maintaining peace and stability in the region not creating a new map to accomodate some minotiries who want a new country.

wes wrote: »

Look at the mess with the Kurds split between 3 different countries.

And you support a new country there too - I would bet money you are all for the chechnyans breaking away from russia too.

wes wrote: »

These so called separatist movements, tend to be people who weren't consulted when borders were drawn up in the first place.

What a stupid point. There is nothing 'so called' about seperatist movements - thats what they are. They werent consulted when the borders of their country were drawn up - wooo.

wes wrote: »

So why ignore the centuries of culture and tradition of the Kosovans in this case? They don't like the borders and weren't asked about them when they were made. So why should they abide by them?

Nobody is talking about ignoring the ethnic albanian tradition - its that as they are a minority in the country (majority in that part of the country but minority in the country) their interests should not outweigh the majority (in the country). Put it this way if birmingham and bradford had an ethnic majority of musims that wanted to break away from the uk (or say, introduce sharia law) because 'they were never consulted about the borders' and so on would you be in support of that too ? You cant just carve up a country whenever a demographic anomaly presents itself. If that made sense most european borders would change every year or so reflect majority shifts caused by population movements near border regions.

wes

Morlar wrote: »

The main issue is maintaining peace and stability in the region not creating a new map to accomodate some minotiries who want a new country.

The fighting tends to break out over borders people don't want. The border are the problem. If people don't like them conflict is inevitable. A more accommodating border will minimize conflict.

Morlar wrote: »

And you support a new country there too - I would bet money you are all for the chechnyans breaking away from russia too.

The Russian conquered Chechnya in the 18th century. So it should be a part of Russia forever? Just imagine if people had that kind of attitude to Ireland, we would all be bowing to the queen.

As for the current situation in Chechnya, they have some autonomy if I remember right and there is peace in the region. I really don't know much else.

Morlar wrote: »

What a stupid point. There is nothing 'so called' about seperatist movements - thats what they are. They werent consulted when the borders of their country were drawn up - wooo.

So thats alright then? People should be given the choice on how they want to live. If they never wanted to be apart of a nation, its hardly gonna work out in the long term isn't it. People have the right to self determination.

Morlar wrote: »

Nobody is talking about ignoring the ethnic albanian tradition - its that as they are a minority in the country (majority in that part of the country but minority in the country) their interests should not outweigh the majority (in the country). Put it this way if birmingham and bradford had an ethnic majority of musims that wanted to break away from the uk (or say, introduce sharia law) because 'they were never consulted about the borders' and so on would you be in support of that too ? You cant just carve up a country whenever a demographic anomaly presents itself. If that made sense most european borders would change every year or so reflect majority shifts caused by population movements near border regions.

The comparison to the UK hardly makes sense. The Scottish government seem dead set on breaking away from the UK. That would be a far better example, as opposed to the straw man you present.

The current version of Serbia is fairly recent creation itself. The Kosvans were not consulted on the borders after the break up of the former Yugoslavia. They want to separate state. I see no reason why they shouldn't have one. Its not like Serbia has done much to make them feel welcome in Serbia now is there? Attempts at ethnic cleansing is hardly gonna convince the Kosovans that being apart of Serbia is a great idea now is it.

Morlar

wes wrote: »

The fighting tends to break out over borders people don't want. The border are the problem. If people don't like them conflict is inevitable. A more accommodating border will minimize conflict.

This seems to miss the point entirely and contradict itself. You think that a new border will be popular in serbia or is it that you think the minority albanians wishes are more important than the majority serbian in an instance where there is a conflict of ideas and only one side can be accomodated.

wes wrote: »

I don't know enough about the Chechyan conflict to comment. So I won't.

Its another case where the 'minority werent consulted about the borders' which seems to be a general area you have a problem with - that was why I thought you might have an opinion on it.

wes wrote: »

People should be given the choice on how they want to live. If they never wanted to be apart of a nation, its hardly gonna work out in the long term isn't it. People have the right to self determination.

Since when ? You cant give every single person the power of veto - and in the same way you cant give every single minority the right to break away. As mentioned above - demographic anomalies should not be grounds for breaking up countries that have stood for hundreds of years. Another point you conveniently ignored.

wes wrote: »

The comparison to the UK hardly makes sense. The Scottish government seem dead set on breaking away from the UK. That would be a far better example.

I think the comparison of birmingham/bradford makes perfect sense - its an ethnic minority that have never properly integrated and in many cases speak a different language and would claim discrimination and religious opression. They are a minority in europe who can not practice their religion freely (ie introduce sharia law). Why would you discriminate against the bradford/birmingham muslims by saying they are not entitled to a break away but not the ethnic albanians - why are the ethnic albanians entitled to break away into a new country but the muslims of the north of england not ?

wes wrote: »

The current version of Serbia is fairly recent creation itself. The Kosvans were not consulted on the borders after the break up of the former Yugoslavia. They want to separate state. I see no reason why they shouldn't have one. Its not like Serbia has done much to make them feel welcome in Serbia now is there? Attempts at ethnic cleansing is hardly gonna convince the Kosovans that being apart of Serbia is a great idea now is it.

What would be the problem with a referendum before breaking the country up ? Isnt that the least that can be done ? If the majority of people in serbia (including albanians and serbs) want to dissolve and cede kosovo then it should go ahead. If not by referendum then its intentionally and knowingly against the wishes of the majority. This will be the direct cause of future conflict imo. I dont doubt for a second that the reason there is no referendum is because the majority are NOT in favour of it - so all your talk of people being given a choice is total and utter nonsense.

BlitzKrieg

Put it this way if birmingham and bradford had an ethnic majority of musims that wanted to break away from the uk (or say, introduce sharia law) because 'they were never consulted about the borders' and so on would you be in support of that too ? You cant just carve up a country whenever a demographic anomaly presents itself. If that made sense most european borders would change every year or so reflect majority shifts caused by population movements near border regions

Except the borders within the United Kingdom (the island itself) have been unchanged for well over a century, while in comparison Serbia has gone through at least 3 changes in the last 100 years alone.

wes

The current state of Serbia is a recent creation after the fall of Yugoslavia. The countries there have not stood for 100's of years as they are. There borders have changed quite a bit during those times. So why should Serbia border be set in stone, when the current states creation was fairly recent.

Remember the fall of Yugoslavia was not 100's of years ago, but very recent.

Then there are the various attempts of ethnic cleansing to create a greater Serbia, Why would the Kosovans want to live in a state that until very recently was trying to violently get rid of them? Can hardly blame them for wanting to break away. They know there not wanted in Serbia, so they decided to break away.

BlitzKrieg

since 1918 serbia has gone through 5 different states

(wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbia#Kingdom_of_Yugoslavia_.28.22First_Yugoslavia.22.29)

Morlar

wes wrote: »

The current state of Serbia is a recent creation after the fall of Yugoslavia. The countries there have not stood for 100's of years as they are. There borders have changed quite a bit during those times. So why should Serbia border be set in stone, when the current states creation was fairly recent.

Remember the fall of Yugoslavia was not 100's of years ago, but very recent.

Then there are the various attempts of ethnic cleansing to create a greater Serbia, Why would the Kosovans want to live in a state that until very recently was trying to violently get rid of them? Can hardly blame them for wanting to break away. They know there not wanted in Serbia, so they decided to break away.

Wow - do you deliberately ignore every point made to rush in with a response of no substance - then re-edit it later ?

The above points stand imo -


1)
The main issue is maintaining peace and stability in the region not creating a new map to accomodate some minotiries who want a new country. If you carve up stable countries to create new ones you are not creating peace or stability you are destroying the national aspirations of the majority serb population who consider kosovo as a key part of their already reduced territory.


2)
You cant just carve up a country whenever a demographic anomaly presents itself. If that made sense most european borders would change every year or so reflect majority shifts caused by population movements near border regions. The comparison to birmingham/bradford stands in my view.

3)
Is is that you think that a new border will be popular in serbia or is it that you think the minority albanians wishes are more important than the majority serbian in an instance where there is a conflict of ideas and only one side can be accomodated.

4)
You cant give every single person the power of veto - and in the same way you cant give every single minority the right to break away.


5)
What would be the problem with a referendum before breaking the country up ? Isnt that the least that can be done ? If the majority of people in serbia (including albanians and serbs) want to dissolve and cede kosovo then it should go ahead. If not by referendum then its intentionally and knowingly against the wishes of the majority. This will be the direct cause of future conflict imo. I dont doubt for a second that the reason there is no referendum is because the majority are NOT in favour of it

Morlar

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

since 1918 serbia has gone through 5 different states

(wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbia#Kingdom_of_Yugoslavia_.28.22First_Yugoslavia.22.29)

Nobody is aruging that it is not a turbulent region - the argument seems to be which option will bring the highest chance of stability and peace.

I would reckon for a breakaway kosovo to be acceptable it needs to be passed by majority in a referendum.

Tea drinker

wes wrote: »

The current state of Serbia is a recent creation after the fall of Yugoslavia. The countries there have not stood for 100's of years as they are. There borders have changed quite a bit during those times. So why should Serbia border be set in stone, when the current states creation was fairly recent.

I thought the current Serbia very closely resembles that post WW2?

wes wrote: »

Then there are the various attempts of ethnic cleansing to create a greater Serbia, Why would the Kosovans want to live in a state that until very recently was trying to violently get rid of them? Can hardly blame them for wanting to break away. They know there not wanted in Serbia, so they decided to break away.

There were many attempts for greatness in the area, none succeeded. There were big desires on the Croatian and somewhat on the Bosnian side.
There were big attrocities on all sides here not just Serbian side.
More recently, the separatist terrorists in Kosovo expelled many non albanian ethnic individuals. The heavy handed crackdown (similar to what happens every day in Iraq by US/UK forces) wasn't accepted by NATO. This was engineered to result in a war, Just like the previous Balkan war.

http://author.nationalreview.com/latest/?q=MjI2MQ==

Check out this black ops credentials:
http://www.covertaction.org/content/view/85/75/

wes

Morlar wrote: »

Wow - do you deliberately ignore every point made to rush in with a response of no substance - then re-edit it later ?

The above points stand imo -


1)
The main issue is maintaining peace and stability in the region not creating a new map to accomodate some minotiries who want a new country. If you carve up stable countries to create new ones you are not creating peace or stability you are destroying the national aspirations of the majority serb population who consider kosovo as a key part of their already reduced territory.

The current borders are the cause of conflict. Until recently Serbia was trying to ethnically cleanse the Kosovans. What do you expect them to do? Not fight back and let themselves be ethnically cleansed at the worst or become a hated minority within Serbia. The border are the cause of the conflict.

Kosovo being apart of Serbia will not result in peace or stability. Kosovo as part of Serbia has resulted in the exact opposite. So why do you think it will magically make peace in the region.

Morlar wrote: »

2)
You cant just carve up a country whenever a demographic anomaly presents itself. If that made sense most european borders would change every year or so reflect majority shifts caused by population movements near border regions. The comparison to birmingham/bradford stands in my view.

No it doesn't. Serbia as it stands is a recent creation. It is not a state that has stood for 100's of years. The border in the region have never been set in stone. Serbia's claim to Kosovo is just that a claim. The people who live there have a greater right to self determination imo.

Morlar wrote: »

3)
Is is that you think that a new border will be popular in serbia or is it that you think the minority albanians wishes are more important than the majority serbian in an instance where there is a conflict of ideas and only one side can be accomodated.

Do you think the Kosvans will be treated like equal citizens? Why do you ignore the recent attempt by Serbia to ethnically cleanse the Kosovans? What people would want to stay apart of a country that wanted to get rid of them very recently?

To give you a example, the splitting of East and West Pakistan into 2 countries. West Pakistan decided to wipe out the Bengali's of East Pakistan and Bengali's did the sensible thing and created there own country.

Morlar wrote: »

4)
You cant give every single person the power of veto - and in the same way you cant give every single minority the right to break away.

Who said anything about a single person?

Also, again I point out the recent attempt by Serbia to ethnically cleanse the Kosovans. Being apart of Serbia has hardly worked out well for them. So why wouldn't they want to break away?

Also, why should the recent creation of Serbia be set in stone? Why were the Kosovans not consulted after the break up of Yugoslavia? Oh wait, I know why, Milosovitch decided that driving them out would be a better idea.

Morlar wrote: »

5)
What would be the problem with a referendum before breaking the country up ? Isnt that the least that can be done ? If the majority of people in serbia (including albanians and serbs) want to dissolve and cede kosovo then it should go ahead. If not by referendum then its intentionally and knowingly against the wishes of the majority. This will be the direct cause of future conflict imo. I dont doubt for a second that the reason there is no referendum is because the majority are NOT in favour of it

We already know that the Serbians want to claim Kosovo. The majority of Serbs don't live in Kosovo. The majority in Kosovo want independence. They have lived there for 100's of years. Why should the recent creation of the current Serbia have any say? Kosovo wasn't alway a part of Serbia. In fact until recently there was no Serbia.

wes

Tea drinker wrote: »

I thought the current Serbia very closely resembles that post WW2?

It was part of Yugoslavia, if I remember correctly after WW2.

Tea drinker wrote: »

There were many attempts for greatness in the area, none succeeded. There were big desires on the Croatian and somewhat on the Bosnian side.
There were big attrocities on all sides here not just Serbian side.
More recently, the separatist terrorists in Kosovo expelled many non albanian ethnic individuals. The heavy handed crackdown (similar to what happens every day in Iraq by US/UK forces) wasn't accepted by NATO. This was engineered to result in a war, Just like the previous Balkan war.

http://author.nationalreview.com/latest/?q=MjI2MQ==

Check out this black ops credentials:
http://www.covertaction.org/content/view/85/75/

There no denying there were crimes on all sides. The recent crimes against Serbs in Kosovo are completely wrong.

Are you saying the US engineered the war or something. You post is unclear on that.

jmayo

Morlar wrote: »

Wow - do you deliberately ignore every point made to rush in with a response of no substance - then re-edit it later ?

The above points stand imo -

1)
The main issue is maintaining peace and stability in the region not creating a new map to accomodate some minotiries who want a new country. If you carve up stable countries to create new ones you are not creating peace or stability you are destroying the national aspirations of the majority serb population who consider kosovo as a key part of their already reduced territory.

If you think a Kosovo under Serbian control and a part of Serbia will mean stability you are either the greatest optimist or you didn't watch the news over the last 15 years.

Morlar wrote: »

2)
You cant just carve up a country whenever a demographic anomaly presents itself. .... The comparison to birmingham/bradford stands in my view.

How can you compare Ksova with Bradford or Birmingham or do you just see a link between all people of Muslim faith?

Morlar wrote: »

3)
Is is that you think that a new border will be popular in serbia or is it that you think the minority albanians wishes are more important than the majority serbian in an instance where there is a conflict of ideas and only one side can be accomodated.

The problem is that the Albanians are not a minority within Kosovo but actually the majority. This area has similiarities to the Krajina area of Croatia.

You can not compare the Balkans to other areas in Western Europe, such as Spain regarding ethnic groups wanting to break free.

Within what used to be Yugoslavia you had Serbs, Croats, Bosnian Slavic Muslims, Slovenes, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Albanians, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Romanians and Roma spread across three major religious groupings.

The Balkans are a mixture of states created by treaties, disembodiment of crumbling empries (Ottoman, Austro-Hungary) and various wars including WWII, WWI and the Balkans war 1912-1913.
The problem often with the borders of these countires were that they were drawn up by people who were never near the place.
It is a bit like the mess made of drawing up the border between India and Pakistan or the mess of the borders in Africa which had nothing to do with the ethnic groups on the ground but had to do with who previously owned the area or who grabs it in a war.

Serbia's attachment to Kosovo has a lot to do with fact their biggest victory over the Ottomans was there in fourteen century.
Serbia over the years acquired, bit by bit, what is today Kosovo.

Serbia had two autonomous provinces: Vojvodina and Kosovo.
Why if it was so much part of Serbia was an autonomous area?

Morlar

wes wrote: »

The current borders are the cause of conflict. Until recently Serbia was trying to ethnically cleanse the Kosovans. What do you expect them to do? Not fight back and let themselves be ethnically cleansed at the worst or become a hated minority within Serbia. The border are the cause of the conflict.

When you refer to albanians as 'fighting back' you mean how the albanians recently tried to ethnically cleanse the serbs even further from kosovo ? ie the 19 serbs recently killed in riots ?


Atrocities were commited on all sides cherrypicking one side and portraying them as the wronged innocents doesnt work imo. Just because america sided against the serbs in the last war doesnt mean that the serbian army were the worst or only offenders in the warcrimes stakes - it just means that their misdeeds got the most publicity.

'The border are the cause of the conflict' - this tends to be true a lot of the times but it would take a magic leap to come from that to the conclusion that changing the border on the basis that 'someone' disagrees with it is not a good idea. Especially if its done against the wishes of the majority which brings me back to the point you ignored.

wes wrote: »

No it doesn't. Serbia as it stands is a recent creation. It is not a state that has stood for 100's of years. The border in the region have never been set in stone. Serbia's claim to Kosovo is just that a claim. The people who live there have a greater right to self determination imo.

Your talking about making a destructive change against the wishes of the already oppressed majority. Removing kosovo from serbia and creating a new country on serbia's borders is not going to result in peace or stability. As mentioned earlier. I dont understand why you would magically expect that breaking up serbia against the wishes of the serb majority will result in peace ? So what you think will happen ? The serbs will be in a bad mood for a week or two - and then go - 'ah well it was a good country while it lasted - time to move on'.

wes wrote: »

No it doesn't. Serbia as it stands is a recent creation. It is not a state that has stood for 100's of years. The border in the region have never been set in stone. Serbia's claim to Kosovo is just that a claim. The people who live there have a greater right to self determination imo.

If your 'point' made any sense then Englands claim to birmingham/bradford is just a claim too. No border is set in stone - obviously island nations are at an advantage but no border is set in stone. The non serbian people who live in kosovo (ie albanians) have a greater right to self determination than the serb majority of serbia - um - no they dont.

wes wrote: »

Do you think the Kosvans will be treated like equal citizens? Why do you ignore the recent attempt by Serbia to ethnically cleanse the Kosovans? What people would want to stay apart of a country that wanted to get rid of them very recently?

This just serves to ignore even more recent attempts at ethnic cleansing by the ethnic albanians who hold a demographic majority in that part of serbia.

wes wrote: »

Also, again I point out the recent attempt by Serbia to ethnically cleanse the Kosovans. Being apart of Serbia has hardly worked out well for them. So why wouldn't they want to break away?

Again you point out one side did something bad.

wes wrote: »

We already know that the Serbians want to claim Kosovo. The majority of Serbs don't live in Kosovo. The majority in Kosovo want independence. They have lived there for 100's of years. Why should the recent creation of the current Serbia have any say? Kosovo wasn't alway a part of Serbia. In fact until recently there was no Serbia.

Until recently there was no serbia? The republic of ireland is less than 100 years old.

Morlar

jmayo wrote: »

If you think a Kosovo under Serbian control and a part of Serbia will mean stability you are either the greatest optimist or you didn't watch the news over the last 15 years.

I am the optimist and yet your solution is to re-draw the map expressly against the wishes of the majority.

jmayo wrote: »

How can you compare Ksova with Bradford or Birmingham or do you just see a link between all people of Muslim faith?

The comparison relates to any pockets of demographic imbalance. Any country where a minority dominate a specific limited region and then look for autonomy or independence on that basis. Birmingham and bradford were used as they are more familiar examples.

jmayo wrote: »

The problem is that the Albanians are not a minority within Kosovo but actually the majority.

No one is saying that albanians are not in the majority in kosovo (in part due to ethnic cleansing). Kosovo is part of serbia and as such it should not be split against the wishes of the majority in serbia - including albanians and serbs. Any other solution is unfair and discriminatory and bound (imo) to lead to conflict. To clarify - I have no issue with kosovo declaring independence from serbia - I do think that it this is forced through against the democratic wishes of the majority of serbian people then it is very very likely to cause conflict.

jmayo wrote: »

You can not compare the Balkans to other areas in Western Europe, such as Spain regarding ethnic groups wanting to break free..

The same principles apply.

wes

Morlar wrote: »

When you refer to albanians as 'fighting back' you mean how the albanians recently tried to ethnically cleanse the serbs even further from kosovo ? ie the 19 serbs recently killed in riots ?

The people involved should be arrested and tried in a court of law. Any independence should gurantee minority rights.

Morlar wrote: »

Atrocities were commited on all sides cherrypicking one side and portraying them as the wronged innocents doesnt work imo. Just because america sided against the serbs in the last war doesnt mean that the serbian army were the worst or only offenders in the warcrimes stakes - it just means that their misdeeds got the most publicity.

True, Bosnian and other Balkan nation war criminals are being tried in the Hague.

As far as I know (i am open to correction on this), other Balkan nations aren't hiding war criminals like Serbia is at present, with Kardiz and Maladic.

Morlar wrote: »

'The border are the cause of the conflict' - this tends to be true a lot of the times but it would take a magic leap to come from that to the conclusion that changing the border on the basis that 'someone' disagrees with it is not a good idea. Especially if its done against the wishes of the majority which brings me back to the point you ignored.

The majority in the autonomous region of Kosovo no longer want to be part of Serbia. It wouldn't be the first time an autonomous region decide to become independent.

I am pretty sure I said this earlier, but I will say this again. The majority of Serbs don't live in Kosovo, they live in Serbia. The people in Kosovo both Serb and Albanian are the opinions that matter, not other who live elsewhere.

The situation when Kosovo was part of Serbia was hardly stable. Returning to that would hardly mean peace. We already seen where that option went and that was war and instability. How does going back to a situation, which quite frankly didn't work going to result in peace and stability?

Morlar wrote: »

Your talking about making a destructive change against the wishes of the already oppressed majority. Removing kosovo from serbia and creating a new country on serbia's borders is not going to result in peace or stability. As mentioned earlier. I dont understand why you would magically expect that breaking up serbia against the wishes of the serb majority will result in peace ? So what you think will happen ? The serbs will be in a bad mood for a week or two - and then go - 'ah well it was a good country while it lasted - time to move on'.

Thats pure Hyperbole. Serbia will still be there, if Kosovo become independent. Its basically been independent for a while now and Serbia is there doing just fine.

Morlar wrote: »

If your 'point' made any sense then Englands claim to birmingham/bradford is just a claim too. No border is set in stone - obviously island nations are at an advantage but no border is set in stone. The non serbian people who live in kosovo (ie albanians) have a greater right to self determination than the serb majority of serbia - um - no they dont.

Again, what your talking about is a straw man. Kosovo is a autonomous region e.g. akin to Scotland. At present the Scottish regional government want Scotland to eventually become independent, which is there right if the people of Scotland to decide. There will be no referendums in the rest of the UK for this, just in Scotland.

Morlar wrote: »

This just serves to ignore even more recent attempts at ethnic cleansing by the ethnic albanians who hold a demographic majority in that part of serbia.

Ethinic cleansing is wrong regardless who is carrying it out. Both sides don't like each other. So how does put them together in a single country result in peace exactly? Won't it make the situation a 1000 times worse?

Morlar wrote: »

Until recently there was no serbia? The republic of ireland is less than 100 years old.

Before that we were part of UK for 800 years. People use to have the same attitude towards Ireland, as you do towards Kosovo. If the British decided to keep that kind of attitude we would be subjects of the queen right now. Would you be ok with that? Also, I don't remember Ireland being to bothered what the other members taught when we made our bid for independence. I think most people were of the opinion it wasn't the business of the rest of the UK.

Morlar

wes wrote: »

The people involved should be arrested and tried in a court of law. Any independence should gurantee minority rights.

Except you didnt really answer the question. When you refer to 'Albanians fighting back' you are referring to the albanians ethnically cleansing serbs even further from Kosovo then yep ? Any independence should guarantee minority rights - this is pie in the sky and irrelevant. If the albanians promised to put heads on the end of sticks the uk foreign minister is hardly likely to back their calls for a breakaway are they ? Of course the albanians are going to promise minority rights.

wes wrote: »

True, Bosnian and other Balkan nation war criminals are being tried in the Hague.

As far as I know (i am open to correction on this), other Balkan nations aren't hiding war criminals like Serbia is at present, with Kardiz and Maladic.

I have no idea which war criminals are hiding where or who is deciding who to focus their attention on finding. Your point here seems to be 'serbia is a bad country' - which again goes back to your earlier argument of 'one side did bad things'.

wes wrote: »

The majority in the autonomous region of Kosovo no longer want to be part of Serbia. It wouldn't be the first time an autonomous region decide to become independent.

I am pretty sure I said this earlier, but I will say this again. The majority of Serbs don't live in Kosovo, they live in Serbia. The people in Kosovo both Serb and Albanian are the opinions that matter, not other who live elsewhere.

When you look at one part of a country and say 'the majority' you are not referring to 'the majority' but to 'the minority' as you have excluded the wishes of the majority. Again you make the same point - there is a demographic blip where there is a majority of albanians who have (in part due to ethnic cleansing) make up the majority in the south of serbia (kosovo). You seem to keep falling back on this point like it has the slightest relevance. No one is arguing that there is a albanian majority in the kosovan region of serbia.

wes wrote: »

The situation when Kosovo was part of Serbia was hardly stable. Returning to that would hardly mean peace. We already seen where that option went and that was war and instability. How does going back to a situation, which quite frankly didn't work going to result in peace and stability?

I am not even sure there is a point in here - it seems to mean the rights of the albanian minority are worth more than the rights of the serbian majority. Again I disagree.

wes wrote: »

Thats pure Hyperbole. Serbia will still be there, if Kosovo become independent. Its basically been independent for a while now and Serbia is there doing just fine.

A decision to carve up established countries on ethnic lines whenever a demographic imbalance arises is at best ridiculously shortsighted.

wes wrote: »

Before that we were part of UK for 800 years. People use to have the same attitude towards Ireland, as you do towards Kosovo. If the British decided to keep that kind of attitude we would be subjects of the queen right now. Would you be ok with that? Also, I don't remember Ireland being to bothered what the other members taught when we made our bid for independence. I think most people were of the opinion it wasn't the business of the rest of the UK.

You made the point that 'serbia is less than a hundred years old' - I replied that technically the irish republic is less than 100 years old too. You then drew some kind of ham fisted / not very convincing comparison between ireland and kosovo which bears no relation to the reality of the situation. I have yet to see how you expect to convince anyone that a european country should be broken up at the whim of a gaggle of eu foreign ministers against the democratic wishes of the majority of that countries people.

Ps I wish you would stop editing your posts after you make them.

wes

I edit post to clarify details and fix spelling errors.

Ever heard of the concept of the tyranny of the majority? That what you are advocating. Kosovo is an autonomous region, it is not an integral part of Serbia. If it was it would never have been autonomous.

If they (the Kosovans) wish to declare independence that is there right. They had an election there and the separatists won hands down. There was a democratic process in Kosovo and it didn't go Serbia's way. The Serbian majority you refer to shouldn't get to decide what an autonomous region wants to do with themselves. The desire for independence in Kosovo is the democratic will of the people of Kosovo. The thing about autonomous region is that things like that will happen.

As for the comparison to Ireland, its apt. Ireland was considered by the UK to be an integral part of it. Serbia considers Kosovo to be an intergral part of Serbia. So the comparison isn't ham fisted at all, there was a point in time where Ireland was considered very much to be a part of the UK.

Morlar

wes wrote: »

I edit post to clarify details and fix spelling errors.

To clarify - you also change and add points making responses look out of place. Not saying this is deliberate - but it is annoying.

wes wrote: »

Ever heard of the concept of the tyranny of the majority? That what you are advocating. Kosovo is an autonomous region, it is not an integral part of Serbia. If it was it would never have been autonomous.

Thats called democracy - as in if you want to carve up a country to appease a demographic anomaly you should put it to a national referendum - not a local vote in the area in question where the demographic anomaly is present.

wes wrote: »

If they (the Kosovans) wish to declare independence that is there right. They had an election there and the separatists won hands down. There was a democratic process in Kosovo and it didn't go Serbia's way. The Serbian majority you refer to shouldn't get to decide what an autonomous region wants to do with themselves. The desire for independence in Kosovo is the democratic will of the people of Kosovo. The thing about autonomous region is that things like that will happen.

See above about democracy including all the people voting on crucial issues - like cutting your country in half - democracy does not mean excluding the majority to focus on the exclusive interests of a minority.

wes

Morlar wrote: »

To clarify - you also change and add points making responses look out of place. Not saying this is deliberate - but it is annoying.

I add points otherwise a lot mo posts wouldn't make sense.

Morlar wrote: »

Thats called democracy - as in if you want to carve up a country to appease a demographic anomaly you should put it to a national referendum - not a local vote in the area in question where the demographic anomaly is present.

Demographic anomaly. Is that one of those terms like collateral damage, thats meant to confused the issue or something? It sounds like it.

The Kosovans are hardly an anomaly, they have lived there for a very long time. I would consider Kosovo being apart of Serbia the real anomaly. Certainly another way to look at it don't you think. The anomaly are the current border, which ignore the national aspirations of the Kosvans.

Morlar wrote: »

See above about democracy including all the people voting on crucial issues - like cutting your country in half - democracy does not mean excluding the majority to focus on the exclusive interests of a minority.

No, an autonomous region can declare independence. There were free and fair elections in Kosovo. The people voted to separate. The only way this happened was due to Kosovo being autonomous.

The opinions of people who don't live in Kosovo don't matter. The majority forcing its will on the minority who want nothing to do with them is as I mentioned the tyranny of the majority. Simply put Kosovo is not an integral part of Serbia, it hasn't been for a long time. The people there decided they wanted nothing to do with Serbia. They did this democratically, by allowing everyone in Kosovo to vote.

The Serbian majority have no right to enforce there will on the Kosovan people, that is tyranny.

There was a situation in Indonesia and East Timor which was very similar. Do you think it would have been a good idea to have the majority (a vast majority) of Indonesians enforce there will on the people of East Timor and force them to be a part of a nation they never wanted to be a part of?

Morlar

wes wrote: »

I add points otherwise a lot mo posts wouldn't make sense.

My suggestion would be to do that before you reply and avoid the confusion. Everyone does that once or twice - its just on this thread it has been particularly noticeable. imo.

wes wrote: »

Demographic anomaly. Is that one of those terms like collateral damage, thats meant to confused the issue or something? It sounds like it.

Its a descriptive term so in that sense it does have a similarity to other descriptive terms.

wes wrote: »

The Kosovans are hardly an anomaly, they have lived there for a very long time. I would consider Kosovo being apart of Serbia the real anomaly. Certainly another way to look at it don't you think. The anomaly are the current border, which ignore the national aspirations of the Kosvans.

The anomaly would be where you have a country where in one region there is a demographic imbalance where a national minority through ethnic cleansing become a local majority. Not sure how to make it any clearer than that.

wes wrote: »

No, an autonomous region can declare independence. There were free and fair elections in Kosovo. The people voted to separate. The only way this happened was due to Kosovo being autonomous.

The opinions of people who don't live in Kosovo don't matter. The majority forcing its will on the minority who want nothing to do with them is as I mentioned the tyranny of the majority. Simply put Kosovo is not an integral part of Serbia, it hasn't been for a long time. The people there decided they wanted nothing to do with Serbia. They did this democratically, by allowing everyone in Kosovo to vote.

The Serbian majority have no right to enforce there will on the Kosovan people, that is tyranny.

This bit seems to go back to your earlier point - you think yes the minority (of albanians in serbia) should have more rights than the majority (of serbs in serbia). I dont agree with you on this. I doubt the majority of people in Serbia would agree with you either.

wes

Morlar wrote: »

My suggestion would be to do that before you reply and avoid the confusion. Everyone does that once or twice - its just on this thread it has been particularly noticeable. imo.

NP, I have done so.

Morlar wrote: »

The anomaly would be where you have a country where in one region there is a demographic imbalance where a national minority through ethnic cleansing become a local majority. Not sure how to make it any clearer than that.

The Kosovans were the majority even before the ethnic cleansing. Which both sides have engaged in. Unless your talking about the Ottomans, then you may have a case.

Morlar wrote: »

This bit seems to go back to your earlier point - you think yes the minority (of albanians in serbia) should have more rights than the majority (of serbs in serbia). I dont agree with you on this. I doubt the majority of people in Serbia would agree with you either.

No, of course they wouldn't. I am sure the majority of Kosovans disagree with yourself and Serbia.

Unfortunately (for them), Nato disagrees with them as well.

I think the people living in Kosovo have a better claim than the people who don't live there. The majority of Serbs not living in Kosovo, lose nothing but a group of people who don't want to be part of there country. The only people who lose are the Serbs who live in Kosovo. There situation is what concerns me more than Serbs who don't live in Kosovo.

Tea drinker

Lovely articles about kosovo on this site.
http://www.balkanalysis.com/2007/11/18/kosovo-auf-deutsch/

I wouldn't recommend buying property there any time soon.

Wes, to answer your question, did the US engineer the war there?
IMHO Yes, at a certain point the US was itching to give Milosevic a bloody nose, he had pushed them too far, too often and would be taught a lesson. They gave up on the chance of a peaceful solution, maybe they thought the time had come for the gloves to come off. I think Madelaine Albright would have dropped the bombs herself given the chance. Ironic given her background.

There was more going on in Kosovo, for much longer than just immediate run up to '99. We all know Milosevic was elected based on his "strongman" image, including his speeches in Kosovo where he "wouldn't allow the Serbs to be beaten any more." The forerunner to this was intimidation tactics used to ethnically cleanse areas of Serbs by Albanian Mafia gangs.
(apologies don't have links now - will research this for you, some very well publicised incidents)
Using your logic the Serbs were correct to retaliate against the ethnic cleansing, criminality and intolerance there.

To sum up unfortunately for the serbs it looks like the kosovan idea is finished, it's going to be a money pit for decades, in spite of mineral wealth. Best solution for Serbia in the long run is the northern non-Albanian regions secede from Kosovo.

wes

Tea drinker wrote: »

Lovely articles about kosovo on this site.
http://www.balkanalysis.com/2007/11/18/kosovo-auf-deutsch/

I wouldn't recommend buying property there any time soon.

Wes, to answer your question, did the US engineer the war there?
IMHO Yes, at a certain point the US was itching to give Milosevic a bloody nose, he had pushed them too far, too often and would be taught a lesson. They gave up on the chance of a peaceful solution, maybe they thought the time had come for the gloves to come off. I think Madelaine Albright would have dropped the bombs herself given the chance. Ironic given her background.

There was more going on in Kosovo, for much longer than just immediate run up to '99. We all know Milosevic was elected based on his "strongman" image, including his speeches in Kosovo where he "wouldn't allow the Serbs to be beaten any more." The forerunner to this was intimidation tactics used to ethnically cleanse areas of Serbs by Albanian Mafia gangs.
(apologies don't have links now - will research this for you, some very well publicised incidents)
Using your logic the Serbs were correct to retaliate against the ethnic cleansing, criminality and intolerance there.

To sum up unfortunately for the serbs it looks like the kosovan idea is finished, it's going to be a money pit for decades, in spite of mineral wealth. Best solution for Serbia in the long run is the northern non-Albanian regions secede from Kosovo.

Honestly, I find it hard to believe the US engineered that war. I think it was plenty clear it was either the KLA or Milosevic.

As for the Kosovan gangs, action against them specifically would have been correct. Trying to ethnically cleanse all Albanians would hardly be fighting back. Theres a world of difference between self defense and ethnic cleansing. Weren't there massacres of Albanians in 1998, hardly seems like self defense.

Simply put I'll take the Americans official story over Milosevic's any day of the week and I hardly find the American's the most trust worthy. Even to this day Serbia is hiding war criminals, I find it hard to believe there version of events due to this.

Tea drinker

wes wrote: »

Honestly, I find it hard to believe the US engineered that war. I think it was plenty clear it was either the KLA or Milosevic.
.

Yeah, but the actual incident to start the NATO war was Racak, which many independant observers say was a faked war crime. In any event US took sides long before the Nato campaign, they had been supplying the KLA terrorist group with weapons and training, they just needed the right situation to begin the war.

wes wrote: »

As for the Kosovan gangs, action against them specifically would have been correct. Trying to ethnically cleanse all Albanians would hardly be fighting back. Theres a world of difference between self defense and ethnic cleansing. Weren't there massacres of Albanians in 1998, hardly seems like self defense.

Here's your answer:
http://www.iraqwar.org/germanreport.htm
This and many, many other documents show that the NATO bombing CAUSED the refugees to leave Kosovo.

wes wrote: »

Simply put I'll take the Americans official story over Milosevic's any day of the week and I hardly find the American's the most trust worthy. Even to this day Serbia is hiding war criminals, I find it hard to believe there version of events due to this.

US has a long history of lying as foreign policy. WMD?
For war criminals, you are right, they, or at least certain individuals are hiding them. What involvement the state has I don't know.
There is a very strong sentiment (at least in Serbia) that the Hague is very anti Serb, and that many war crimes and ethnic cleansing against Serbs is not punished as those commited by Serbs. This mistrust certainly clouds their judgement of the Hague. Carla Del Ponte is gone now so maybe this will help. The last couple of years have seen the lid being lifted on the war crimes commited by Serbs, with the Serbian nation facing up to what happened. I think to a certain extent this needs to happen in other countries in the region too, which have been "victims only" too long.

This site offers some info on the historical ethnic breakdown in the area.
http://www.rastko.org.yu/kosovo/istorija/sanu/ethnic.html

An unusual source re:ethnic cleansing....
http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=ethnic

This offers some info on the run up to the major serb actions in the region, but not as detailed as I hoped to find for you. I'll see if I can find more detailed info.
http://www.siri-us.com/backgrounders/Archives_Kosovo/KLA-Terror-Cleansing.html

wes

Will read through your links a little later.

Regarding the Hague, they have charged Bosnians for war crimes as well. I am not sure of what the outcome of those case are. There are lots of groups who see the Hague as unfair, I am pretty sure Sudan would have that opinion right now as well.

Morlar

Just the most recent update to this from today :

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/mheykfsneycw/

"Today, the parliament will debate a strongly-worded resolution proposed by the government that will bind Serbian officials never to
accept Kosovo’s independence....


But the Serbian government resolution, which will almost certainly be adopted by the nationalist-dominated parliament, said that the
EU mission would not be welcome before Kosovo’s final status was determined at the UN Security Council, where Russia could veto any
decision not favourable to Belgrade....

“The sending of the proposed EU mission ... would be an act which jeopardises the sovereignty, territorial integrity and
the constitution of the Republic of Serbia,” according to a copy of the draft resolution made available to The Associated
Press.
Russia has opposed the new EU mission without Belgrade’s consent.

...
The proposed draft also said that Serbia must “act efficiently to protect the lives and property” of non-Albanians in Kosovo in
case it proclaims independence. It did not specify whether this would include an armed intervention advocated by Serbia’s
ultranationalists"

Manic Moran

It did not specify whether this would include an armed intervention advocated by Serbia’s ultranationalists"

Listening to Auntie on the car radio, apparently an armed incurion is ruled out. There was one additional item referencing the military, which said that the Army might move into Kosovo with multi-national permission: In effect, occupying the Northern part of Kosovo where the Serbs are the majority, and defacto partitioning the country.

NTM

regedit

@Morlar,
It seems to me that you are putting in a huge amount of effort to try and brainwash people into believing that an independent Kosova (Kosova is the Albanian pronunciation while Serbs use the word Kosovo. Taking into account that the Albanians are the majority and close to having their own state-de jure, the term Kosova will be used more widespread) will pose a risk to the stability in the region and even wider.

You seem to manipulate the term demographic anomaly very easily without knowing what you are talking about. You should go back in history-not the past 20 years but the post WWI history to figure out who and why tried and to a certain extent managed to change the democratic structure of the region. Once WW1 ended, Serbia was treated as part of the Allies and gained many “rights”. One of these was to start ethnically cleaning the region of Kosova. Within a few years, over 500.000 people were expelled from their homes and sent to Turkey. Facts on this are accessible in the Serbia state archive. There are data even from the Serb Academy of Science (the president Carnojevic) on the need to expel the Albanian population and make space for colonisations-Serbs to flood the area. Having expelled Albanians, Serbs arrived from mainland Serbia and took the most fertile land. This happened more intensively after 1 December 1918 when the Monarchy of Serbia Croatia and Slovenia was created. Before this, in 1860-1895 again, hundreds of thousands of Albanians were evicted from the region of Southern Serbia (i.e villages around Nis, Leskovac etc were torched and the population killed). I know many Albanian families who know the villages their ancestors came from or were killed in!
I provided the above examples just to show, to the best of my understanding that the term demographic anomaly should not be used liberally in regions of turmoil and without insight knowledge of the facts.

In addition, you should know that Kosova became part of Serbia in 1945! After WW2 ended.

Indeed, Kosova is the poorest region in Europe and this is due to the fact that Milosevic and his regime (and even the Communists before him) thought that by starving the people, they would make them leave their homes (something similar happened here). Albanians were systematically sacked from their jobs because they would not sign their allegiance to the Serb state. In 1999, just before NATO intervened militarily, over 400.000 Serb police, army personnel and dozens of paramilitary groups (including ones from Russia, Greece and Romania) were present in Kosovo. The reason for this was not to quell the tiny rebellion of the KLA but again, to rid Kosova from Albanians. This is not a myth or hearsay as I know many Kosovar families who had to leave via this route. I do not think that the war in Kosova was engineered by the Western powers. I would say that if the western powers were not there, the Serbs would make up the majority of the province.

Someone might argue that one cannot go and declare breakaway regions independent states at their free will. However, Kosova is a special and unique case in history. I am a firm believer that come the next month, Kosovo will become an independent state and its independence will be recognised my the entire EU (Greece and Cyprus abstaining because of historical ties with Serbia). The future of both states is within the EU and both need to learn a lot about democracy and human right.

BTW, read a few articles in wiki and would have to say that they are greatly influenced by Serb propaganda.

lostexpectation

any chance of ireland in this new battlegroup going in there?

Morlar

regedit wrote: »

@Morlar,
It seems to me that you are putting in a huge amount of effort to try and brainwash people into believing ...

...and would have to say that they are greatly influenced by Serb propaganda.

You accuse me of trying to brainwash people, dismiss other peoples links as 'propaganda' and then cherry pick your way through isolated parts of recent history to back up your assertion that 'kosovo is a special and unique case in history' - and that is the sum total of your argument that where a demographic anomaly presents itself in a european country that they should be allowed to break away against the wishes of that country as a whole. Get real would you ?

regedit

Morlar wrote: »

You accuse me of trying to brainwash people, dismiss other peoples links as 'propaganda' and then cherry pick your way through isolated parts of recent history to back up your assertion that 'kosovo is a special and unique case in history' - and that is the sum total of your argument that where a demographic anomaly presents itself in a european country that they should be allowed to break away against the wishes of that country as a whole. Get real would you ?

Apologies for using my own head.
I have used and use wikipedia for my profession for the past few years and I know what can be trusted there and what not. There is a link on Kosova rather then Kosovo on wiki. The Kosova one is created by Kosovars and is currently only in Albanian. Once it gets translated it will contain biased info as well.
As stated previously Kosova's future will be e precedent in recent European history. It was part of Serbia a few times throughout history but each time against the wishes of the majority population.
If you consider the "demographic explosion" of Kosovar Albanians as demographic anomaly, then you should ask yourself what you believe in.
One can go on with this discussion for a long time but whatever you or I think, Kosova will become legally independent soon.
I rest my case here and wish no further discussions with someone who speaks of a nation as anomaly.

Morlar

regedit wrote: »

Apologies for using my own head.

In other words 'well excuse me for being clever' - god how droll. You have no wish to discuss with somone who 'refers to a nation as an anomaly' ? The albanians in the serbian territory of kosovo are a demographic anomaly not a nation. Giving them a nation made up of serb territory against the wishes of the serbian people is unemocratic and immoral, and as mentioned earlier likely to lead to bloodshed. Here are a few points to consider about the new albanian regime you are eager to see instated against the democratic wishes of the serb people

As of 1945 the population in the serbian region of kosovo was roughly 50% serb, 50% albanian. I suppose you are going to claim that ethnic cleansing played no part in the 50% serb population becoming 10% serb over the course of a generation or so ? Of course it was systematic, to begin with under tito and the communists post ww2. No one is saying the serbs did not engage in criminality but the numbers speak for themselves, serbs went from 50% to 10% in 50 years and the albanians went from 50% to 90% I will let you honestly decide the degree of guilt that should be apportioned to each side regarding ethnic cleansing based on the outcome.

The so called kosovo liberation army (KLA or UCK) are extremist, expansionist islamic jihadists with links to osama bin laden (who visited albanian leaders as recently as 1995) and other so called 'foreign fighters' responsible for widespread rape of non muslim women, beheadings and a systematic programme of destruction of serbian christian churches in kosovo and other acts of ethnic cleansing against the christian serbs by the albanian muslims. You would propose to reward these people by giving them a country on the edge of europe ? These people want to see the destruction of christianity and the creation of an islamic empire reaching into europe.

The KLA/albanians have confirmed links to albanian mafia activities, drug smuggling and general criminality. You want to handover a so called 'drug gateway' nation at the edge of europe to corrupt mafia connected albanians ? You dont have to take my word for this - the german intelligence ministry in a leaked internal report has confirmed as much (links below).

Considering you dispute wiki as 'serb propaganda' here are some non wiki links for you to view:


systematic destruction of christian churches - short montage of before and after photographs
'Crucified Kosovo/ Shame In The Face Of Christian Europe'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hK1aPvMsRmA

sacking of church (10 mins as several hundred muslims sack a substantial christian church)
Kosovo , Serbia: church set in flames by muslim Albanians 04
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkgHkxIfgBc

The Hidden Army Of Radical Islam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7L05geznoI

Saudi wahabi (extremist sharia sect) funding of mosques which are appearing in previously moderate kosovo ;

Kosovo - Emerging as a Bastion for Radical Islam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCAz6PW_h2k

US Reporter: Jihad In Bosnia/ Girls Raped/ Killed By Muslims
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZbp1PIkbAk

The Results Of The Muslim Jihad Fanaticism In Bosnia/ Europe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlET0DmTT8g

German intelligence report confirms Kosovo is rife with institutional infiltration by albanian mafia gangs

'Kosovo is a Criminal Enterprise'
http://byzantinesacredart.com/blog/2006/08/berliner-zeitung-kosovo.html
Original Berliner article in german
http://www.berlinonline.de/berliner-zeitung/archiv/.bin/dump.fcgi/2006/0807/politik/0037/index.html

"Seen from this perspective, according to German newspaper, it will be difficult for the international community to create genuine rule of law structures in Kosovo. Even in the future, Kosovo "will have a key role as transition point of drugs towards Western Europe."

Another source outlining kla links to drug smuggling, mafia activities and ethnic cleansing.
http://www.kosovo.net/spiegelflot.html

osama bin laden visits albania at behest of leaders
http://www.savekosovo.org/default.asp?p=6&leader=2&sp=51

wes

Morlar wrote: »

These people want to see the destruction of christianity and the creation of an islamic empire reaching into europe.

Total and absolute bull **** there. I am sorry you may have had a point until you decided to engage in this common far right fantasy.

Morlar

I have seen you do this so many timjes before. If a post comes along with a series of points or links you immediately throw out a one liner so that your post is the final word in the hope that people wont follow the links you dissaprove of.

So to recap your now ignoring all of the links./points above and saying that the KLA are not trying to establish an islamic kosovo ? All of the above links are incorrect ? Those links showing systematic destruction of christian churches are photoshop-ery - thats what your saying ? I think you need another guess as to who is the person spreading the fantasy bull**** here.

wes

Morlar wrote: »

I have seen you do this so many timjes before. If a post comes along with a series of points or links you immediately throw out a one liner so that your post is the final word in the hope that people wont follow the links you dissaprove of.

So to recap your now ignoring all of the links./points above and saying that the KLA are not trying to establish an islamic kosovo ? All of the above links are incorrect ? Those links showing systematic destruction of christian churches are photoshop-ery - thats what your saying ? I think you need another guess as to who is the person spreading the fantasy bull**** here.

People can follow you links. I can't possibly stop them or intend to in anyways. Strikes me as a bit paranoid that you think my post would actually stop people from looking at you links.

Its a common far right fantasy that Muslims are about to take over Europe. It means to me that anything you have posted is highly suspect imo. I see no point in reading any more of you posts or your links. That line I quoted show imo that your more interested in repeating typical far right paranoia. My opinion on this doesn't mean that others won't look at what you posted, just stating my opinion on your post.

Here is you quote again:

Morlar wrote:

These people want to see the destruction of christianity and the creation of an islamic empire reaching into europe.

You seemed to be suggesting that the Kosovans are out to take over Europe. I am sorry that is ridiculous in my opinion and is at best a far right fantasy that is echoed by BNP types the world over. If you want to post about some mass conspiracy that the Kosovans and Bin Laden are getting together to take over Europe, please do. I am not stopping you posting about it.

Moriarty

Everyone please remember: attack the post, not the poster.

Morlar

Perhaps - though I can think of no other reason why you would repeatedly throw out one line unsubstantial responses to lengthy posts.

Again you claim radical islam . . 'its just a fantasy' - completely ignoring all of the above evidence to the contrary.

Ps I did not begin the 'Total bull****' claims here - I just responded to it.

Here is the bit you did not respond to above . . .

to recap your now ignoring all of the links./points above and saying that the KLA are not trying to establish an islamic kosovo ? All of the above links are incorrect ? Those links showing systematic destruction of christian churches are photoshop-ery - thats what your saying ?

wes

Morlar wrote: »

Perhaps - though I can think of no other reason why you would repeatedly throw out one line unsubstantial responses to lengthy posts.

Again you claim radical islam . . 'its just a fantasy' - completely ignoring all of the above evidence to the contrary.

Ps I did not begin the 'Total bull****' claims here - I just responded to it.

Here is the bit you did not respond to above . . .

to recap your now ignoring all of the links./points above and saying that the KLA are not trying to establish an islamic kosovo ? All of the above links are incorrect ? Those links showing systematic destruction of christian churches are photoshop-ery - thats what your saying ?

I never called radical Islam a fantasy. Just your claims that Kosovans are trying to set up an Islamic empire with Osama (tm). That is what I take issue with that point specifically that the Kosovans are working with Osama.

Lets take a look at the sources for that particular claim, a bunch of Youtube videos and a random site called savekosovo.org who are citing the government of Serbia as there source. Not the most trust worthy sources.

I have not claimed half the things you said in your post btw. I find the sources you provide (with a couple of exceptions) to be untrustworthy. This is not to say that the Kosovans have not engaged in violence, they very clearly have. I personally find trying to link them to Osama to be ridiculous, the source you provide hardly fills me with confidence.

The Kosovans want an independent Kosova. Claims that they are doing Osama's bidding is ridiculous and is a right wing fantasy.

**EDIT**

Morlar wrote: »

to recap your now ignoring all of the links./points above and saying that the KLA are not trying to establish an islamic kosovo ? All of the above links are incorrect ? Those links showing systematic destruction of christian churches are photoshop-ery - thats what your saying ?

I never said that. I distrust your sources specifically. Thats all I have said. I have never said violence has not occurred, but that I distrust the links you provide.

Morlar

wes wrote: »

I have not claimed half the things you said in your post btw. I find the sources you provide (with a couple of exceptions) to be untrustworthy.
.......

Claims that they are doing Osama's bidding is ridiculous and is a right wing fantasy.

........ I distrust the links you provide.

Your response of 'I dont trust your sources' doesnt stand up to much.

Those sources include the german intelligence services internal report, skynews documentary/report, american media progammes and interviews, assorted video footage of christian churches being destroyed by muislim mobs, assorted photographic evidence of same with places and dates illustrating a pattern of systematic programme of islamic destruction of christian churches.

How is it footage on youtube any more unreliable than when it was originally broadcast on tv (skynews/american media etc) ?

Your response of 'I dont trust your sources' reminds me of another poster on this htread who was also pro-albanian who said that wiki was 'serb propaganda'.

It seems that if a source disagrees with the anti serb /pro muslim point of view then its progapanda or otherwise dismissed as unreliable. That doesnt address the legitimate concerns being raised.

You exagerrated my point that there are links between the KLA and al qaida (osama bin laden did visit albanian leaders in albania in 1995 - this doesnt mean I believe osamma bin laden is planning things on the ground in kosovo). But there ARE links to al qaida. Your way of denying this seems to be to exaggerate my point to where it becomes that I believe he is in a bunker addressing activities there - rather than addressing it.

There are also long standing documented links between with the albanian mafia, drug smuggling, criminality and so on - this is according to the german intelligence services (another source you dismiss as unreliable).

Maybe you can point out in which way those sources are unreliable ?

1)

systematic destruction of christian churches - short montage of before and after photographs
'Crucified Kosovo/ Shame In The Face Of Christian Europe' - this is a collection of before and after photos with names and dates how are they untrustworthy ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hK1aPvMsRmA

2)

sacking of church (10 mins as several hundred muslims sack a substantial christian church)
Kosovo , Serbia: church set in flames by muslim Albanians 04 - this is home video footage is this source unreliable ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkgHkxIfgBc

3)

The Hidden Army Of Radical Islam - I would like to know which parts of this are unreliable before you try and dismiss them ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7L05geznoI

4)

Saudi wahabi (extremist sharia sect) funding of mosques which are appearing in previously moderate kosovo ;

Kosovo - Emerging as a Bastion for Radical Islam - parts that are unreliable ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCAz6PW_h2k

5)

US Reporter: Jihad In Bosnia/ Girls Raped/ Killed By Muslims - parts that are unreliable ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZbp1PIkbAk

6)

The Results Of The Muslim Jihad Fanaticism In Bosnia/ Europe - parts that are unreliable ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlET0DmTT8g

7)

German intelligence report confirms Kosovo is rife with institutional infiltration by albanian mafia gangs

'Kosovo is a Criminal Enterprise'
http://byzantinesacredart.com/blog/2...ng-kosovo.html
Original Berliner article in german
http://www.berlinonline.de/berliner-...037/index.html

German intelligence services report is unreliable how ?
8)

Another source outlining kla links to drug smuggling, mafia activities and ethnic cleansing.
http://www.kosovo.net/spiegelflot.html -
again unreliable how ?

9)

osama bin laden visits albania at behest of leaders - incorrect ?http://www.savekosovo.org/default.as...leader=2&sp=51

wes

Anyone can post random stuff on Youtube. Who is to say the story there presenting is correct? Unless there from a main stream news source, all I have to go is the word of the person that is posting the video. I tend not to take random Youtube videos as evidence of anything. They are not reliable in any way shape or form. I am hardly going to take a random Youtube poster on there word. Wikipedia and Youtube are not reliable source of information. They never have been, they are easily dismissed due to there very nature.

Also notice how I said you posted a few reliable links as well. So, yes reports from main stream news are reliable, but not all those Youtube are from main stream news now aren't they?

How do you expect anyone to some how except Youtube videos as evidence of anything?

The German intelligence report is one of the reliable sources you posted btw.

So what we have in your post are a few linked youtube videos of dubious origin, and some of which are from proper news channels and linked to a bunch of clearly biased web sites and some how I am expected to accept what there saying as truth? Would you accept claims from a pro Kosovan Albanian web pages as telling the truth? I can easily find tons of links with ease, but I don't see much point in posting blatantly biased information.

I haven't claimed the Kosovans are Angels, they have certainly committed crimes. However, Serb government propoganda trying to link them to Osama is pretty blatant propoganda. Seems to be something there trying to do a lot of lately. Try and make it look like a nationalist movement is some sort of Islamist movement.

Morlar

wes wrote: »

Anyone can post random stuff on Youtube.

Youtube is the storage and means of transmission. The content was for the most part mainstream broadcast media, skynews and american media.

Again how does the content become less reliable depending on the means of transmission. The answer is it does not and you dont seem to have any kind of response to the range of points raised in those various media links.

The videos showing hundreds of muslims attacking christian churches are not fabricated.

The before and after photographs of the destruction of christian churches are not fabricated. They illustrate a systematic islamic destruction of christian chruches on scale that would be news to most people - and would go some way to explaining the demographic anomaly at the heart of the issue.

The other links relating to radical islamists/jihadis/albanian mafia in the region are also valid and yet to be addressed.

Again there were many links there - a mixture of mainstream and left of field. You have not pointed out where any of them are incorrect. It would be expected in that many links to have had a couple of non intentional innaccuracies - that in itself would not undermine the content however you have simply taken the easier option of attacking the transmission media rather than the content.

The other non-broadcast links there contain home video footage - you have no basis or credibility in pretending they were somehow cgi fabricated or otherwise falsified so instead you try undermine the credibility of the means of transmission rather than the content. You probably think I am repeating myself here but I am curious - you have dismissed the links as 'unreliable' & I would just like to know which exact links are unreliable and what part of video footage or photographic content is unreliable and in what way.