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.
Central Europe & Balkans
page: 4share:
Originally posted by seaside sky
What did you think of the article? I hope you noted how at the end of the article the author concluded that the western capitalist system has failed itself by setting up people for failure- it's the frying pan into the fire. It reminded me of my routine experiences at the voting booth- Republican or Democrat? Errrrrr......neither, none of the above. They're both broken and morally bankrupt- it's not much of a choice. It makes you want to take the alternative route- damn 'em both and do what works for yourself instead?
Now here's a thought I had the other day-- The situation of the Cold War is similar, in a way, to the much older situation between the Hapsburg Empire and the Ottoman Empire, with the same regions along the "frontier" between the two.
You're clearly both a philosopher and a person with personal experience of this subject. What do you think?
(If my ideas are totally wrong and naive, please do set me straight.) --- Sky
The tragic Failure of Post-Communism - good and informative article about what is really going on, points out rather cynical fact - that communism which was in the first place inspired by the yearning for the human dignity, justice and economical freedom, ment to find the solution for the poverty and misery by fighting against radical differences between rich and poor ended up with the label "totalitarian" and got replaced with the process of the formation of a new super rich cast, at any cost, by decomposition of in build communist mechanisms serving to prevent economical inequality. This mechanisms, however, weren't able to prevent and eliminate poverty, but in all communist countries they at least tried to provide a guaranteed minimum of security for every one, and laws preventing oppression on the economical basis, so that no one can get rich on the expense of others. The idea that everybody can become rich in "free" capitalist world has served as carrot and donkey mechanism of riddance from dull equality of the poor and oppressed, and set wild mafia hordes along with right wing populism. This is what I concluded to be a fallacy of irrelevant conclusion.
The major historical fault line, always has been and stil is - the difference between rich and poor - with rich becoming even richer through wars and all kinds of political games, and deceptive tactics. In this respect I see no difference between Habsburg and Otoman Empires, islam and cristianity.
For the church there are no doubts on what side of the fault line it stands:
en.wikipedia.org...
greetings from the gap (between faultlines)
edit on 12-6-2011 by Douriff because: (no reason given)
seaside sky: i would recommend to you a documentary called "Weight of Chains", it presents quite a balanced view of the dismemberment of
Yugoslavia.
There are two versions of the story of the Balkans. The first, which you would be familiar with, is that the Serbs were a blood thirsty nation hell bent on creating a 'Greater Serbia' and were modern day Nazis. It is unfortunate that this is the accepted story, because it is not even close to true. in fatc, the most ethnically-pure areas in the Balkans are areas where Serbs were driven from their land (Krajina in Croatia, and Kosovo, are two good examples. Operation storm, the cleansing of Serbs from Krajina, was the most successful operation of the war).
Then there is what really happened. The break-up of Yugoslavia was a long process facilitated by Western nations. Yugoslavia had the fourth largest military in Europe, it was friendly to both East and West and its people held a high standard of living. It was a great threat to the West which was fighting a cold war and Yugoslavia was a 'communist' country (though not really, it was still held up as a jewel of communism).
The death of Tito left a power vacuum that the West exploited, In the early 1980's they identified groups that could be used to destabilise the nation. The KLA in particular was noted by the CIA as a terrorist organisation that could be fostered to stir ethnic tensions. Two incidents in Kosovo were used as justifications to paint Serbia as aggressors. The first was an incident when a Serb asked Milosevic why the police (Albanians) were beating him. He said 'no one is allowed to beat you'. It was painted as nationalist (it wasnt, it was a neutral statement).
The second was a speak given at the 600th anniversary of the battle of Kosovo polje, which was painted as a nationalist speech by Milosevic. It wasnt, it was speech that mentioned numerous times how Yugoslavia needed to stay strong and the Yugoslav people needed to remain united. You can read it here:
www.ocf.berkeley.edu...
The western countries were agitating Croatia, Slovenija and Bosnia to secede. In the late 1980's the US congress passed a bill prohibiting further aid/funding to Yugoslav republics unless they seceded. The nationalists were being funded on all sides to create trouble. This inevitably led to riots, secession and then war.
The 'Yugoslav Army' was not mobilised against all republics as stated earlier in the thread. Krajina was manned by the Serbs who lived there. They were told to flee when Operation Storm was mounted because the Yugoslav Army was not present. One of my uncle's and his family fled for his life during operation storm, they have been refugees in Serbia ever since.
Similarly Bosnia was largely manned by the Bosnian Serbs, there was no large-scale assistance provided by the Yugoslav Army. 2/3rds of Bosnia was owned by Serbs at the time, the serbs were typically farmers. Hence when you saw reports on the news that "two-thirds of Bosnia how now been occupied", that simply reflected the ownership of the land and not some invasion.
The Bosnian war had a number of false flags and the western media were atently anti-serb. For example, the "death camp" photo on the cover of Time magazine was staged. The bosnian muslims attacked their own markets with mortars. The western media would show someone at a cemetery crying holding a cross and claim it was a muslim.
Srebrenica was also a false-flag type operation. The bosnian muslims were promised NATO intervention if they could provoke the serbs into a large enough act. Srebrenica, while a safe house, was used as a base of attack by the forces of Naser Oric, who massacred thousands of serbs in the surrounding areas. Hence why Mladic attacked Srebrenica, and thousands of muslims were then killed. Those muslim civilians were sacrificed by their government in order to have NATO intervene and Mladic took the bait. It was simple to have his soldiers start killing the civilians, many of them were from the area and had relatives killed so it was seen as an eye for an eye. However the bodies recovered, whether serbs or muslims that were killed, were counted as muslim deaths to inflate the body count. It was in fact thousands of innocents on both sides that were killed. Oric was given a token sentence and set free, Mladic was painted as one of the worst war criminals that ever lived (tells you a lot about the lack of impartiality at the ICTY in the Hague; it was created to legitimise the NATO war by finding as many Serbs guilty as possible).
Kosovo also had its false flag, the Racak 'massacre' which was shown by a Finnish investigation to have been battle deaths and not a massacre. That prompted the NATO bombing of serbia. NATO knocked out almost no military infrastructure, but used cluster bombs on civilian targets and DU munitions all over the country. Once again that one was set-up; the terms of surrender originally offered to Milosevic would have allowed NATO complete access to all of Serbia and immunity for NATO soldiers from prosecution for any crimes committed. No sovereign nation could sign on those terms, and hence the bombing was guaranteed.
All sides committed atrocities, it was war. However all sides were also victims. The serbs were not clearly the 'bad guys' as the media made out, they were simply the fall guys as Yugoslavia had to fall. They were the fall guys because they were the ones who wanted to keep a single Yugoslavia together; they were the ones in love with Tito's 'brotherhood and unity' mantra while the other republic were taught separatism by the funded Western operations.
If you want to go back to earlier history we can as well. WW1 and WW2 are also of interest as it provides more background on the modern conflicts. And prior to that, the division of the Balkans by Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans also provides modern context. Happy to go into that as well if you like.
There are two versions of the story of the Balkans. The first, which you would be familiar with, is that the Serbs were a blood thirsty nation hell bent on creating a 'Greater Serbia' and were modern day Nazis. It is unfortunate that this is the accepted story, because it is not even close to true. in fatc, the most ethnically-pure areas in the Balkans are areas where Serbs were driven from their land (Krajina in Croatia, and Kosovo, are two good examples. Operation storm, the cleansing of Serbs from Krajina, was the most successful operation of the war).
Then there is what really happened. The break-up of Yugoslavia was a long process facilitated by Western nations. Yugoslavia had the fourth largest military in Europe, it was friendly to both East and West and its people held a high standard of living. It was a great threat to the West which was fighting a cold war and Yugoslavia was a 'communist' country (though not really, it was still held up as a jewel of communism).
The death of Tito left a power vacuum that the West exploited, In the early 1980's they identified groups that could be used to destabilise the nation. The KLA in particular was noted by the CIA as a terrorist organisation that could be fostered to stir ethnic tensions. Two incidents in Kosovo were used as justifications to paint Serbia as aggressors. The first was an incident when a Serb asked Milosevic why the police (Albanians) were beating him. He said 'no one is allowed to beat you'. It was painted as nationalist (it wasnt, it was a neutral statement).
The second was a speak given at the 600th anniversary of the battle of Kosovo polje, which was painted as a nationalist speech by Milosevic. It wasnt, it was speech that mentioned numerous times how Yugoslavia needed to stay strong and the Yugoslav people needed to remain united. You can read it here:
www.ocf.berkeley.edu...
The western countries were agitating Croatia, Slovenija and Bosnia to secede. In the late 1980's the US congress passed a bill prohibiting further aid/funding to Yugoslav republics unless they seceded. The nationalists were being funded on all sides to create trouble. This inevitably led to riots, secession and then war.
The 'Yugoslav Army' was not mobilised against all republics as stated earlier in the thread. Krajina was manned by the Serbs who lived there. They were told to flee when Operation Storm was mounted because the Yugoslav Army was not present. One of my uncle's and his family fled for his life during operation storm, they have been refugees in Serbia ever since.
Similarly Bosnia was largely manned by the Bosnian Serbs, there was no large-scale assistance provided by the Yugoslav Army. 2/3rds of Bosnia was owned by Serbs at the time, the serbs were typically farmers. Hence when you saw reports on the news that "two-thirds of Bosnia how now been occupied", that simply reflected the ownership of the land and not some invasion.
The Bosnian war had a number of false flags and the western media were atently anti-serb. For example, the "death camp" photo on the cover of Time magazine was staged. The bosnian muslims attacked their own markets with mortars. The western media would show someone at a cemetery crying holding a cross and claim it was a muslim.
Srebrenica was also a false-flag type operation. The bosnian muslims were promised NATO intervention if they could provoke the serbs into a large enough act. Srebrenica, while a safe house, was used as a base of attack by the forces of Naser Oric, who massacred thousands of serbs in the surrounding areas. Hence why Mladic attacked Srebrenica, and thousands of muslims were then killed. Those muslim civilians were sacrificed by their government in order to have NATO intervene and Mladic took the bait. It was simple to have his soldiers start killing the civilians, many of them were from the area and had relatives killed so it was seen as an eye for an eye. However the bodies recovered, whether serbs or muslims that were killed, were counted as muslim deaths to inflate the body count. It was in fact thousands of innocents on both sides that were killed. Oric was given a token sentence and set free, Mladic was painted as one of the worst war criminals that ever lived (tells you a lot about the lack of impartiality at the ICTY in the Hague; it was created to legitimise the NATO war by finding as many Serbs guilty as possible).
Kosovo also had its false flag, the Racak 'massacre' which was shown by a Finnish investigation to have been battle deaths and not a massacre. That prompted the NATO bombing of serbia. NATO knocked out almost no military infrastructure, but used cluster bombs on civilian targets and DU munitions all over the country. Once again that one was set-up; the terms of surrender originally offered to Milosevic would have allowed NATO complete access to all of Serbia and immunity for NATO soldiers from prosecution for any crimes committed. No sovereign nation could sign on those terms, and hence the bombing was guaranteed.
All sides committed atrocities, it was war. However all sides were also victims. The serbs were not clearly the 'bad guys' as the media made out, they were simply the fall guys as Yugoslavia had to fall. They were the fall guys because they were the ones who wanted to keep a single Yugoslavia together; they were the ones in love with Tito's 'brotherhood and unity' mantra while the other republic were taught separatism by the funded Western operations.
If you want to go back to earlier history we can as well. WW1 and WW2 are also of interest as it provides more background on the modern conflicts. And prior to that, the division of the Balkans by Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans also provides modern context. Happy to go into that as well if you like.
edit on 12-6-2011 by zvezdar because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-6-2011 by zvezdar because: (no reason given)
reply to post by Douriff
A lot for me to think about now...
Those are good points about the red herring and the donkey and the carrot, and "what was once forbidden is now required" fallacies.
I'm glad I didn't make a fool of myself for the general imperialism comparisons- I'm so happy you found it had some relevance. So where do things go from here? Any ideas?
The trouble is, as you said, the age-old rich/poor, have/have not problem. It wears different clothes over the centuries but it's always there. A part of the human condition, and there is no perfect solution. There is no Utopia where everything works perfectly and we can all just relax and fall asleep, because human nature is what it is. It's a matter of finding the framework that gets closest to virtue and fairness, and then working very hard to keep those values alive.
I didn't know that Catholicism was so strong over there now. How about the Protestants? Do you find religion to be a strong factor now or are people more motivated by more obvious economic arguments?
Your English actually is better than a lot of what I see written by some Americans- I wasn't joking. Your vocabulary is far better than most, and I find your writing (as well as that of some of the other writers on this thread) very charming. I can hear an accent in the way you spell certain words. I wouldn't change a thing.
I'm now looking for the Cornwell book you recommended, as well as the documentary the post after yours suggested.
A lot for me to think about now...
Those are good points about the red herring and the donkey and the carrot, and "what was once forbidden is now required" fallacies.
I'm glad I didn't make a fool of myself for the general imperialism comparisons- I'm so happy you found it had some relevance. So where do things go from here? Any ideas?
The trouble is, as you said, the age-old rich/poor, have/have not problem. It wears different clothes over the centuries but it's always there. A part of the human condition, and there is no perfect solution. There is no Utopia where everything works perfectly and we can all just relax and fall asleep, because human nature is what it is. It's a matter of finding the framework that gets closest to virtue and fairness, and then working very hard to keep those values alive.
I didn't know that Catholicism was so strong over there now. How about the Protestants? Do you find religion to be a strong factor now or are people more motivated by more obvious economic arguments?
Your English actually is better than a lot of what I see written by some Americans- I wasn't joking. Your vocabulary is far better than most, and I find your writing (as well as that of some of the other writers on this thread) very charming. I can hear an accent in the way you spell certain words. I wouldn't change a thing.
I'm now looking for the Cornwell book you recommended, as well as the documentary the post after yours suggested.
reply to post by zvezdar
Many Americans were as suspicious as I was at the media portrayal of bloodthirsty evil monsters. And in saying this I am in no way claiming to take "sides" in the dispute- it was no doubt every bit as complex as any other human dispute. What was offensive about the "news" coverage in the US at the time was that it just smacked of propaganda- it was a sort of extreme demonization that was intended to be dehumanizing. The same sort of portrayal of "monsters" and "faces of evil" continues roaming the planet in search of new targets, and it's really sickening, isn't it? It's not just the US that does it, either.
I'm going to look for that documentary you suggested.
Many Americans were as suspicious as I was at the media portrayal of bloodthirsty evil monsters. And in saying this I am in no way claiming to take "sides" in the dispute- it was no doubt every bit as complex as any other human dispute. What was offensive about the "news" coverage in the US at the time was that it just smacked of propaganda- it was a sort of extreme demonization that was intended to be dehumanizing. The same sort of portrayal of "monsters" and "faces of evil" continues roaming the planet in search of new targets, and it's really sickening, isn't it? It's not just the US that does it, either.
I'm going to look for that documentary you suggested.
reply to post by seaside sky
Majority of population, some 89 % are Chatolics. There are very few Protestants. Influence of the Chatolic church on politics and general attitudes is very strong here, too strong IMHO.
However, this 89 % applies to all who were baptized in the Chatolic Church. Among them it is estimated some 25% of active believers. I presume that the majority of remnant % adheres only to the customs and tradition, whithouth paying too much attention to the rituals and faith, which includes some % of atheists and other groups like Buddists, Bakti, and else, participating in common customs for the convenience.
Strong identification of Catholicism with ethnicity is not rare. Clergy openly shows more then obvious tendency to influence politics.
I don’t think that believers and traditionalists are motivated with economic arguments. Maybe they just need some strong identification, auhority figure, something penetrative enough to make them believe that the war, corruption and suffering were not in vain - plus the church has been extra diligent in pursuing their agenda via brainwashing.
Nowhere. I am not overly optimistic. The whole civilisation is in the process of downgrading and regression.
How about you? What do you think?
I am glad that you find my posts useful. Sometimes I have a need to share some complicated thoughts about things arround me, even though they may be boring or too abstract for the majority of people.
I didn't know that Catholicism was so strong over there now. How about the Protestants? Do you find religion to be a strong factor now or are people more motivated by more obvious economic arguments?
Majority of population, some 89 % are Chatolics. There are very few Protestants. Influence of the Chatolic church on politics and general attitudes is very strong here, too strong IMHO.
However, this 89 % applies to all who were baptized in the Chatolic Church. Among them it is estimated some 25% of active believers. I presume that the majority of remnant % adheres only to the customs and tradition, whithouth paying too much attention to the rituals and faith, which includes some % of atheists and other groups like Buddists, Bakti, and else, participating in common customs for the convenience.
Strong identification of Catholicism with ethnicity is not rare. Clergy openly shows more then obvious tendency to influence politics.
I don’t think that believers and traditionalists are motivated with economic arguments. Maybe they just need some strong identification, auhority figure, something penetrative enough to make them believe that the war, corruption and suffering were not in vain - plus the church has been extra diligent in pursuing their agenda via brainwashing.
So where do things go from here? Any ideas?
Nowhere. I am not overly optimistic. The whole civilisation is in the process of downgrading and regression.
How about you? What do you think?
I am glad that you find my posts useful. Sometimes I have a need to share some complicated thoughts about things arround me, even though they may be boring or too abstract for the majority of people.
edit on 12-6-2011 by Douriff because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-6-2011 by Douriff because: (no reason given)
reply to post by seaside sky
During the conflict i was online trying to break through the mass media rubbish, and i did not meet many Americans who were willing to accept that there was a different version of events. You guys trusted your government too much.
In the last decade or so the number seeking the truth has risen, however, as it has become clear that the media is far from independent. I still try and do my bit to show you guys how public opinion in the US has been manipulated, in the hope that you dont fall for it in the future and recognise how your governments deceive and use you. Unless enough Americans wake up, your great country will fall.
That documentary is well worth the two hours to watch. There also this, which i have linked to before on ATS and gives a first-person view on how the 'death camps' story was faked (there were two sets of reporters there at the time, the UK crew that faked the images and a Serbian news crew whose footage shows 100% that the images were fake). Its a 3-part series on Youtube which goes for around half an hour in total.
www.youtube.com...
During the conflict i was online trying to break through the mass media rubbish, and i did not meet many Americans who were willing to accept that there was a different version of events. You guys trusted your government too much.
In the last decade or so the number seeking the truth has risen, however, as it has become clear that the media is far from independent. I still try and do my bit to show you guys how public opinion in the US has been manipulated, in the hope that you dont fall for it in the future and recognise how your governments deceive and use you. Unless enough Americans wake up, your great country will fall.
That documentary is well worth the two hours to watch. There also this, which i have linked to before on ATS and gives a first-person view on how the 'death camps' story was faked (there were two sets of reporters there at the time, the UK crew that faked the images and a Serbian news crew whose footage shows 100% that the images were fake). Its a 3-part series on Youtube which goes for around half an hour in total.
www.youtube.com...
Originally posted by zvezdar
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread713472/pg4#pid11576051]
In the last decade or so the number seeking the truth has risen, however, as it has become clear that the media is far from independent. I still try and do my bit to show you guys how public opinion in the US has been manipulated, in the hope that you dont fall for it in the future and recognise how your governments deceive and use you. Unless enough Americans wake up, your great country will fall.
Hi zvezdar,
let me say this - from my perspective the media perception of Serbs (or Croats) as genocidal nations is less important then the question about how the nations were manipulated into the conflicts of such magnitude. In my opinion, extremists on both sides were supported purposefully to ignite upheavals for the reasons yet unknown. It is obvious that conflicts could have been prevented, with or without Yugoslavia falling apart. Trying to deny the existance of extremists makes things more difficut to understand. They do exist, they are serving their purpose, and we must not deny that (dangerous) fact.
Majority of people think that conflicts happened spontaneously, out of the thin air, as a natural consequence of historical animosities. People also believe that atrocities didn't happen, or that things at least were not that bad. Wrong.
Therefore, I suggest, that we, at least here on conspiracy forum, try to figure out, who was actually pooling the strings here on Balcans and why. Instead of trying to heal our injured national pride.
This post is largely inspired by gay pride this saturday - where 10 000 of people attacked 400 gay activists in Split. (With prominent chatolic priest comment - that he is sory about those who were throwing stones, but that the participants of gay parade get what they were looking for.
www.balkaninsight.com...
Similar things are happening in Belgrade news.bbc.co.uk...
thenewcivilrightsmovement.com... /13548
So, what do you think? Are we naturally so primitive, xenofobic, homofobic and wild? Can we blame media for creating ugly picture about us, or is something else going on here, far more dangerous and twisted?
edit on 13-6-2011 by Douriff because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Douriff
Hi zvezdar,
let me say this - from my perspective the media perception of Serbs (or Croats) as genocidal nations is less important then the question about how the nations were manipulated into the conflicts of such magnitude.
I'll disagree with you on this, the media perception on this issue was a vital piece of the puzzle. The balkans conflict allowed the transformation of NATO from a defensive to offensive organisation. To do so and have popular support in NATO nations there needed to be a picture of such horrifying magnitude (ie new Nazis in Europe) that no one could deny NATO's use of force.
So in that regard the role of the media in swaying public perception in the balkans was a key piece of a puzzle that continues to play out; the use of NATO as a de-facto NWO force (see Libya as an example, NATO now attacking an African nation? Unthinkable 20 years ago.)
In my opinion, extremists on both sides were supported purposefully to ignite upheavals for the reasons yet unknown. It is obvious that conflicts could have been prevented, with or without Yugoslavia falling apart. Trying to deny the existance of extremists makes things more difficut to understand. They do exist, they are serving their purpose, and we must not deny that (dangerous) fact.
Absolutely agree, extremists on all sides were being funded by Western nations. In Serbia, much of the paramilitary forces operating in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo was organised by the opposition to the Milosevic government. These are the forces that committed most of the atrocities committed by Serbs, and the opposition parties were funded by the US and NATO countries in order to smash Yugoslavia.
The same thing is true of Croatian, Bosnian muslim and KLA forces; they were all supported by NATO and the US to facilitate the breakup of Yugoslavia.
Majority of people think that conflicts happened spontaneously, out of the thin air, as a natural consequence of historical animosities. People also believe that atrocities didn't happen, or that things at least were not that bad. Wrong.
Correct, with a certain caveat. The reporting of atrocities grossly misrepresented what happened in the Balkans and tried ot pin it all on Serbs when all sides were committing them (NATO included).
Therefore, I suggest, that we, at least here on conspiracy forum, try to figure out, who was actually pooling the strings here on Balcans and why. Instead of trying to heal our injured national pride.
Right now, its the same forces that are pulling the strings globally. All Balkan nations are now mired in debt thanks to IMF programs. The intention is to enslave the people through debt, the same as it is in the rest of the world. However with Yugoslavia it was a large and powerful nation, it needed to be broken up to get the right pro-EU and pro-IMF people in control.
As for national pride...i blame my fellow Serbs for what happened. We fell for the old Yugoslav ideals of 'brotherhood and unity' while the other republics were looking out for themselves (in their minds, they didnt forsee the outcome). We were bombed because not because we were too nationalistic, but because we were too tolerant. That tolerance, while still there somewhere, has been shattered by the crippling eonomic woes now faced by the country.
So, what do you think? Are we naturally so primitive, xenofobic, homofobic and wild? Can we blame media for creating ugly picture about us, or is something else going on here, far more dangerous and twisted?
No i dont believe we are naturally hateful and wild. If you look at today's society however you will see that racial, religious and sexual differences are focused on to give people a reason to be divided and hate each other. While there are calls to multiculturalism, govt policy exists to divide cultures and foster hate. There is hate all around the world, and the propaganda machine that we call the media allows it to spread.
Look at the tone of most reporting, it is there to spread fear amongst the people. This is the way the typical individual thinks nowdays: If i fear something i lash out at it; if something is different and i dont understand it, my first reaction now is fear because that is how i am conditioned to be.
We are disarmed, our communities are broken, we dont have the same connection to family, community or God that kept us all together and strong as people. The Serbian creed is "only unity protects the serbs".Our elders had it correct, unity protects us all. Thats what is being smashed right now through very subtle means.
This is the ultimate game of divide and conquer. The Balkans is a good lesson for everyone to see how a stable society can be broken down through the fostering of differences.
edit on 13-6-2011 by zvezdar because: (no reason given)
reply to post by Douriff
I don't know what to think, except that empires always fall eventually- and at those points in history when they do, most anything can happen. As you might have gathered by now, I'm against globalization and I deeply distrust giving too much power to centralized governments of any kind. In this country, the power of the federal government has become far too strong in my opinion and needs to be weakened- with power going back to the local states where it belongs. While I understand that the recent acceptance into the EU might be cause for some celebration as perhaps being perceived as better than not, I can't help but feel that it's making a deal with the devil. It seems membership is of the "you gotta pay to play" variety, which creates debt-slavery. But at present there may be no better choice?
So Catholicism is very much a majority there, but, as with everywhere else, its influence varies - for some, religion informs politics or politics informs religion, for others religion is purely non-secular faith, and for many others, religion is more of a cultural tradition that one is a nominal member of without any particularly strong political drives? The same is no doubt the case with the Muslims too? I am assuming that you are Catholic?
Like you, I also enjoy having discussions like this. Many people just aren't interested, of course. They give you that glazed expression when you try. They have their own interests that glaze me over in boredom too. So it takes all kinds to make the world, doesn't it?
I don't know what to think, except that empires always fall eventually- and at those points in history when they do, most anything can happen. As you might have gathered by now, I'm against globalization and I deeply distrust giving too much power to centralized governments of any kind. In this country, the power of the federal government has become far too strong in my opinion and needs to be weakened- with power going back to the local states where it belongs. While I understand that the recent acceptance into the EU might be cause for some celebration as perhaps being perceived as better than not, I can't help but feel that it's making a deal with the devil. It seems membership is of the "you gotta pay to play" variety, which creates debt-slavery. But at present there may be no better choice?
So Catholicism is very much a majority there, but, as with everywhere else, its influence varies - for some, religion informs politics or politics informs religion, for others religion is purely non-secular faith, and for many others, religion is more of a cultural tradition that one is a nominal member of without any particularly strong political drives? The same is no doubt the case with the Muslims too? I am assuming that you are Catholic?
Like you, I also enjoy having discussions like this. Many people just aren't interested, of course. They give you that glazed expression when you try. They have their own interests that glaze me over in boredom too. So it takes all kinds to make the world, doesn't it?
reply to post by zvezdar
However this is true, I think that those who understand the mechanisms of divide and conquer game, should not engage in lamentation about poor little nation - "us" - being swayed, deceived, forced to fight, then wrongly accused and portrayed by the evil media to look as a bunch of idiots. Because - we are idiots, and there is no one else to blame
No offence zvezdar, nothing personal.
This is the ultimate game of divide and conquer. The Balkans is a good lesson for everyone to see how a stable society can be broken down through the fostering of differences.
However this is true, I think that those who understand the mechanisms of divide and conquer game, should not engage in lamentation about poor little nation - "us" - being swayed, deceived, forced to fight, then wrongly accused and portrayed by the evil media to look as a bunch of idiots. Because - we are idiots, and there is no one else to blame
No offence zvezdar, nothing personal.
edit on 13-6-2011 by Douriff because: (no reason given)
reply to post by zvezdar
There were a fair number of Americans who did distrust the media coverage, though obviously not enough. Part of the distrust, of course, was the fact that the situation co-incided with a number of criminal investigations of the Clintons and their administration. There were continual attempts to distract the public's attention away from the scandals and, more seriously, the actual criminal activity, both by the sex scandals called the "bimbo eruptions", and, far far more seriously, by war. This of course was just one chapter in the same tale that's been underlying American media coverage throughout many presidential administrations, and by no means the first nor the last one that affected the Balkans.
Have you seen the movie "Wag the Dog"? It says it all, really.
I sure hope you're right about Americans becoming more thoughtful and less passive when it comes to the news. I'm not that optimistic, though. The American public accepted the "got bin Laden" story without much critical thought- and that story was blatantly preposterous. It wasn't even good fiction writing. I think it's going to take something really enormous to change this mental attitude.
There were a fair number of Americans who did distrust the media coverage, though obviously not enough. Part of the distrust, of course, was the fact that the situation co-incided with a number of criminal investigations of the Clintons and their administration. There were continual attempts to distract the public's attention away from the scandals and, more seriously, the actual criminal activity, both by the sex scandals called the "bimbo eruptions", and, far far more seriously, by war. This of course was just one chapter in the same tale that's been underlying American media coverage throughout many presidential administrations, and by no means the first nor the last one that affected the Balkans.
Have you seen the movie "Wag the Dog"? It says it all, really.
I sure hope you're right about Americans becoming more thoughtful and less passive when it comes to the news. I'm not that optimistic, though. The American public accepted the "got bin Laden" story without much critical thought- and that story was blatantly preposterous. It wasn't even good fiction writing. I think it's going to take something really enormous to change this mental attitude.
I don't know what to think, except that empires always fall eventually- and at those points in history when they do, most anything can happen. As you might have gathered by now, I'm against globalization and I deeply distrust giving too much power to centralized governments of any kind. In this country, the power of the federal government has become far too strong in my opinion and needs to be weakened- with power going back to the local states where it belongs.
Empires fall, but methods remain more or less the same. The minority rules over the rest of population. I don't understand, though, how is it possible that humanity didn't learn the lesson yet?
I have witnessed the rise of demimode, second rate, middlings to the prominent positions during the fall of Yugoslavia, and decided to dismiss the idea that modern election system serves democracy. I am back to the conclusion that politics is all about messing with people's minds.
With USA tremendeous military power - politics should be rethinked or outlawed along with religions, as soon as possible. The world needs a completely different methods to deal with social and economical issues. Spiritual dimensions should be spared from spin doctors at any cost.
While I understand that the recent acceptance into the EU might be cause for some celebration as perhaps being perceived as better than not, I can't help but feel that it's making a deal with the devil. It seems membership is of the "you gotta pay to play" variety, which creates debt-slavery. But at present there may be no better choice?
Not much enthusiasm about EU here. People know that politicians are trying to buy political points with what they present as „sucess“ in negotiating with EU bureaucrats. What they call „negotiation“ many suspect to be too much admission.
I agree that there is no better choice. However, I don't think Croatia will ever enter EU.
Chatolicism has been, and will be causing a huge problems again:
en.wikipedia.org...
I am assuming that you are Catholic?
Yes, a nominal. Let me quote A. Einstein here:
“I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion”
Like you, I also enjoy having discussions like this. Many people just aren't interested, of course. They give you that glazed expression when you try. They have their own interests that glaze me over in boredom too. So it takes all kinds to make the world, doesn't it?
Gazed expression, haha, that's it. Anyway, there is always a common ground, in spite of the differences, it just takes too much energy to squeeze into the narrow views, and not to flash gazed expression back.
Originally posted by Douriff
However this is true, I think that those who understand the mechanisms of divide and conquer game, should not engage in lamentation about poor little nation - "us" - being swayed, deceived, forced to fight, then wrongly accused and portrayed by the evil media to look as a bunch of idiots. Because - we are idiots, and there is no one else to blame
No offence zvezdar, nothing personal.
No offence taken, i'm just not sure what you are trying to say. If you are trying to say that i am blaming everyone but serbia for what happened, then you must have missed the paragraph i posted where i explicitly said "i blame my fellow serbs".
If that is not what you are referring to, then i dont understand your posted.
No where here am I trying to garner sympathy about a "poor little nation" as you describe, I am simply describing what happened and giving examples of how. If you cant accept this is the genuine version of events then it is your issue, feel free to explore it and come back when you understand. All the Balkan nations have been equally damaged by these events. There is no point holding on to the lies of the mass media just because it suits you to do so (and i include the media of the Balkans in this; they are equally complicit in the spreading of lies to facilitate the destruction in the Balkans).
All of this is relevant for what is planned for ALL nations. Hence why i feel it is important to learn from the recent past so we can expect the future.
edit on 14-6-2011 by zvezdar because: (no reason given)
reply to post by Douriff
Why doesn't humanity ever learn? Oh, there's a good topic for a new thread! Maybe we ought to start one and see how it goes.
You got me thinking about the collective and the individual, and the matter of how we are all necessarily limited by the perspectives of our own experiences. The more complex our societies become, the more specialized we all become, and more isolated from others. We live in the echo chamber of the people who share our experiences and roles, unless we make the conscious effort to step beyond that. The elite become so isolated from those they make rules for, the lower classes become isolated from any experience with the responsibility of making rules.
As I think about it, it also looks to be not only a basic philosophical question, but also a theological question- perhaps only the individual soul is capable of wisdom and enlightenment and free will- the collective "soul" may be essentially incapable of these things (and thus not really be a "soul" at all?)
In any event, it seems that collective society is somehow condemned to repeat the same mistakes over and over again.
I'd be very, very interested to hear your thoughts on the subject.
Why doesn't humanity ever learn? Oh, there's a good topic for a new thread! Maybe we ought to start one and see how it goes.
You got me thinking about the collective and the individual, and the matter of how we are all necessarily limited by the perspectives of our own experiences. The more complex our societies become, the more specialized we all become, and more isolated from others. We live in the echo chamber of the people who share our experiences and roles, unless we make the conscious effort to step beyond that. The elite become so isolated from those they make rules for, the lower classes become isolated from any experience with the responsibility of making rules.
As I think about it, it also looks to be not only a basic philosophical question, but also a theological question- perhaps only the individual soul is capable of wisdom and enlightenment and free will- the collective "soul" may be essentially incapable of these things (and thus not really be a "soul" at all?)
In any event, it seems that collective society is somehow condemned to repeat the same mistakes over and over again.
I'd be very, very interested to hear your thoughts on the subject.
reply to post by zvezdar
I am trying to say that Balcan saga is so complicated that no matter how unbiased your explanation is trying to be- you will never be able to reach the general consent.Vukovar, for example. Many people claim that Coatia could have easily defend the town, but the fall of the city was deliberate. Tuđman, according to his agreements with Milosevic, supposedly allowed the weaponry and ammo to be driven to Herzegovina, and deliberately left Vukovar defenceless.
Try to say that aloud to someone who swears that Tuđman was the best statesman in the history of Croatia.
See? You say that you are just describing what have happened and giving examples, but I think that you know that there will be at least tree version of the same story, each of them claiming to represent the ultimate truth.
You cannot blame mass media for that, just walk arround and talk to locals, surf the Internet, find endless discussions among the people who were supposed to be on the same side.
I don't know If you had the opportunity to read Jebo sad hiljadu dinara (F* the thousand dinars now) hilarious satirical novel by Boris Dežulović? The novel describes two military units in some bosnian wasteland. Muslims disguised in „ustashi“ uniforms, met Croats in undercover mission dressed in muslim's uniforms. All day holding each other at gunpoint they actually see their own army on the opposite side, but are afraid how to explain their disguise. When they finally get close and started to talk, they find so many things in common that they never realized how “them” and “us” is completely mixed up.
Exactly, this is why I proposed to think about completely different approach to our problems. If you agree that Balcan drama is orchestrated, then you may understand my point - that detailed clarification only leads to further revival of trauma.
What we need (badly) is just cutting the Gordian knot – reset button.
No offence taken, i'm just not sure what you are trying to say. If you are trying to say that i am blaming everyone but serbia for what happened, then you must have missed the paragraph i posted where i explicitly said "i blame my fellow serbs".
I am trying to say that Balcan saga is so complicated that no matter how unbiased your explanation is trying to be- you will never be able to reach the general consent.Vukovar, for example. Many people claim that Coatia could have easily defend the town, but the fall of the city was deliberate. Tuđman, according to his agreements with Milosevic, supposedly allowed the weaponry and ammo to be driven to Herzegovina, and deliberately left Vukovar defenceless.
Try to say that aloud to someone who swears that Tuđman was the best statesman in the history of Croatia.
See? You say that you are just describing what have happened and giving examples, but I think that you know that there will be at least tree version of the same story, each of them claiming to represent the ultimate truth.
You cannot blame mass media for that, just walk arround and talk to locals, surf the Internet, find endless discussions among the people who were supposed to be on the same side.
I don't know If you had the opportunity to read Jebo sad hiljadu dinara (F* the thousand dinars now) hilarious satirical novel by Boris Dežulović? The novel describes two military units in some bosnian wasteland. Muslims disguised in „ustashi“ uniforms, met Croats in undercover mission dressed in muslim's uniforms. All day holding each other at gunpoint they actually see their own army on the opposite side, but are afraid how to explain their disguise. When they finally get close and started to talk, they find so many things in common that they never realized how “them” and “us” is completely mixed up.
All the Balkan nations have been equally damaged by these events.
Exactly, this is why I proposed to think about completely different approach to our problems. If you agree that Balcan drama is orchestrated, then you may understand my point - that detailed clarification only leads to further revival of trauma.
What we need (badly) is just cutting the Gordian knot – reset button.
edit on 14-6-2011 by Douriff because: (no reason given)
reply to post by seaside sky
Individual or collective?
When thinking about all major historical events, we inevitably come to the conclusion that all of them were set in motion by some extraordinary individual. Whether this is because such individuals really have special powers, or circumstances are conducive that any person in a given moment who takes the lead may or may not become a charismatic catalyst, it is hard to say. (This reminds me on Thomas Khun's paradigm shift, the theory of scientific revolution can equaly be applied to society - possibly??? )
However, in my opinion, the power of individual is largely underestimated, by our own psychological limitations. Many, if not most, gladly give up their power, in favor of someone or something else (God, goverment, parents, spouse, priest… ) because of beliefs, subconscious urges to avoid responsibility, fears, social conditioning or whatever.
Social conditioning is the most obvious reason for not taking larger scope of individual responsibility for the collective happenings.
There are also theories about omnipotent extraterrestrial rulership over collective mind, where no one can do anything but wait for the collective shift of consciousness. I don't know what do you think about such theories, but in my opinion they are dangerously enhancing collective sense of powerlessness. Even though, I myself have no clue of what to do about the society in general, and sometimes have no clue even how to deal with ordinary everyday life, let alone the problems of the Universe, I still believe that power button is somwhere within us.
Individual or collective?
When thinking about all major historical events, we inevitably come to the conclusion that all of them were set in motion by some extraordinary individual. Whether this is because such individuals really have special powers, or circumstances are conducive that any person in a given moment who takes the lead may or may not become a charismatic catalyst, it is hard to say. (This reminds me on Thomas Khun's paradigm shift, the theory of scientific revolution can equaly be applied to society - possibly??? )
However, in my opinion, the power of individual is largely underestimated, by our own psychological limitations. Many, if not most, gladly give up their power, in favor of someone or something else (God, goverment, parents, spouse, priest… ) because of beliefs, subconscious urges to avoid responsibility, fears, social conditioning or whatever.
Social conditioning is the most obvious reason for not taking larger scope of individual responsibility for the collective happenings.
There are also theories about omnipotent extraterrestrial rulership over collective mind, where no one can do anything but wait for the collective shift of consciousness. I don't know what do you think about such theories, but in my opinion they are dangerously enhancing collective sense of powerlessness. Even though, I myself have no clue of what to do about the society in general, and sometimes have no clue even how to deal with ordinary everyday life, let alone the problems of the Universe, I still believe that power button is somwhere within us.
edit on 14-6-2011 by Douriff because: (no reason given)
reply to post by Douriff
I think we're in agreement. It is the power of individual action that shapes all of human society (and I do not believe in the alien control idea, though I know there are those who do- I think that belief is an abdication of personal responsibility) Free will exists for the individual.
The collective of human societies- both organized social systems and mob psychology, does seem to me to lack the ability to learn and comprehend itself in the way that the individuals within the group do, and so collectives might actually lack free will as we understand it. Which doesn't mean that our personal free will is non-existent, rather that it becomes more important than ever because we can't count on the social collective to take on our moral responsibilities.
And, as you pointed out, so many people tend do tend to pass off the responsibiltity of moral action onto the group, as if the group mind is capable of higher action without the involvement of the individuals. People often see "the state" or "society" as a sort of person in its own right- higher and more powerful than we mere mortals, which seems to be the backward way of looking at it. And, of course, the structure of social systems tends to leave most people feeling truly powerless to change anything anyway, so why get involved?
The more I've been thinking about it, the more I'm coming to the conclusion that the collective social systems actually do lack consciousness themselves (which is why the same mistakes are made time and again) It's the individuals within them that make all the difference, and their power is measured in the degree they can influence other individuals, and perhaps (at least for a time), make important changes in society. But once their influence fades, the collective social structure will be likely to slink back into its usual patterns.
I think we're in agreement. It is the power of individual action that shapes all of human society (and I do not believe in the alien control idea, though I know there are those who do- I think that belief is an abdication of personal responsibility) Free will exists for the individual.
The collective of human societies- both organized social systems and mob psychology, does seem to me to lack the ability to learn and comprehend itself in the way that the individuals within the group do, and so collectives might actually lack free will as we understand it. Which doesn't mean that our personal free will is non-existent, rather that it becomes more important than ever because we can't count on the social collective to take on our moral responsibilities.
And, as you pointed out, so many people tend do tend to pass off the responsibiltity of moral action onto the group, as if the group mind is capable of higher action without the involvement of the individuals. People often see "the state" or "society" as a sort of person in its own right- higher and more powerful than we mere mortals, which seems to be the backward way of looking at it. And, of course, the structure of social systems tends to leave most people feeling truly powerless to change anything anyway, so why get involved?
The more I've been thinking about it, the more I'm coming to the conclusion that the collective social systems actually do lack consciousness themselves (which is why the same mistakes are made time and again) It's the individuals within them that make all the difference, and their power is measured in the degree they can influence other individuals, and perhaps (at least for a time), make important changes in society. But once their influence fades, the collective social structure will be likely to slink back into its usual patterns.
An example, but the only one I have, of army officers not thinking too well, A foreign army battalion arrived in the old Yugoslavia to help 'keep the
peace' and the officers decided to pitch the tents in a broad river valley, right next to the river, which was shallow and slow moving, seemed
perfect, during the night, there was a cloudburst upstream, a real humdinger, guess what? yep, the army camp was washed away, no fatalities, but
everything washed away downstream, a total loss, the army personnel were not European, or Asian, or African..............
reply to post by seaside sky
There is another thing, regarding your thoughts about collective lacking free will - besides personal responsibility and individual involvement. To get involved in politics is rather easy for anyone willing to join existent political bodies. Even starting one’s own initiative is not too difficult. But there is a structural problem about any kind of social involvement - it will always induce an antagonism.
Even firm common ground such as constitution, does not prevent opposing forces within society.
Is it the nature of duality itself that prevents creation of universally accepted common ground, or what?
For example, how comes that health care program stirred so much debate in USA, while in Europe, this is so common, that we cannot understand how can anyone be against it.
It seems that antagonisms are bouncing back and forth, with patterns being more or less the same. Antagonisms are always created around civil rights, distribution of wealth, availability of education, health care and scientific progress.
A very good historical example is flourishing of Arab culture, science and medicine from 8th to 13th centuries. Some “scholars”, though, have disputed the very existence of Arabic cultural advancement. No wander why, if accepted, they would have been forced to answer uncomfortable questions about why was the overall progress of the humanity intermitted for a long period of time.
P.S.
an intriquing read on the background history of Balcans written in english:
omitted chapters
There is another thing, regarding your thoughts about collective lacking free will - besides personal responsibility and individual involvement. To get involved in politics is rather easy for anyone willing to join existent political bodies. Even starting one’s own initiative is not too difficult. But there is a structural problem about any kind of social involvement - it will always induce an antagonism.
Even firm common ground such as constitution, does not prevent opposing forces within society.
Is it the nature of duality itself that prevents creation of universally accepted common ground, or what?
For example, how comes that health care program stirred so much debate in USA, while in Europe, this is so common, that we cannot understand how can anyone be against it.
It's the individuals within them that make all the difference, and their power is measured in the degree they can influence other individuals, and perhaps (at least for a time), make important changes in societyBut once their influence fades, the collective social structure will be likely to slink back into its usual patterns.
It seems that antagonisms are bouncing back and forth, with patterns being more or less the same. Antagonisms are always created around civil rights, distribution of wealth, availability of education, health care and scientific progress.
A very good historical example is flourishing of Arab culture, science and medicine from 8th to 13th centuries. Some “scholars”, though, have disputed the very existence of Arabic cultural advancement. No wander why, if accepted, they would have been forced to answer uncomfortable questions about why was the overall progress of the humanity intermitted for a long period of time.
P.S.
an intriquing read on the background history of Balcans written in english:
omitted chapters
edit on 15-6-2011 by Douriff because: (no reason given)
new topics
-
HORRIBLE !! Russian Soldier Drinking Own Urine To Survive In Battle
World War Three: 1 hours ago -
Bobiverse
Fantasy & Science Fiction: 3 hours ago -
Florida man's trip overseas ends in shock over $143,000 T-Mobile phone bill
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 4 hours ago -
Former Labour minister Frank Field dies aged 81
People: 6 hours ago -
SETI chief says US has no evidence for alien technology. 'And we never have'
Aliens and UFOs: 7 hours ago -
This is our Story
General Entertainment: 10 hours ago
top topics
-
President BIDEN Vows to Make Americans Pay More Federal Taxes in 2025 - Political Suicide.
2024 Elections: 12 hours ago, 16 flags -
One Flame Throwing Robot Dog for Christmas Please!
Weaponry: 17 hours ago, 6 flags -
Florida man's trip overseas ends in shock over $143,000 T-Mobile phone bill
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 4 hours ago, 6 flags -
SETI chief says US has no evidence for alien technology. 'And we never have'
Aliens and UFOs: 7 hours ago, 5 flags -
Don't take advantage of people just because it seems easy it will backfire
Rant: 17 hours ago, 4 flags -
Ditching physical money
History: 17 hours ago, 4 flags -
Former Labour minister Frank Field dies aged 81
People: 6 hours ago, 4 flags -
Bobiverse
Fantasy & Science Fiction: 3 hours ago, 3 flags -
This is our Story
General Entertainment: 10 hours ago, 3 flags -
Ode to Artemis
General Chit Chat: 13 hours ago, 3 flags
active topics
-
Thousands Of Young Ukrainian Men Trying To Flee The Country To Avoid Conscription And The War
Other Current Events • 129 • : yuppa -
One Flame Throwing Robot Dog for Christmas Please!
Weaponry • 10 • : ATruGod -
Breaking Baltimore, ship brings down bridge, mass casualties
Other Current Events • 477 • : ArMaP -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 644 • : cherokeetroy -
HORRIBLE !! Russian Soldier Drinking Own Urine To Survive In Battle
World War Three • 8 • : Astyanax -
New whistleblower Jason Sands speaks on Twitter Spaces last night.
Aliens and UFOs • 51 • : Ophiuchus1 -
The Reality of the Laser
Military Projects • 40 • : Zaphod58 -
President BIDEN Vows to Make Americans Pay More Federal Taxes in 2025 - Political Suicide.
2024 Elections • 67 • : UnderAether -
Windows tracking links to WEF and more:
New World Order • 21 • : milaganenogan -
SETI chief says US has no evidence for alien technology. 'And we never have'
Aliens and UFOs • 29 • : SchrodingersRat