The Old Northerner Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Where has she been "economical with the truth", then, as you have suggested? http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/134998-may-2011-election/page__view__findpost__p__4946029 She glossed over Slovenia for some reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivo den Bieman Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 I;ve already pointed out earlier that Slovenia was at war with the rest of the Yugoslav Federation for about 10 days in mid-1991 before Milosevic gave it up to concentrate on Croatia/Bosnia. Could it be that that is why she "glossed over Slovenia for some reason", given that the Montengrin independence process passed off without a shot being fired? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 I;ve already pointed out earlier that Slovenia was at war with the rest of the Yugoslav Federation for about 10 days in mid-1991 before Milosevic gave it up to concentrate on Croatia/Bosnia. Could it be that that is why she "glossed over Slovenia for some reason", given that the Montengrin independence process passed off without a shot being fired? Not when she decided to include the whole of the 1990s as her time-frame. It's an obvious error and therefore invites further scrutiny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivo den Bieman Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Not when she decided to include the whole of the 1990s as her time-frame. It's an obvious error and therefore invites further scrutiny "I'm right, don't confuse me with the facts"[ Iain Gray for First Minister, eh, Old Northerner? Desperate stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted January 5, 2011 Author Share Posted January 5, 2011 Not when she decided to include the whole of the 1990s as her time-frame. It's an obvious error and therefore invites further scrutiny Yes, specifically by you it appears, despite your lack of interest. To what end? To absolve iain gray of blame? Again, you seem to be floating around the issue, posting hints and suggestions rather than actual facts. If you have any real evidence of ethnic cleansing by Montenegro, why not post it, rather than muttering about being "economical with the truth"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 "I'm right, don't confuse me with the facts"[ You can gloss over Slovenia as well if it's a fact that you don't particularly want to acknowledge Iain Gray for First Minister, eh, Old Northerner? Desperate stuff. You really have lost it if you think that my wondering about the 'collective responsibility' of Serbia and Montenegro during the early 90s makes me a Labour supporter. Especially given the fact that I've posted that the post-06 decisions of the Montenegrins ends that particular wondering in my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivo den Bieman Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 You can gloss over Slovenia as well if it's a fact that you don't particularly want to acknowledge Yes, I really glossed over the whole issue in my previous posts on that very subject. You really have lost it if you think that my wondering about the 'collective responsibility' of Serbia and Montenegro during the early 90s makes me a Labour supporter. Especially given the fact that I've posted that the post-06 decisions of the Montenegrins ends that particular wondering in my mind. well, sorry, I simply don't believe that you are pursuing this bizarre little agenda purely out of academic interest. It's desperate stuff typical of the attempted "defence" by Labour supporters of their clueless leader, on-line, since December 23rd. Again i ask you to point out where this diplomat has been economical with the truth. You said something about Slovenia. I have explained to you why this is not relevant. Your attempted rebuttal was some strange non-sequitor about "using the whole of the 1990s as a timeframe"- I'm afraid it's apparent only to you why this indicates that the diplomat was lying/speaking in bad faith/whatever. Perhaps if you were clearer on the matter of where exactly she is wrong/misleading, it might be easier to understand where you are coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted January 5, 2011 Author Share Posted January 5, 2011 It seems ivo has answered Slovenia, they were at war apparently, so hardly peaceful! I should state that I don't know the facts myself, but he seems to have posted evidence, while you seem to have ignored that evidence and posted speculation. And right now, you're doing a Damn good job of appearing to be a labour supporter and unionist, what with your "wonderings". Again, to what end, if not to get labour off the hook? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Yes, specifically by you it appears, despite your lack of interest. Who said I wasn't interested about her statements about her own country. Conflation of two arguments here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 You said something about Slovenia. I have explained to you why this is not relevant. Your attempted rebuttal was some strange non-sequitor about "using the whole of the 1990s as a timeframe"- I'm afraid it's apparent only to you why this indicates that the diplomat was lying/speaking in bad faith/whatever. Perhaps if you were clearer on the matter of where exactly she is wrong/misleading, it might be easier to understand where you are coming from. Was Montenegro the only country to remove itself from the Yugoslav state without too much bloodshed? Yes or no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted January 5, 2011 Author Share Posted January 5, 2011 And what do her statements on her country have to do with Scottish politics then? If you're not interested in it from a Scottish perspective, why post on a Scottish thread? And if you're interested in it independently, why not do some research rather than post arguments which make you look like a weaseling unionist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted January 5, 2011 Author Share Posted January 5, 2011 Was Montenegro the only country to remove itself from the Yugoslav state without too much bloodshed? Yes or no. "Too much"! Looks like you're being economical with her statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted January 5, 2011 Author Share Posted January 5, 2011 Was Montenegro the only country to remove itself from the Yugoslav state without too much bloodshed? Yes or no. "Too much"! Looks like you're being economical with her statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivo den Bieman Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Was Montenegro the only country to remove itself from the Yugoslav state without too much bloodshed? Yes or no. Firstly, Montenegro, didn't remove itself from the "Yugoslav state". That no longer existed by the time of its independence in 2006, which arose as a result of the dissolution of the "Union of Serbia and Montenegro", first constituted in 2003. Secondly, Montenegrin independence, as I've already mentioned, was achieved without a shot being fired, let alone blood being spilled. Compare that to the military casualty figures of 62 dead and hundreds wounded, on both sides in the ten day war in Slovenia in 1991. An unquantified number of civilians would have lost their lives, too, in the brief war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted January 5, 2011 Author Share Posted January 5, 2011 I wonder if the old northerner will continue to accuse ivo of "glossing" now that his wonderings have an answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Firstly, Montenegro, didn't remove itself from the "Yugoslav state". That no longer existed by the time of its independence in 2006, which arose as a result of the dissolution of the "Union of Serbia and Montenegro", first constituted in 2003. Fine, I should have used the words 'former Yugoslav state' Secondly, Montenegrin independence, as I've already mentioned, was achieved without a shot being fired, let alone blood being spilled. Compare that to the military casualty figures of 62 dead and hundreds wounded, on both sides in the ten day war in Slovenia in 1991. An unquantified number of civilians would have lost their lives, too, in the brief war. I'm happy to retract my statements about Montenegrin revisionism on the matter of Slovenia. My memory of it being a bloodless affair was flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivo den Bieman Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Fair play, Old Northerner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Fair play, Old Northerner. Should have gone to Wikipedia (instead of memory) to save my blushes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivo den Bieman Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 IME wikipedia often enhances rather than removes blushes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 IME wikipedia often enhances rather than removes blushes In this case, it would have been fine. BTW you can retract the Labour supporter slur at any time Edited for more appropriate smiley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.