Politics Should Crimea be an independent country? (Russian-Ukrainian conflict)

[Rethel]

I voted for Greece

I don't uderstand why Crimea should be the first tatar country?
They already had one! Tatarstan on Volga-Ural region. Crimea
as independent state or tatar Crimea - that would be the most
stupid decision, because that means a new muslim extremist
state based on noneuropean culture in Europe.

And that nonsense over and over repeated by people, that
Tatars are the original people of Crimea. They are not! They
are invaders. In XIII century they were original native people
for east (east!) outskirts of present day Mongolia, not Crimea.

Tatar people like any one else are very nice and normal people.
Some of them lived in Poland since 15. century and many of them
were very good and patriotic citizens, they were even better Poles
than original Poles. So, I don't have anything against them. But their
state would be a potential threat in future. And that shouldn't happend.

 

[LeBrok]

I voted for Greece

I don't uderstand why Crimea should be the first tatar country?
They already had one! Tatarstan on Volga-Ural region. Crimea
as independent state or tatar Crimea - that would be the most
stupid decision, because that means a new muslim extremist
state based on noneuropean culture in Europe.

How did you gather that Tatars would create extremist Muslim country? Do we have Muslim extremists coming from Volga Tatar state, to draw any parallel to?

Volga Tatars it is not an independent state, it belongs to Russia with some form of autonomy. In this case Tatars are still stateless, or at least half stateless.

And that nonsense over and over repeated by people, that
Tatars are the original people of Crimea. They are not! They
are invaders. In XIII century they were original native people
for east (east!) outskirts of present day Mongolia, not Crimea.

Neither are Greeks. Before Greeks this land belonged to Scythians. They don't exist now, so it is hard to give them Crimea back.
Greeks were invaders too. When we fallow your thought, excluding all the invaders, who will get the Crimea?

Tatar people like any one else are very nice and normal people.
Some of them lived in Poland since 15. century and many of them
were very good and patriotic citizens, they were even better Poles
than original Poles. So, I don't have anything against them. .

Wow, a change of mind so quickly? My persuasion is quicker than my typing.

But their
state would be a potential threat in futureAnd that shouldn't happend.

Potentially every state is dangerous in the future, not mentioning current huge danger in this area in form of Putin's totalitarian Russia.

 

[Rethel]

How did you gather that Tatars would create extremist Muslim country?

Because:
1) Muslims (globaly) always were extremists.
2) In present times extremists infiltrate every muslim community.
3) That affect specially crimean Tatars.
4) They are reborn nation either ethnicly and religiuosly; reborns are always more extremistic.
5) When they were (an independent or vassal) state, they were doing great damage in neibouring
countries through centuries constantly, until Catharine II liquidated their state in 1783.

Do we have Muslim extremists coming from Volga Tatar state, to draw any parallel to?

Are you sure, that there are no extremists?

Volga Tatars it is an independent state, it belongs to Russia with some form of autonomy. In this case Tatars are still stateless, or at least half stateless.

No, they have a country and they have even a state.
Political status of the state is not significant in that matter.
In the other case, UE-states are not states too.

Neither are Greeks. Before Greeks this land belonged to Scythians. They don't exist now, so it is hard to give them Crimea back.
Greeks were invaders too. When we fallow your thought, excluding all the invaders, who will get the Crimea?

No ones
I voted for Greeks, becuase it was only sensable choice on the list.
If on the list would be for exaple Poland - I would prefer that
In XV century Poland had suverenity on italian costline in Crimea too

Besides, Greece is not involved in ethnic problems on the penninsula, and is situated pretty away...

Wow, a change of mind so quickly? My persuasion is quicker than my typing.

You are very efficient, even before your time... like Chuck Norris... :-D

Potentially every state is dangerous in the future, not mentioning current huge danger in this area in form of Putin's totalitarian Russia.

But Putin, is our Putin, and we have to deal with him.
If you have in home bad brother, would you prefer to
invite to your home a stranger, about whom you know,
that he could be even worse than your own brother...

 

[Ike]

Look here please Ike:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_integrity

No offense, neither of the counties of NETO, EU or KEBS considered territorial integrity when they disintegrated Yugoslavia.

I am very sorry that NATO supported such a lawless act,as taking Kosovo from Serbia.
And in fact was US leaders from than,that pushed for bombing of Serbia and supporting Kosovo going autonomous from Serbia.

It started way before. Kosovo was just a final act.

As for the splitting of ex-Yugo,that was the result of Milosevic wanting to become the leader of all Yugo.

Milosevic never wanted to become a leader of Yugoslavia. He had maximum of 50% support in Serbia alone, and if you consider all 6 republics, he never could have made it. There were many more important personas above him in the federal system. He was just a president of one of the republics, who was given importance by dissolving Yugoslavia and the fact that his republic was the biggest one.

I understand that it was an agreement that every period of time,the president was changing,with a president of another state of Yugo.
So 4 years Serbia had the president of Yugo,after these 4 years,Croatia had the president of Yugo,after these 4 years,Bosnia was having the president of Yugo and so on.
Yugo was a federation of different states,not a single state.
This is how the name of Yugoslavia was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia

I am VERY familiar about YU constitution, and no, Yugoslavia was not a federation of different states as you are trying to present them. Neither of those states existed before Yugoslavia in the form they were introduced during existence of Yugoslavia. Borderlines you're talking about were drawn in the cold winter night in 1943, on the occupied territory of Bosnia, by some 7-8 men, and were derived from some colonial borders of Austro-Hungarian empire, and times of Napoleon. They had no real meaning in Yugoslavia.

No nation is entitled to lead other nation by force.

Agreed, so why was EU so obsessed to force different nations to live together?

 

[Yetos]

How did you gather that Tatars would create extremist Muslim country? Do we have Muslim extremists coming from Volga Tatar state, to draw any parallel to?

Volga Tatars it is not an independent state, it belongs to Russia with some form of autonomy. In this case Tatars are still stateless, or at least half stateless.

Neither are Greeks. Before Greeks this land belonged to Scythians. They don't exist now, so it is hard to give them Crimea back.
Greeks were invaders too. When we fallow your thought, excluding all the invaders, who will get the Crimea?

Wow, a change of mind so quickly? My persuasion is quicker than my typing.

Potentially every state is dangerous in the future, not mentioning current huge danger in this area in form of Putin's totalitarian Russia.

Greeks knew and colonised Crimea before Homer, before 1100 BC or according which estimation you give to Troyan war
centuries before Scythians, who came around 900 BC or after
ΤΑΥΡΙΣ TAVRIA
ΙΓΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ ΕΝ ΤΑΥΡΟΙΣ

 

[Yetos]

It started way before. Kosovo was just a final act.

No

Kossovo is not a final act,

Kossovo is like PAlestine and Iesrael,
is like Kasmir in Indian mountains,

kossovo is a solution of 'call us back' or eternal UN observation,

Kossovo is an open battlefield, if did not split to the 2 major populations, then eternal need of great powers there,

 

[LeBrok]

Because:
1) Muslims (globaly) always were extremists.

And so were Christians till 20 century. There were plenty of religious wars in Europe, and heroes scarifying themselves for god(s). The last one in Balkans, could be classified like this too. The front lines where traced by Orthodox, Catholics and Muslims, ant their religious leaders calling to arms in protection of their blessed nations.
Extremist elements are in all religions. Even peaceful Buddhist monks are not strangers to killing people.
I'm not sure why you are demonizing all Muslims here. In Canada there are about million of them and they live peacefully around others. Extremism is very rare occurrence here. If anything you could blame Christians for stealing land and ranging wars and killing natives, in very recent past.

2) In present times extremists infiltrate every muslim community.
3) That affect specially crimean Tatars.
4) They are reborn nation either ethnicly and religiuosly; reborns are always more extremistic.

I'm way more afraid of Putin's Russia than potential Tatar extremists. Even though they were against Russian take over of Crimea, we didn't hear about any bombings done by them, did we?

5) When they were (an independent or vassal) state, they were doing great damage in neibouring
countries through centuries constantly, until Catharine II liquidated their state in 1783.

Do you view Russian imperialism as a positive force?

No, they have a country and they have even a state.
Political status of the state is not significant in that matter.

How would you like Poland to be a Russian autonomous Republic?

In the other case, UE-states are not states too.

Every UE state can unilaterally opt out off the Union and go their own way any time. I don't think it is the case in autonomous republics of Russia.

No ones
I voted for Greeks, becuase it was only sensable choice on the list.
If on the list would be for exaple Poland - I would prefer that
In XV century Poland had suverenity on italian costline in Crimea too

Actually it wasn't Poland but Rzeczpospolita, the P-L Commonwealth. I think Lithuanians and few others had something to do with it too.

But Putin, is our Putin, and we have to deal with him.
If you have in home bad brother, would you prefer to
invite to your home a stranger, about whom you know,
that he could be even worse than your own brother...

If someone is brutalizing his own family is not worth having around.

 

[mihaitzateo]

No offense, neither of the counties of NETO, EU or KEBS considered territorial integrity when they disintegrated Yugoslavia.


It started way before. Kosovo was just a final act.


Milosevic never wanted to become a leader of Yugoslavia. He had maximum of 50% support in Serbia alone, and if you consider all 6 republics, he never could have made it. There were many more important personas above him in the federal system. He was just a president of one of the republics, who was given importance by dissolving Yugoslavia and the fact that his republic was the biggest one.



I am VERY familiar about YU constitution, and no, Yugoslavia was not a federation of different states as you are trying to present them. Neither of those states existed before Yugoslavia in the form they were introduced during existence of Yugoslavia. Borderlines you're talking about were drawn in the cold winter night in 1943, on the occupied territory of Bosnia, by some 7-8 men, and were derived from some colonial borders of Austro-Hungarian empire, and times of Napoleon. They had no real meaning in Yugoslavia.


Agreed, so why was EU so obsessed to force different nations to live together?

Come on,Ike,when even the name of Yugoslavia was the Socialist Federative..... and first time,when Yugoslavia was created was named "The kingdom of croats,serbs and slovenes" you keep telling that Yugoslavia was not a federative state and you are interpreting the international law to sustain a dictator,Milosevic?
And you do not respond to the fact that Putin in despise to the international law and not carrying about what Russia has signed has stolen Crimea and Eastern Ukraine from Ukraine.
You think people are idiot and you are much smarter and you can trick people ...come on.
Remember that Russia did not got involved to support Kosovo to remain for Serbia and now the reason can be clearly seen,they did not wanted to upset Muslim States.
Yugoslavia was broken because Milosevic was a dictator and he was discriminating against non-Serbians.

 

[Yetos]

Come on,Ike,when even the name of Yugoslavia was the Socialist Federative..... and first time,when Yugoslavia was created was named "The kingdom of croats,serbs and slovenes" you keep telling that Yugoslavia was not a federative state and you are interpreting the international law to sustain a dictator,Milosevic?
And you do not respond to the fact that Putin in despise to the international law and not carrying about what Russia has signed has stolen Crimea and Eastern Ukraine from Ukraine.
You think people are idiot and you are much smarter and you can trick people ...come on.
Remember that Russia did not got involved to support Kosovo to remain for Serbia and now the reason can be clearly seen,they did not wanted to upset Muslim States.
Yugoslavia was broken because Milosevic was a dictator and he was discriminating against non-Serbians.

Yugoslavia did not had a chance from the begining,
the first who 'bomb' Yugoslavia was Yuri Dimitrof from Communist International.
if you know the WW1 and WW2 war history in the area you would realize that,
simply it was an expirement to support Tito, just to have an alternative East block policy,
as was Sweden, France and Italy an alternative of West block.
may I remind you Olaf Palme in Sweden, and Italian PCI 34,4%
and 3rd world movement which Yugoslavia was a proud member and a founder,

the pitty in Kossovo and Ukraine,
IS THAT POLITICIAN SPEAK ABOUT LAND SAUVEREIGN, AND NOT PEOPLE WHO INHABIT THESE LAND SAUVEREIGN


split of Kossovo to Albanian and Serbian part as also of Ukraine is a must,
and this should be done very fast before Putin manage to take all of Ukraine,
Brzezinski policy has failed in the past with Afganistan mujahideen, as also in Syria with DAESH,
the man is an idiot, and will drive Obama to another failure, or a an army campaign,
he probably earns from such campaigns like the one in Afganistan,

 

[Rethel]

And so were Christians till 20 century.

And what that has common whith eventualy muslim problem in eastern Europe?

By the way, it is very shocking to me, that you don't see a difference. But this is another topic.

If anything you could blame Christians for steeling land and ranging wars and killing natives, in very recent past.

You know, your argumentation here is like communists in past decades, or some sectarians.
What it have common whith Tatars in Crimea and potential islamic threat in Europe?

You are not a christian? Not "european"? You are not a descendant of those people who were exterminated and enslaved by muslim conquerors?
On whose side you are? If you are muslim, ok. I understand. But if you not, that your argumentation is suicidal, becouse it doesn't matter who
you are - if you are not a muslim, you are a kafir. But kuffars are divided on two categories: "People of the book" and "others". If you are "others"
and you atact christians, then you are first to be exterminated by muslims jihadists. So I don't understand what you are talking about, because this
what you wrote here is neither about Crimea, neither about real world, neither about Tatars. Maybe you don't know Islam and history of that
civilization. So I must inform you, that in islamic civilisation, you would never had a possibilyty write about Islam this, what you write about Christians.
If you would dare, you would never have ocasion to do this again. So, why you demonize christians? On purpose? Do you hate christians? Why?

I'm way more afraid of Putin's Russia than potential Tatar extremists. Even though they were against Russian take over of Crimea, we didn't hear about any bombings done by them, did we?

I didn't wrote, that Putin's Russia is good - otherwise, I would not check the Greeks.
But Putin want power and money. He don/t want destroy your civilisation, and he
do not think that he must beheaded you if you say something against Mohammad.
Besides, he is a president of a country with european culture and mentality.
Muslims hate your european heritage, culture and mentality.

It doesn,t mean that normal muslim is a bad person. Not at all.
But political Islam is bad at all... especialy is bad for us...

No because there on Tatar Crimea are sitting some "Ibn Putin"
who don't like democracy and who want have a lot of money.
Not at all... But because political Islam from 1400 years are a
special threat of christian civilisation. If you don't belive me,
go to North Africa, Iraq, even Turkey... they were 1400 y.a. a
christian, european civilisation. Today they are not.

Do you view Russian imperialism as a positive force?

If it would be, so why I checked the Greeks? Hmmm....

How would you like Poland to be a Russian autonomous Republic?

I wouldn't like it, but what it has common whith Tatars on Crimea?

Every UE state can unilaterally opt out off the Union and go their own way any time. I don't think it is the case in autonomous republics of Russia.

It doesn't matter, because we were talking about country and state. Country does not have
to be a state, and state does not have to be an indepentent subject. In your definition it has
to be, so, UE-states are not independent, so they are not states? It doesn't matter if they're
free to live or not....

Actually it wasn't Poland but Rzeczpospolita, the P-L Commonwealth. I think Lithuanians and few others had something to do with it too.

It was Poland, because it was in XV century, and Crown of Poland
had suverenity of genuan colonies at that time, until Turks takes it.

Rzeczpospolita - it is simply a republic in polish - and that stage was about 100 year later.
Lithuanians have the same role, as Scots in Britain, and "few others" have nothing to do.
By the way, "a Lithuanian" in 17. and 18. centuries it was a Pole, who lived in that part
of Commonwealth. This term have nothing to do with nationality, because >90% of P-L
Commonwealth people were not Poles at that time, even if they were speaking polish.
Present day Lithuanians, are not very proud of that double state, becouse that state
was never lithuanian by charcter. Only a name has something common with them. From
about second half of the 14th century Lithuania was an oldrussian state by language
and culture, and the next period was polish. Lithuanians wake up in late 19th century...
So as you see, present day terms, are not necessery true in the past. In most cases.

But what it have to do with tatars from Crimea?

If someone is brutalizing his own family is not worth having around.

I see, you don't want uderstand me. You understand words of course... but...

 

[LeBrok]

And what that has common whith eventualy muslim problem in eastern Europe?

Is there a problem with Muslims in Eastern Europe?

What it have common whith Tatars in Crimea and potential islamic threat in Europe?

Where do you see Islamic Tatar threat?

You are not a christian?

I'm not.

Not "european"?

I am.

You are not a descendant of those people who were exterminated and enslaved by muslim conquerors?

I'm not.

On whose side you are?

The free world.

If you are muslim, ok. I understand. But if you not, that your argumentation is suicidal, becouse it doesn't matter who
you are - if you are not a muslim, you are a kafir.

Don't be so scared. Radical Muslims have only power to kill few of us in surprising attacks. Mainly they kill Muslims. Sunnis versus Shia.

But kuffars are divided on two categories: "People of the book" and "others". If you are "others"
and you atact christians, then you are first to be exterminated by muslims jihadists.
So I don't understand what you are talking about, because this
what you wrote here is neither about Crimea, neither about real world, neither about Tatars. Maybe you don't know Islam and history of that
civilization. So I must inform you, that in islamic civilisation, you would never had a possibilyty write about Islam this, what you write about Christians.

I'm saying it in Canada, and no Canadian Muslim is killing me.

If you would dare, you would never have ocasion to do this again. So, why you demonize christians?

Christians demonized themselves, by their actions in the past. I don't need to help their reputation much.

I didn't wrote, that Putin's Russia is good - otherwise, I would not check the Greeks.
But Putin want power and money. He don/t want destroy your civilisation, and he
do not think that he must beheaded you if you say something against Mohammad.

So far Putin beheaded (killed) many Ukrainians. That's the big brother I'm afraid of.
[
QUOTE]Besides, he is a president of a country with european culture and mentality.[/QUOTE] What do you mean? European culture of 19 century of totalitarian culture of oppression and imperialism?

Muslims hate your european heritage, culture and mentality.

Not the Albanian, Bosnian and Turks Muslims. Most Iranian and Kurdish Muslims seam to be simpatetic to US and Europe too. Please don't drop them to the same bag. It is like putting American, Cuban, Polish and Russian Christians to the same bag. Do you see my point?

It doesn,t mean that normal muslim is a bad person. Not at all.
But political Islam is bad at all... especialy is bad for us...

That's the understanding I'm looking for.

No because there on Tatar Crimea are sitting some "Ibn Putin"
who don't like democracy and who want have a lot of money.
Not at all... But because political Islam from 1400 years are a
special threat of christian civilisation.

Colonial Christians, likes of English and French, dominated Muslim countries till second half of 20th century.

If you don't belive me,
go to North Africa, Iraq, even Turkey... they were 1400 y.a. a
christian, european civilisation. Today they are not.

Well, world is not static, world always changed. 1,500 year ago most Europe had some old religions. Celts had their gods, so did Germans, and so did Slavs. Now all Europe is Christian, almost. Is it really better? What religion Europe will have in 10,000 years? Maybe none? Why do you think one religion is better than the other? Why do you think Christianity is better than Islam? Just because you were born Christian?

I wouldn't like it, but what it has common whith Tatars on Crimea?

I'm sure Tatars wouldn't like it either. They would pick full independence as Poles did.

It doesn't matter, because we were talking about country and state. Country does not have
to be a state, and state does not have to be an indepentent subject. In your definition it has
to be, so, UE-states are not independent, so they are not states? It doesn't matter if they're
free to live or not....

For most people it matters, me included.

It was Poland, because it was in XV century, and Crown of Poland
had suverenity of genuan colonies at that time, until Turks takes it.

No, It was a Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. If it was done by a king it was under the union, not just polish crown. If it was done by one of polish nobles that's a different story. Then it wasn't really a polish territory but a private property of this noble. Do you know exactly the specific case we can discuss?

Rzeczpospolita - it is simply a republic in polish

Yes, a republic of two nations, Polish and Lithuanians.

Lithuanians have the same role, as Scots in Britain,

No, Scotland was conquered by England (remember the Braveheart?). Lithuania and Poland signed a treaty of Union as independent and equal states.

and "few others" have nothing to do.

Nobles of Belarus and Ukraine had their senators in Republic's parliament.

By the way, "a Lithuanian" in 17. and 18. centuries it was a Pole, who lived in that part
of Commonwealth.

What? It is not in agreement what you say below!

This term have nothing to do with nationality, because >90% of P-L
Commonwealth people were not Poles at that time, even if they were speaking polish.

Now we are talking about real nature of this Republic, Rzeczpospolita. And you called it Poland?

Present day Lithuanians, are not very proud of that double state, becouse that state
was never lithuanian by charcter. Only a name has something common with them. From
about second half of the 14th century Lithuania was an oldrussian state by language
and culture, and the next period was polish. Lithuanians wake up in late 19th century...
So as you see, present day terms, are not necessery true in the past. In most cases.

I know it was complicated. Just don't call Rzeczpospolita Poland.

But what it have to do with tatars from Crimea?

I don't remember. The subject got expended, I guess, lol.

I see, you don't want uderstand me. You understand words of course... but...

Welcome to the big world. What you were taught at school might not exactly be true here....

 

[Rethel]

Is there a problem with Muslims in Eastern Europe?

Always was, still exist, and will be in the future, because muslims becoming more numeriuos.

Where do you see Islamic Tatar threat?

In Crimea and in Tatarstan.
In Crimea for example agents of IS and al Kaida are active.
This is real.

I am.

I'm not.

If you are a euopean, so you are a descendant of these people.

The free world.

Ergo Utopia. It never existed and never will be. Especialy
in muslim countries or under muslims rule. Your free world
is only a product of christian european civilization, which
you are attacing, becoming an ally to muslims, who will
destroy your free world with great plesure.

Don't be so scared. Radical Muslims have only power to kill few of us in surprising attacks. Mainly they kill Muslims. Sunnis versus Shia.

I'm not scared. I know Islam. And I know Europe. European
civilization is nearly dead, and this so called "free-wolrd's"
antycivilisation is so weak that muslim's civilization will be
on top, because their culture is better. It is worse of course
than european culture, but much better than "free world's"
anticulture - or rather laking of culture or civilization at all.

I'm saying it in Canada, and no Canadian Muslim is killing me.

But when you will live in Sultanate of Canada, you will be dead or you'll accept Islam.
I suppouse, that you will be a very pious muslim rather than deadman.

Christians demonized themselves, by their actions in the past. I don't need to help their reputation much.

I'm not telling, that everything what christians did, was good, because this is impossible in real world.
But I'm telling, that they did much more good than bad, and were more better than any other civilization.
If you are not with christians, you are with muslims - but they will kill you in the and, because they hate
atheists from Free World more, than they only don't like christians. Your choice of course. Christian world
is your cultural home - even if you don't like it. You can built it or destroy it. Your choice.
But only one choice is correct.

So far Putin beheaded (killed) many Ukrainians. That's the big brother I'm afraid of.

As I see, you simply don't want understand.

What do you mean? European culture of 19 century of totalitarian culture of oppression and imperialism?

As every one can see, communism didn't prevail.
They still feell themselves as europeans and christians.

You are living in immigrant country. So, if you are really
open minded, you can see, how assimilated Ukrainians
and Russians, and how don't want assimitate muslims.
Why? Because they are from diffrent civilization, but
Russians became from the same. There is not need
for any sort of propaganda of wishfull thinking, as
you try to do. This are facts which you can observe.

Not the Albanian, Bosnian and Turks Muslims.

They live in two worlds. Nation came from european background, but culture frome another. As
you can see in Kosovo, Bosnia and Turkey - they are becoming more muslim than european. And
they will be chosing that path always - because they are muslims on the fist place. "Free-world"
cannot change it, you cannot convert them on the freeworldism - you can only try to convert them
to Christianity. For exaple, in Europe (or in Canada I suppose too) does not exists somthing like
Coptic immigration problem. Why? Because they can very well asimilate here. Why? Because they
are christians, not muslims. Without Christianity european civilisantion would never exist. Without
Carl Martel, Crusaders and Reconquista, Europe would be a muslim continent, and you will never
be a Free-World-Wishfull-Thinking-Man, because this civilization would never and ever aloud you
do do such a thing. And maybe Canada be still not discovert, or would be muslim too.

Most Iranian and Kurdish Muslims seam to be simpatetic to US and Europe too.

There are some reasons for that - first is civil goverment in Turkey and during Pahlavis reign,
and most of that - nationalism. They hate Arabs, especially Iranians, not only because they
are of diffrent confesion, but they care about their imperial past, in wich they were more
europeans and Arabs were invaders with lower culture.

Please don't drop them to the same bag. It is like putting American, Cuban, Polish and Russian Christians to the same bag. Do you see my point?

I see your pont, and he is misleading you.
There is not such a thing like cuban christians, or polish christians, as the same, there is no arabs muslims and canadian muslims.
They exist only in mind of freeworld's people, who are thinking that nothing is conected with nothing.
It doesn't work like that. Study real Islam, and real history, and then you'll see what I'm talking about.

Colonial Christians, likes of English and French, dominated Muslim countries till second half of 20th century.

And what? It is bad? They destroyed a 1300 years caliphate who was constant theat for Euprope from the beginning to the end.
Sadly, they don't do their work to the end, and present radical Islam is simply a result of that.

Well, world is not static, world always changed. 1,500 year ago most Europe had some old religions. Celts had their gods, so did Germans, and so did Slavs. Now all Europe is Christian, almost.

And what? Everything is the same? No sens in this at all?

Is it really better?

Yes. Or maybe would you like be sacrifice for Odin or will you prefer to be slaughter by Viking who want go to Vallhala?

What religion Europe will have in 10,000 years? Maybe none?

Maybe far long i the farest galaxy... it prooves nothing.

Why do you think one religion is better than the other?

Why? Because we can see this.
Would you prefer to live in Saudi Arabia or in Vatican?
Why?
Would muslim prefer live in IS-state or in Vatican?
Why?

Why do you think Christianity is better than Islam?

Because Islam didn't built a global civilization, but Christianity did.
So, if you belive in evolution, this is the proof. After all, Christianity
conquered all islamic states, give them technology and so on. Do
you know for example, that printing was not use in islamic states,
even 400 years after Gutenberg, and almost only printing arabic
books (Koran too) were print in Europe by christians?
Do you ever see a muslim printing Biblie?

So which civilization was better and more openminded? Their or our?

Just because you were born Christian?

No just because I was born, but because evidens showing me, that
christianity is the best, and no one never invent anything better.
Even this, that we are talking know by Internet it is christian invention.

And the principles:

In church you will hear: love your muslim neigbor - and even love your enemy (f.e. muslim)

In mosque in Egypt you can hear: hate jewish Monkeys and christian pigs.

With religion is better?

They are really the same?!

I'm sure Tatars wouldn't like it either. They would pick full independence as Poles did.

This is their right, but it doesnt mean, that for us it will be good. Nazis would
prefer to have an independent Reich - and this is fully understandable - but it
does not mean that I must be happy because of that.
You would be?

Do they can have their own state in the Free-World?

For most people it matters, me included.

For people it matteres, for states too.
But it is not a criterion of state, because state can be independent and can be... dependent.
Dependent state can be free to live.. or cannot - but still will be a state.
Ifg it wouldn't be true, ther will be not need for two words: dependent and indepednent.

No, It was a Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

I see you are a special od polish history now?

I was writing abot years 1462-1475 when genoans Kaffa (theodosia) were under protection of Polish Crown.
Then Poland and Lithuania were two diffrent states. Union was only personal, and some privilegies were granted
by two sides. Inn those times ruled king Casimir IV. Before his ruling and after his ruling, two states had diffrent rulers.
SDo, it was not a one coutnry and one state. Sorry.

Yes, a republic of two nations, Polish and Lithuanians. No, Scotland was conquered by England (remember the Braveheart?). Lithuania and Poland signed a treaty of Union as independent and equal states.

William Wallace lived 300-400 years befor union

You forget about Stuarts and Welfs from Hannover...

Nobles of Belarus and Ukraine had their senators in Republic's parliament.

But they were "Crowne'ers" and "Lithuanians" - not russians, and specially not
Belarusasans and Ukrainians, because this nations don't exist in those times.

This was rather like Albertians and Ontarionias in Canada.
One could be a Ukrainian, and second could be a German.
It doesn't mean that Ukrainians and Germans (or Ukraine
and Germany) have something common with Canada at all.

What? It is not in agreement what you say below!

Yes it is.
Nobleman from Grand Duchy of Lithuania was called lithuanian or "charder",
and nobleman form Crown of Kingdom of Poland was called "Crowner".
They both were sarmatians and that was = Poles.

In Lithuania official language was oldrussian and in Crown latin.
By the way, so called Lithuania was the first (sub)state in the world
where polish was oficcial language - not Poland. Why? Because all
elites were polinized and they were lithuanians only in political sense.

Now we are talking about real nature of this Republic, Rzeczpospolita. And you called it Poland?

No, I don't. But historians do. Westeuropeans in 17. and 18. century did the same.
This is something like Great Britain which many calls simply... England.

I know it was complicated. Just don't call Rzeczpospolita Poland.

This is of course error, but in 18. century - this error was oficcial.

One of the geatest polish writer, Adam Mickiewicz, in 19th
century wrote in the beginnig of his most important work:

Lithuania, my fatherland! You are like health;
How much you must be valued, will only discoverThe one who has lost you.

He became from one of the oldest lithuanian noble lineage. He was born on present
day Belarus. He was citizen of Russia. He lived in France. But he was Pole.
Joseph Pilsudski was descendant of medival samogitian dukes.
He was born in Lithuania... but he was Pole.

First president of Poland was as Pilsudski samogitnian nobleman.
But his brother were lithuanian politician. Strange?

Why?? Because everyone in Lithuania were Poles at that time.

Lithuanian languiage was called samogitian and was used only by peasants.
From the beginnig of lithuanian statehood, the rulers were russian by culture,
and after that period polish. Lithuania was saw as a country, not a nationality.
Just like Texas or Urugway in America.

 

[Ike]

Come on,Ike,when even the name of Yugoslavia was the Socialist Federative..... and first time,when Yugoslavia was created was named "The kingdom of croats,serbs and slovenes" you keep telling that Yugoslavia was not a federative state and you are interpreting the international law to sustain a dictator,Milosevic?

You obviously don't know much about Yugoslavia and it's constitution. BTW, Milosevic had nothing to do on federal level, why do you keep involving him in that subject? He wasn't even able to take control of federal army and stop the destruction of Yugoslavia.

And you do not respond to the fact that Putin in despise to the international law and not carrying about what Russia has signed has stolen Crimea and Eastern Ukraine from Ukraine.

Why was Ukraine stolen from Russia in the first place?

You think people are idiot and you are much smarter and you can trick people ...come on.

Well, you are the one giving people false and digested version of events. You're the one thinking people are idiots for reading their own Constitutions, and telling you when you're wrong. If you had any decency you'd at least try to get informed about things you're talking about.

Remember that Russia did not got involved to support Kosovo to remain for Serbia and now the reason can be clearly seen,they did not wanted to upset Muslim States.
Yugoslavia was broken because Milosevic was a dictator and he was discriminating against non-Serbians.

Once again, you treat me like an idiot. Like I don't know how my country was destroyed. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Yetos]

@ Le Brok


WHAT ABOUT RUTHENIA?

SHOULD BE UNDER UKRAINE and others?
OR AN INDIPENDENT STATE?

Ruthenia is not Ukraine, neither Russia, neither Poland, neither Czech,



How about Liberation of RUTHENIA!!!!!!

 

[Rethel]

@ Le Brok

WHAT ABOUT RUTHENIA?

SHOULD BE UNDER UKRAINE and others?
OR AN INDIPENDENT STATE?

Ruthenia is not Ukraine, neither Russia, neither Poland, neither Czech,
How about Liberation of RUTHENIA!!!!!!

What do you mean by Ruthenia?

Transcarpathia or Red Russland alias Galicia and Lodomeria?

Maybe we should liberate everyone: Quebec alias New France at first!

After that Ruperthsland, Acadia, Vinland, Nunavat, New Alba, New Caledonia & New Aragon, Free Vacouver a.s.o.

 

[mihaitzateo]

You obviously don't know much about Yugoslavia and it's constitution. BTW, Milosevic had nothing to do on federal level, why do you keep involving him in that subject? He wasn't even able to take control of federal army and stop the destruction of Yugoslavia.



Why was Ukraine stolen from Russia in the first place?


Well, you are the one giving people false and digested version of events. You're the one thinking people are idiots for reading their own Constitutions, and telling you when you're wrong. If you had any decency you'd at least try to get informed about things you're talking about.



Once again, you treat me like an idiot. Like I don't know how my country was destroyed. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Come on,the founders of Kievan Russia were Eastern Slavic people,that mixed with Varangians,who were Baltic-Viking mixture of people,speakers of Old Norse.
Moscow were mostly Fino-Ugrian people.
These Muscovites Fino-Ugrian people,got assimilated to Kievan Russia language,but not to Kievan Russia culture.
They developed a strong alliance to Golden Horde and actually become rulers of a large mass of Eastern Slavs,Eastern Slavs mixed with Feno-Ugrian,Feno-Ugrian and Turkic - Tatar and so on people.
So Muscovites being very lacked of principles and opportunistic conquered Kievan Russia and after,Siberia and other countries.
And they also took the name of Kievan Russia.
But even those Rus princes attacked and sacked Kiev 2 or 3 times,
Ukrainians are from those nationalistic Eastern Slavs who refused to mix with Tatars,mixed a lot less with Feno-Ugrians.
So you Russians have no right to rule over Eastern Slavs in Ukraine.
Slavs start to learn you are not Slavs,as culture,neither as behavior and you Russians start to be disliked for what atrocities you are doing against Ukrainian people and how you are destroying their country. Putin wanted to let Ukrainians to die from cold,this winter,are you not ashamed to call yourselves Slavs and brothers to Ukrainians?
Are brothers doing this against other brothers?
I doubt.
Look at what happened at the football match between Montenegro and Russia and those are Montenegrins.
We Romanians,are also mostly Slavic people,as genetic,as behavior and as culture.You Russians,are not mostly Slavic,neither as genetics,neither as culture,neither as behavior,you only speak an Eastern Slavic language.

 

[Yetos]

What do you mean by Ruthenia?

Transcarpathia or Red Russland alias Galicia and Lodomeria?

Maybe we should liberate everyone: Quebec alias New France at first!

After that Ruperthsland, Acadia, Vinland, Nunavat, New Alba, New Caledonia & New Aragon, Free Vacouver a.s.o.

All I want to say is that some politicians and some diplomats consider us as stupid,

Ukraine had 2 revolt,
one not armed, and one armed,
yet the result is that Russia manage to get with her bolck Crimea, and soon will split Ukraine,
and some stupid in the 'Free world' want a war and invasion to Russia,
but it is not their sons who will fight,
it is simple people sons who find army as a job, due to poverty,
while some diplomats will steal the glory (Δαφνες αδραξουσιν)
and Ukraine's subject will not be solved,

the whole situation with Ukraine, brought Death and Poverty to Ukrainians, either West either Russian friendly
and loss of earn per capita to nearby countries (Baltic Poland Slovakia) and Greece,
and will bring more if an army campaign take over,
but if in fast solutions Ukraines problem was solved,
today many people would be alive,



as for the rest, are just to make warm-head more warm

 

[Rethel]

We Romanians,are also mostly Slavic people,as genetic,as behavior and as culture.

So why you changed your language to be more romanic tongue...

You Russians,are not mostly Slavic,neither as genetics,neither as culture,neither as behavior,you only speak an Eastern Slavic language.

Slavic are Indoeuropeans, so geneticly: Russians have 52% of R1 versus only 29,5% in Romania...

Ike is a russian? He has yugoslavic flag on his profile...

 

[mihaitzateo]

So why you changed your language to be more romanic tongue...

Slavic are Indoeuropeans, so geneticly: Russians have 52% of R1 versus only 29,5% in Romania...

Ike is a russian? He has yugoslavic flag on his profile...

I was talking about being culturally Slavic.
Those Slavic speakers,from 600 AD,bearing R1A were some kind of Slavs.
But I2-din is actually present at all Slavic speakers,in significant percentages,if you do not take into consideration Russians.
So actually Slavic people could have two phase of expansion:
First phase,when people bearing I2-din expanded from Balkans and Carpathians ,towards North and East and West.
From here,from these people,the cultural Slavs are coming.
is not rocket science to see that are strong resemblances even between Belarus folk songs and costumes in Romania and Balkans folk songs and costumes,also the common customs as welcoming someone with bread and salt and so on.
After,these people which could be called as proto-Slavs,fallen under different influences,those from Romania,were under Romance influence,those from Poland,Russia,Ukraine,under Baltic influence etc.
In 600 AD some of these people that were under Baltic people influence moved again towards South and brought a language very closed to today South Slavic,I think.
Romania has common words even with Old Eastern Slavic,which can not be explained,unless we do not suppose that in a very old time,these people were speaking closed languages.
For example,the folk term for Christmas (Craciun) is cognate to Old Eastern Slavic name of this celebration (Korochun).
Romania language was also "cleansed" of Slavic origin words.
Most Ukrainians I have seen can pass un-noticed as Romanian peasants.
So either that these people are here from lots of times,or that Slavic peasant people came and settled in Romania,most Romanian genetic is between Serbian,Bulgarian and Ukrainian genetics.
Because most of today Romanians are coming from Romanian peasants.
And you should know that there is a lot of solidarity in Romania,for Ukrainians.
I am strongly supporting to give Ukrainians working rights in European Union,even if this means more competition for actual European Union people.
Ukraine should be received as soon as possible in European Union.

Ike is not Yugoslav,he is Russian.

 

[Rethel]

Ike is not Yugoslav,he is Russian.

So why he mascarades himself?