sure, but warcrimes != genocide... afaik croats and bosnians have not massexecuted serbs, which was the case vice versa. croats and bosnians have not invaded serbia, which was the case vice versa. they have not started with ethnic cleansing, the serbs did. I still remember the pictures of vukovar...
too many people equate serbs, which was the aggressors, with croats and bosnians, which was the victims who did nothing but to defend themself, saying "they all have done bad things". all 3 sides have commited warcrimes, no doubt, but serbs was the one who caused it, who planed it, who had concentration camps which resulted in massacres (is was something around 8k people in just few days in srebrnitsa if i am not mistaken)
hundreds of thousands of raped women by serbs, dead children and elderly people, massgraves, etc... croats, bosnians and serbs are simply "not the same". at least not for me.

if you think i am a multi feel free to report me. what are you waiting for? like i already said - i dont know that darkcobra guy or what he has done to butthurt you that much, however he seems to give you nightmares, bigtime lol... picking on my english, which is my 4th language, while not being able to speak anything besides english is, well, dense. not that i expected something else from a murican idiot like you. "if some1 fucks me with arguments, i will point out that his english sucks, thus he sucks, and i will call him multi, thus i won." - your way to go, right?


take care, common sense incoming: if serbs (orthodox christian) start killing every muslim and every croat (catholics) in a country like bosnia, just because they are not orthodox christian, wanting them all dead in order to make an "etnically clean" country for the serbs - then the muslims and catholics ARE freedom fighters, defending freedom. i'm curious if you can grasp that simple logic...

the general consensus is "sacrifices happened, but definitely not to the extent that Justin and Diodorus". there's a fair reason to assume that they did because a) Near Eastern practices
and
b.) even the Romans practiced child sacrifice at times, such as after the defeat at Cannae.


great job at going for heavy second option bias while dismissing the historical method and evaluating sources. did you just totally forget about the examples i gave for you? Suetonius' biases are not Tacitus' biases are not Tertullian's biases etc.
were the Germans unable to write?


the change from high explosive bombs from high altitudes to incendiary bombs was a result of the lackluster effect of the convential bombings. daylight precision bombing wasn't that effective because of the heavily dispersed nature of the Japanese industy, so they certainly weren't "just for fun" like German mass murders were. have you ever looked at the amount of civilian deaths caused by German actions in the Soviet Union or Poland?
the fact that your nazi heroes aren't venerated doesn't mean that history is biased.

General consensus isn't an amalgamation of opposing opinions. You can't assume anything, just because the Phoenicians practiced sacrifice doesn't mean the Carthaginians did. Rome had a clear bias against Carthage, and crafted a narrative of both fact and fiction to paint the Carthaginians as people who committed widespread child sacrifice, while evidence today suggest it wasn't. For thousands of years, the Roman (biased) narrative dominated perceptions of Carthaginians. It took modern archeology to change this. Roman sacrifice after Cannae isn't indicative of Rome. Sacrifice was taboo even after Cannae, but such desperate circumstances led people back to historical religious practices. The sacrifice of an infant in desperate times is not indicative of Roman attitudes towards sacrifice.

It's irrelevant what a particular writers bias is. Writers are not partial to the entire story, and their beliefs, values, and arguments are based on prevailing opinions and accounts of the times they lived. Roman history is a biased account of world history, dominated with views of superiority, propaganda, and more. Cicero, one of the greatest Roman philosophers and one of the most influential philosophers of antiquity was inherently biased. His just war theory defended Roman actions clearly against his belief systems because of the persona Rome evoked.

If Germany would have won the war, allied commanders involved in the fire bombing would have been prosecuted for war crimes. Germany losing changes the narrative. This isn't even a debatable subject. History is written and shaped by the people with the power to do so. The Americans shaped the narrative and history of the Pacific War with actions taken during the occupation. Today Japanese war crimes are not seen in the same light as German because of the narrative. The Armenian, Greek, and Assyrian Genocides committed by the Turks are not viewed as crimes as heinous as the ones Germany committed because of the narrative.

History is not facts. it is as much a product of the circumstances and biases as anything else. You just defended two fire bombings which had very limited impact on war production because of the narrative. America defended the fire bombing of Tokyo with military reasons, when the bombing happened after Japan had already all but lost the war. The fire bombing was designed to break Japanese morale by gruesomely incinerating tens of thousands of Japanese civilians. The fire bombing destroyed the city, it clearly wasn't just targeting industry.


This post was edited by Caedus on Oct 10 2014 08:43am

It seems to me that you have a simplistic view of events, perhaps fueled by a need to distinguish 'bad guys' from 'good guys'.

The whole thing was a clusterfuck and all governments of the day (Croat, Serbian (although at that point it was still Yugoslavian), Bosnian) are guilty.

One group may have killed more civilians than the other, but noone was innocent in that conflict.

are you separating the Punics from the Phoenicians? it's the same people with the same Gods. the Romans portrayed them as doing them regularly, which is propaganda, but... check my post . the tophets of Carthage etc. hold burnt remains of infants btw.
the Romans over-exaggerated, yes, but the many Tophets held infants' remains (other than those of Carthage as well.)


i think that it's important to highlight that the Romans always felt their wars to be righteous ever since they first declared them, with them throwing a spear across their opponents' borders 30 days before going to war when they were about to go to war with them (at least during the Italian wars.) but they still always sought to justify their wars each and every time.


a) Chinese history
the Nazis wouldn't have done so because the concept of justice meant nothing to them.

c) RUSSIANS, BELARUSIANS, POLES, JEWS, ETC...
especially the pure 100% god damn pure genocides documented by everythig from Mein Kampf to the Posen speech to each and every god damn motherfucking historical document.
see, the Germans and everyone god damn else were capable of writing and they god damn well did write about their thoughts and their intentions.


they're usually viewed as disgusting and horrible events in all countries apart from Turkey and somewhat the U.S (???). - it's a bit of a NATO-core-problem.

that's very post-modern of you, but the historical method's gotten better at understanding biases etc., and teaching about them is a very important part of teaching about the historical method. Tacitus is generally used as an example (why did he say what he said about many of the Germanics?).

This post was edited by Gastly on Oct 11 2014 08:10pm

My view of events is based on things my close friends told me. You simply can not say "they all r guilty" when 1 (serbs) or 2 (serbs and croats) of the 3 want the 3rd (bosniaks) dead and gone.
If we go to same class, and i start kicking and punching you every day, you are not to blame if you go nuts after a while and kick me back. U cant simply say "their both fault, both of them were punching"
One group killed way too many civilians to even be compared to the others. The ones who was attacked and had to defend themself are not to blame.

Comparing genocidal civil war (with ethnic and religious tensions dating back centuries) with a class dispute?

OK.

This post was edited by hATemOnkEy on Oct 13 2014 05:30am

you didnt get what i was trying to say, nevermind...