Alternative history: Yugoslavia

[Ajidica]

I'm not up too speed on the former Yugoslavia, so what does 'putvjernika' mean? Based on the way it is used I'm guessing I'd rather not have it in my search history.

 

[Kyriakos]

I suppose it is this site: http://www.putvjernika.com/

I cannot read anything there, but i suspect it is some sort of muslim-centered Bosnian forum (?)

 

[NedimNapoleon]

I suppose it is this site: http://www.putvjernika.com/

I cannot read anything there, but i suspect it is some sort of muslim-centered Bosnian forum (?)

Its a jihadist website thats really really bad. Mr.Srdjan is trying to imply im a Wahabbi nationalist Bosniak, so so far from the truth.

 

[Srdjan]

Really. Good for You, if You are not. Even thought I am not sure for nationalistic Bosniak. Even more when I read Your thoughts about the co citizens in Republic of Srpska. I bet that You think that they fate are on tractors.
Anyway, that movement doesn't have any future. Nor this nice pseudo historic text which You have written few posts above.

You know You Bosniak internet warriors are very funny. When someone even mention Bosnia, you almost instantly post a long post with pseudo history which nobody heard of. Of course then You start to write about genocide, 200k dead etc.
Even more funnier/sad is when You see Bosniak/Muslim forums. Somehow, I always conclude that Mr. Obama, Ms. Merkel or else of them are in fact almost get illness from worrying about Bosniaks.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

Really. Good for You, if You are not. Even thought I am not sure for nationalistic Bosniak. Even more when I read Your thoughts about the co citizens in Republic of Srpska. I bet that You think that they fate are on tractors.
Anyway, that movement doesn't have any future. Nor this nice pseudo historic text which You have written few posts above.

You know You Bosniak internet warriors are very funny. When someone even mention Bosnia, you almost instantly post a long post with pseudo history which nobody heard of. Of course then You start to write about genocide, 200k dead etc.
Even more funnier/sad is when You see Bosniak/Muslim forums. Somehow, I always conclude that Mr. Obama, Ms. Merkel or else of them are in fact almost get illness from worrying about Bosniaks.

Okay this is getting awful.

1. Your english is kind of bad (no offense) I truly dont understand the fate are on tractors part.
2. Im no "internet warrior"....I'm just having a nice conversation, I have many (the majority) non Bosnian linked conversations on this nice forum
3. My post wasn't that long
4. You started the history debate...you think anyone heard of Karadzic? Our history is rather "minor" compared to that of other nations [the minor meaning that less attention is payed to it in academia rather than its less valuable]
5. Its not pseudo history. You can check all of the facts. I used a Serbian credible author. I dont know how to make it seem more credible. As I see it you have no credible response so you are backing down by calling me a Wahabbi.
6. I never mentioned any genocide in my conversation with you
7. Implying everyone from Bosnia visits one forum or that all are the same.
8. Putin cares about Serbs...right. Its all about interest nobody real cares about anyone.

 

[TheLastOne36]

The Majority of the Bosnian populace was Bogumilistic (Heretical) as can be seen by numerous specific religious places located in Bosnia and Hum. Catholicism was adopted near the downfall of Bosnia as a way for the nobility to regain strong ties with the Pope and other European rules to fend off the Turks...thus monasteries can only be found where royal courts are found. (most notable Fojnica and Bobovac monastery - was there this spring). The Orthodox church was only in the southern and eastern fringes of the Kingdom, the land that does not belong to the Bosnian core (Sandzak, Crna Gora aka Zeta, are on around the Drina river) which proves they were made during Serbian rule over those areas not Bosnian.

It was my impression that the majority of the inhabitants of Bosnia at this time were Orthodox, with a minority being Bogomilists and that the Bogomilists were routinely driven to the hills and other more obscure areas by the Catholics/Orthodox.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

It was my impression that the majority of the inhabitants of Bosnia at this time were Orthodox, with a minority being Bogomilists and that the Bogomilists were routinely driven to the hills and other more obscure areas by the Catholics/Orthodox.

Common misconception [Thank you Paradox]. No Bosnian king/ban was Orthodox. Bosnian kings were either Bogumil (majority) or Catholic (during the end of the Kingdoms lifespan). There aren't any orthodox churches in Bosnia proper, only Bogomil or Catholic churches. Crusades were launched on Bosnia because of the large number of bogomils. Stecaks (tombstones specific to the bogumil faith) can be found all over Bosnia. There were orthodox followers but they were a minority. The majority usually moved around Catholic-Bogumil...depending on the time frame. Bosnias most important royal cities (Bobovac, Jajce, Visoko, Fojnica...) all contain bogomil churches so saying that it was in the obscure areas is pretty false. Once again I quote Simo Cirković in saying that the Orthodox faith was in the border areas of Bosnia or the newly conquered lands while Catholicism and Bogomilism were in Bosnia proper and fluctuated depending on the circumstances and rulers.

 

[Srdjan]

@ to all. Sorry for my bad english. It is not my native.
@innonimatu sorry for topic hijacking it was not my intention


Nedim. In that time, religion was a political matter and it was not so rare to see conversion from Orthodox into Catholic or vise versa. For instance. The founder of the Nemanjic dynasty was baptized as Catholic. Later he converted into Orthodox. Almost 200 years later tsar Dusan negotiated with Pope about conversion of whole Serbia into Catholicism. Bosnia was a mess. Bosnia rulers was relatives of the feudal families in Serbia and Croatia. Depending of political circumstances, in some occasions they recognized Pope as supreme, in other they are close with Byzantine or they were more independent regarding religion.
As for Bogumils. They were a sect originally from Bulgaria. During the XII century they spread into Serbia also. When Sava Nemanjic become a head of Orthodox church in Serbia, state policy was to expel them. Some of them, in my opinion minority converted into Orthodox, but the majority had flee into Bosnia.
Claim that there is no Orthodox churches in Bosnia proper is simply false. As for Bosnia king, You know that first Bosnia king Tvrtko is crowned in Mileseva monastery. Of course this was from political reasons. Tvrtko desire was actually crown of Nemanjic dynasty, since he was in a lineage for succession by mothers side.

As for Mr. Simo Cirković, yes he was a respected historian and member of SANU. However, some of his claims are not generally accepted. Especially his claims that Balsic family and Crnojevic family originates from France or were Illyrian. As for religion mater on Bosnia and spread of Orthodox church there, basically he was right. Just You forget to mention that border areas of medieval Bosnia and present day Bosnia are not nearly the same.

As for me, this discussion about religion is over. In my opinion if futile and does not prove anything.
Oh yes. Regarding tractors. I think that You know very well what is about. But if You need clarification please PM me.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

@ to all. Sorry for my bad english. It is not my native.
@innonimatu sorry for topic hijacking it was not my intention


Nedim. In that time, religion was a political matter and it was not so rare to see conversion from Orthodox into Catholic or vise versa. For instance. The founder of the Nemanjic dynasty was baptized as Catholic. Later he converted into Orthodox. Almost 200 years later tsar Dusan negotiated with Pope about conversion of whole Serbia into Catholicism. Bosnia was a mess. Bosnia rulers was relatives of the feudal families in Serbia and Croatia. Depending of political circumstances, in some occasions they recognized Pope as supreme, in other they are close with Byzantine or they were more independent regarding religion.
As for Bogumils. They were a sect originally from Bulgaria. During the XII century they spread into Serbia also. When Sava Nemanjic become a head of Orthodox church in Serbia, state policy was to expel them. Some of them, in my opinion minority converted into Orthodox, but the majority had flee into Bosnia.
Claim that there is no Orthodox churches in Bosnia proper is simply false. As for Bosnia king, You know that first Bosnia king Tvrtko is crowned in Mileseva monastery. Of course this was from political reasons. Tvrtko desire was actually crown of Nemanjic dynasty, since he was in a lineage for succession by mothers side.

As for Mr. Simo Cirković, yes he was a respected historian and member of SANU. However, some of his claims are not generally accepted. Especially his claims that Balsic family and Crnojevic family originates from France or were Illyrian. As for religion mater on Bosnia and spread of Orthodox church there, basically he was right. Just You forget to mention that border areas of medieval Bosnia and present day Bosnia are not nearly the same.

As for me, this discussion about religion is over. In my opinion if futile and does not prove anything.
Oh yes. Regarding tractors. I think that You know very well what is about. But if You need clarification please PM me.

1. I agree relations and dynasties were important in medieval times. Religion was a political tool. You can find the full list of rulers and you'll see only Bogomils and Catholics.
2. Bosnia took bogomil refugees not just from Serbia but from various other places (including the place the originated, Bulgaria)
3. There were no churches in Bosnia proper. Bosnia proper was essentially the flow of the Bosna river with the rivers Spreca and Usora. None from medieval times have been found there. The only ones that have been found were in Eastern Bosnia (Drina River) and Sout Eastern Bosnia (Zahumlje and further into Sandzak and Zeta).
4. Yes Tvrtko was related to Serbian royalty and inherited the crown. There is a debate among historians whether it was actually in Mileševa or Mile (Near Visoko). The date and place of the crowning doesn't come from direct church records but from a political document. It says Mile monastery, at that time Mileševa had been the only known site with a similar name and it was located in Serbia so everyone went along with it. But Mile near Visoko was dug up and it was realized that it was the location of the royal tombs and all of Tvrtkos closer family (that died before or during his rule are buried there) It was also a Catholic monastery, so the chances are it could've been the location of the crowning. Thats open to debate and the answer wont change much we can agree everything was done for pure politics.
5. If I get the time I'll scan and upload his map (from 1998) of all of the medieval religious institutions in Bosnia. Medieval Bosnia had its stages like any kingdom. Bosnia proper is as I said before the flow of the Bosnia river, Usora, Spreca....to the east to the Drina river and to the west Vrbas and Sana rivers (Donji krajevi). Basically Bosnia during the reign of Ban Kulin.
6. I agree talking about Medieval religions and trying to link them with a modern Nationalist idea leads to nothing.
7. I'm hinting its linked to Oluja. Since whenever I hear that I think of Serbs fleeing on tractors (the videos of such).

 

[Domen]

Sorry for once coming back to this OT, but... :

Poles and Lithuanians are generally deeply devout Catholics.

I could not resist to post this:


Link to video.

 

[knez]

What happened was that the various political heads of the federation's states - of which the Serbian President, Milosevic, is the most famous - gathered localized power around themselves. At first this wasn't based on separatism or exclusivism, but simply the only way to gain any sort of continuing power under the rotating presidency model. From here it becomes quite complicated. I will simplify it as best as I can.

Slobodan Milosevic, the leader of the Serbian state, was a hard-line communist, arguably moreso than Tito himself had been. He originally supported the idea of regional autonomy, which has historically been the communistic norm; see the variety of ethnic autonomous states in the USSR and China for examples. This meant that Milosevic supported the existence of an autonomous Kosovo within Serbia. The problem was that one of Milosevic's political opponents - it was never quite clear who, since this was all happening behind closed doors in Serbia - cleverly used the Albanian minority in Kosovo as a scapegoat to further his own political ends in the hope of taking Milosevic's place. Kosovar autonomy had never been popular amongst the average Serbian, for whom nationalism was more important than abstract ideas of the communist revolution. Milosevic, a consummate politician, saw which way the wind was blowing and performed an about-face, abolishing the regional autonomy of Kosovo. This won him a huge amount of popularity amongst Serbs, just as the one-party system was collapsing, making him an obvious choice for Serbians to vote for in the upcoming elections in other federal republics, especially Croatia and Bosnia. Montenegro was already solidly Serbian in outlook and followed Milosevic all the way.

Milosevic, realising he was onto a winning idea, similarly abolished the autonomy of Vojvodina, the ethnic-Magyar autonomous republic north of Belgrade in Serbia. Then Milosevic began to make loud noises about the ethnic Serbs in neighbouring constituent republics, notably Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovia. IN response to the obvious threat of a Serbian-dominated Yugoslavia, Croatia elected a rabidly nationalist President, Franjo Tudman.

Slovenia, seeing the writing on the wall - and noticing that all the Yugoslavian troops due to begin the next year's deployment on Slovenian soil were suspiciously Serbian and Montenegrin - withdrew from the Yugoslav republic. For six days it appeared as if Milosevic might use the military to retain Slovenia, but then Tudman, who had been relying on Slovenia to help him balance Milosevic's power, also withdrew from Yugoslavia. This saved Slovenia, since Croatia stood between it an Serbia. Slovenia also had a population that was 97% ethnically Slovenian, so it was spared any ethnic difficulties. Croatia was not.

Now finding themselves part of an independent Croatia just days after it appeared they would become the dominant-ethnic group in all of Yugoslavia, some Serbian nationalists in Croatia rioted. Tudman, either believing this was a Serbian plot to give Milosevic a casus belli to intervene in Croatia, or, more likely, simply because he was a genocidal xenophobic scumbag on par with Hitler, began ethnically cleansing all the Serbs on Croatian soil. Tudman, incidentally, invented the term "ethnic cleansing" in a speech about ridding Croatia of "Serbian vermin."

Milosevic was left with no option but to respond by invading Croatia; even if the mass-rape, murder and deportation of Serbs hadn't disgusted him personally, it would have ben political suicide for him to not respond to ethnic Serbian appeals to the Serbian government for assistance. He invaded Croatia, and simultaneously began his own cleansing of the Croat minority in Serbia.

This is when the Bosnian War started. Bosnia, even moreso than any other Yugoslavian republic, was an ethnic hodgepog. It was roughly one-third Serbian, one-third Croatian and one-third Muslim. The Bosnian government knew it was likely to become a bloody battleground in any Serb-Croat conflict, and therefore similarly withdrew from Yugoslavia and declared its neutrality in the Serbia-Croatia war. But the Serbian and Croatian minorities in Bosnia had already started fighting each other, and the Serbian and Croatian governments immediately invaded to defend their own ethnic groups in Bosnia. Both sides immediately started killing the Bosnian Muslims, which neither side liked. The Muslims also inhabited the most strategically and economically important areas of the country, and as such both sides wanted that territory, if not permanently, then at least for the duration of the current conflict.

Milosevic now realised that he couldn't possibly hold on to all of Yugoslavia, but understood that he might be able to create a "Greater Serbia" out of its ashes. He let Macedonia, which had very few Serbs and was no threat to him, secede from Yugoslavia without a fight, cut a deal with the Kosovo Liberation Army so as to be able to pull troops out of Kosovo - the KLA wanted to increase its own strength while Serbia was worn down by Croatia and what was left of the Bosnian government - and concentrated as much of his forces as possible on Bosnia. He already controlled the Serbian parts of Croatia, but Bosnia was an easier target, and if he was able to take it over he'd be able to flank the Croatians fighting in Croatia itself.

This led to the US and NATO interventions against Serbia in Bosnia. As it was, Milosevic eventually allowed himself to be bought off with the promise of regional autonomy for the Serbs in Bosnia. This gave them 49% of the country. While the Dayton Accords made a partition of Bosnia illegal and unconstitutional, Milosevic still hoped to annex the Serbian part at a later date. He also cut a similar deal regarding the Serbs in Croatia, though he was far less successful there. Again, he hoped to seize power there at a later date.


Oh, incredibly complicated. The ustache were a collaborationist group of Croatian ultra-nationalists who massacred Serbs with such intensity that even the SS were disgusted, stepping in to stop them on at least one occasion. The Italians were only able to control a small portion of Serbia and Macedonia, as well as the coastline. The Germans took control of Serbia, succeeding in wiping out the entire Jewish population of that country, a feat even they didn't manage anywhere else in Europe, due in no small part to enthusiastic Croatian assistance. The Serbian resistance was mostly royalist, as inno stated, and did not mesh well with the other major resistance movement, Tito's communists.

Tito himself was Croatian, but not a nationalist. He seems to have been of the old school of thought which believed that all of the "South Slavs" should be under the control of one state. As such, he attempted to dominate the Albanian communist resistance as well, which led directly to Enver Hoxha taking control of that movement (Hoxha was vehemently anti-Yugoslavian, and succeeded in ousting the pro-Yugoslavian wing of the movement by intrigues with the British and Greeks). Tito pan-Slavic ideals won him the allegiance of the non-Communist resistance movements which feared a return to Serbian domination post-war, enabling him to eliminate the Cetniks before the Red Army arrived in Yugoslavia. For the most part, Yugoslavia was liberated without the assistance of Red Army or British troops, since the Germans and Italians evacuated it in order to concentrate their forces in Hungary and Italy. As such, Tito's primary enemy was the ustache which were hated by all but ultra-nationalist Croats. When he massacred the ustache in February 1945, Tito effectively became the only mote of power in all of Yugoslavia.

what a

what really happened was this
serbs felt cheated because yugoslavia wasn't great serbia, and the first issue at hand was vojvodina and kosovo autonomies (considering which, serbs did have valid arguments in place... for example, vojvodina representatives enacting laws in serbia, and at the same time those laws not applying in vojvodina)

during 70s and especially 80s there was a struggle between moderates and extremes in communist party of serbia on the question how to reintegrate vojvodina and kosovo (notice how, not if)
extremist won once miloshevich became their leader

vojvodina and kosovo were forced into union with serbia, new serbian constitution was put in place in 1990 which made serbia an independent nation - yugoslav constitution and institutions were no longer > local serbian, tarifs were imposed on slovenia etc.

so, yugoslavia fell apart by serbian secession in 1990., and all that remained to bee seen is how will army react
army (bunch of hard core communists) joined miloshevich in the end, because he was still a communist, even thou he was now a national communist

and because extremist won in 1980s serbia, it was nothing strange they wanted more than just vojvodina and kosovo

 

[knez]

So how did or why did the Croats, Slovenes and Montenegrins end up in Yugoslavia again?

mutual interest, croats and slovene need help with italy, serb need to back up their claims for what is today central/northern vojvodina against hungarians etc.
it seem like a good idea for a year or two

The main problem with this map is illustrated quite effectively in Slavonia; Croats are the majority there, as listed, but they comprised about 60% of the populace, with Serbs as the other 40%. This makes that map of the map technically correct, but it doesn't give a good picture of the situation on the ground. There's a reason Slavonia saw the bloodiest fighting - not ethnic cleansing, but actual military operations - of the Yugoslav War.

It also seems a little strange that some Serbian enclaves in Bosnia are considered, but not the Serbian enclaves in Kosovo or the Croat exclave along Montenegro's coastline. A strange map. If anything, it seems pro-Serbian in Bosnia. The distinction between "Muslims" and "Albanians" is a little strange, since Albanians are Muslims. They certainly are the majority in the Sandjak of Novi Pazar.

what are you smoking?

That map is so....so wrong. First error: That map used an invalid census. Bosniaks are labeled as Muslims so it implies it was done during SFRJ times. As you can see cities like Tuzla have no majority on that map because during the SFRJ censuses 15-20% of the population declared themselves as "Yugoslav" thus screwing up the real facts. Second of all my regional capital Tuzla is marked as no majority even though it now has a clear Bosniak majority. The place where I live is marked as no majority even though it has a 99% Bosniak majority. It looks like the map used municipalities from SFRJ....which were specifically made so that there is no majority. Its clearly a pro-Serb map as seen by the Krajna (Croatia) Serb majority listing. Thats just awful...it wasn't like that before Oluja let alone after. These maps also do not show anything of pure value. There are some regions that have an X majority but are so underpopulated and barren its not even worth it. Bosniaks seem like a minority on the map considering the land distribution but still they are by far the largest group (~50%) and they are majorities (or at least largest group if no 51% majority) in all of the industrial cities which are key (Zenica., Tuzla, Lukavac, Bihac). You will not find a correct ethnic distribution map of the Balkans. It simply does not exist. Until every Ex-Yu country enters the EU or at least does a full census according to their rules...you will not find an accurate one.

also, they called themselves Muslim at the time

No. All exYugoslav nations (except Albanians) are using reformed alphabet by Vuk Karadzic (Cyril and Latin and grammatics in some degree). Alphabet issue is political in nature. In some degree Croats imagine that Latin is Croat, and Cyrillic is a Serb alphabet which is ridiculous. However it is good ground for demagogs and similar low life creatures.
As for Serbia, both alphabets are in use. In fact it is regulated by our constitution. However, because there is great tendency that Latin alphabet will outcome the Cyril alphabet. Institutions of government are recommended to use Cyril alphabet. News papers, web site also but, there is no obligation regarding this matter.

You mentioned above something about religions. It is common believe among the nationalists, that true Serb have to be Orthodox Christian, Croat Catholic, and Bosnikas (new nation) Muslim. Two questions. What about atheists, and what about people that they claim that are Serbs but they practice Catholic Christianity (I know such people)? I presume that there is opposite examples.

he composed a grammar, and had nothing to do with alphabet
also, he composed a grammar based on a croatian dialect, using older croatian grammars and croatian literal works

 

[knez]

to sum it up, crucial period is 1980s belgrade
in order for yugoslavia to survive, you need:
a) a victory of the moderates in the communist party of serbia
b) strong enough communist part to win the free elections without becoming extremist serbian communist party

the trick is, you can have one, bot not both

to sum the war(s)
albanian independence - somewhat legitimate goals, somewhat legitimate methods
serbian great serbia - unlegitimate goals, unlegitimate methods
muslim dominated bosnia - unlegitimate goals, despicable methods
serbian movement in bosnia - mostly legitimate goals, despicable methods
croatian movement in bosnia - legitimate goals, mostly legitimate methods
serbian rebelion in croatia - somewhat legitimate goals, despicable methods
croatian war - legitimate goals, legitimate methods
slovenian independence - legitimate goals, legitimate methods

to sum it even more up, you people don't have a clue

 

[Kyriakos]

^I noticed that whenever Croatia is mentioned, it is soon followed at least once by the term "legitimate".

 

[NedimNapoleon]

to sum it up, crucial period is 1980s belgrade
in order for yugoslavia to survive, you need:
a) a victory of the moderates in the communist party of serbia
b) strong enough communist part to win the free elections without becoming extremist serbian communist party

the trick is, you can have one, bot not both

to sum the war(s)
albanian independence - somewhat legitimate goals, somewhat legitimate methods
serbian great serbia - unlegitimate goals, unlegitimate methods
muslim dominated bosnia - unlegitimate goals, despicable methods
serbian movement in bosnia - mostly legitimate goals, despicable methods
croatian movement in bosnia - legitimate goals, mostly legitimate methods
serbian rebelion in croatia - somewhat legitimate goals, despicable methods
croatian war - legitimate goals, legitimate methods
slovenian independence - legitimate goals, legitimate methods

to sum it even more up, you people don't have a clue

>Bosnia has a referendum in which 98% vote yes (UN and EU monitors) for an independent Bosnia of equal ethnicities (many in the Bosnian army and government were not muslim, in fact most important commanders and politicians, its a pure lie and fabrication to say that Bosnian independence was only a Muslim struggle)
>Despicible methods, illegitimate goals (a Republic with equal citizens)
>Croat movement in Bosnia, armed rebellion to "liberate" catholic parts of Bosnia into greater Croatia
>Legitimate methods (armed rebellion), legitimate goals (occupying a part of a UN member state and then annexing it into another state)
>Serb movement in Bosnia, armed rebellion to "liberate" orthodox parts of Bosnia into greater Serbia
>Legitimate methods (armed rebellion), legitimate goals (occupying a part of a UN member state and then annexing it into another state)
>Greater Serbia not legitimate.....but Serb revolt fueled by such ideology and goal legit

I lol'd so hard. Do you see your logical fallacy? Also implying Yugoslavia could've survived.

EDIT; I forgot - Bosnian Army; despicable methods but the lowest number of members indicted by the Hague tribunal.

 

[Kyriakos]

So, a Serb, a Bosnian, and a Croat walk into a thread...

 

[knez]

>Bosnia has a referendum in which 98% vote yes (UN and EU monitors) for an independent Bosnia of equal ethnicities (many in the Bosnian army and government were not muslim, in fact most important commanders and politicians, its a pure lie and fabrication to say that Bosnian independence was only a Muslim struggle)
>Despicible methods, illegitimate goals (a Republic with equal citizens)
>Croat movement in Bosnia, armed rebellion to "liberate" catholic parts of Bosnia into greater Croatia
>Legitimate methods (armed rebellion), legitimate goals (occupying a part of a UN member state and then annexing it into another state)
>Serb movement in Bosnia, armed rebellion to "liberate" orthodox parts of Bosnia into greater Serbia
>Legitimate methods (armed rebellion), legitimate goals (occupying a part of a UN member state and then annexing it into another state)
>Greater Serbia not legitimate.....but Serb revolt fueled by such ideology and goal legit

I lol'd so hard. Do you see your logical fallacy? Also implying Yugoslavia could've survived.

EDIT; I forgot - Bosnian Army; despicable methods but the lowest number of members indicted by the Hague tribunal.

yeah...
bosnian muslims never really had the concept of equality of others, they were/are all in for the muslim state (notice muslim in muslim state) and they were/are continuously rejecting even rather pathetic suggestions of autonomy at the local level and decentralization

also, I honestly don't care if something is internationally recognized state, UN member nation or whatever

both Serbs and Croats in Bosnia had legitimate right for armed rebelion and/or dissolution of BIH

if you notice thou mosty merged with Serbian in BIH, they had no legitimate right to take... almost everything

 

[knez]

^I noticed that whenever Croatia is mentioned, it is soon followed at least once by the term "legitimate".

truth hurts?

 

[NedimNapoleon]

I hate it when people distort the truth on every side. Seriously, such thinking makes us look like a bunch of animals wrestling in the mud because of crumbs. I think we can all agree, that it would've been much much better if every republic got its independence, held its original constitution and did not experience revolts or war. Anyone who says opposite is just plain wrong. Any aggressor on any UN memberstate (those being The Republic of Slovenia, The Republic of Croatia, Republic of Bosnia and the FRY) be it the quasi states of Srpska Krajina, Herceg-Bosna, Republika Srpska and etc, cannot be justified. Neither can the aggression of one UN memberstate on another.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

yeah...
bosnian muslims never really had the concept of equality of others, they were/are all in for the muslim state (notice muslim in muslim state) and they were/are continuously rejecting even rather pathetic suggestions of autonomy at the local level and decentralization

also, I honestly don't care if something is internationally recognized state, UN member nation or whatever

both Serbs and Croats in Bosnia had legitimate right for armed rebelion and/or dissolution of BIH

if you notice thou mosty merged with Serbian in BIH, they had no legitimate right to take... almost everything

Oh gawd...why.
Please explain this, a defenition of a muslim state:

An Islamic state (Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية al-dawlah al-islamīyah) is a type of government, in which the primary basis for government is Islamic religious law.

That means the following:
1. Implemention of sharia - The Republic of Bosnia had complete civil law during its existence.
2. Every senior government member is a sunni muslim - Bosnian general staff: Jovan Divljak (Orthodox) and Stjepan Šiber (Catholic)
3. If you are implying a Muslim state in the sense the state would push some islamization agenda....you are insane.
4. Grouping Bosnian muslims as a hivemind....lol
5. The autonomy principle is a lie. The regional and municipality system would remain absolutely the same as it was in the SFRJ. There was no gerrymandering. The government was willing to discuss the problem in parliament but the Serb parties withdrew and setup enclaves.
5. You are exhibiting another fallacy. You wish not to recognize the real situation and the UN verdict yet you seem competent to claim the legitimacy of certain nations and groups. I see no better way to exhibit the legitimacy of a country/government than a seat in the UN
6. See above. Armed rebellions against a newly accepted fully democratic member of the UN is never legitimate
7. I do not understand the last statement.