Opearation merciful angel

[Agarntrop]

Because they distracted America from the Borovo Selo genocide.

Really?

In legal parlance, I think you'd find that would be considered as being "too far removed" from the event. Sure, there is the whole "but for" legal argument, but that is heavily tempered by the former.

I WASN'T BEING SERIOUS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

[The New California Republic]

Really?

In legal parlance, I think you'd find that would be considered as being "too far removed" from the event. Sure, there is the whole "but for" legal argument, but that is heavily tempered by the former.

I WASN'T BEING SERIOUS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

When you spread that sarcastic point across half the thread, is it any wonder that it was lost along the way?

[Genivaria]

Agarntrop you never answered my question, do you support Operation Downfall?

No

Then do you support Japan falling to and then being occupied by the Soviets?

[Genivaria]

Really?

In legal parlance, I think you'd find that would be considered as being "too far removed" from the event. Sure, there is the whole "but for" legal argument, but that is heavily tempered by the former.

I WASN'T BEING SERIOUS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

Poes law, learn it.

Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the parodied views.[1][2][3]

[Sovaal]

Yugoslavia was a shit show that frankly nobody should have gotten involved in.

[Agarntrop]

No

Then do you support Japan falling to and then being occupied by the Soviets?

We're not discussing Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[The New California Republic]

Then do you support Japan falling to and then being occupied by the Soviets?

We're not discussing Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Nice sidestep mate.

[Hurdergaryp]

Do you know how many people were killed by D-Day alone, including civilians?

Yes but NATO deliberately bombed civilian targets in order to damage the Serb tourism industry.

Because Serbia was such a great holiday destination back in the nineties.

[The New California Republic]

Yes but NATO deliberately bombed civilian targets in order to damage the Serb tourism industry.

Because Serbia was such a great holiday destination back in the nineties.

The ultimate adventure holiday, dodging snipers and the Serbian soldiers gathering people up to be ethnically cleansed. What fun.

[Dogmeat]

Because Serbia was such a great holiday destination back in the nineties.

The ultimate adventure holiday, dodging snipers and the Serbian soldiers gathering people up to be ethnically cleansed. What fun.

One can imagine a nice Northern Irish family, tired of the ongoing violence in their homeland, traveling there to get away from the partisan roadblocks and such when,

"Stop the car sir. Now, are you Catholic or Orthodox?"

[Hurdergaryp]

Because Serbia was such a great holiday destination back in the nineties.

The ultimate adventure holiday, dodging snipers and the Serbian soldiers gathering people up to be ethnically cleansed. What fun.

Also the subtle melodies and pounding beats of turbofolk.

[Shofercia]

They are having a good go at it in Yemen.

They are targeting Houthi armed terrorists, killing terrorists is not a genocide last time I checked.

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pag ... wsID=22025

Human rights violations and abuses continue unabated in Yemen, along with unrelenting violations of international humanitarian law, with civilians suffering deeply the consequences of an “entirely man-made catastrophe”, according to a UN human rights report published on Tuesday.

The report, mandated by the UN Human Rights Council, records violations and abuses of human rights and international humanitarian law over three years, since September 2014. Between March 2015, when the UN Human Rights Office began reporting on civilian casualties, and 30 August, at least 5,144 civilians have been documented as killed and more than 8,749 injured.* Children accounted for 1,184 of those who were killed and 1,592 of those injured. Coalition airstrikes continued to be the leading cause of child casualties as well as overall civilian casualties. Some 3, 233 of the civilians killed were reportedly killed by Coalition forces.

Are you going to argue that 1,184 children were all terrorists?

Yugoslavia Was right, NATO are criminals and American imperialist army

Actually the Yugoslavia War was the only conflict where NATO was on the right side.

So NATO shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11?

What the Serbs did to the Croats in 1991 was much worse than what happened in Kosovo. And plus, the KLA were also kidnapping Serbs! We had far more justification in 1991 than in 1999: yet we intervened in 1999 instead!

Now watch how some in the thread will still focus on 1991 instead, cause "damn your argument, muh Srbrnica!"

1. The KLA had terrorist links and were involved in kidnappings
2. Noble Anvil directly attacked civillian cities (sometimes with cluster bombs!)
3. Noble Anvil had no U.N. authorisation yet the Bosnia bombing was actually done at the request of U.N. peacekeepers.

1. And? That doesn't excuse genocide by FR Yugoslavia...
2. NATO attacked military installations and infrastructure inside urban areas.
3. Russia and China vetoed it. The alternative was standing by and watching while genocide was committed.

See above.

No really. The whole Eastern Block was breaking up, the Gulf War happened. America had a lot on its plate. It couldn't realistically get involved in '91.

You know I remember when everyone bitched about America being interventionist, now they're bitching that America isn't.
Fucking called it.

Everyone's bitching that America isn't interventionist? That certainly hasn't been my experience.

[Shofercia]

Because Serbia was such a great holiday destination back in the nineties.

The ultimate adventure holiday, dodging snipers and the Serbian soldiers gathering people up to be ethnically cleansed. What fun.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... in-bosnia/

One of our all-time great fact checks was The Fact Checker’s March 21, 2008, report on Hillary Clinton’s false claim that she arrived in Bosnia “under sniper fire.” The article, written by our former colleague Michael Dobbs, was quickly followed by CBS News, PolitiFact and others — and ultimately became a defining moment in the 2008 campaign for the former first lady. The incident even earns a mention in a recent attack ad from the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

“I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

Far from running to an airport building with their heads down, Clinton and her party were greeted on the tarmac by smiling U.S. and Bosnian officials. An 8-year-old Muslim girl...

Ahh yes, all that "sniper fire" in Serbia. Are you also going with Yeltsin's "sniper fire" claim? I'm just wondering, if you're going with imaginary snipers, are you being consistent?

[Felichita]

I'm friends with a Serb who lived in Belgrade at the time yet I still would have supported the general idea of the operation. We should have only targeted their military and infrastructure and been more careful with it at that.

[The Two Jerseys]

The ultimate adventure holiday, dodging snipers and the Serbian soldiers gathering people up to be ethnically cleansed. What fun.

One can imagine a nice Northern Irish family, tired of the ongoing violence in their homeland, traveling there to get away from the partisan roadblocks and such when,

"Stop the car sir. Now, are you Catholic or Orthodox?"

"Feck off, boyo, oi've got an Armalite!"

[The New California Republic]

The ultimate adventure holiday, dodging snipers and the Serbian soldiers gathering people up to be ethnically cleansed. What fun.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... in-bosnia/

One of our all-time great fact checks was The Fact Checker’s March 21, 2008, report on Hillary Clinton’s false claim that she arrived in Bosnia “under sniper fire.” The article, written by our former colleague Michael Dobbs, was quickly followed by CBS News, PolitiFact and others — and ultimately became a defining moment in the 2008 campaign for the former first lady. The incident even earns a mention in a recent attack ad from the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

“I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

Far from running to an airport building with their heads down, Clinton and her party were greeted on the tarmac by smiling U.S. and Bosnian officials. An 8-year-old Muslim girl...

Ahh yes, all that "sniper fire" in Serbia. Are you also going with Yeltsin's "sniper fire" claim? I'm just wondering, if you're going with imaginary snipers, are you being consistent?

It was a joke. Sense the tone.

[Hurdergaryp]

One can imagine a nice Northern Irish family, tired of the ongoing violence in their homeland, traveling there to get away from the partisan roadblocks and such when,

"Stop the car sir. Now, are you Catholic or Orthodox?"

"Feck off, boyo, oi've got an Armalite!"

*sound of the safety of a dozen Kalashnikovs being turned off at the same time*

[The Two Jerseys]

"Feck off, boyo, oi've got an Armalite!"

*sound of the safety of a dozen Kalashnikovs being turned off at the same time*

*arms car bomb*

[Shofercia]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... in-bosnia/



Ahh yes, all that "sniper fire" in Serbia. Are you also going with Yeltsin's "sniper fire" claim? I'm just wondering, if you're going with imaginary snipers, are you being consistent?

It was a joke. Sense the tone.

The tone was "lol Serbia lol" in a tasteless joke, based on faulty background. I decided to correct the background. Jokes are usually based on something; they're not made from thin air, unless you're Samantha Bee or Wanda Sykes.

[The New California Republic]

It was a joke. Sense the tone.

The tone was "lol Serbia lol" in a tasteless joke, based on faulty background. I decided to correct the background. Jokes are usually based on something; they're not made from thin air, unless you're Samantha Bee or Wanda Sykes.

It was based on something: a post by someone else on the thread. You clearly missed it. But let's bury the hatchet on this one, it isn't getting us anywhere.

[Krasny-Volny]

Yugoslavia was situated geographically and politically on the border straddling East and West. If Tito had died sooner and the country had imploded just a few years earlier, the Soviet bloc would've intervened. Western Europe would've done nothing for fear of provoking the Warsaw Pact.

As it was, he died later, and the country imploded just as the Soviet bloc was collapsing, so Western Europe intervened freely without having to worry about competing spheres of influence or the Cold War going hot. It was right on their back door, directly across the straits from Italy.

The US supported the Western Europeans, even though it had zero strategic interests there beyond one lead factory, probably because Yugoslavia was a great place to test out new weapons and ordnance. Saving the Bosniaks and their fedayeen allies from being utterly exterminated by Serb firepower was just icing on the cake.

[Genivaria]

Then do you support Japan falling to and then being occupied by the Soviets?

We're not discussing Hiroshima and Nagasaki

So are you incapable of answering the question?

[Hurdergaryp]

Yugoslavia was situated geographically and politically on the border straddling East and West. If Tito had died sooner and the country had imploded just a few years earlier, the Soviet bloc would've intervened. Western Europe would've done nothing for fear of provoking the Warsaw Pact.

As it was, he died later, and the country imploded just as the Soviet bloc was collapsing, so Western Europe intervened freely without having to worry about competing spheres of influence or the Cold War going hot. It was right on their back door, directly across the straits from Italy.

The US supported the Western Europeans, even though it had zero strategic interests there beyond one lead factory, probably because Yugoslavia was a great place to test out new weapons and ordnance. Saving the Bosniaks and their fedayeen allies from being utterly exterminated by Serb firepower was just icing on the cake.

Yugoslavia was not a member of the Warsaw Pact and the Comecon, so the Soviets might have cared less than you think in that hypothetical situation.

[Agarntrop]

We're not discussing Hiroshima and Nagasaki

So are you incapable of answering the question?

Are you incapable of shutting up?

[The New California Republic]

So are you incapable of answering the question?

Are you incapable of shutting up?

It was a pretty straightforward question...