Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:49, 20 January 2007

Archive 1 -Oct 2006

Military history Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Additional information: /  This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Western Bosnia

...to be included in the infobox?--TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mujahideen

Well, those people fought in BiH as Islamists. They came to fight with their "Muslim brothers", and so to whitewash the Islamic element is ridiculous.--Hadžija 18:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that is not Jihad. We can call it volunteers from Islamic countries, not some jihadist - ridiculous. I will then add that Russian and other volunteers were more or less some evil crusaders. That is, also, ridiculous, so I will ask you to be reasonable and not spread propaganda of some Jihad in Bosnia, where those powerfully armed Bosniaks (and yes, 500-1000 volunteers) attempted to restore Ottoman empire and other silly ideas. --HarisM 22:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And, lastly, as example that you are spreading propaganda is fact that you wrote Arabic. Well my dear, not all volunteers were Arabic. As I said, we can solve it as people, or you will be hard on it and continue insisting on lie that in Bosnia was some Jihadist war, or something similar. Bosnian Muslim people here fought for survival, nothing more or less. Naming them jihadist is silly, really silly, even it is true that various volunteers fought for Bosnian army, and they came form many Islamic countries. Be reasonable, because I can also be hard as you, and we will just make stupid edit war. --HarisM 22:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I like the way you're setting up straw men. I didn't say that anyone wanted to restore the Ottoman Empire, nor do I think that they did. I am merely using commonly used terminology that is used to refer to those "Islamic volunteers". Why don't you check out this book: . I'm not just making this up, as you seem to believe.--Hadžija 23:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Your last edit contravenes WP:POINT, by the way--Hadžija 23:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And another book for you: --Hadžija 23:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mentioned Islamic volunteers. Point is that you can't know that those volunteers who came from Islamic countries believe in jihad nor they are some extremist of any kind. There was professional help, military advisers and etc. So, we will call them jihadist, all of them? Please... use the right term. Jihadist has no connection whatsoever with War in Bosnia. You are just trying to show Bosnia as some big terroirst cell, which is total fabrication, you are basing those claims from some books. You forgotten that in Bosnia there is EUFOR and American forces, actually a lot of them. Intelligence organizations maybe know better than some authors of books, which are by them self very controversial. Bosnian Muslim people are more grateful to American troops (which are waging war on those evil jihadist), and as matter of fact, Bosnian government (oh yes, in time when Muslim was in chair, president khem) have good relations with United States, supporting them in Iraq and Afghanistan by sending troops.

Last, but not least, American parliament sent a very clear message: Bosniaks (yes, those people who were alongside with those evil jihadist) are victim in Bosnia. You should know this facts, official facts, those books are just propaganda.

Next time, I will make some kind of vote, or invite administrator to clear this thing out. Maybe it would be good that some user with more knowledge make decision. Even, I think that I have more precise definition of volunteers that fought alongside with Bosnian army. --HarisM 00:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

1. You are ignoring the sources above ("some books" as you put it).
2. You have not presented any sources which contradict the sources I've presented.
3. You assume bad faith ("You are just trying to show Bosnia as some big terroirst cell") in contravention of WP:AGF.
4. You justified your edit based on your political mini-essay above, which is wholly irrelevant (and erroneous in many respects).

--Hadžija 04:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources referring to "mujahideen" or "jihad" in the context of the war in BiH

• BBC News
• BBC News (2)
• Middle East Quarterly (article by S. Schwartz, a Muslim)
• Al-Qaida's Jihad in Europe: The Afghan-Bosnian Network
• Die Kinder des Dschihad. Die neue Generation des islamistischen Terrors in Europa
• Spiked
• Guardian

--Hadžija 04:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That's propaganda, and you know it. How do you dare to call, let's say some military advisors or soldiers jihadist, but they are not? I will not discuss anymore with you. I can't find sources, because there is no sources that will convince people like that there was no silly jihadist war in Bosnia. Oh yes, you can see practical sources, as mass killings of Bosniaks throughout the war and so on. Your nickname Hadzija explains much of that. Ok, let's settle it this way. As you - Hadzija believe in that jihadist war, I believe that volunteers from Russia, Grecee, Ukraine and others were Crusaders. I will put citation needed - because, just like you and some others BELIEVE in that. Really, they were crusaders. You ask for it. Or we will be blocked, baned or settle like people and don't express our own statements and beliefs. --HarisM 14:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

WOW, Serbian wikipedia: El Mudžahedin je ime paravojne jedinice koja je tokom rata u BiH delovala na području srednje Bosne i Hercegovine, a činili su je uglavnom dobrovoljci iz islamskih zemalja, koji su se borili u sastavu Armije Republike Bosne i Hercegovine. Njeni su članovi počinili mnoge zločine nad Srbima i Hrvatima u tim krajevima.

It's true that they committed crimes, but that doesn't make them jihadist, and it is obvious that you don't know the real meaning of jihad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HarisM (talk • contribs) 14:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

So the BBC is "propaganda"? I agree Stephen Schwartz is a propagandist - a pro-Bosnian Muslim propagandist... And the Guardian, that's "propaganda" too? I've reverted your edit (re: Crusaders), because you have no sources for it, it's facetious, and contravenes WP:POINT (as I noted above when you did it before). If these sources (BBC, Guardian) are so obviously wrong, you should have no trouble finding sources that contradict them.--Hadžija 15:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You are such ignorant. :) --HarisM 16:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was a well-constructed and coherent argument...--Hadžija 16:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Noticed you reverted yet again, despite not presenting any sources to contradict some leading media outlets.--Hadžija 16:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You are ignorant becuase of fact that you want present and put jihad name on any volunteer in Bosnian army. Thats wrong, and that flag is also wrong, and can't be used in this context of Bosnian war. You may do anything, you wish, but mine definition is more precise and right - Volunteers from Islamic countries. You can't challenge that. --HarisM 18:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You're beginning to sound like a broken record. On the one hand, we have several reliable sources (the BBC for a start), which meet the standards set out in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability (which incidentally states that the "threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth"). On the other hand, we have your original research (in contravention of WP:NOR). Your argument rests on the supposition that you know better than the BBC. That may well be true, but if it is, why can't you find any sources that agree with you? And if you think you know better, but can find no sources, then too bad - Misplaced Pages is built on sources. Why don't you write about it on your blag?--Hadžija 19:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are ignoring the things that I said. You definition of volunteers is wrong. I didn't deny that there wasn't some soldiers who believed in such jihad, but you can't say that all 1000 (wow, what a number) volunteers were jihadist. There is no proof for that, and again, mine definition is better, more accurate, better, better, better. Simple as that. But Islamophobia is doing it just fine, i can see ;) Do what ever you wish, I see that this topic isn't only topic where are you promoting some of your personal beliefs. --HarisM 19:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And you have contavened numerous Misplaced Pages policies. WP:V (you haven't presented any sources and dismiss reputable ones such as the BBC), WP:NOR (you've edited the article based on your own theories in the the face of sources which contradict your view), WP:POINT (inserting "Crusaders" to make the point that there were no Jihadists) and WP:NPA (calling me "ignorant" and an Islamophobe). // Hadžija 20:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Result

Hi! I have reverted in the result of the Bosnian war cause the only winner of the war is the Bosnian state who finally was recognized in its entire territory during the Dayton accords. And please, dont forget that RS and Herzeg bosnia was not a part of the Bosnian state between 1992 - 1995. But through the Dayton accords, the entire Bosnia and Herzegovina was recognized as a independent, sovereign, recognized nation with different form of politics and with two entites.

And the most important part, Bosnia got its independence from Yugoslavia and Dayton accords recognized it. And also, never forget that RS was INDEPENDENT between 1992 - 1995 but after Dayton accords, it became part of the Bosnian Herzegovinian state.

Pozdrav // Alkalada 19:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that from a legal point of view Herzeg-Bosna and Republika Srpska were part of BiH 92-95. That would be logical, as RS and Herzeg-Bosna were not internationally recognised states. Yes, they were de facto independent, but not de jure.--Hadžija 20:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and both parts were peacefully reintegreated into the Bosnian state in 1995. Dayton accords confirmed Bosnia as a states consisting of two entities and Bosnia had in 1995 finally left Yugoslavia. Alkalada 20:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Start-Class military history articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics