Talk:Kosovo/Archive 1

Summery of my changes to this article:


 * (&#1050;&#1086;&#1089;&#1086;&#1074;&#1086; &#1080; &#1052;&#1077;&#1090;&#1086;&#1093;&#1080;&#1112;&#1072;;)

to


 * (Serbian: &#1050;&#1086;&#1089;&#1086;&#1074;&#1086; &#1080; &#1052;&#1077;&#1090;&#1086;&#1093;&#1080;&#1112;&#1072;; Albanian: Kosova)

since over 80% of the population is Albanian, having the Albanian name is apporpiate


 * Of course, all relevant names should be present.


 * ...ethnic cleansing of Serbs and other minorities

to


 * ...exodus of Serbs and other minorities

"ethnic cleansing" is not a NPOV statement


 * Neither is exodus, EC is more accurate.


 * The Albanian population originates from migrants from the south-west (modern Albania) during the centuries of Ottoman rule (particularly during and after the 18th century)...

to


 * The existing Albanian population was greatly added to by migrants from the west (modern Albania) during the centuries of Ottoman rule (particularly during and after the 17th century)...sada

see PBS Frontline; there was an existing Albanian population before the Ottoman conquest, and the largest migration into Kosovo began in the 17th century.


 * That's not so certain, I think I did it better anyway.


 * ...most of the population of the newly-liberated areas was Slavic

to


 * ...about 60% of the population was Serb

add more presition, remove POV statment "newly-liberated"


 * ...by referendum on a more democratic Serbian constitution

to


 * ...by referendum which implemented a new Serbian constitution

NPOV issues


 * It's data removal. New constitution was more democratic. If you know about some source that says otherwise, put it here.


 * ...and due to consitutional issues which severly limited Belgrade's parliament

Hun????


 * Albanian opposition to the Yugoslav state...

to


 * Albanian opposition to Serbian sovereignty...

they were oppossed to being part of Serbia, not nessiccarily Yugoslavia


 * No, they were opposed to both.


 * ...a state of low intensity warfare with some 2000 dying by the NATO aggression of March 1999

to


 * ...a state of low intensity warfare

the Kosovo War should be delt with, but having only a half-sentence numbering its casualties in not appropiate


 * Again, data removal.

Nikola's edit was mostly helpful, but the term "ethnic cleansing" is still not acceptable. I think "exodus" is fairly neutral, but I tried to expand on that somewhat, to present the circumstances of their flight. Any sugjestions on how this could be better phrased would be appreciated. - Efghij 01:47, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Minority is precisely defined term, and only the Government of Serbia (or perhaps even SCG, I'm not sure) can officialy recognise a minority. Kosovo ruling structures can not and have not anyway. There are probably more Chinese then, say, Egyptians in Serbia but they are not recognised as minority. Are Russians minority in Chinese quarter of Moscow? Of course not. All right, you might think that they are, but even then you have to agree that "minority" has two meanings: official minority and minority in numbers and so it is the best to avoid amiguation. Nikola 06:12, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That makes no sense whatsoever. Minority means that there are less of one group than of another, since their are fewer Serbs in Kosovo than Albanians that makes them a minority G-Man 19:00, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That is not the only meaning of the term. Another meaning exists and it is the best to avoid ambiguity. Nikola 19:20, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

New Constitution was more democratic, old Constitution of 1974 was simply dictate from above and was Communist to the core, the new Constitution of 1990 allowed for larger civil freedoms (freedom of speech and gathering), banned the one-party state-rule and allowed for democratic elections in which the people elected a president and an Assembly instead of simply nominating each Communist delegate's name to a specific function which could be likened to the musical chairs game with a chair being added instead of taken away each time.


 * Agreed. The current version says the new constitution was more democratic.

The process was and is ethnic cleansing, as simple as that. Read the news, Serbs are getting attacked left and right throughout Kosovo, the terror is now spreading to FYROMacedonia once more.


 * "Ethnic cleansing" is a pejorative term. It has no place in an encyclopedia. If Serbs left because of attacks by Albanians then write that, but don't label it "ethnic cleansing".

The question of a minority has much more to do with the legal framework, besides, Kosovo is not an independent state or any such entity but a part of Serbia-Montenegro as recognized by UN resolution 1244. Thus, Serbs are not a minority in Kosovo, legally still part of their country despite the number of Albanians just as Germans cannot be considered a minority in some particular part of Berlin, for example, which it might happen, has an overwhelming Turkish or Kurdish population.

Igor 0:22, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * In English, a minority is "a relatively small group of people differing from others in the society of which they are a part in race, religion, language, etc." It has nothing to do with legal status or independence. Germans are a minority in Turkish neighbourhoods of Berlin, Whites are a minority in San Francisco's Chinatown, etc. However, I don't think there's anything wrong with the current version which says "other non-Albanians". - Efghij 01:04, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)

Nikola, please keep the "See also" link to "National awakening and birth of Albania". It is relevant, just read it. If you think it is'nt NPOV then go for it. I added a link to the "Battle of Kosovo". You may add other relevant links. Andres 07:39, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

To Nikola
As Dori left, there's not much point in talking to her, but I will still answer to all major points for other readers, as my time permits. Nikola 05:18, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Dori is a guy. Andres 08:03, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Why do you keep changing the name of the websites? That's the actual name of the website and it is not a mispelling. It is simply the Albanian name and there is no reason to edit a website's name unless it is cuss word or something. Do you consider the Albanian spelling that vile? Dori 12:02, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)


 * Dori, "Information Center", "Crisis Center" and "Press" are not words of Albanian, but of Engilsh language, and a site might have a misspelling in its name, but I don't think it should be carried here where it could be fixed. I don't think that any spelling is vile. When G-Man adds something to the article he always writes "Kosova", perhaps you should ask him why is that so important. Nikola 09:04, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * It is not up to you to change the name of websites. That is what they picked as their name and I see no reason for changing them. It is not a misspelling, it a conscious choice and I don't see that you have given sufficient reason for changing their actual name.


 * I have not changed names of the sites, I do not own them and cannot do so. I have only changed representation of their name on Wikipedia. Their name is part-Albanian and part-English, but this is purely English encyclopedia. Nikola 19:46, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Oh please, as if you have never used a Serbian name on any English article. Do you actually want me to go looking for examples? That argument is just silly. Dori


 * Of course that I used, but AFAIR, I always used English names of sites that are in English language. Nikola


 * I agree that the name of the region should be consistent throughout the article text unless there is some specific reason, but external sites are not part of the text. There is no reason for editorializing their names as the readers can come up with their own conclusions. Dori


 * It was not some medias reporting the destroying of passports and the forced fleeing at gunpoint, it was Albanian and European tv crews interviewing refugees (as in more than one or two) as they came from the border. See also the HRW reports. I think that is more significant don't you?


 * "Western media"?


 * I don't remember exactly, but I seem to remember something on CNN as well. I'll see if I can dig something up.


 * You didn't have to bother. The fact alone that something is said on CNN gives a good reason to believe that it is wrong. Nikola


 * If you had bothered to read it, you would have seen that CNN was reporting what Kosovar refugees were telling reporters. There are only two sides here, the Kosovars who had their passports and birth certificates destroyed and the Serbian guards and military who did so. Milosevic didn't allow any independent media to walk about so you have to rely on the primary sources. You are relying on the Serbian guards, military, propaganga


 * "Serbian guards, military, propaganga" - what are you talking about? Which guard? How am I relying on military? Whose propaganda about what? Really, what are you talking about? Nikola


 * The border guards are the ones who were destroying the documents, and they would be the ones to deny that they did this. I was saying you are taking their word. The only other side present were the deportees, I am saying you are disregarding their reports. Dori


 * I have repeatedly stated that I believe that the documents were destroyed. I have never spoken to a border guard, and Serbian media never mentioned the issue. Nikola 05:18, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * to get your figures


 * Which figures? Neither you nor I have mentioned any figures regarding this. Nikola


 * I was referring to your refugee numbers, numbers of abuses, etc that you give. Dori


 * and I am relying on the Albanian Kosovars.


 * No, you are not. You are relying on what CNN told you that those people told it, which is sometihing entirely different. Nikola


 * You said that you don't believe sources of our government. Well, I can say that I also don't believe to sources of governments that were bombing my country, or any that were siding with them, or any organisations financed by these governments, or media that mostly parrot information that that governments gave them.
 * I recall that our television of the time also was displaying interviews with Albanian refugees who fled to Serbia proper and they were telling that they ran away because of the bombing. It also shown some of CNN's footage, and in two different CNN reportages there was one same "Albanian refugee" telling two different stories. And there are more known false reportings by CNN and other Western media. I see no reason to believe our television less then I believe CNN. Nikola


 * It was just convenient to get the stuff from CNN becuase their archives are easy to search. All other medias (internet, printed, television), Western or Albanian, were saying the same things.


 * Of course. But their reports were all coming from thesame source. Nikola 05:18, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * The reports of the refugees were varied enought to be credible to me, also I saw them asking the refugees as they came in. I did not see just one refugee answering questions. Maybe we Albanians all look alike to you. Dori


 * No, it was the same man. I don't know that anyone else appeared in two reportages. Nikola 05:18, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * And as for HRW, HRW is financed mostly by Finnish government. I will remind you that it was a Finnish forensic team that falsely investigated the so-called "Racak masacre" which gave NATO excuse for the bombing, it was a president of Finland who tricked Milosevic into unfavourable agreement to end the bombing, and Finland surely could not be said to has clean hands in this.
 * HRW was not interviewing refugees which fled from Kosovo to the rest of Serbia during the bombing despite being invited by Serbian government to do so, it was not and still is not interviewing refugees which fled from Kosovo after NATO entered it, it "Reports on state of human rights" were not mentioning human right abuses by Albanian terrorists, and I certainly will not believe to anything HRW says only because it was HRW that said it. Nikola 12:03, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * You believe everything HRW is false because it is financed by the finish??? Do you believe any other sources (that do not agree with Serbian media) besides the ones from Serbia? Have a look at some of the HRW reports: "Croatia Fails Serb Refugees", "NATO Arrests Key Step for Justice in Kosovo" (talking about Albanian Kosovars), "Constructing Justice" (talking about KLA abuses on Serbs, minorities, and other Albanians) -- these are just a few that I came across. You appear not to have looked at all. Can you show me some reports from the Serbian media that you trust showcasing Serbian abuses? Dori


 * The fact that after the war you could see the ruined remains of the documents supports that they did do this.


 * And I said they did this. Nikola


 * As to what the number was, that's not something that is easily done.


 * I don't understand. What's not easily done? Piling up the passports and setting them on fire? That is easiliy done. Estimating number of burned passports based on their remains? That certainly is not easily done. Nikola


 * Getting the real numbers (they're a pile of ash scattered in the wind now) Dori


 * Even if it is a small number, for what purpose was it done? I don't see any logical reasons?


 * I told you, it is the law that expired documents must be destroyed... Nikola


 * Great way of getting rid of expired documents by the way. They couldn't tear them so as to account for them later could they. Also, how exactly do birth certificates expire? And what's with removing license plates from the cars? Dori


 * You turn around the argument for why they did it to use it against the returning refugees? That is a ridiculous thing. They didn't destroy their own documents. Dori


 * I didn't said it. I said that the number of destroyed documents was blown out of proportions in order to provide a way for settling Albanians from Albania in Kosovo. Nikola


 * You do not have any proof for saying that. It was the Serbian authorities who got rid of the documents (in a way that could not be accounted for what was destroyed and why), not the Albanians. Dori


 * Are you saying that you do not believe that the Albanians were forced at gunpoing from their homes and that their passports were torn up?


 * Anyway, regardless of CNN, I did not said it. For the record, I do believe that some Albanians were forced at gunpoint from their homes and that some of their passports were torn up.
 * But, from what I know, all Albanians forced by the army and the police were either:
 * 1) Removed from the zone of immediate military actions. This was the case particulary with people living near border with Albania - CNN didn't mentioned it so you probably don't know, but there was trench war there. This is not only legitimate but a requirement for an army to do.


 * Was it a requirement to have civilians march along side the military to protect the military from NATO airstrikes and the KLA (read the HRW reports if you don't believe this happened)?


 * I don't believe that this happened because of one simple reason: on one of the ocasions when NATO bombed Albanian refugees it said it was done because army was near them. So, they would be no protection at all, they would just slow down and enlarge the convoys, making them easier targets. However, if I would know that it would not bomb if there are refugees, I would be the first to use such a protection, even if I could certainly know that I will be convicted for that later. Better me convicted then my men dead. Nikola


 * Well, I see how you think. Soldiers are more important than civilians. Dori


 * The deportation was not done to portect the deportees and most certainly it was not done with their wishes as you could find out by reading the reports the deportees gave themselves. Dori


 * I said that a portion of them was removed in such a way. I didn't said that it was voluntary, it is requirement for the army to remove the civilians from possible combat zone regardless of civilian's wishes. Nikola


 * What a load of bull. Why didn't they remove the Serbian population as well? Dori


 * 2) I believe that most fled fights between the army and KLA . From what I know, before any antiterrorist actions, if that was possible, the army would warn civilians to leave. The army can not be guilty If KLA was holding them back.


 * Then why did the deportees say the opposite.


 * All of them said the opposite? This did not happened even once? Nikola


 * All the ones I saw and read about. Dori


 * The KLAwas protecting their own families.


 * Which, strangely, would not have needed any protection if KLA never had existed in the first place. Nikola


 * The KLA existed for a long time. It did not have a large following until the Serbian and Yugoslav armies moved in and started massacring and deporting civilians. Dori


 * What reason would they have to hurt their own. THis is a ridiculous argument as well.


 * They probably hoped that army would not attack if there are civilians nearby, and they were wrong. Nikola


 * Why would they think that??? The only reason why they joined the KLA was because they thought the Serbian army was hurting civilians. Your argument makes no sense Dori


 * The only reason why the KLA grew in numbers was because people wanted to protect their own families from the army. Dori


 * No, actually, the main reason is that KLA was killing Albanians that would not join them. Repeatedly it happened that Albanians handed out peacefully arms that KLA gave them and the army left them alone. If KLA would not have existed there would be no threats to any families. Nikola


 * Why didn't they threaten before the Serbians moved in. They had no major support from the other Albanians, until the Serbs started abusing the rest of the population. Dori


 * 3) And some are, I believe, really forced out by paramilitaries. I hope that you realize that an army officer who would tell his men that they should try to protect the people because of which their country is bombed, and risk being bombed themselves, and all that while they are being bombed exactly because supposedly they are doing what they should now try to prevent, would be torn to pieces by them.


 * Read the HRW report about how the military forced people (including over 20 children) into a home and tossed a grenade in, then later strafed the home with machine gun fire. Was this done to protect the civilians. More ridiculous arguments. Dori


 * If this ever happened, it was done by the paramilitaries I mentioned. Nikola


 * Who commanded these paramilitaries? Why were they behaving that way? It's ridiculous to pass all accounts as allegations by saying "if this ever happened". How could so many people make up so many stories, and have so many medias report them without verifying anything. That's what I call propaganda, going against logical arguments. Dori


 * And having said that, I don't believe that most refugees were physically forced, I'm quite certain that most have fled when they heard that others were forced, oftenly from overblown stories of CNN and co. And of course, the total number of refugees is exagerated as some Albanians from Albania registered as refugees in order to increase their number and get humanitarian aid.


 * Yes, old ladies walking for long distances, dying of dehydration because their plasma TV getting CNN told them that some were being forced away.


 * You surely recall what panic CNN was spreading these days. Nikola


 * Panic by reporting? The panic was perpetrated by the Serbian and Yugoslav armies. Dori


 * I know plenty of people who took in refugees into their homes (all over Albania). Believe me, they did not get any miraculous amount of aid.


 * Something is better then nothing. Nikola


 * What are you talking about? Most people don't even want their relatives to stay over for too long, let alone strangers. The only reason they would do this is because they wanted to help out their fellow Albanians. There was no compensation in any way for doing this. Most people payed for the extra expenses out of their own pockets. They weren't bribed to take in refugees. More ridiculous arguments without any substantive proof, just propagandistic speculation. Dori


 * The numbers were not exagerated, they were counted at the border crossing. Dori


 * And if someone crossed the border outside of the crossing he would starve? Are you saying that not a single refugee was ever admitted into a refugee camp if it was not counted at the border? Nikola


 * Have you looked at those refugee camps? They weren't exactly welcoming. Albanians (from Albania) might not have been living in the best conditions, but there is no way they would leave their homes and go live into those camps. Dori


 * And about the documents: you obviously don't know that according to laws of Serbia (and, I believe, most if not all countries) expired documents must be destroyed. As you know, most Kosovo Albanians did not want to have anything to do with the government and had not took new documents when old ones expired. Now, while I admit that the police did not have to do it, I also don't see why would it not do it.


 * Hmmm, yes and it so happened that they had to do this at the border with Albania and there were no expired documents in Macedonia. The border guards in the midst of a war, were doing their proper duty of destroying expired documents and removing expired license tags from the cars crossing the border. Ridiculous. Dori


 * They were surely ordered to do so, but as I said, it was legal. Nikola


 * They sure did it in a way that would destroy any proof that the documents were expired and what the actual number was, convenient for your argument isn't it? Dori


 * Anyway, the whole story is pointless, as books of births and deaths are saved in front of NATO, and are now microfilmed and multiplied so that they could not be destroyed. And this is the procedure for getting new documents: you go with two witnesses to your police station, say what is your name and that you lost your documents, and you get new ones. So even if all documents of all Albanians were destroyed, all could get new ones if there would only be some civilised government on Kosovo.


 * They are getting new documents by the UN people.


 * Yes, but the new documents aren't based on the old data. That is the point of the UN people. Nikola


 * This whole point was partly in reponse to Igor saying how they were lining up to get documents after despising the Serbian authorities, and partly in regard to Albanians emigrating to Kosovo. As far as Albanians are concerned Kosovo is a war zone and they would rather stay in Albania.


 * What are you talking about? How is Kosovo war zone to Albanians?


 * I take it you don't believe there were any unexploded ordinances laying about, and there was no friction between different ethnic groups then. Dori


 * Where do you live? I thought that you live in the West, but after you told that you were talking with people who accepted the refugees I guessed you might still live in Albania, now I don't know what to think. Nikola


 * I now live in the US, I was born and raised in Albania Dori


 * It makes no sense to go there unless it's your home or you are a thief willing to profit from the situation. Dori


 * How doesn't it make sense? 300,000 refugees have gone, there is place for 300,000 people now. Empty flats and houses (those that were not burned), free arable land. And if things get bad you can always swiftly return to where you came from. Nikola


 * What empty flats and houses? A lot of homes were destroyed and even if Albanians were to go in to take up residence, don't you think they would do it at the same time as the returning Kosovars. How could they take the Kosovar's lands and houses? More nonsensical speculation. Dori


 * As you know, exact number of destroyed documents is never mentioned, not even an estimate of it. And even if tens of thousands of documents were destroyed, and that is more then what is displayed even on CNN, that is minuscule number compared to Kosovo Albanian population. But the story is blown out of proportion in order to provide cover for settling Albanians from Albania on Kosovo: supposedly, now it could not be proven which Albanians don't have documents because they are from Albania and which ones don't have them because they were destroyed. Nikola


 * Yet, there is evidence of documents being destroyed and no evidence of any mass migration of Albanians into Kosovo. Do you have any evidence for your statements? Dori


 * If two documents are destroyed and their remains shown, that is the evidence that some documents have been destroyed. Evidence about the number of immigrants from Albania to Kosovo is a bit harder to obtain. By the way, neither you nor I have seen the evidence that it was Serbian police who destroyed the documents. Nikola


 * "neither you nor I have seen the evidence that it was Serbian police who destroyed the documents" -- well who did, the Albanians? NATO? there aren't too many entities left, they weren't self-destroying documents, and the Kosovars said the Serbs did it, so you do have some evidence (unless you consider their reports not to be evidence). Dori


 * May I ask why this seems not credible to you? After having conversations with you, I come to the conclusion that you do not believe the Serbian military actions against Albanian civilians were that grave.


 * I surely do not believe that they were as grave as you do. Nikola


 * Will you at the very least allow that they were more grave than what Albanians have done or are doing to Serbs? Although any human rights abuses are despicable and should be condemned on any side (and I really do mean this), I do not appreciate it when Albanians are made out to be the culprits. Dori


 * I don't have any reason to believe that. Nikola 12:03, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * OK, I now see where you stand. Dori


 * Do you believe that all the Albanian claims were made up? I think you should reflect on the source of your own information that makes you believe so as that may not be accurate either. Dori


 * I've followed reportings of both Western (in particular CNN and BBC) and our media. I know some people who are refugees from Kosovo and/or were in the army on Kosovo during the bombing, and have talked with them about what was happening. Nikola


 * OK, so I cannot generalize based on the refugee accounts of what happened in Kosovo, but you can generilize based on the reports you heard from some soldiers? How exactly is that even sided? Dori


 * You generalize based on what CNN told you are refugee accounts, I generalize from what Western media told, what our media told, and what some people told me personally. I use more sources then you and do not accept any of them for granted, unlike you. I agree that we are not even-sided at all. Nikola


 * Who said that I only take the reports of CNN. I also take local sources and sources from the internet. What I have seen however, is that Serbian sources stand alone in their arguments. You want me to believe the alleged perpetrators who are in the minority, over the majority of the other media who do not have as much reason for bias? That's ridiculous. Dori


 * On the destroying of the passports: "Just across the border, blue smoke from a fire could be seen. Refugees said that this fire was the Serb authorities burning passports and identity documents that had been confiscated from ethnic Albanian refugees." from Also from CNN:.
 * From the Human Rights Watch page: "The widespread confiscation of identity documents and car license plates by Serbian police and border guards from departing Kosovar Albanian refugees also points to the systematic nature of the expulsions. Hundreds of refugees arriving in Albania spoke of being forced to hand over ID cards, passports, and birth certificates, which were often torn up in front of them, before they were permitted to cross the border. Those who crossed the border by car were given screwdrivers and ordered to remove the license plates from their vehicles. By contrast, refugees who were expelled to Macedonia generally were permitted to retain their documents, even after having them inspected by Serbian police officers. (As noted in the section discussing explanations for the "ethnic cleansing," the difference in approach may reflect an expectation that those sent to Albania could be more easily characterized as Albanians from Albania and blocked from returning, whereas Macedonia was unlikely to tolerate the permanent residence of large numbers of Albanians from Kosovo.)Whatever the explanation, the practice of "identity cleansing" was clearly not a random initiative by Serbian officials on the border. After the war, piles of license plates and burned documents were discovered by the border crossings into Albania and elsewhere in Kosovo." from
 * Do you still think it was an Albanian fiction that passports were destroyed at the border? I don't have the footage I saw, as that may be the only thing that convinces you (or perhaps you would think that Albanians tore up their own identification cards in order to make it look like the Serbian guards did it). Dori 14:24, Oct 22, 2003 (UTC)


 * About the Albanian population having mostly migrated from Albania, do you have any independent figures to prove the claims? At the very least I would expect the source of the information in this case.


 * I'll try to find something. Nikola 09:04, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * While you are at it, see if you find any mention of Serbs being paid by the government to go and live in Kosovo.


 * No, it was proposed, but unfortunately, never done. Nikola


 * hehe, it seems to me like many Serbs wanted Serbs to live in Kosovo, they just didn't want to live there themselves, so they wanted to pay some poor farmers to go and live there so the population wouldn't continue to become more Albanian. Dori


 * You're responses are becoming more and more meaningless as time passes. Nikola


 * Well, that's your opinion. At least I don't give wild speculations as reasons where more probabile ones exist. Dori


 * I have heard that many Serbs would rather live in Serbia proper that was more prosperous and had to be subsidized to live in Kosovo.


 * It is strange then that Albanians would not also rather live in Serbia proper that was more prosperous, don't you think? Nikola


 * Maybe because they weren't allowed to be schooled in their language, have the same rights as Serbs, being jailed for speaking out against the authorities (such as those "terrorist" students that are still locked up in Serbia)? Dori


 * They were allowed, they had the same rights, what CNN told you is not true... My neigbhour was an Albanian, he was a respected actor, playing in Serbian national theatre, educated in Faculty of drama of University of Belgrade. Now he lives in Pristina, in a kidnapped flat and is director of the kidnapped Pristina theatre. And, by the way, these students lived in that flat. And very fact that they existed should prove to you that Albanians have theright to education. Nikola


 * Also, the claim that Albanians continued to emigrate from Albania proper is bandied about freely by you and Igor, but I have yet to see any credible evidence.


 * What evidence would you consider credible? Nikola


 * Something that's not out of the Serbian authorities who are clearly not neutral in the topic. Dori


 * Then I can offer no evidence that you would consider credible. No other authorities wish to disclose data. Nikola


 * That is why I specifically mentioned the passport incident. It seemed like a way of justifying claims that returning Albanian Kosovars were actually from Albania proper.


 * Number I know of is 200,000, surely that does not mean that all or most returning Albanian Kosovians were from Albania. What is "Albania proper" and how does it differ from Albania? Nikola


 * I was trying to distinguish Albanians from Kosovo and Albanians from Albania (pardon my misuse of the language). I don't know what you mean by the above sentence. What I know is that it was mostly Kosovars returning to Kosovo. I haven't heard any reports about Albanians from Albania leaving for Kosovo in any large numbers (like I said a few opportunists may have done so, but I doubt anything larger than 1000), and I don't see any reasons why they would go into a war zone and face an uncertain future. After all, at the time it was not clear that the Serbian army would never return. Dori




 * I am sure some Albanians could have moved to Kosovo, but I don't see how that number could have been significant. It's not like Kosovo was all that more prosperous than Albania in the late 1990s and in addition Albanians did not have the rights granted to them in Albania, so I don't see what reason they would have to emigrate to Kosovo.


 * Well, it certainly was more prosperous then most regions of Albania. Why do you think that Albanians from Albania do not have the same rights as Albanians from Kosovo???? Nikola


 * You do not consider statehood and the ability to self-govern on every issue a right? Kosovo is still part of Serbia and its future is unknown. Dori


 * For one thing, their future would not be certain. Despite what you may think, Albanians from Albania do not see Kosovo as their (meaning one person, not as the land of Albanians in general) land. They would have to deal with the Kosovars and the Serbs for any lands after they migrated there. There are enough agravations getting land in Albania, why would they go to the trouble of doing that in Kosovo (which might still be part of Serbia in the future). Dori




 * The Kosovars on the other hand simply wanted to return to their homes. Dori


 * Regarging "...allegedly aimed at stopping the Serbian para-military crackdown on KLA and Albanian civilians" there is nothing alleged about NATO starting the war to stop the human rights abuses, they said so. Are you alleging that the abuses did not happen? The sentence was not clear.


 * Some abuses surely happened, and I am not alleging, but saying very clearly, that NATO did not start the war in order to stop them but because it was in its own interest and they, whoever they are, laid when they said so. As you know, number of abuses increased after NATO started the bombing. Nikola 09:04, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that stopping the Serbian military from massacring and mass-deporting Albanians was not a primary goal?


 * Serbian military was not massacring and mass-deporting Albanians so stopping that could not have been anyone's goal at all. About abuses that did happened, yes, I have said it, and I will repeat it: stopping abuses against Albanians was not a goal of NATO, neither primary, nor secondary, nor ternary, nor a goal at all. Nikola


 * I most certainly disagree. Look at the HRW reports. There are first hand accounts of Albanian Kosovars. Why would you not believe the victims, but believe the perpetrators?


 * I have not talked neither with victims nor with perpetrators, and I would believe them if I would talk to them, but I don't believe HRW. Nikola


 * Any reasons for not believing HRW besides the Finish funding it? You haven't given me any instances where the HRW lied. Dori


 * Have a look at the images on the site I posted at your talk page a while back, read some of the reports from HRW. You still have not given me any other reasons, so I still maintain that the primary reason was a humanitarian one. It was welcomed by the Kosovars and the war did stop so the goal was acheived. Dori


 * Dori, were used as cannon fodder by the US, you have bled so that the US would get a strategically important military base in Kosovo and an obedient government in Belgrade. And tomorrow if they no longer need you they will leave you alone. The sooner you realise that the better for you. Nikola


 * How exactly is Kosovo a strategic military base. The US could have any base in Albania just for asking. They already have bases in Macedonia. Kosovo is worthless to them and they can't wait to get out of there. Bush just cannot do so because he would get blasted by the Europeans for leaving them alone. The US has already drastically reduced the number of troops in Kosovo. Again you provide an argument without much grounds to stand on. If it weren't for Woodrow Wilson and the US, Albania would not even exist today. Its lands would be part of Serbia, Greece and Italy. I don't see how I could forget that and the Kosovo intervention. Dori


 * If the killing of Albanian civilians increased after the NATO involvement that does not mean that the bombing was not intended to stop them.


 * As it was obvious that that was what would happen, it should at least tell you that NATO did not care about them. Nikola


 * How come that the Kosovars do not see it that way then. They see NATO as liberators and protectors, not as an organization that did them harm. Dori


 * And how do you know which way they see it? Don't you think that they would be a lot happier if they could live like now, but without the bombing? Nikola


 * Even the Serbian and Yugoslav armies were not stopped, I doubt they would be living at all (at least not in Kosovo). Dori


 * This is what NATO and the US stated as their reasoning, do you have any proof for your statements? Dori


 * Well, for example, four years before the bombing, several hundred thousands of Serbs were forced out of Croatia, more then Albanians out of Kosovo before NATO bombing and NATO didn't bombed Croatia. Actually, it helped Croatian army by bombing Serbian military positions.


 * Maybe because the Serbs hadn't exactly behaved well in the past (e.g. Bosnia, or did this happen later?), and maybe because they could defend themselves a tad better than the Albanians could defend themselves from the Serbs. All that said, all war is terrible, and I know that there were massacres of Serbs in the war with Croatia.


 * As they say, two wrongs don't make a right.


 * They also say: selective justice is the same as unselective injustice. Nikola


 * So? More justice is better than no justice. Just because NATO didn't help the Serbs in Croatia, it doesn't mean they shouldn't have helped the Albanians. Dori


 * Maybe they acted on Kosovo because they did not want another war as in Bosnia and Croatia. You don't think that could have influenced them.


 * Spare me. Nikola


 * Maybe you didn't see it, but you'd be amazed how many people saw the Serbian concentration camps in Bosnia and thought Hitler had been resurrected. You may not believe it, but it had a huge impact. You are free to think what you will. Dori


 * It seemed to me like the Serbs were picking fights with every republic. Slovenia and Macedonia escaped "unscathed" fortunately.


 * All right, now how do you know that there were Serbs who were picking fights with every republic and it was not that every republic was picking fights with Serbs? How do you know which of the two happened? Nikola


 * The Serbs had the bigger armies. Why would everyone else pick a fight with them? I don't go and pick fights with people bigger than me. Dori


 * Hopefully there will be no war when Montenegro has finally had enough and wants to separate too. Dori


 * Montenegrins are Serbs, which just shows how little you know about events here. Nikola


 * I didn't say they weren't Serbs. I said they wanted to break off, and as I see it, the reasons why they haven't done so is because they are afraid of a civil war. Dori


 * For another example, four years after the bombing, there are again more Serbian refugees from Kosovo then there were Albanian refugees before the bombing. Yet I don't see NATO bombing Albania or Kosovo, or even threatening with it, or employing economic or even military sanctions against them. On the contrary, on the fourth anniversary of the KFOR mission, a statement was given that "the mission is proceeding satisfactory".


 * That is ridicuous as well. There were not more Kosovar refugees from Kosovo than Serbian refugees from Kosovo as the Albanians were the majority and facing a bigger army. Statistically impossible. Dori


 * Prior to the bombing, according to Western sources, there was 200,000 refugees from Kosovo. After the bombing, there are 300,000 refugees. There is nothing impossible about it. Nikola


 * I'd like to see the sources before I comment. I have no idea what those numbers actually represent. Obviously more people left after the bombing started. I have no idea what you are trying to say. Dori


 * Do you believe that US bombed Iraq because it believed that it has weapons of mass destruction? Nikola


 * Partly, but mostly not.


 * You believe that the US believed that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq???? Why do you believe it?????? Nikola


 * Some in the US thought Iraq had weapons of mass destructions before, and they didn't believe that he destroyed them. That simple. It doesn't matter whether Iraq actually still had them. Dori


 * They just wanted to get rid of a loose end. Getting rid of a dictator is always a good thing as I see it (as long as the population suffering from him wants it).


 * Even if the method used for getting rid of a dictator does more harm then everything that dictator ever did? Nikola


 * Have you heard of the numbers of people killed on the orders of Saddam (this includes the wars he started with Iran and Kuwait)? I don't see how they even come close to comparing with the civilan casualties the US caused. This said, I don't believe that the US should had a right to make that judgement. Not unless the Iraqis wanted them to, which I am not sure if they did. The Kosovars on the other hand most certainly did want intervention. Dori


 * The Kosovars wanted the help of NATO, the Serbs did not, but it was not the Serbs who were suffering from the attacks of an army.


 * Yes they were and still are. From attacks of so-called "Kosovo liberation army". What NATO did to help them? Did it even offered to help them? Is it helping them now? Nikola


 * I am sure they are suffering, and I don't think it is right that they are. NATO is protecting them. If NATO weren't there there would be many more revenge attacks, and the Serbian army would have to go back in and you would have another war. It is not easy to forget the massacres on civilians, but it does not make it right for Albanians to now treat Serbian civilians as they were treated. I don't condone the actions of what remains of the KLA now. They are just as bad as the Serbian and Yugoslav forces. Dori


 * They wanted to get rid of Milosevic becaus he kept causing wars all over the place, and those wars were causing a humanitarian crisis that would have escalated into Albania, Macedonia, and maybe Greece.


 * One day you are to explain me how was Milosevic causing wars all over the place. And what NATO did actually caused a humanitarian crisis that did escalated into Macedonia, Serbia, and will maybe escalate to Montenegro and Greece. Nikola


 * He was in command of the Yugoslav armies wasn't he? There was a humanitarian crisis in those countries, but it wouldn't have been this small and it probably would have been military in addition to humanitarian if NATO had not acted. Dori


 * The Serbian army actually shelled and fired into villages in Albania. And this was not where the KLA was. It was mostly elderly Albanian shepperds having to defend themselves against Serbian attacks. What was the point of that if not for an escalation of the conflict. Dori


 * That happened after the bombing started. There was a trench war on the border of Albania and Serbia you know nothing about. And yes, inside Albania there was KLA equipped by NATO . Nikola


 * I said, they shelled villages where the KLA was not operating. I know very well that the KLA trained in Albania, but in those villages they were fighting Albanian sheppards with old rifles. Dori

Dori 12:23, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)
 * I also changed the "Albanians refused to participate in the referendum, however the outcome of the referendum would be the same even if all Albanians have voted against." sentence to be less condesceding. Just because Albanians number fewer than non-Albanians, does not belittle their refusal to participate in the referendum. You can tell the facts in another manner, and I would appreciate it if you tried a bit more (I'm trying to do the same here). Please don't just revert, but try to work at an eventual agreement.


 * I actually like that change better then what I've written. Nikola 09:04, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Here is the paragraph Nikola dropped, stating that this never happened:

''Following outbreaks of inter-communal violence, in February 1990, a state of emergency was declared, Kosovo was placed under de facto military occupation. Kosovo's parliament was suspended in July 1990, and Kosovo was formally annexed into Serbia in September 1990. Following this, Albanian media was suppressed, and all Albanian-language education was suspended (although elementary education was restored in late 1994). Albanians were also fired en-masse from state owned industries.''

Is everything false here? Andres 15:35, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, everything is false there. I know about events that are portrayed in this way, will explainwhat happened, and G-Man will wish that he never put that paragraph in the first place. Nikola 09:04, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Er no it isn't, in fact all ot it is true.

It's all here:


 * http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761584605&pn=1&para=51#p51 look under Kosovo War
 * http://w3.tyenet.com/kozlich/stina.htm
 * http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=26448
 * http://www.hrw.org/worldreport/Helsinki-12.htm
 * http://www.osce.org/kosovo/documents/reports/hr/part1/ch1.htm
 * http://www.bndlg.de/~wplarre/back337.htm

I think that that proves it beyond any reasonable doubt. G-Man 17:48, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Are you an Albanian or an Englishman? Nikola 09:04, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * I don't pretend to speak for G-Man, but do you think that maybe he is trying to balance the articles.


 * To paraphrase a movie, then it is really terrible - if he is trying to balance the article and writing like that. Then it is worse then trying to debalance the article. Someone who knows what happened and intentionally lies about it in order to debalance the article would probably write something closer to truth then what he did. Nikola


 * Do you know how equilibrium is acheived? You oscillate between the equilibrium point until you reach it. If all we allow is your viewpoint, then there is no point in even mentioning NPOV. I don't maintain that everything I am saying is NPOV, but I try. You seem to think that you are doing a pretty good job at NPOV and you should be left alone. May I ask how you can know that you are neutral, if the "other side" says you're not. That's like dictators calling the countries they rule democratic because people go and vote 100% for them. It's called unilateralism (i.e. one sided), it doesn't work for NPOV. Dori


 * In order for that to work, it is required that any next oscillation is smaller then previous one, not larger. Nikola


 * Sure, what are you doing to make those oscillations smaller? Dori


 * As I see it, many articles on Serbia read like propaganda or a press release by Milosevic. Any human rights violations committed by the Serbs are not mentioned or belittled, whereas human rights abuses on the Serbs are accentuated.


 * Believe me or not, but though I am surprised with their neutrality when compared with other English language resources, I see exactly the opposite. Nikola


 * Then how is it so hard to believe that you could be wrong as well. How can you be so sure that you know the truth unless you are willing to allow that you might be wrong? You will only accept Serbian sources and call the English ones biased. Well, how do you know that the Serbian ones aren't biased? Dori


 * Of course, I could be wrong. Prove to me that I am wrong and I will admit that I am wrong. I don't accept Serbian sources, I listen various sources and try to figure out what happened. You are the one who believes to everything CNN tells. Nikola


 * I don't know what more to say. I wasn't there, I don't have direct access to the refugees. All I have is what I can read and listen to on TV, newspapers, internet. And there are a lot more sources supporting what I am saying than there are supporting what you are saying. Seeing how the Serbs were accused of perpetrating the abuses, I don't see how I could take their minority opinion alone. Dori


 * All you have to do is read the article on Milosevic and you will think that the guy was framed and committed no wrongs at all. I don't think the guy was even that well liked by the Serbs (saw a documentary about a group made up mostly of Serbian students, forget the name but their symbol was a fist or something, trying to make Serbia more democratic and get control back from Milosevic).


 * Otpor. Serbia is actually less democratic now then it was under Milosevic. Nikola


 * Hmm I see how you are practicing your "using English on an English site". What is otpor (I know how to google by the way, just being sarcarstic)?


 * This is a talk page, not a site, but you're right, I should have use an English name. Feel free to correct me in the future. Otpor means "resistance" and it is that group of students you seen about. Nikola


 * Are they still around? Dori


 * If Serbia was more democratic with Milosevic, how come there were so many Serbian demonstrations to get rid of him.


 * Organising demonstrations requires money and publicity, and publicity requires even more money. Media that were supporting the opposition were and are financed by the West so there were a lot of them, and now there are almost none. Former opposition parties were and still are financed by the West and current, of course, aren't. There are still demonstrations, of course, but they are more rare, and you don't know anything about them because Western media suddenly stopped being interested in them. Nikola


 * CNN won't report anything that won't get them more viewers and thus more money from advertisers. You accuse them of being a shill of the US government, but you are wrong. They are not doing it on purpose, they just don't report because it is not profitable for them. Americans don't even want to hear about their own politicians, what do they care about Serbian politics. However, going against the US government when there is reason is very popular as there are a lot of Americans who like to know when their government is lying to them. CNN would report such things because their competitors would otherwise and they would lose prestige and money. It's the same for many other medias. You obviously do not understand how they operate. Dori


 * How free were other parties in his time? How free are they now?


 * Less free. They appear in media rarer, sometimes have their property seized, parliament sessions are not being broadcasted, there is a party that split and only the pro-government part remained in the parliament, and another where a group of people decided to leave main body of the party but stayed in the parliament. And twice it happened in the parliament that people who were not inside have voted (for government propositions, of course), that never happened under Milosevic. Nikola


 * Hope it gets better, but politicians are the same all over the world. It's not a Serbian fenomenon caused by Western influence. Dori


 * Could you stand in the middle of a square and yell out things against Milosevic before, can you do so now about those in power?


 * Of course, I could and I can. One loner is unimportant. Nikola


 * Besides, do you think change happens magically, overnight. Remember equilibrium that I mentioned above. It takes time and many tries. Dori


 * Are you sure you are not paid by our government? That is exactly their phrase :))) As I said, for that to work, it is required that any next oscillation is smaller then previous one, not larger, othervise you get into unstable state (sic!). Nikola


 * I have heard it so many times, it must have been imprinted in my brain. The situation is the same in Albania. The thieves have taken over the country. Dori


 * He was nothing more than a dictator, though less violent on his own population than other dictators. It seems to me that the only reason why Milosevic is popular at all is because he would abuse non-Serbs a lot more than Serbs. Dori 13:52, Oct 22, 2003 (UTC)


 * Please, read what you have written. Why would the Serbs like Milosevic because he abuses some, and why would the Serbs like some being abused at the first place? Nikola 19:46, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I was trying to say they were abused by Milosevic and yet somehow they liked him. I don't see why.


 * And how do you know that Serbs liked him? Here, when people are questioned about which politician they like, most always answer "Neither". Nikola


 * They seem to defend him, that's all. I wouldn't be defending him and his actions at all. I am glad he is on trial and I hope he rots in jail. For once he will be at the receiving end of punishment, though no where near the scane that he caused. Dori


 * I was being sarcastic and saying that maybe they saw how he made others suffer more, so felt better about their position. Name me some good things Milosevic has done and some bad things, and I will know where you stand.


 * He introduced democracy to Serbia, and later corrupted it and used to his advantage. He tried to protect Croatian and Bosnian Serbs and integrate the provinces into Serbia, but did it in the wrong way and mostly failed. He fight the KLA but did it clumsily enough for NATO to have an excuse to bomb Serbia. That would be the main points. Nikola


 * So in your opinion, he was just a bumbling idiot, not responsible for the actions taken under his command. I don't believe that. Dori


 * He wasn't anyone to be proud of. I wouldn't be proud of Enver Hoxha, even though he though Kosovo should not be part of Serbia. An evil person is an evil person, no matter what he says. Judge him by his actions. I love it how Igor says that no one could find any hate speeches about him, as if he allowed any media to freely record his speeches.


 * Of course that he was allowing. He rarely made speeches, and of course he was never calling to violence in his speeches. Whenever transcripts of his talks with Bosnian and Croatian Serb leaders and other people are revealed at the Hague it could be seen that he was always repeating that "we must find peaceful solution", "peace is the most important", "we must not allow war"... Nikola


 * And even if he didn't come out and say directly, what does it matter when his actions are a lot more than just hateful. He was in command wasn't he. Or was it simply army officers doing what they pleased and Milosevic was simply unknowing (the dictator that he was).


 * He was the supreme military commander, but that means that he was bringing political decisions about the use of army. To put it simply, his decision would be "wipe out that terrorists" and army officers would decide how would they do it. Nikola


 * Or do you even deny that he was a dictator after he got to power? Dori


 * He surely was less a dictator then Saddam or Stalin... Nikola


 * I already acknowleged that he wasn't as brutal with the Serbs, but he sure liked to have at it with the other ethnic groups. Dori


 * P.S. Sorry I called you Nikolla on the summaries, I wouldn't want you to call me Dorri. Dori 22:04, Oct 22, 2003 (UTC)


 * I haven't even noticed. Nikola 12:03, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I can see that this argument is futile. I cannot convince you and you cannot convince me. I think I will just give up here too and move on. This is just too much agravation to bother with. Hope you come to your senses and not believe everything you are told by your government. Western media is not evil. They might be incompetent, but they are not trying to support their governments like the Serbian media used to do (don't know in what state it is now). Dori 17:04, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)