Aivars Ozoliņš: Spoks būrī

inopraat arii shiem autoriem laikam ir probleemas ar staljinu: The War in Bosnia - Herzegovina. (M.E. Sharpe, 1999) Steven Burg and Paul Shoup, Media Cleansing, Dirty Reporting: Journalism and Tragedy in Yugoslavia Peter Brock (GM Books, Los Angeles; 2nd edition February 2005) Balkan Tragedy: Chaos and Di ssolution After the Cold War, Susan L. Woodward (Brookings Institution Press, 1995) The New Military Humanism: Lessons from Kosovo, Noam Chomsky (Common Courage Press, 1999) Blueprints for a House Divided: The Constitutional Logic of the Yugoslav Conflicts, Robert M. Hayden (University of Michigan Press, 1999) Memorandum Submitted by Professor Ia n Brow nlie, Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, British House of Commons, May, 2000 Supplementary Memorandum Submitted by Professor Ian Brownlie, Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, British House of Commons, May, 2000 Bosnia: Faking Democracy After Dayton, David Chandler (Pluto Press, 2nd. Ed., 2000) A New Generation Draws the Line: Kosovo, East Timor and the Standards of the West, Noam Chomsky (Verso, 2000) Fools' Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO, and Western Delusions, Diana Johnstone (Monthly Review Press, 2003) Intelligence and the War in Bosnia 1992 - 1995, Cees Wiebes (Transaction Books, 2003) [Also see below] How America Gets Away With Murder: Illegal Wars, Collateral Damage and Crimes Against Humanity, Michael Mandel (Pluto Press, 2004) Travesty: The Trial of Slobodan Milosevic and the Corruption of International Justice by John Laughland Serbia Under Milosevic by Robert Thomas Degraded Capability by Ed Herman

nabaga ideologjiskais ino - nekaadu faktu/argumentu , tikai staljina reegs (--> bailes, naids, nicinaajums) .... vai nebuutu jau taa kaa laiks atbriivoties no shii reega savaa praatinjaa?? :) ar taadiem ino Latvijas demokraatijai nekas nespiid ... Too bad

ozoliņa kgs, Balkānu rēgi ir dzīvelīgi...Kosovas "valsts" premjers Haši, jeb klanu vidē labāk zināms kā Pūķis, tiek turēts aizdomās par orgānu kontrobandu un genocīdu, bet ASV un viņu roklaižām šeit tas ir pieņemami un neviens pat nemēģina jelko izmeklēt... Arī Latvija steigšus atzina šo organizētās noziedzības anklāvu par valsti.. varbūt parūpējaties ar savu modro aci, lai šīs Kosovas ''valsts" lieliskie pilsoņi neiegūst bezvīzu režīmu ar Eiropu- šobrīd pietiek ar rumāņiem un pārējiem, kas salīdzinot ar albāņiem, ir vienkārši krišnaītu veģetārieši.. Starp citu, kāpēc Dienā ir tik maz lasāms par Prištinas lielisko demokrātijas paraugstundu??? Tabu???

Ne jau cilvēku labā tiek taisītas LIELAS lietas... Tāpat ar Āfrikas tautiņām un ,kam tikai var, attiecīgā brīdī, tikt klāt. Visur atradīsies kampēji! Dodiet tikai iespēju!

Ar tadu pasu metodi ka kents "pierada" savu taisnibu autoram, Krievija "pierada", ka latviesi ir fasisti un Stalina slepkavas atbrivotaji:)

Ja tu esi runaajis ar Tito tad tu laikam esi ruudits komunists,partijnieks?!

P. S. Karadziču noķēra pateicoties amerikāņu aģentiem, par spīti serbu slepenpolicijai. Kent - tas jūsu zināšanai.

Kanta žonglēšana neuzcels kritušos. Tikai amerikāņu iejaukšanās pārtrauca šos slaktiņus. Es esmu dabā dzīvojis Belgradā un kafiju dzēris viņu kompartijas debesskrāpī. Esmu bijis arī Zagrebā un Ļubļanā, kur izdevās personīgi runāt ar Josipu Broz-Tito. Tajā laikā dienvidslāvi meta akmeņus krievu virzienā, ka tie gribut būt labāki slāvi. Beigu beigās radās Lielserbijas idejas. Viņi arī gribēja būt paši labākie slāvi. Šai "labako būšanai"eļļu pielēja krievi, kuru Lielkrievija jau juta, ka var saimniekot Balkānos. Kent - vai jūs nestrādājiet Krievijas vēstniecībā?

Tādi nelieši kā Karadžičš ir jāsēdina!

Kents nodeva Ozoliņam Jaunāko laiku vēstures paraugstundu. Kamēr Ozoliņš 2 polšus neizņems, tikpat nekā nesapratīs.

taatad jautaajums pilsoniska sabiedriiba (atbilstoshi ANO Hartai) vai nacionaali "tiira" sabiedriiba (kur "urlas var iet uz turieni no kurienes naakushi" un ikviens kas neatbalsta ASV / Izraeelas agresijas un Serbijas / Krievijas dziishanu stuurii ir antisemiitisks/ antiamerikaanisks nodeveejs jeb nav "patriots - demokraats" un ir KRIEVS!!! (vai vai vai !) jeb ne-pilsonis interfrontists komunists kas grib teetinju Staljinu (kentam peec dainiisha-neoceermiisha ieskata buutu jaaanulee pilsoniiba un kopaa ar urlaam jaaizraida no Latvijas). Amen

9) grizliks - LV pilsonis - nevis seko liidzi savas valdiibas darbiibaam vai taas saimnieka darbiibaam (kas nosaka LV aarpolitiku) bet gan Krievijas darbiibaam (kuru stuurii dzen LV strat. Saimnieks) + piesienas tiem kas dara pirmo un iipashi neiespringst uz otro. Jautaajums - kursh ir "selektiivais"? LV pilsonis kents vai LV pilsonis grizliks? Atbilde - grizliks Liidz ar to trula ideologjiska kokle ir grizliks (kas arii bija jaapieraada) Jautaajums - kaapeec grizliks gaudo par Krieviju bet strateegjiski klusee par LV un ASV? Atbilde - taapeec ka a) atbalsta Krievijas dziishanu stuurii b) atbalsta Latvijas krievu dziishanu stuurii un sapnjo ka "kaaddien' arii mees reiz izdziisim urlas no savas Teevzem's - tad arii vareesim atkal laimee un priekaa diet" c) nevar ietekmeet Krievijas riiciibu/leemumus - liidz ar to var vaavuljot bezjeegaa un neko nedariit Jautaajums - kursh par saviem komentiem sanjem hipoteetiskus "maksaajumus"? kursh ir "idejiskais" un kursh "praktiskais" un kursh "apdaliitais" un kursh skumst peec "impeerijas"??? Atbilde: viennoziimiigi - grizliks (jo vinja komentiem nav eetiska seguma (vaavuljo par cita darbiibaam (t.i. to ko nevar ietekmeet ) vai "seniem laikiem/notikumiem (pagaatni) ) un skumst peec ASV impeerijas spozhuma taapeec arii ideologjiski koklee par ASV "ienaidniekiem" Krieviju u.c. cik taa ir "totalitaara" "agresiiva" "korumpeeta" "iracionaala" "noziedziiga" etc.

grizlika vietaa var ielikt ikvienu citu ideologjisko kokli (piemeeram, DIENAS 'augsto standartu' kokleetaajus) Saaksim ar elementaaro: 1) kents ir LV pilsonis 2) LV strateegjiskais saimnieks ir kas - Krievija? Kjiina? vai tomeer ASV? 3) katrs vispirms atbild par savu riiciibu/ leemumiem jo tos var izmainiit /ietekmeet (peec tam var vaavuljot par citiem kaut gan ja tu nevari ietekmeet shii otra riiciibu/ leemumus tad tavai vaavuljoshanai nav eetiskas noziimes,jeegas - tikai ideologjiska noziime) Liidz ar to kaa riiciibu/leemumus jaacenshas ietekmeet LV pilsonim grizlikam un LV pilsonim kentam - LV valdiibas vai Krievijas valdiibas? Kuras valsts sabiedriibas integraacija ir jaasekmee LV pilsonim grizlikam un LV pilsonim kentam - Latvijas vai Krievijas? 4) lidz ar to kaa LV pilsonis kents vispirms seko liidzi tam ko dara LV valdiiba vai taas saimnieks ASV 5) ASV agresijas pret Dienvidslaaviju Afganistaanu Iraaku bija ANO nesankcioneetas liidz ar to nelikumiigas (jeb smagaakais starptautiskais noziegums) + ASV atbalsts Izraeelas veiktajai etniskajai tiiriishanai + atbalsts diktatoriem 6) Liidzdaliiba shajaas agresijaas/okupaacijaas vairo a) anti-araabu/islamticiigo rasismu un b) militaarismu 7) ASV dzen stuurii Krieviju (celj mil.baazes Krievijas gaazes/naftas cauruljvadu tuvumaa - liidz ar to var shantazheet Krieviju, apdraudot taas noziimiigu ienaakumu avotu + Missile Defense System) 8) 1/3 Latvijas sabiedriibas ir krievvalodiigie un vinji nav sajuusmaa par Krievijas dziishanu stuurii. Liidz ar to Latvijas aarpolitika (preciizaak taas strateegjiskaa saimnieka ASV aarpolitika) apdraud Latvijas iekshpolitiku ("ieksheejo droshiibu") - sabiedriibas integraaciju kas balstaas uz : a) visi zin latvieshu valodu bet krievi protams var sazinaaties arii po russki b) Latvijas aarpolitikaa ieveerojot ANO Hartu

The 1995 "Second Market Massacre": "British ammunition experts serving with the United Nations in Sarajevo have challenged key 'evidence' of the Serbian atrocity that triggered the devastating Nato bombing campaign which turned the tide of the Bosnian war." The Britons' analysis was confirmed by French analysts but their findings were "dismissed" by "a senior American officer" at U.N. headquarters in Sarajevo. ["Serbs 'not guilty' of massacre: Experts warned US that mortar was Bosnian," (London) The Times, 10/1/95] A "crucial U.N. report [stating Serb responsibility for] the market massacre is a classified secret, but four specialists -- a Russian, a Canadian and two Americans -- have raised serious doubts about its conclusion, suggesting instead that the mortar was fired not by the Serbs but by Bosnian government forces." A Canadian officer "added that he and fellow Canadian officers in Bosnia were 'convinced that the Muslim government dropped both the February 5, 1994, and the August 28, 1995, mortar shells on the Sarajevo markets.'" An unidentified U.S. official "contends that the available evidence suggests either 'the shell was fired at a very low trajectory, which means a range of a few hundred yards -- therefore under [Sarajevo] government control,' or 'a mortar shell converted into a bomb was dropped from a nearby roof into the crowd.'" ["Bosnia's bombers," The Nation, 10/2/95]. At least some high-ranking French and perhaps other Western officials believed the Muslims responsible; after having received that account from government ministers and two generals, French magazine editor Jean Daniel put the question directly to Prime Minister Edouard Balladur: "'They [i.e., the Muslims] have committed this carnage on their own people?' I exclaimed in consternation. 'Yes,' confirmed the Prime Minister without hesitation, 'but at least they have forced NATO to intervene.'" ["No more lies about Bosnia," Le Nouvel Observateur, 8/31/95, translated in Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, January 1997]

The 1994 Markale "Market Massacre": "French television reported last night that the United Nations investigation into the market-place bombing in Sarajevo two weeks ago had established beyond doubt that the mortar shell that killed 68 people was fired from inside Bosnian [Muslim] lines." ["UN tracks source of fatal shell," (London) The Times, 2/19/94] "For the first time, a senior U.N. official has admitted the existence of a secret U.N. report that blames the Bosnian Moslems for the February 1994 massacre of Moslems at a Sarajevo market. . . . After studying the crater left by the mortar shell and the distribution of shrapnel, the report concluded that the shell was fired from behind Moslem lines." The report, however, was kept secret; the context of the wire story implies that U.S. Ambasador Albright may have been involved in its suppression. [DPA, 6/6/96] For a fuller discussion of the conflicting claims, see "Anatomy of a massacre," Foreign Policy, 12/22/94, by David Binder; Binder, a veteran New York Times reporter in Yugoslavia, had access to the suppressed report. Bodansky categorically states that the bomb "was actually a special charge designed and built with help from HizbAllah ["Party of God," a Beirut-based pro-Iranian terror group] experts and then most likely dropped from a nearby rooftop onto the crowd of shoppers. Video cameras at the ready recorded this expertly-staged spectacle of gore, while dozens of corpses of Bosnian Muslim troops killed in action (exchanged the day before in a 'body swap' with the Serbs) were paraded in front of cameras to raise the casualty counts." [Offensive in the Balkans, page 62]