It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

15 years since NATO aggression on Yugoslavia

page: 8
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


15 years since NATO aggression on Yugoslavia


According to you NATO wasn't the aggressor wasn't it? this is what the thread is all about, so do try on reading the thread title before posting.

What NATO to the Serbs and Serbs in General was a War Crime.

Do read the thread and the link that the thread op posted.
edit on 30-3-2014 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)


Oh, I have read the thread. I have noted a certain tendency on your part to claim that the Kosovo War was a war crime. I would like to know exactly why you claim that this is so. After all, the majority population of Kosovo were ethnic Albanians who were somewhat annoyed as to why first Yugoslavia and then Serbia abolished their status as an autonomous region and then decided to embark on a process of ethnic cleansing.




posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 05:29 PM
link   

amazing

Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


15 years since NATO aggression on Yugoslavia


According to you NATO wasn't the aggressor wasn't it? this is what the thread is all about, so do try on reading the thread title before posting.

What NATO to the Serbs and Serbs in General was a War Crime.
edit on 30-3-2014 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)


The question really is "Was NATO right to intervene?" The answers on this thread, and some of them are well thought out replies, that --A. Absolutely. NATO had to Intervene. B. Isolationist policies are always best. To heck with helping people and stopping genocide. C. NATO was in the wrong and caused more damage death and suffering than it stopped. D. Somewhere in the middle. NATO should have intervened but crossed a line at some point.

My answer is A. They had to intervene, but with an acknowledgement that NATO or at least the USA crossed the line with colonialism. I think the USA has military bases in 30 other countries. That's not good.







The answers on this thread, and some of them are well thought out replies,


Some of the posts are well thought out replies? i have to disagree with you there.




My answer is A. They had to intervene,

Since your answer is A i guess they had had to intervene in Libya to then. To save Libyans from an brutal dictator.




To heck with helping people and stopping genocide.

Just like those others in here you continue to deny the genocide of Christian Serbs that were brutally killed and hanged.




but with an acknowledgement that NATO or at least the USA crossed the line with colonialism. I think the USA has military bases in 30 other countries. That's not good.

NATO are the good guys. What colonialism? they are there to protect Europe according to you.
edit on 30-3-2014 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Agent_USA_Supporter

amazing

Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


15 years since NATO aggression on Yugoslavia


According to you NATO wasn't the aggressor wasn't it? this is what the thread is all about, so do try on reading the thread title before posting.

What NATO to the Serbs and Serbs in General was a War Crime.
edit on 30-3-2014 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)


The question really is "Was NATO right to intervene?" The answers on this thread, and some of them are well thought out replies, that --A. Absolutely. NATO had to Intervene. B. Isolationist policies are always best. To heck with helping people and stopping genocide. C. NATO was in the wrong and caused more damage death and suffering than it stopped. D. Somewhere in the middle. NATO should have intervened but crossed a line at some point.

My answer is A. They had to intervene, but with an acknowledgement that NATO or at least the USA crossed the line with colonialism. I think the USA has military bases in 30 other countries. That's not good.







The answers on this thread, and some of them are well thought out replies,


Some of the posts are well thought out replies? i have to disagree with you there.




My answer is A. They had to intervene,

Since your answer is A i guess they had had to intervene in Libya to then. To save Libyans from an brutal dictator.




To heck with helping people and stopping genocide.

Just like those others in here you continue to deny the genocide of Christian Serbs that were brutally killed and hanged.




but with an acknowledgement that NATO or at least the USA crossed the line with colonialism. I think the USA has military bases in 30 other countries. That's not good.

NATO are the good guys. What colonialism? they are there to protect Europe according to you.
edit on 30-3-2014 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)


Hmmm it appears that you aren't willing to discuss reasonably any view that disagrees with yours? Interesting. So you are now saying that NATO are the good guys and there is no Colonialism? I have to disagree with you on Colonialism. Afgan and Iraq are big examples of modern colonialism.
edit on 30-3-2014 by amazing because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   

AngryCymraeg

Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


15 years since NATO aggression on Yugoslavia


According to you NATO wasn't the aggressor wasn't it? this is what the thread is all about, so do try on reading the thread title before posting.

What NATO to the Serbs and Serbs in General was a War Crime.

Do read the thread and the link that the thread op posted.
edit on 30-3-2014 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)


Oh, I have read the thread. I have noted a certain tendency on your part to claim that the Kosovo War was a war crime. I would like to know exactly why you claim that this is so. After all, the majority population of Kosovo were ethnic Albanians who were somewhat annoyed as to why first Yugoslavia and then Serbia abolished their status as an autonomous region and then decided to embark on a process of ethnic cleansing.





Oh, I have read the thread.

You just responded to defend NATO's actions in Kosovo and Bosnia.




I have noted a certain tendency on your part to claim that the Kosovo War was a war crime. I would like to know exactly why you claim that this is so.


So you haven't replied to my PM? why dont you do a little more research on the topic before storming onto here claiming that you know everything about the conflict.




After all, the majority population of Kosovo were ethnic Albanians who were somewhat annoyed as to why first Yugoslavia and then Serbia abolished their status as an autonomous region


There wasn't an Albania until after the fall of the Ottoman Empire the majority of those Albanians living in Kosovo come from Albania whats the proof? the fact they are waving the Albanian flag in every news outlet pictures?



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 05:38 PM
link   

amazing

Agent_USA_Supporter

amazing

Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


15 years since NATO aggression on Yugoslavia


According to you NATO wasn't the aggressor wasn't it? this is what the thread is all about, so do try on reading the thread title before posting.

What NATO to the Serbs and Serbs in General was a War Crime.
edit on 30-3-2014 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)


The question really is "Was NATO right to intervene?" The answers on this thread, and some of them are well thought out replies, that --A. Absolutely. NATO had to Intervene. B. Isolationist policies are always best. To heck with helping people and stopping genocide. C. NATO was in the wrong and caused more damage death and suffering than it stopped. D. Somewhere in the middle. NATO should have intervened but crossed a line at some point.

My answer is A. They had to intervene, but with an acknowledgement that NATO or at least the USA crossed the line with colonialism. I think the USA has military bases in 30 other countries. That's not good.







The answers on this thread, and some of them are well thought out replies,


Some of the posts are well thought out replies? i have to disagree with you there.




My answer is A. They had to intervene,

Since your answer is A i guess they had had to intervene in Libya to then. To save Libyans from an brutal dictator.




To heck with helping people and stopping genocide.

Just like those others in here you continue to deny the genocide of Christian Serbs that were brutally killed and hanged.




but with an acknowledgement that NATO or at least the USA crossed the line with colonialism. I think the USA has military bases in 30 other countries. That's not good.

NATO are the good guys. What colonialism? they are there to protect Europe according to you.
edit on 30-3-2014 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)


Hmmm it appears that you aren't willing to discuss reasonably any view that disagrees with yours? Interesting. So you are now saying that NATO are the good guys and there is no Colonialism? I have to disagree with you on Colonialism. Afgan and Iraq are big examples of modern colonialism.
edit on 30-3-2014 by amazing because: (no reason given)






Afgan and Iraq are big examples of modern colonialism.

Afgan and Iraq are big examples of modern democracy and the spread of freedom which wonderful NATO has brought to Balkans let alone the post war chaotic scenes of an ruined Balkans.



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 05:42 PM
link   
If there's anything i know about war and aggressions. NATO only brings either A chaos, B destruction, C Drug Trade with War Lords, D Working with Terrorists. And making sure the nation is in ruins behind help.



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Agent_USA_Supporter
15 years since NATO aggression on Yugoslavia


According to you NATO wasn't the aggressor wasn't it? this is what the thread is all about, so do try on reading the thread title before posting.

What NATO to the Serbs and Serbs in General was a War Crime.

Do read the thread and the link that the thread op posted.
edit on 30-3-2014 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)

AngryCymraeg

Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 




Oh, I have read the thread. I have noted a certain tendency on your part to claim that the Kosovo War was a war crime. I would like to know exactly why you claim that this is so. After all, the majority population of Kosovo were ethnic Albanians who were somewhat annoyed as to why first Yugoslavia and then Serbia abolished their status as an autonomous region and then decided to embark on a process of ethnic cleansing.





Oh, I have read the thread.

You just responded to defend NATO's actions in Kosovo and Bosnia.




I have noted a certain tendency on your part to claim that the Kosovo War was a war crime. I would like to know exactly why you claim that this is so.


So you haven't replied to my PM? why dont you do a little more research on the topic before storming onto here claiming that you know everything about the conflict.




After all, the majority population of Kosovo were ethnic Albanians who were somewhat annoyed as to why first Yugoslavia and then Serbia abolished their status as an autonomous region


There wasn't an Albania until after the fall of the Ottoman Empire the majority of those Albanians living in Kosovo come from Albania whats the proof? the fact they are waving the Albanian flag in every news outlet pictures?


What PM? I haven't received one from you. And please address my point about the ethnic Albanians, who were somewhat distressed at having their autonomous region status abolished.



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


Kosovo is and always the home by the Serbian people as for the claims of autonomous region status being abolished again why dont you do some more research?



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 





It has being a long time since i didn't thought i would have another debate on about the Yugoslavian war, conflict but just like in 2007 it seems it always seems to me for people whom defend either NATO, The Croatians and the Bosnian Government side clearer still dont have any clue what occurred in the Balkans.


I had lived through the conflict and fled as a civilian to get away from it and what about you again? the way you are defending NATO Desperately Defending NATO? by claiming Serbs were trying to recreate Greater Serbia shows just how much you still dont understand about the conflict.

Including how you denied the ethnic cleansing by the Croatians in there operation storm. May i suggest to you that you should do a little more research on the war.


ATS is an site about research and more rather posting the results of your research.
edit on 30-3-2014 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Closed for a cooling off period.

We expect civility and decorum within all topics.

You are responsible for your own posts.

The thread will reopen now.
Members who continue to bicker, post off topic and otherwise derail the thread WILL face posting bans.
edit on Sun Mar 30 2014 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


Kosovo is and always the home by the Serbian people as for the claims of autonomous region status being abolished again why dont you do some more research?



How far back do you want to go in such historical claims? I'm Welsh. That doesn't mean that we can stake a claim to Londinium (to give it its old name) any time soon! As for the autonomous region status I have done some research on this. On June 26 1990 Belgrade closed the Kosovo Assembly, having severely weakened Kosovo's autonomous status the previous year. What do you think the 1989 Kosovo miners' strike was about?



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 05:06 AM
link   

hounddoghowlie

cosmonova

paraphi

cosmonova
NATO agression in numbers :


When you uncork the bottle and all that. Regardless of the numbers, NATOs intervention stopped Serbian aggression in its tracks. Literally. NATO did the job the UN had tasked them to do. The aggression ended and peace was imposed.

Regards

NATO had no approval by UN Security Council, once again, I do not know why are you repeating 'UN has tasked them to do'.
That is absolutely incorrect.
It was an open agression on sovereign country, the same thing happened in Iraq and Lybia.
Those are facts.
Also, how can Serbia be an aggressor on its territory, protecting its sovereignity from separatists in Kosovo?
It was the rightful thing to do.
Do you think US would let separatists inTexas to ever use force in obtaining their goals?
And to get back to main reason for NATO agression, Camp Bondsteel, strategic US base, the largest in Balkans.
'Wag the Dog 'was just standard story (read genocide, rapes,blah blah) to justify said aggression.


just like taliban supporters, nothing that is documented is true, unless it agrees with your point of view.

as others have pointed out, the UN did pass resolutions ask for NATO to intervene. there are resoluation numbers in some of the quotes.
here is the first involvemeants.



Early involvement and monitoring
NATO's first involvement in both the Bosnian War and the Yugoslav wars in general came in February 1992, when the alliance issued a statement urging all the belligerents in the conflict to allow the deployment of United Nations peacekeepers. While primarily symbolic, this statement paved the way for later NATO actions.[1] On July 10, 1992, NATO foreign ministers agreed, at a meeting in Helsinki, to assist the United Nations in monitoring compliance with sanctions established under United Nations Security Council resolutions 713 (1991) and 757 (1992). This led to the commencement of Operation Maritime Monitor off the coast of Montenegro, which was coordinated with the Western European Union Operation Sharp Vigilance in the Strait of Otranto on July 16.[2] On October 9, 1992, the Security Council passed Resolution 781, establishing a no-fly zone over Bosnia-Herzegovina. In response, on October 16, NATO expanded its mission in the area to include Operation Sky Monitor, which monitored Bosnian airspace for unauthorized flights.
NATO Intervention In Bosnia and Herzegovina


and the first combat roles,


Growing role of air power 1994 Main article:
Operation Deny Flight On February 28, 1994, the scope of NATO involvement in Bosnia increased dramatically. In an incident near Banja Luka, NATO fighters operating under Deny Flight shot down four Serb jets. This was the first combat operation in the history of NATO and opened the door for a steadily growing NATO role in Bosnia.[6] In April, the role of NATO airpower continued to grow during a Serb attack on Goražde. In response, NATO launched its first close air support mission on April 10, 1994, bombing several Serb targets at the request of UN commanders.[7] NATO launched several other limited air strikes throughout the year, acting in coordination with the United Nations.
NATO Intervention In Bosnia and Herzegovina





Srebrenica and the London Conference
In July 1995, the Bosnian Serbs launched an attack on the Bosnian town of Srebrenica, ending with the deaths of approximately 8,000 civilians in the Srebrenica massacre. After the horrifying events at Srebrenica, 16 nations met at the London Conference, beginning on July 21, 1995, to consider new options for Bosnia. As a result of the conference, UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali gave General Bernard Janvier, the UN military commander, the authority to request NATO airstrikes without consulting civilian UN officials, as a way to streamline the process.[8] As a result of the conference, the North Atlantic Council and the UN also agreed to use NATO air strikes in response to attacks on any of the other safe areas in Bosnia. The participants at the conference also agreed in principle to the use of large-scale NATO air strikes in response to future acts of Serb aggression.[9]NATO Intervention In Bosnia and Herzegovina

i guess you hold the same thought as slobydon did when he told The Hague that you can't find any written orders. orders can be given with out being written, but this is not the case here, there is plenty of documentation to support that UN resolutions and asking NATO to carry them out.


*SNIP*


edit on 30-3-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-3-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/30/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



Sir do not make a fool of yourself.
I will repeat for fifth time, topic is NATO aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999 not NATO involvement in Bosnian War 1992-1995. I will repeat just in case to avoid any confusion, this topic is about NATO aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 05:15 AM
link   
So this video is what propaganda looks like in the 21st century.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 05:18 AM
link   

paraphi

cosmonova
Lol I made a topic about NATO agression on Yugoslavia and you want me to read NATO justification for agression on NATO website.
Show me a documemt from UN Security Council that authorised NATO to attack Yugoslavia.


Sorry to disappoint you, but the links I gave were merely the UN Resolutions, as written. Within the narrative you'll see the detail, or perhaps you won't.

You can LOL as much as you want, but your statement that NATOs intervention to stop continued Serbian aggression (and aggression by all parties, to be fair), was illegal etc. is just wrong. The facts of the past are well documented. If you choose to ignore and create a completely different fantasy, then that's your affair I suppose.

Regards


No there is no detail in resolution 1199 authorizing NATO to use force against Yugoslavia. Show me the line, sentence whatever that said otherwise.

'United Nations Security Council resolution 1199, adopted on 23 September 1998, after recalling Resolution 1160 (1998), the Council demanded that the Albanian and Yugoslav parties in Kosovo end hostilities and observe a ceasefire.'

en.wikipedia.org...



And now the funniest part, NATO is a military organisation not a part of UN peacekeeping forces, completely different body, don't we know even that?
So how can UN authorize NATO to act against Yugoslavia? This would be enough for any person with common sense to conclude that NATO has broken international laws and acted on its own (for its own interest) against Yugoslavia.
And not only that but according to NATO's constitution it has acted against its own policies:
'The organization constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party. '
en.wikipedia.org...

Yugoslavia did not attack any of NATO countries.
edit on 31-3-2014 by cosmonova because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 05:18 AM
link   

cosmonova
Sir do not make a fool of yourself.
I will repeat for fifth time, topic is NATO aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999 not NATO involvement in Bosnian War 1992-1995. I will repeat just in case to avoid any confusion, this topic is about NATO aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999.


Yes, but the 1999 Kosovo War was born out of the collapse of Yugoslavia and the Bosnian War. It wasn't an individual event on its own. Context is everything on a complicated and multisided issue such as this one.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 05:38 AM
link   

AngryCymraeg

cosmonova
Sir do not make a fool of yourself.
I will repeat for fifth time, topic is NATO aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999 not NATO involvement in Bosnian War 1992-1995. I will repeat just in case to avoid any confusion, this topic is about NATO aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999.


Yes, but the 1999 Kosovo War was born out of the collapse of Yugoslavia and the Bosnian War. It wasn't an individual event on its own. Context is everything on a complicated and multisided issue such as this one.



my friend should we go back than to WW2?

I have made this topic in order to document that NATO aggression against Yugoslavia was not another romantic story about democracy, freedom, protection from genocide, blah, blah, but rather well planned action to position the biggest US base in Balkans in strategic area of Kosovo, Camp Bondsteel as a priority nymber one.

There were some other very important reasons for NATO aggression against Yugoslavia. One of them is a fact that Kosovo is very rich in minerals, there is some estimates about tens of billions of dollars worth of mineral reserves.
www.eciks.org...

Not to mention that right at the same time Monica Lewinsky scandal came in.
Remember Clinton saying ' I did not have sexual relationship with that women'. Oops he did. And White House needed something to take away all the negative publicity away from its backyard.
www.youtube.com...

In order to achieve all these goals they have bombarded the sovereign country that did not attack any of NATO countries, for 78 days and 78 nights, with results listed in one of my previous posts. At some stage Yugoslav president had to stop this brutality and war crime committed by NATO against citizens of Yugoslavia, by signing agreement to remove Yugoslav army forces from Kosovo and accept that part of his country has been brutally taken away.


edit on 31-3-2014 by cosmonova because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-3-2014 by cosmonova because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-3-2014 by cosmonova because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 05:44 AM
link   
'Even today, many western books and other publications on this period describe the so-called “Racak Massacre” of 15 January 1999 as the trigger for the NATO war against Yugoslavia. The US government had installed the US diplomat William Walker as head of the OSCE in Kosovo. Before, he had managed the dirty business of the US in Latin America, supporting regimes friendly to the US, especially in El Salvador. It was this OSCE who had appointed the Finnish dentist Helena Ranta as head of the forensic investigation commission which was to investigate the Racak Massacre. Before the investigations had even started, W. Walker declared in front of a TV camera that this cruel massacre had been committed by Serbs. Years later, on 16 October 2008, Helena Ranta explained herself in the “Helsingin Sanomat”, explaining that she had been under an overwhelming pressure from W. Walker and the western media who wanted her to confirm Walker’s statement regarding the Serbian mass murder.'


very good article from Current Concerns, The international journal for independent thought, ethical standards, moral responsibility, and for the promotion and respect of public international law, human rights and humanitarian law.


please read the rest,
www.currentconcerns.ch...



'Ethnic cleansing in Kosovo was used as a pretext for bombing Yugoslavia. And the incident in the village of Rugovo shows once again that the PR campaign against Belgrade was organized using obvious forgeries. Reportedly, NATO started thinking about an invasion after the killing of 40 civilian Albanians in Rachak. However, experts who studied the forensic reports concluded that there was no evidence proving that the killed were civilians, and that they were killed by Serbian servicemen.

This technology is being used even now. For example, the photos taken in Iraq in 2003 are used in news broadcasts to show the deaths of Syrian civilians. The dramatic effect is achieves by using photo editing programmes. For example, a Syrian family walking in the streets of an ordinary city, photo is shown on a background of ruined buildings. Ultimately, they achieve the necessary effect.'
www.globalresearch.ca...

edit on 31-3-2014 by cosmonova because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 06:44 AM
link   
Given that the clear intent of this thread is to portray NATO as cold blooded aggressive murderers, I would like to ask the anti-NATO crowd how they think NATO will eventually deal with the situation in Crimea. Do you agree with Angela Merkel's evaluation that Vladimir Putin has lost touch with reality, or do you simply believe Putin does not care how many innocent Crimeans will die?



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 07:15 AM
link   

cosmonova
very good article from Current Concerns, The international journal for independent thought, ethical standards, moral responsibility, and for the promotion and respect of public international law, human rights and humanitarian law.


please read the rest,
www.currentconcerns.ch...



I am somewhat cautious of any website or publication that throws the words 'Neo-colonial' around. I tend to sense a political agenda.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 07:24 AM
link   

AngryCymraeg

cosmonova
very good article from Current Concerns, The international journal for independent thought, ethical standards, moral responsibility, and for the promotion and respect of public international law, human rights and humanitarian law.


please read the rest,
www.currentconcerns.ch...



I am somewhat cautious of any website or publication that throws the words 'Neo-colonial' around. I tend to sense a political agenda.


A quick survey of their archives shows them aligned with the far right. It is literally a Fascist organization. I invite everyone to evaluate it on their own.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join