It would have been funny if it was not so not funny; you just come near their little bubble and they start whining like little piglets.
Not upto you I'm afraid, but since you have the decency to adress me as Mr, I will comply young Sire
Gee, thanks!
Funny, me neither.
I was in favour of going into Iraq, not because of the reasons stated by "Evil Dubya". I was not cheerleading Slick Willy. I didn't, and still don't care about Bill Clinton.
I'm dutch, why should I care. I was very unhappy with the way NATO handled this conflict. Can you guess why? Keep in mind, I'm dutch.
OK, my mistake. You really love imperial adventures. Other, slightly less bloodthirsty similar to you only loved linton's escapades. And why the heck can't you love linton because you are Dutch? Are you people vaccinated against it in school or something?
Show me where I demonised a state.
Umm, read more carefully, the whole world is not about you, even if it may appear to you that way.
It is true that I wrote this in a comment to you, but I was rather referring to the hipocrisy oall over. It should have been a hint that I mentioned an organization. i don't think you count as one.
Quotes will do nicely. Otherwise I have no other option as to dismiss all this as a Wookie defence. Fact remains, you countered my wiki quote with a biased source.
How cute; a "Wookie defence".
Fact is, professor, that there is nothing as an unbiased source. Never claimed it either, I think.
But the point is that every society has a dominant media. This media will usually present the opinions of its ruling class. That is nothing illegitimate about that either. But neither is it less "biased" than those less influental media outlets that critizes it.
The different though, is that it is soo easy and soo comfortable just to hang in the skirts of said dominant media and keep all the evil and uncomfortable thoughts out. You seem to be fond of that.
As for Wiki, that one presents certain particular problems. The articles are usually anonymous, and quite easy to edit. That means that they often can stand up to scrutiny.
Which is hypocrasy no matter howmany positions you accuse others of. And you got called on it. Tough.
Sorry, but in light of what can be read above, it seems not to be the case. Tough.
Indeed, you have all sorts of other shabby sources. Let me phrase it in your words: Oh I quoted wiki, evil me
Are you denying that propaganda played a large role on both sides? Or are you only allowing yourself to see the dirt on one side?
Unless you tell me why my sources, or rather the very few I presented are "shabby", I think that using pejoratives are not helping your case.
As for propanda, of course not. Everything ever written are propaganda for something. Happy now?
However this is not rhetorics 101. It is about NATOs bombing of Yugoslavia, whether it was a just action or not, and whether NATO had any right to do such a thing. I think not, and I find quite good argumants about that in my "shabby" sources.
Let me spell it out for you, young Sire (By the way, yes I know your age)
So you just want to show how good you are with subtle irony then?
When blaming someone of spouting propaganda, it's bad form to be led by other propaganda.
Interesting. Unless there was a time warp somewhere, you started the ball with your Wiki-piece. So what you seem to suggest then, is that I should be a better man than you. Very well.
However, since I have you suspected to label any criticism of this as bad propaganda I have to choices. Either I can keep quiet, or I can refuse to let you be the master of definitions. And guess what? i think I take option # 2.
We're not in a Star Wars universe. There is no glorious rebbel alliance, neither is there an evil empire. I quoted wiki because of convinience because I know that any effort invested in getting reliable sources is wasted effort for two reasons.
Interesting.
First of all, I couldn't care less for Star Wars. To me it looks like that there are more evil empires around than glorious rebels. Rebelling is not about being glorious, but it might be necessary sometimes. However, it is not very honest neither by you nor your sidekick
aelf to try to claim some high ground by this worn out rhetorics. Unfortunately, unless you are naturally disposed for the vestibule of Dante's Inferno.
So to spell this out for
you.
In this conflict I was indeed taking part. For the Serbian civilians, not Milosevic and his regime (I was sceptical to him long before that was politically correct, at the time when the Americans found him to be the only rational person in that area). I did not approve of a lot of things going on in Kosovo (Not as bad as in some other countries, but nevertheless unacceptable), but I thought that a solution could be found which not implied destroying a country, and that NATO or rather USA and its vasall states had no moral or legal authority to perform such an act. Now the herostratically famous appendix B also showed that NATO (USA) didn't want any diplomatic solution, they wanted the bombing for specific reasons.
I also thought about the consequences, the precedent implied by letting NATO (USA) have the power to define when military actions against other countries was justified and when for some reason not. And the hipocracy involved in this (Some reading about for instance things going on in Turkey and Colombia and how USA reacted to this might prove beneficial). And on hindsight, the exposure of the propaganda involved to letting the sunshine liberals love this action. Or how the area looks today.
Bottom line; you are forced to take sides, either it disturbs your delicate mental constitution our not.
But since I evidently am facing a scholar in this topic. Might I ask about how you have undertaken the research project for this. And did you reflect about your own subjective position when starting out on your quest? i remember my own difficulties when having to present this for my students, and since we are practically collegues then, it might be educational for me.
1. Reliability of sources is quite low on all accounts in this matter, since they'll support one or the other side. (check your own reliable, fair and balanced sources, you'll see what I mean.) 2. They won't be read.
Oh, I never said anything about being balanced. I couldn't care less. In a lot of conflicts I don't think being "balanced".
Well, judging the vigor of your post and the time spent on it: Yes you do and Yes I am
Oh, I don't spend so much time here these days and this is the only thread I am active in for the moment. It so happens that this is one of the topics I used to lecture in in contemporary history, and that sort of things you get a certain vigour for quite naturally.
East Timor is as bad as the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo?
No.
It was worse.
Living in a country is a good way to get first hand information.
And if I would be nasty, also first hand disinformation.
But it is more difficult than that, and you know it. There are factors as social and economic status, education, and related to that political affilation. Through what sort of glasses do you regard your regime? I think I can find people from practically any country to praise whatever country they are living in. Or I can just drop out on the street, ask ten people what they think about my country and get ten different answers.
Anything wrong with that?
No.
The wrong part, you see, is when you claim some special kind of authority in political matters based on it. Then it goes seriously wrong.
And arguments of blind nationalism won't buy you a way out because I'm not even a citizen of that country.
So arguments I never used or even suggested I was going to use will not "buy me a way out". Ouch, that's tough. Poor me, I don't even know what I am buying myself out of...
Strawman. You are obviously a troll, nothing more.
And you are a riot.
I was just trying to comment
your little troll in an ironic matter. I realize that it was not exactly my greatest moment, unimaginative posts seem to be contagious; but nevertheless that should be evident. What should also be evident is that this is really the only way one can comment on that sort of thing, unfortunately.
Never did I say that the West is great, and other posts of mine can confirm this. There are grey spots on both sides and pretending that there is such thing as complete black and/or white is stupid. I'm sure you criticise GWB. Now that's pot calling the kettle black.
But I said that the West is bad? Honestly? I think I mentioned NATO a couple of times. But that is hardly the same, at least not to me.West is both great and bad. One one hand Dante, Schütz, Marx, the Enlightenment, on the other colonialism, imperialism, corporate greed only to name a few of its extremes.
And yes, I criticise mr.Bush. I didn't realise that I had to approve of the bombing of Yugoslavia to get your royal permission be allowed to do that...
And yes, that is the mantra from the champions of status quo, everybody is just as bad, all people are evil, the world sucks. I have heard that for at least 30 years, it doesn't impress me the tiniest bit. However I would be curious to know where I presented a view like the one you are indicating above.
As for what you call me, allow me to quote a classic; Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.
Or more bluntly, go away troll, I have neither the time or inclination to play your game. Ziggy at least tries to be spiritual...
). And to keep any new government dependent and under threat. By the way, one of the courts that was investigating past indonesian crimes (crimes assisted by several australian governments, going so fas as to supply "military advisors" for indonesia operations in East Timor itself at several times during the occupation) has its archives burned during the "looting" organized to overthrow the last government. Oddly enough 
. 
FYROM can't handle their own country, they too have Albanian problems... Albanians want Albanian language as a second language of FYROM 
FYROM knows if they recognize Kosovo they're next
