The First and Second Balkan war's

[fing0lfin]

First, your example is not good. The sucide bombers die becase are religious fanatics.

Second, if you meant the suicide bomber from Iraq, i see nothing bad in this. This is they way to fight against the occupying forces(of course i don't mean killing civilians)

Try other example

 

[useless]

First, your example is not good. The sucide bombers die becase are religious fanatics.

Second, if you meant the suicide bomber from Iraq, i see nothing bad in this. This is they way to fight against the occupying forces(of course i don't mean killing civilians)

Try other example

like a said before a kamikazi (have i speeled it right?) or the dogs russia used to destry tanks (they trained them first)

 

[fing0lfin]

First about the kamikazes( i don't know the excact spelling)They were soldiers. As many other soldiers in the wars, they died for their countries. Nothing bad in the kamikazes. I find nothing worse in them than in the ordinary soldiers.



How can a dog be a patriot or nationalist ??

 

[useless]

First about the kamikazes( i don't know the excact spelling)They were soldiers. As many other soldiers in the wars, they died for their countries. Nothing bad in the kamikazes. I find nothing worse in them than in the ordinary soldiers.



How can a dog be a patriot or nationalist ??

the russiuns trained dogs to destroy tanks with bombs but it back fired since they trained them o nthier own tnaks

the kamikazes where an ariel suicide bombers (i think) in ww2

 

[fing0lfin]

I know waht were the dogs. I also know that they returned and blowed the Russian tanks. And the kamikazes were really areal suciders. They were Japanese 'invention'.
But i don't see how all this is related to the topic. We are talking about nationalism.
And i still don't understand how a dog can be nationalist

 

[useless]

I know waht were the dogs. I also know that they returned and blowed the Russian tanks. And the kamikazes were really areal suciders. They were Japanese 'invention'.
But i don't see how all this is related to the topic. We are talking about nationalism.
And i still don't understand how a dog can be nationalist

what i meant by the dogs that they were suicide bombers not nationlist (thank god thier not)

 

[fing0lfin]

And will you explain me your logic about the patriotism and nationalism ?

 

[useless]

And will you explain me your logic about the patriotism and nationalism ?

all im saying soem peopel love thier country to much and some become suicide bombers and nationalism is bad ( example: nazi)

 

[fing0lfin]

Well..as i see you think that nationalism is bad.
First about the sucide bombers, as we i have said before, there is nothing bad in the suicide bomber (as long as they don't attack civilians).
Not all nationalist are nazis. You can't say that something is bad, only because someone bad used it ot belived in it.

 

[useless]

First about the sucide bombers, as we i have said before, there is nothing bad in the suicide bomber (as long as they don't attack civilians).

this deeply insulted and enraged me. to say that a suicide bomber is good? to take the life of an innocent person is right? for thier country (or religon) thats just sad

 

[fing0lfin]

I am shocked Do you read what i write ?
First i haven't said it's good. I said it's not worse than the ordinary soldiers.
What innocent persons are we talking about ? Have you read what have i written ?

(as long as they don't attack civilians)

 

[useless]

I am shocked Do you read what i write ?
First i haven't said it's good. I said it's not worse than the ordinary soldiers.
What innocent persons are we talking about ? Have you read what have i written ?

(as long as they don't attack civilians)

i have but you said suicide bombers are good they are worser then soldiers and im surprised some peopel would go as low to that

 

[fing0lfin]

I would ask you put some dots at the end of each sentance, beacase it was hard to me to understand what you have written.

Pls explain why suicide bomber is worse than an ordinary soldier ?

 

[useless]

I would ask you put some dots at the end of each sentance, beacase it was hard to me to understand what you have written.

ok i will in the future.

Pls explain why suicide bomber is worse than an ordinary soldier ?

they are worser then an ordernary solider becasue they will gladly kill peopel for thier country and kill tehm selves in the process which is sad, pathetic and nasty they would kill just to spread thier religion even though thier gods (god, book etc) says don not kill your fellow man etc..

 

[fing0lfin]

Well don't the ordinary soldiers do the same ? Kill for they countries and die for for their countries.

The sad which you are talking about isn't the suicide bombers, it's the war .....

 

[useless]

The sad which you are talking about isn't the suicide bombers, it's the war .....

how is it the war? the suicide bombers would be happy when they kill peopel fro their country or religion (example liek the crusades except they wernt suicide bombers)

 

[fing0lfin]

The war is sad, nasty and everything you said...

As for the Suicide Bombers, they are just soldiers. I don't know...may be our ideals and ideas are different, but for me there is nothing bad to die for your country and to be happy to kill enemies of your country...(as though i think happy is not the excact word)...

 

[useless]

The war is sad, nasty and everything you said...

As for the Suicide Bombers, they are just soldiers. I don't know...may be our ideals and ideas are different, but for me there is nothing bad to die for your country and to be happy to kill enemies of your country...(as though i think happy is not the excact word)...

sigh you dont understand to do you? this is fanatasism (cant spell it good)

 

[BG_Zero]

nationalism lead to fascism ,nazis and hitler. so is it a good thing? nationlism killed many people. nationalism is bad

And you are talking like an idiot.Nacionalism is something diferent than facism.Its one thing to be a nationalist and a its diferent thing to be a shovenism.

 

[BG_Zero]

@Srdjan
And why it is crap ? May be because it's different of your oppinion?

@Reno
Evreything may be written in the books.But if a Bulgarian meets a 'Macadonian' and both speak their native language, they won't have problems with understanding each other.The Macadonian is a Bulgarian dialect, but this doesn't make it different language.Like the American and the English. We can't say they are different languages, can we?

Yes the language is the main thing that shows from wich etnic group are a group of people,along whit the other cultural factors.But the moust importan is the self define so if the macedonians dont define them selvs as part of the bulgarian etnic group they shoudn be defined as bulgarians.The bad thing is that they were indeed bulgarians but the years of propaganda has led them to belive that they are no part of the bulgarian etnic group.Sad but true.