• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

Kosovo Je Srbije

gramsci

gramsci

Legendary Member
Foreign fighters in the Bosnian War

The Croats received support from Croatia and the Croatian Army fought with the local Croatian Defense Council (HVO) forces. Some external fighters included British volunteers as well as other individuals from Catholic countries who fought as volunteers. Dutch, Spanish, Irish, Polish, French, Swedish, Hungarian, Norwegian, Canadian and Finnish volunteers were organized into the Croatian 103rd (International) Infantry Brigade. British, French, Czech, Canadian served in the 108 Brigade of HVO. There was also a special Italian unit, the Garibaldi battalion.[and one for the French, the "groupe Jacques Doriot".

Many extreme right volunteers from Western Europe, mainly from Germany, joined the Croatian Defence Forces (HOS). Although Russians mainly volunteered on the Serb side, the small neo-Nazi "Werewolf" unit fought on the Croat side.

Swedish Jackie Arklöv fought in Bosnia and was later charged with war crimes upon his return to Sweden. Later he confessed he committed war crimes on Bosniak civilians in the Croatian camps Heliodrom and Dretelj as a member of Croat forces

Mapping the Extreme Right in Contemporary Europe: From Local to Transnational - Google Libri
 
  • Advertisement
  • gramsci

    gramsci

    Legendary Member
    Foreign fighters in the Bosnian War

    The Bosnian Serbs received volunteers from Orthodox Christian countries, such as Russia and Greece. and many communist affiliated groups.These included hundreds of Russians,around 100 Greeks, some Ukrainians and Romanians. One Japanese volunteer is documented.According to ICTY documents, volunteers from Russia, Greece and Romania fighting for the VRS numbered between 529 and 614. Some estimate that there were over 1,000 volunteers from Orthodox countries. One claim is that in April 1994 the VRS consisted of 100,000 men, out of whom 1,000–1,500 were mercenaries from Russia, Ukraine and Bulgaria.Journalist Ljiljana Bulatović claimed that 49 Russians were killed in the war.

    Primary Russian forces consisted of two organized units known as "РДО-1" and "РДО-2" (РДО stands for "Русский Добровольческий Отряд", which means "Russian Volunteer Unit"), commanded by Yuriy Belyayev and Alexander Zagrebov, respectively.РДО-2 was also known as "Tsarist Wolves", because of the monarchic views of its fighters. There also was unit of Russian cossacks, known as "Первая Казачья Сотня" (First Cossack Sotnia). All these units were operating mainly in Eastern Bosnia along with VRS forces from 1992 up to 1995.
     
    Frisbeetarian

    Frisbeetarian

    Legendary Member
    you also need to revisit basic logic, for to make statements the caliber of "communism is civilization" because someone in cuba saved a dolphin, is indicative of a logical deficiency, one that would manifest itself on all levels, including in your ideological subscription.
    Speaking of "logical deficiency".
     
    Frisbeetarian

    Frisbeetarian

    Legendary Member
    @gramsci if anyone will stop the Islamization of Europe, it will be Eastern Europeans.


    OCTOBER 17, 2017
    Eastern European Resistance to Islamization
    WILLIAM KILPATRICK



    If you’ve ever seen Casablanca,
    you won’t have forgotten the scene in Rick’s Cafe where the German officers who are singing “Die Wacht am Rhein” are drowned out by the French patrons who burst into a rousing rendition of the “Marseillaise.”

    Something similar happened last week at the National Opera in Cluj Napoca, Romania. A “multicultural” opera that included a Muslim muezzin chanting the call to prayer was interrupted by members of the audience singing the national anthem.

    The Romanian national anthem is not quite as rousing as “La Marseillaise” (at least, not to the non-Romanian ear), and the singers were not as talented as the cast of Casablanca, but the sentiments were the same—namely, that tyranny must be resisted.

    What tyranny is that, you may ask. Romania is not an occupied country, nor is it in imminent danger of an Islamic takeover.

    But it was not that long ago that Romanians did live under the boot of a communist tyrant. Indeed, Nicolae Ceausescu, who demolished churches and employed slave labor, was one of the more ruthless of recent dictators. With the memory of his bloody regime fresh in mind, it is no wonder that Romanians are sensitive to any signs of nascent totalitarianism—even if it is only the soft totalitarianism of the European Union.

    Having joined the EU in 2007, Romania is subject to the increasingly Orwellian dictats of the EU—particularly those touching on immigration. Like it or not, every EU country is expected to take in a certain quota of immigrants. As migrant crime rates soar, many are now beginning to look upon EU membership as akin to membership in a suicide pact.

    This is a particularly touchy subject for Romanians because their country is the first stop on one of the main migration routes into Europe: from Turkey, across the Black Sea to Romania, then up into Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic, and Germany.

    The half-dozen or so Romanians who sang the anthem at the Opera were likely concerned not only about the political imperialism, but also about the cultural kind. As one of the leaders of the “resistance” group put it, “We see this as a play to brainwash viewers, so people might easily accept the Islamization of Romania.”

    The performance they objected to was Karl Jenkins’ The Armed Man, A Mass for Peace, an anti-war piece which includes extracts from the ordinary of the Mass, the Islamic Call to prayer, the Mahabharata, and poetry from various sources. As Ned May puts it in his Gates of Vienna column, “the Mandarins of Multiculture recently sent [from London] an ‘inclusive,’ ‘diverse’ opera to Romania to enlighten the benighted locals.”

    The “locals” were particularly offended by the chanting of the Muslim call to prayer which begins with the words “Allahu akbar” (God is greater) and then continues: “I confess there is no god other than Allah. I confess that Muhammad is sent by god…” It was at this point that the small band of patriots began to sing their national anthem: “Wake up, Romania, from the sleep of death into which you have been sunk by barbaric tyrants…”

    This, in turn, was met by objections from the cultured—or shall we say “multicultured”—audience: “Get out. You are cretins;” “Get out. You can do politics outside.” At this point, police arrived and did escort the group outside. But the reaction of certain members of the audience was telling. They looked upon the protesters as insensitive “cretins” with no respect for high culture.

    The problem is that high culture can’t exist for long unless it’s sustained by the culture—not just attendees at a cultural event, but a community of people held together by common bonds of religion, patriotism, history and (usually) language. If high culture has no respect for the “mystic chords” (to use Lincoln’s phrase) that bind people together, it can’t expect a reverential response to its experiments in multicultural indoctrination. In a multicultural society, everyone is expected to be sensitive and non-offensive—everyone, that is, except the multiculturalists themselves. They seem to have exempted themselves from the non-offensive rule.

    For example, did the composer of the opera ever wonder, or even care, that some Catholics might take offense at a choral work that takes liberties with the Mass? After all, the Mass does not start with an invocation of Allah and Muhammad. Nor is there any suggestion in the Mass that all religions are morally equivalent, as the choral piece suggests. A member of the audience shouted “you can do politics outside.” But the politics was already inside—it was inherent in the “message” of the opera.

    Why was that particular opera chosen as the particular lesson that must be taught to the people of Romania at this particular time in history? Why not Mozart’s Abduction from the Seraglio—an opera that reminds us that tens of thousands of Europeans once fell victim to the Islamic slave trade?

    Why? Perhaps because the London opera might prompt people to more “easily accept the Islamization of Romania.” Of course, Romania is not the only target of the multicultural putsch. Attempts to acclimatize Europeans to Islamization are taking place all over the continent. In Italy, Christmas crèches have been removed by parish priests so as not to offend Muslims. In Sweden, many towns have stopped celebrating Saint Lucy Day for the same reason. In Sweden, also, a new book for children has hit the shelves. It’s titled Grandpa Has Four Wives, and it’s meant to accustom three-to-six year old Swedish children to the idea that Muslim polygamy is okay.

    The Swedes are so far advanced in the art of tolerance that they may not be able to mount any resistance to this kind of cultural takeover. But in Eastern Europe it’s a different story. Having recently thrown off the yoke of communism, East Europeans are more attuned to the signs of cultural oppression, and are less willing to go quietly into the dark night of totalitarianism.

    It’s not yet clear if the “Easterners” can turn things around in Europe, but there are heartening signs. The “duel” at the Romanian opera is one hopeful sign. Another, more significant sign is the recent gathering of hundreds of thousands of Catholics along the Polish border to pray the rosary.

    The “Rosary at the Borders” event brought Catholics to locations around the country’s 2,000 miles of borders, around its Baltic Coastline, and to its major airports. By some estimates as many as 1.5 million participated. The event took place on October 7, the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary. That day was also the 446th anniversary of the decisive naval victory at Lepanto. Under the leadership of the Holy League, the Catholic fleet defeated the larger Ottoman fleet and saved Europe from an Islamic invasion. Pope Pius V who had called for Catholics to say the rosary in support of the fleet, credited the victory to Mary’s intercession, and established October 7 as the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary.

    In a commentary on G.K. Chesterton’s poem, “Lepanto,” Brandon Rogers wrote of Pope Pius V:

    [He] understood the tremendous importance of resisting the aggressive expansion of the Turks better than any of his contemporaries appear to have. He understood that the real battle being fought was spiritual; a clash of creeds was at hand, and the stakes were the very existence of the Christian West.

    The existence of the Christian West is once again at stake. Eastern Europeans understand this better than most. And as exemplified by the “Rosary at the Borders,” they understand, as did Pius V, that the conflict with Islam is a spiritual battle.

    Another Eastern European who grasps what is at stake is Prime Minister Victor Orban of Hungary. Orban echoes one of the main themes in the writings of Pope Benedict XVI—namely, that Europe has Christian roots, and if it cuts itself off from those roots, it will lose not only its identity, but also its greatness and goodness.

    In a number of speeches, Orban has raised the question of whether Christianity can survive in Europe if Europe keeps its borders open to the “Great Migration” from cultures that are hostile to Christianity and Judaism. He has made the case that this migration jeopardizes freedom of religion, equality between men and women, and the fight against anti-Semitism. “Our guiding idea,” he says, “is not liberalism, but sovereignty and Christian social teachings.”

    Something is stirring in Eastern Europe. There are numerous signs that a resistance is building against both the soft tyranny of the EU, and the hard tyranny of Islam which is being imported by the EU elites. This spirit of resistance is slowly seeping into Western Europe where polls show that a majority of citizens now want a complete and permanent halt to Muslim migration. It’s also reflected in the fact that the PEGIDA movement (Patriotic Europeans against the Islamization of Europe), which began in Eastern Germany, has now spread to all of Western Europe. Eastern European resistance may have helped inspire Eurosceptic and anti-immigrant parties that won majorities in Austrian elections this weekend.

    During the Cold War, Western Europeans supplied aid and encouragement to their brethren behind the Iron Curtain. Now it looks as though the East is returning the favor.

    Eastern European Resistance to Islamization - Crisis Magazine
    Its a call to prayer in a theatrical play being portrayed as a sign of encroaching Islamic domination and you're actually agreeing. In a country thats like what 98% Christian. And it's the Muslims who are racist, hateful, backwards and intolerant? K.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Its a call to prayer in a theatrical play being portrayed as a sign of encroaching Islamic domination and you're actually agreeing. In a country thats like what 98% Christian. And it's the Muslims who are racist, hateful, backwards and intolerant? K.
    Clearly, you missed the point. Or pretending to.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Yes yes I'm the one deliberately missing the point.
    Why should Christians tolerate the call to prayer of a religion that, according to its own scriptures, seeks their destruction?
     
    Frisbeetarian

    Frisbeetarian

    Legendary Member
    Why should Christians tolerate the call to prayer of a religion that, according to its own scriptures, seeks their destruction?
    Because the issue is a bit more complicated than what you've led yourself to believe.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Because the issue is a bit more complicated than what you've led yourself to believe.
    No, it's not. It's like playing Nazi propaganda in a roomful of Jewish people.

    It's one thing for Jews and Germans to put the past behind them and interact civilly, it's another thing to portray Nazism as benign and expect Jews to clap for it.

    Likewise, most Christians don't have an issue with Muslims on an individual level, but don't expect them to buy into the "Islam is a religion of peace" propaganda.

    You wouldn't expect Muslims to clap for American or Israeli imperialist policies...so why the double standard?
     
    Frisbeetarian

    Frisbeetarian

    Legendary Member
    No, it's not. It's like playing Nazi propaganda in a roomful of Jewish people.

    It's one thing for Jews and Germans to put the past behind them and interact civilly, it's another thing to portray Nazism as benign and expect Jews to clap for it.

    Likewise, most Christians don't have an issue with Muslims on an individual level, but don't expect them to buy into the "Islam is a religion of peace" propaganda.

    You wouldn't expect Muslims to clap for American or Israeli imperialist policies...so why the double standard?
    And why should Muslims consider Christianity a "religion of peace" when it has been behind much of the atrocities committed worldwide? (just entertaining your rhetoric here, I don't see the world in such a monosyllabic way).
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    And why should Muslims consider Christianity a "religion of peace" when it has been behind much of the atrocities committed worldwide? (just entertaining your rhetoric here, I don't see the world in such a monosyllabic way).
    Exactly the reply I expected. You guys are masters at recycling shallow, tired, and debunked arguments. But even recyclable materials can't be recycled ad infinitum.

    The answer is:

    - Because Christianity IS a religion of peace. There is a distinction between Christianity as a doctrine and Christians as people. (A distinction I have the decency to make between Islam and Muslims).

    - Because even if Muslims don't subscribe to Christian doctrine, at least they don't have to worry about Christian doctrine being a threat that promotes violent imperialism or their annihilation.

    Ironically, despite the above, there are many more Muslim-majority countries in which Christian worship and symbols are forbidden and destroyed than the other way around.

    Yet, some Muslims' "logic" goes as follows: between Muslims stifling a religion that poses no risk to them, and Christians refusing to clap for a religion that seeks their destruction, the former are the oppressed, and the latter are the oppressors.

    It can't get any more preposterous...
     
    Frisbeetarian

    Frisbeetarian

    Legendary Member
    - Because Christianity IS a religion of peace. There is a distinction between Christianity as a doctrine and Christians as people. (A distinction I have the decency to make between Islam and Muslims).
    Christian doctrine has been used to promote war, genocide and the colonization of entire continents. You are completely deluded.

    - Because even if Muslims don't subscribe to Christian doctrine, at least they don't have to worry about Christian doctrine being a threat that promotes violent imperialism or their annihilation.
    In which world do you actually live in? A mere cursory look at history dispels the notion that Christianity is benevolent in the way it sees and interacts with foreign cultures. The indigenous populations of Europe who did not convert were slaughtered in mass and the pagans all but made to disappear. Culminating in a continent that was entirely populated by Christians, through force and slaughter. Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire presented itself as a multicultural haven that sheltered the persecuted peoples of Europe. Know your history before spouting off nonsensically and hatefully.

    Ironically, despite the above, there are many more Muslim-majority countries in which Christian worship and symbols are forbidden and destroyed than the other way around.
    Because the majority of those had been colonized by Christian Europeans?

    Yet, some Muslims' "logic" goes as follows: between Muslims stifling a religion that poses no risk to them, and Christians refusing to clap for a religion that seeks their destruction, the former are the oppressed, and the latter are the oppressors.
    Seriously what the **** are you talking about? Our countries had been colonized and looted by the very same Christians you speak of. Christian doctrine being instrumental in formulating policies and rally public support for these criminal endeavors. An entire continent was made to heel through a biblical interpretation of salvation and redemption.

    It can't get any more preposterous...
    Indeed.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Christian doctrine has been used to promote war, genocide and the colonization of entire continents. You are completely deluded.
    Show us which part of Christian doctrine promotes war, genocide, and colonization. Back up your claims with evidence, or stop wasting our time.

    In which world do you actually live in? A mere cursory look at history dispels the notion that Christianity is benevolent in the way it sees and interacts with foreign cultures. The indigenous populations of Europe who did not convert were slaughtered in mass and the pagans all but made to disappear. Culminating in a continent that was entirely populated by Christians, through force and slaughter. Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire presented itself as a multicultural haven that sheltered the persecuted peoples of Europe. Know your history before spouting off nonsensically and hatefully.
    Powerful political people did what powerful political people from all parts of the world used to do back then. Show us which part of Christian doctrine endorses their actions.

    On the other hand, your highest authority on morality, your prophet, was a violent war-mongerer, slave-keeper, killer, and thief.

    Don't compare apples to oranges. Compare Mohammad's teachings to Jesus' teachings. If you're honest, that is.

    Seriously what the **** are you talking about? Our countries had been colonized and looted by the very same Christians you speak of. Christian doctrine being instrumental in formulating policies and rally public support for these criminal endeavors. An entire continent was made to heel through a biblical interpretation of salvation and redemption.
    Same argument as above.

    Also, which are "your countries?" The ones that used to be Buddhist or Christian before Islamic colonization?

    Give us a break with the tired clichés. No one's buying your crocodile tears anymore. Try your taqiyya on Western hippies who haven't woke up yet.
     
    eile

    eile

    Well-Known Member
    mental state and process pattern of dishonest / wicked individuals; of overtly-progressive covertly-islamist individuals (in this case); they
    1) claim to reject/oppose/condemn in principle isis/nusra-like acts/crimes, and on the other hand,
    2) subscribe-to / condone / not -reject/oppose/condemn- islam / islam's foundation (which necessarily includes mohamad, his sahaba and followers) according to which nusra/isis acts/crimes operate / are effected/justified, the foundation/inspiration which said acts/crimes are attributed to by default, without any valid/coherent justification for said acts/crimes not being so, and then
    3) reject/oppose/condemn/vilify (someone for) being (unlike them) - consistent/honest in opposing/condemning isis/nura acts/crimes by also/equally (scrutinizing and validly) opposing/condemning said acts/crimes' ideological source/inspiration/justifications - , and then they go a step further in the same vein of evasive/deceitful and unwarranted vilification and self-contradiction and,
    4.a) (additionally) attribute such crimes to the only reference/source according to which said crimes are/can be coherently defined/qualified and condemned as crimes in the first place (i.e Christianity), and/or
    4.b) claim that humans do not / can not act mainly according to justifications/beliefs/mindsets, that the latter has no essential role in causing/preventing crimes to begin with, and by that, (fecklessly) evade opposing/condemning islam (i.e fecklessly evade opposing/revealing their true intentions) at the damning cost of A) 'absolving' that which they've first intended to condemn/vilify (Christianity), and B) rendering invalid by definition or in principle any reasoning/justification according to which the crimes - which they advance themselves to be condemning - are/can/would be coherently defined/qualified/condemned as crimes, in the first place
     
    Last edited:
    Frisbeetarian

    Frisbeetarian

    Legendary Member
    Show us which part of Christian doctrine promotes war, genocide, and colonization. Back up your claims with evidence, or stop wasting our time.
    Pretty easy
    oremus Bible Browser : 1 Samuel 15:1–15:3
    One just needs not to be completely taken in by ideology.

    Powerful political people did what powerful political people from all parts of the world used to do back then. Show us which part of Christian doctrine endorses their actions.
    "Powerful political people"? What are you? 5 years old?

    On the other hand, your highest authority on morality, your prophet, was a violent war-mongerer, slave-keeper, killer, and thief.
    Yeah could be true but on the other hand there is no historical evidence that Jesus ever existed, so yeah I don't really see the point in comparing here.

    Also, which are "your countries?" The ones that used to be Buddhist or Christian before Islamic colonization?
    Every country used to be something before it became something else. Or does that rule not apply not Christians since they're peaceful and never invaded, colonized and massacred.

    Give us a break with the tired clichés. No one's buying your crocodile tears anymore. Try your taqiyya on Western hippies who haven't woke up yet.
    No, you give us a break with your delusional neurosis and your blind worship of your religion. Why can't you admit that your religion, like all social institutions (which includes Islam) is inherently faulty. Why is that so hard to accept? Is your faith so weak that it wouldn't be able to hold against a valid critique of reality?
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    wickedness, ignorance and arrogance, the three components of the unholy trinity. makes the cure rather quite tough.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Pretty easy
    oremus Bible Browser : 1 Samuel 15:1–15:3
    One just needs not to be completely taken in by ideology.
    That's the Hebrew Bible. Our rules come from the New Testament. Try again.

    "Powerful political people"? What are you? 5 years old?
    You've never heard of kings and emperors? What are you? 2 years old?

    Yeah could be true but on the other hand there is no historical evidence that Jesus ever existed, so yeah I don't really see the point in comparing here.
    False. Most historians agree that Jesus existed. You can find multiple references about him outside Christian scriptures.

    "Almost all historical critics agree that a historical figure named Jesus taught throughout the Galilean countryside c. 30 CE, was believed by his followers to have performed supernatural acts, and was sentenced to death by the Romans, possibly for insurrection."

    Historicity of the Bible - Wikipedia

    Every country used to be something before it became something else. Or does that rule not apply not Christians since they're peaceful and never invaded, colonized and massacred.
    The point I was making is that you're complaning about Westerners colonizing "your countries" while you are colonizers yourself. There are still non-Muslim natives in "your countries" and if it was up to you, you would get rid of those as well.

    No, you give us a break with your delusional neurosis and your blind worship of your religion. Why can't you admit that your religion, like all social institutions (which includes Islam) is inherently faulty. Why is that so hard to accept? Is your faith so weak that it wouldn't be able to hold against a valid critique of reality?
    My religion is not faulty. My religion is perfect. And the more I learn about it, the more I realize how perfect it is.

    I'm sorry you can't say the same about your religion, and I know that your second best option is to make false equivalences and claim that all religions are faulty; however, that is simply not true.
     
    Top