Danish queen raps radical Islam

Originally posted by blablablaxyz
in former Yugoslavia it was Alija Izetbegovic's Islamic declaration "Bosnia must be an independent muslim state" that started the war. Not Serbian nationalism.

It was just serb nationalism that started the extermination right?

1,000,000 dead Christian Armenians was not a local violent outburst committed by the Turks. It was genocide.

I think everyone can agree on that. The armenian genocide was loathsome. The denial of its existence by many muslims is similar to neo-nazis denying the holocaust, or, hmmmm, serbs denying ethinc cleansing.

Originally posted by Souljah
Coca-Cola company was not allowed to have a deal with Nazi Germany to sell them their product Coca-Cola, so they invented a new one for German market especially - Fanta!

Behold all that is evil



*fixed image*

[edit on 18-4-2005 by dbates]

Originally posted by Nygdan
Behold all that is evil

You mean that hotlinks is evil?

Nice picture, Nygdan. I don´t know if you can see it, but we see a "Kiss my ass" picture telling us that hotlinks are forbidded.

*fixed image*

[edit on 18-4-2005 by dbates]

Originally posted by Nygdan
It was just serb nationalism that started the extermination right?

Between 100-150,000 deaths in the decade-long civil war that broke up Yugoslavia. ON ALL SIDES. 100-150,000 too many. For sure.
Compare that the 100,000+ estimated deaths in the last 2 years in Iraq...
Extermination is totally the wrong word. Mass media style sensationalism.

Originally posted by Nygdan
I think everyone can agree on that. The armenian genocide was loathsome. The denial of its existence by many muslims is similar to neo-nazis denying the holocaust, or, hmmmm, serbs denying ethinc cleansing.

Be careful with comparing the Holocaust and the genocide committed by the Turks on the Christian Armenians to... Serbs fighting an attempted land grab by former Yugoslavia's muslims.

The Nazis did not put Jews on the train to Israel, as the Serbs were putting ethnic Albanian Kosovars on the train to Albania.

Awful comparison.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Souljah
Coca-Cola company was not allowed to have a deal with Nazi Germany to sell them their product Coca-Cola, so they invented a new one for German market especially - Fanta!

Behold all that is evil

ok, here it is...

blablablaxyz

The Endless Question in Balkan Wars:

WHO STARTED THE WAR?

Siege of Sarajevo? Shelling of Dubrovnik? Total Destruction of Vukovar? Massacres in Srebrenica and Goražde?

You said:
Serbs fighting an attempted land grab by former Yugoslavia's muslims?

Or were there Serbs Fighting for the "Great-Serbia"?

Be carefull how you speak about Yugoslav Civil War - its a very delicate area.

Are you from Ex-Yugoslavia maybe?

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Souljah
Coca-Cola company was not allowed to have a deal with Nazi Germany to sell them their product Coca-Cola, so they invented a new one for German market especially - Fanta!

Given this overtly enthusiastic embrace of the Nazis, the fact that the Coca-Cola GmbH survived the oncoming war seems more a logical conclusion to this paper than a surprise in need of an explanation. Despite all the difficulties inherent in Coke's rise, by the time war broke out, Coke's situation was so secure that Max Keith could get himself "appointed to the Office of Enemy Property to supervise all soft drink plants, both in Germany and the captured teritory. As German troops overran Europe, Keith and Oppenhof followed, assisting and taking over the Coca-Cola businesses in Italy, France, Holland, Luxembourg, Belgium and Norway." Even that the war had cut off the supply of 7X and Merchandise #5 proved unimportant. Keith and his men countered by inventing Fanta to see them through the war, and thus created a success that still reverberates throughout the corners of the world where local bottling companies fill Fanta bottles.

I couldnt find any of the Fanta Propaganda Posters from WW2, but here is a coupke of real oldies:

A Nazi Coca Cola Lucky Charm - "Drink Coca-Cola In Bottles for 5 cents" from 1925.

Originally posted by Souljah Nazi Coca Cola Lucky Charm

What? The nazis were'nt big in 1925, certainly coke wasn't making these things for them. The swatstika is an old happy symbol. This item has nothin to do with nazism.

Why is the middle pic relevant? Its simply in german no? I can't read it.

Originally posted by blablablaxyz
Mass media style sensationalism.

The serbs would go into a village, round everyone up, and execute them, systematically attempting to 'restore' that ethnic balance that you are saying was thrown out of whack.

Serbs fighting an attempted land grab by former Yugoslavia's muslims.

Land grab? The only people grabbing land were the serbs, trying to reconstitute a Greater Serbia. The muslims were migrating and immigrating, it wasn't illegal, it wasn't a land grab.

Awful comparison.

An accurate comparison. In all three cases one ethnicity and religion tried to destroy another. The nazis did try to kick the jews out, and forcibly concentrating people and deporting them is hardly something to be proud of. As if it shows restraint, 'we didnt' murder all of them, just a lot of them, well some of them we just shipped out!'.

Yes you are probably right about the Lucky Charm - but Hitler also made swastika as a Nazi symbol, when he wrote about it in his book and in the year 1920 it already was a symbol of the Nazi Party.

In 1920, Adolf Hitler decided that the Nazi Party needed its own insignia and flag. For Hitler, the new flag had to be "a symbol of our own struggle" as well as "highly effective as a poster." (Mein Kampf, pg. 495)

On August 7, 1920, at the Salzburg Congress, this flag became the official emblem of the Nazi Party.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler described the Nazis' new flag: "In red we see the social idea of the movement, in white the nationalistic idea, in the swastika the mission of the struggle for the victory of the Aryan man, and, by the same token, the victory of the idea of creative work, which as such always has been and always will be anti-Semitic." (pg. 496-497)

The German saying in the second poster is: "Drink Coca-Cola and Refresh yourself - The Heart is Smiling!". Its a German Propaganda Poster from 1930s, proving that Coca-Cola had big deals with Nazi Germany, before and during the World War Two.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by blablablaxyz
Mass media style sensationalism.

The serbs would go into a village, round everyone up, and execute them, systematically attempting to 'restore' that ethnic balance that you are saying was thrown out of whack.

Serbs fighting an attempted land grab by former Yugoslavia's muslims.

Land grab? The only people grabbing land were the serbs, trying to reconstitute a Greater Serbia. The muslims were migrating and immigrating, it wasn't illegal, it wasn't a land grab.

Awful comparison.

An accurate comparison. In all three cases one ethnicity and religion tried to destroy another. The nazis did try to kick the jews out, and forcibly concentrating people and deporting them is hardly something to be proud of. As if it shows restraint, 'we didnt' murder all of them, just a lot of them, well some of them we just shipped out!'.

Serbia-Montenegro remains the only multi-ethnic country in the former Yugoslavia... I won't let to off the hook with your silly parroting of media propaganda that took place during the war (I honestly don't see the point). It appears to be ingrained into your mind though. Had the Serbs wanted to eliminate another religion they had ample opportunity to do so. The numbers simply don't add up.

Comparing the Holocaust to the Yugoslavia civil war is plain daft from any angle. Especially on this day, the aniversary of Jasenovac.

Infact it is finally becoming clear to more and more people that the Serbs, Montenegrins and Macedonians were fighting an enemy with a historically dispicable human rights record.

Maybe to point you in the right direction have a look a Julie Burchill's Guardian piece.

A war of words

None of that is an excuse for rounding up and murdering people. The mass graves in the region filled with albanian/bosnian/kosovar muslims attests to what really happened, as do the trials in the Hague.

Intresting thread, but im having real problems with DrHoracid here and his blatent bias against muslims, he obviously does not have the capacity to be objective on these kind of issues so im not really taking his opinion at all seriously . It all comes across as very snide, his agenda is obvious.

Originally posted by ImmortalTechnique
Intresting thread, but im having real problems with DrHoracid here...
his blatent bias....
he obviously....
his opinion....
his agenda...

When you focus on DrHoracid instead of the topic, consider yourself defeated, and DrHoracid victorious. Nothing against either one of you, but I just thought I'd point out the obvious. You can't win the debate if you don't discuss the issue.

In short, stay on topic.

Originally posted by Nygdan
None of that is an excuse for rounding up and murdering people. The mass graves in the region filled with albanian/bosnian/kosovar muslims attests to what really happened, as do the trials in the Hague.

Recently the biggest mass grave in Kosovo & Metohija was found. 700 dead found in a cave. 500 Serbs and 200 Serbia-Montenegro civilians of different faiths. These must be some of the 3000 that are still missing. The trial in the Hague is going horribly wrong because the truth is starting to come out and it doesn't correspond to the muslims being the victims. It is being kept out of the media because it has wider political implications: politicians lying !. That's why it so biased.
In general when the Serbs took a town or village they would expel them to muslim or croat parts. Not nice. Not nice at all but what war is ? On the contrary when the muslims attacked they rounded people up and murdered them. They already have a history of that dating back to World War 2 and their Islamic SS divisions.
The Serbian villages around Srebrenica where 1000 civilians were butchered when the muslims launched an attack from the so called "safe area" is a case in point. When the Serbs took the town the civilians were sent packing to muslim areas but not rounded up and murdered.

Originally posted by blablablaxyz
When the Serbs took the town the civilians were sent packing to muslim areas but not rounded up and murdered.

Are you Sure about that? As I remember correctly it was more an Ethnic Cleansing against Bosniaks.

The massacre is widely considered the biggest killing in Europe since World War II as it is estimated there were more than 7,000 victims, whilst the exact numbers of dead and the details and causes of their deaths are debated to this day due to the nature of the event. It is generally regarded to be one of the most horrific and controversial events in recent European history.
wikipedia

The Red Cross lists 7,079 dead and missing at Srebrenica. Other estimates range as high as 8,000 or 10,000. David Rohde notes that the massacre "accounts for an astonishing percentage of the number of missing" from the brutal Balkans conflict as a whole. "Of the 18,406 Muslims, Serbs and Croats reported still missing ... as of January 1997, 7,079 are people [men] who disappeared after the fall of Srebrenica. In other words, approximately 38 percent of the war's missing are from Srebrenica." By any standard, it was one of the worst and most concentrated acts of gendercide in the post-World War II era -- and the worst massacre of any kind in Europe for fifty years.
gendercide.org

And the two men responsible for this any many other massacres - General Ratko Mladić and Radovan Karadžić are still at large. "Kind" words of Radovan Karadžić co-founder of Republika Srpska and its first president, alluded to the origins of this ideology on March 4, 1992 to the Bosnian Parliament:

..."the road to which you want to take Bosnia and Herzegovina is the same highway of hell which Slovenia and Croatia took. Don't think you won't take Bosnia and Herzegovina to hell and the Muslims into annihilation... Muslims can't defend themselves if there is war here"...


In the end, the war caused an estimated 278,000 dead and missing persons and another 1,325,000 refugees and exiles ONLY from Bosnia and Herzegovina.

wikipedia is not exactly an authoratative source...

They seem to have left out that the muslims (among them foreign islamic fanatics) massacred 1000 innocent civilians before the Serbian offensive.

Read the Official Report by the Dutch General in charge of the UN there and if you want to find out more there are several good reports on Antiwar.com.

www.antiwar.com...

and lets leave it at that.

blablablaxyz, over 200,000 people were killed in Bosnia between 1992 and 1995. Now, read that number again. And again. Those graves exist, the families miss their family members. It is not a made-up story.

Extremist serbs backed by serbian goverment led by Milosevic commited a genocide in Bosnia, a continous systematic murder of muslims and croats. Over 200,000 people. Read that number again. And again. I was there, witnessed it with my own eyes. The women of Srebrenica were sent to my home town after they witnessed the genocide. I was there, talked with them, brought them food, clothes. There were virtually no men. Only a few male kids. They were all killed and buried in mass graves. Mass graves have been found. They exist. It is not just Srebrenica. It is over 200,000 people that have been killed. Read that number again. And again.
Accept it and move on.


[edit on 21-4-2005 by paperclip]

Originally posted by blablablaxyz
wikipedia is not exactly an authoratative source...

What do you mean by that?

Wikipedia is an Internationally Acclaimed Free Encyclopedia, that is used all around the Globe in many world languages - I guess not Good 'Nuff for your Delicate sense of "authoratative sources".

Here is more links that say the same as wikipedia does:

news.bbc.co.uk

cnn.com

Dictionary of History

yahoo.directory

haveford.edu

Just try to type in Google the two words Srebrenica Massacre and check out the sites you get - how many out of 68,000 hits would confirm your story?

And when you are finished, read what paperclip said to you above.

Read it and then Read it Again.

And Again!

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
Well history shows that whenever Muslims get a numerical advantage over a population, they start pushing the Shariah down the throats of the Infidels....you ether bend a knee to islam, leave the country or die.

History shows that it was the Christians who brutally forced themselves and their religion on the native populations of South America, Africa, and Asia. The vast majority of Muslims do the exact opposite of shoving down their religion in the throats of others - - They keep it to themselves and do not bother others about it. Only a very small minority of extremist fanatic Muslims behave the way you accuse Muslims of behaving. The same cannot be said about the Christians for whom it has been more common than not to force their religion and view upon others. And if you do not agree with them you are bound to go straight to hell. And while Christians think that Jesus is the only way to God, Muslims agree that except for Islam, Christianity and Judaism are also Divine religions and thus should be revered, respected and accepted. Islam also says that religion is not compulsory, and adopts a much lower profile than does Christianity by not making any major efforts of trying to recruit converts. Christianity on the other hand agressively seeks to convert people, and even goes as far as publishing false Qorans to discredit Islam in its quest to win over converts. I'm not blaming Christianity, but rather the behaviour of many of the followers of Christianity.

The current Birthrate of WHITE Europeans is plummeting, while the current birthrates of Muslims is sky-rocketing. Is that a good thing? I don't think so, WTF is gonna happen to Europe in 50 years?

Is this about race or religion? I am under the strong impression that it's an issue of race for you - particularly since you write "WHITE" Europeans in capital letters.... I do not mix race and religion because I think they're two totally different issues. One concerns spirituality and one's beliefs in regards to spiritual matters, while the other concerns something so extremely worldly that it almost makes it the direct opposite of spiritualism. What could be more shallow and spiritually meaningless than race? When we all die we do not leave this world as black, semite, white, Arab, American or Chinese. Your concern is race. You are a racist and you have mistakenly confused religion with race and racism. This is a problem you have to sort out. If the majority of Muslims were white and blue eyed, you wouldn't really oppose them as much as you do. I have really nothing much more to discuss with a racist.




[edit on 22-4-2005 by Siroos]