Mesić on genocidal policies, good relations

Perhaps with Mesic’s long-awaited departure from office, we’ll hear less frequent two-faced soundbites coming from Zagreb. This man continues to mouth off ad nauseum about the importance of maintaining Bosnia’s cherished artificial sovereignty, while in the same breath, supporting greater Albania at the expense of Serbia’s territorial integrity. If Zagreb genuinely wants better relations with Belgrade, they should start with a new president that is more professional and politically astute than this old relic from the Tudjman era.

Roger!

They are united but not east or west tried to rid of the labnd of the inhabitants. besides Germans are one poeple. Serbs and Albanians are not

Happy new year

Johny

You make it sound like the Serbs are the only settlers in the world. All other people lived where they now live since the days of the dinasours. Let me ask you one thing! Where is the PROOF of Albanian existance in Kosovo prior to the time Serbs settled in Kosovo? Serbs have monasteries and churches from the 13th century! What do Albanians have to show for their claims? You can't just suggest something that is in your interest and expect everyone to believe you.
Besides, let's say for argument sake that Albanians were in Kosovo before Serbs. The Europeans took North America from the native americans. You want North America to be returned to the natives? If not, why? By the way, the Europeans commited horrible crimes against the indians.
Unfortunately, Albanians make up history to fit their own agenda and disregard the facts when it comes to Kosovo. If you didn't claim your were the natives of Kosovo you would loose any argument for declaring independece.

All of what Mesic has said here comes down to the Dayton Agreement. He wants it changed to include Croats having the right to break away from the Federation they now share with the Bosniaks. The answer to that question is NO.
These Croats are truly amazing; they want Serb help in Bosnia, but they have expelled Serbs from Croatia and no talk of a return of refugees or compensation.
All I can say to the Croats stand on your own two legs and stop crawling and asking help from someone else. Look at the Serbs, they were hated by the west, but they stood up to them all; so have a little guts and stop running to mummy all the time for help.

Mesic says,"West Germany did not recognize East Germany but continued to cooperate".

Yep, and once again ... they are united as one.

"Mesic says,"West Germany did not recognize East Germany but continued to cooperate"."

-- Not only are they one again, but Bonn never ceased to push for eventual reunification. Even as late as Kohl's government were there elements even pushing for reclaiming the lands lost to Poland in 1945.

So should we chide West Germany for living in the past, or should we applaud it for sticking to its principles?

As always, Mesic makes a mess of things.

kiko and Une,

It is called the country of Germany...united as one.

"besides Germans are one poeple. Serbs and Albanians are not"
UNE

There is another problem to your argument. Albanians in Kosovo live on Serbian soil. The people called albanians already have a native country, Albania. Serbs wan't to unite all territories that belongs to them by history and international law and not necessarily the people living there.

There is another problem to your argument. Albanians in Kosovo live on Serbian soil. The people called albanians already have a native country, Albania. Serbs wan't to unite all territories that belongs to them by history and international law and not necessarily the people living there.
(MikeC, 29 December 2009 18:08)

Many many points can be made here.

1. You say Serbian soil. Well starting from the very beginning. It is well known that the Serbs are not native to the balakans hence when they came they invaded Kosova.
Serbs also claim Albanians are not native to the Balkans. Lets take that to be true for a second. Then like the Serbs they must have invaded Kosova. Now since both Serbs and Albanian have invaded Kosova what makes the Serbian claim more legitimate than the Albanian claim since they are both invaders?

2. There are plenty of others who have ruled Kosova for much much longer periods of time then Serbia or the Serbs. For example Turkey is one of them. Based on longevity as rulers Turkey is more qualified to claim Kosova than Serbia.
The other one are the Romans. Now applying the Serbian logic. Since the Roman empire ceased to exist then the Italians should have it for the same reasons the Serbs point out that since Jugoslavia ceased to exist then Serbia should have it. Italians have the advantage based on the longevity of their time as rulers.

Now that we pointed out that history is being made continually,changes and does not remain static thus we have Serbs as invaders, Albanians as invaders (as seen by the Serb point of view), Ottomans as invaders, and Romans (title goes to the Italians) as invaders of Kosova we can go to the next point. That is Serbia's claim to Kosova is no more valid than that of Albanians, Turkey, or Italians.

3. In this situation who should have sovereignty over Kosova? Well given how things have come to be it is quite clear that for it to manageable it should be governed by those that live there and currently that is a very heavy majority Albanian. No sane person can claim that Serbia can manage Kosova without repeating the scenarios that went on the last century. Which brings me to the next point.

4. MikeC says: "Serbs wan't to unite all territories that belongs to them by history and international law and not necessarily the people living there."

So in a hypothetical scenario where Serbia has full sovereignty over Kosova then Albanians living there would still constitute a problem since Serbia wants the territory and not the people hence following that logic it must be emptied out of Albanians.
Now relating this to the points I made above. You mention territories that belong to you by history. History being subjective depending on who interprets it. Who is gonna be in charge of determine what territory belong to Serbia and what not because as pointed out early on the territory of Kosova there are also many others that lay claim to it and according to these other ones that territory belongs to them and not Serbia. How do you propose to solve the problem of emptying out Kosova of Albanians and making sure that everyone that interprets history will interpret it Serbia's way, in a peacuful non-combative way?

Now to international law. How do you know that international law sees things the way Serbia sees them. Especially when we look at Kosova. Even when talking on terms of international law this issue is disputed. There is an open case. Now lets hypothetically say international law goes against Serbia. How do you propose Serbia will come to an agreement in a peaceful and non-combative way between the way it interprets historical claims ( remember many other interpret them differently) and a disputed international law or international law that goes against it?

So it becomes clear as day that Serbia cannot in a peaceful-non combative way manage the issue of Kosova.

1. Because it first should be emptied out of Albanians since as it was pointed by MikeC it wants the territory and not the population.

2. Because its historical claims and international law claims go against historical claims of others and the way others see international law.

Under such situation the most manageable solution is for those who live in the territory to have full sovereignty of themselves.

To: Roger7


It's called the EUROPEAN UNION! So we'll all be one once we start looking to better our futures instead of living in the past...

MikeC,

It has always been might makes right.


the only way serbia will regain Dardania back is through war and only if they win the war. That will never happen you know why, i doubt majority of serbs would want to sacrifice EU for another war. i would imagine its only the few hardline nationalist that come to this site.

Dont even bother with the historical claims because noone cares, just like noone cared for the voiceless Albanians when Europe deided to split Albanian lands among Serbs and greeks.

Albanians are the descendant of Illyrian tribe of Albanoi, The only historians who despute this are Yugoslavs so they could justify their land grabs from Illyria.

John,

A very good comment John. MikeC had no arguments against you and that is why he goes back to the church-argument. Then MikeC those turkish mosques built in kosovo during 500 years ? Does that mean Kosovo belong to the turks also ?

If you didn't claim your were the natives of Kosovo you would loose any argument for declaring independece.
(MikeC, 29 December 2009 21:11)

MikeC, read my post again. You have clearly not understood what I wrote. It is precisely because as you state that being native or not holds no value when claiming who Kosova belongs to, that I stated that even if Albanians are invaders like Serbs claim, then Serbs being invaders to the regions themselves, along with other invaders such as the Turks and the Romans, have no more legitimacy over their claims compared to other invaders. I stated that being that if all were to be considered invaders then one invader is no more eligible to claim the territory than others, and that based on the temporal factor Serbia's eligibility for her claims over the other invaders is vastly diminished. Such claims are further diminished when taking in regards the manageability of the territory in a peaceful manner and by simple population numbers. This of course is the case if we all agree for a peaceful non-combative end. You on the other side insinuate situations that are not peaceful or achievable through peaceful means.

Read carefully before venting.

Wim Roffel said:

"However, I do think that "who was last" is important. And lastly Kosovo was worldwide recognized as being a part of Serbia. As MikeC points out history and international law determine the borders of all countries - and not the population."

Ok many things to point out here as well.

1. You say who was last is important. Ok lets take that as you say and talk about it for a moment. Then we must talk about the definition of LAST, so to speak. What do you exactly mean by LAST and who exactly decides what LAST means; speaking time-wise here?
If you say LAST do you mean LAST as in now Dec 31, 2009? Do you mean LAST as in after 1999? Do you mean LAST as in prior to 1999? Or do you mean LAST late 70's, and into the 80's? It might seem a little unusual to ask that but since according to you LAST is the determining factor that decides to whom Kosova goes to then we must examine all possibilities. Based on those questions alone LAST means a whole lot of different things to a whole lot of different people. So why should one of those LAST scenarios have priority over the others?

2.Now since you talk about those who were last should take it; then I guess you are in agreement that Kosova has passed through various invaders, and according to the Serbs Albanians are one of them also . Now if Kosova was invaded by the Romans, then Serbs, then Turks, then Albanians shortly (Serb point of view), then Serbs, then Albanians (now), then why shouldn't be Albanians considered to be the LAST according to you, LAST as in the very latest invaders (LAST as there have been no invaders after us). What specifically in history and/or international law makes prior invasions more legitimate then the ones that follow them? Where specifically in History and in International Law there is such a definition about who is to be considered LAST? I have also a difficulty understanding the notion of LAST especially since time is continuous and there are new things happening all the time hence it seems only natural to think that LAST is an ever changing notion, it does not remain static and it changes with time.

3. Now you mention that Kosova was under Serbia and it was recognized as that worldwide. Now I ask you to name me countries that declared their independence from other countries even though the world recognized them as being under the country they were seceding from. If you need help I can give you two as a start. USA was recognized to be under England and Finland was an autonomous province of Russia when it declared its independence. If you need more help I'll be glad to furnish you with a list of at least 100 cases like that. Now that we determined that Independence has not been stopped for a whole lot of countries ( I would dare say the majority of them) even though they prior to that they were recognized as being under the sovereignty of other countries let's move to the next point.

4. You mention that international Law and History determines the borders and not population.
Since history is made by populations then I think it is natural to say that populations do determine borders. If you need help I can compile a list of countries where populations have determined borders.
Now lets talk about international law. Can you specifically point me to any specific part of international law where it is unequivocally stated that Declarations of Independence are illegal and that the process of new State formations is illegal under such law? Now since there are no laws that prohibit formation of new states and Declaration of Independence then we agree there is no automatic process in international law that determines and/or prohibits the formations of new states and thus as a corollary international law does not determine borders of such new states. So it is rather the agreement within the population itself that determines where the borders of such population are (practically that is where such a population lives). That is why the vast majority of countries today are nation states.

5. Last but not least. I do not believe I am being unfair or accusing everyone. When MikeC states that Serbia wants the territory of Kosova and not necessarily the people, and when it is self-evident to everyone that the at least 90% of such population sees itself and irremovable from the territory, then simple logical deduction brings you to understand that in order to get the territory without the people that see themselves as irremovable excessive force must be used by those who want the territory devoid of populations that are deemed unwanted.

John,

I must admit it has passed some time since I have not seen a better argumented contribution as yours in this forum, irrelevant of whose side you trying to support.

MikeC

You are either incapable of understanding John’s arguments or you are to dismissive to to even try to understand John’s arguments in his post. I and I’m pretty sure most of the readers of this forum highly welcome a good argumented post to the articles in this home page, otherwise this forum becomes “I am better since I have been chosen by the good to be better and” you know a kind of intolerant thing, which is not the purpose of this forum!

A very good comment John. MikeC had no arguments against you and that is why he goes back to the church-argument. Then MikeC those turkish mosques built in kosovo during 500 years ? Does that mean Kosovo belong to the turks also ?
(Demi, 30 December 2009 14:13)

Nope, Turks were the invaders there.

I have to disagree with Johny on several points.

I agree with him that a "who was first" contest is not a good basis to decide whether the Serbs or the Albanians have more right to Kosovo. However, I do think that "who was last" is important. And lastly Kosovo was worldwide recognized as being a part of Serbia. As MikeC points out history and international law determine the borders of all countries - and not the population. Johny is simply unfair to him when he claims that this means that MikeC advocates ethnic cleansing.

International law is clearly on Serbia's side. However, the US in its arrogance resorted to the older principle that "might makes right". Unfortunately for Kosovo's nationalists it appears that their might is not that huge.

A Serbian reconquest of Kosovo might be remarkably peaceful when the whole international community would support it. Albanians are smart enough not to fight an impossible fight - as they showed during much of the 1990s.

That doesn't mean that that would happen. The international community would demand strong minority rights from Serbia and my impression is that Serbia's leaders would prefer to give Kosovo independence given the right conditions, including some border changes and real minority rights.

(Wim Roffel, 30 December 2009 20:48)

I am interested to know which countries you are talking about when you mention the “international community? The only country that Albanians allude to is the US. What happens when the US has to leave? Who will then “demand strong minority rights’?

Roger!

They are united but not east or west tried to rid of the labnd of the inhabitants. besides Germans are one poeple. Serbs and Albanians are not

Happy new year

Perhaps with Mesic’s long-awaited departure from office, we’ll hear less frequent two-faced soundbites coming from Zagreb. This man continues to mouth off ad nauseum about the importance of maintaining Bosnia’s cherished artificial sovereignty, while in the same breath, supporting greater Albania at the expense of Serbia’s territorial integrity. If Zagreb genuinely wants better relations with Belgrade, they should start with a new president that is more professional and politically astute than this old relic from the Tudjman era.

Mesic says,"West Germany did not recognize East Germany but continued to cooperate".

Yep, and once again ... they are united as one.

"besides Germans are one poeple. Serbs and Albanians are not"
UNE

There is another problem to your argument. Albanians in Kosovo live on Serbian soil. The people called albanians already have a native country, Albania. Serbs wan't to unite all territories that belongs to them by history and international law and not necessarily the people living there.

Johny

You make it sound like the Serbs are the only settlers in the world. All other people lived where they now live since the days of the dinasours. Let me ask you one thing! Where is the PROOF of Albanian existance in Kosovo prior to the time Serbs settled in Kosovo? Serbs have monasteries and churches from the 13th century! What do Albanians have to show for their claims? You can't just suggest something that is in your interest and expect everyone to believe you.
Besides, let's say for argument sake that Albanians were in Kosovo before Serbs. The Europeans took North America from the native americans. You want North America to be returned to the natives? If not, why? By the way, the Europeans commited horrible crimes against the indians.
Unfortunately, Albanians make up history to fit their own agenda and disregard the facts when it comes to Kosovo. If you didn't claim your were the natives of Kosovo you would loose any argument for declaring independece.

kiko and Une,

It is called the country of Germany...united as one.

To: Roger7


It's called the EUROPEAN UNION! So we'll all be one once we start looking to better our futures instead of living in the past...

All of what Mesic has said here comes down to the Dayton Agreement. He wants it changed to include Croats having the right to break away from the Federation they now share with the Bosniaks. The answer to that question is NO.
These Croats are truly amazing; they want Serb help in Bosnia, but they have expelled Serbs from Croatia and no talk of a return of refugees or compensation.
All I can say to the Croats stand on your own two legs and stop crawling and asking help from someone else. Look at the Serbs, they were hated by the west, but they stood up to them all; so have a little guts and stop running to mummy all the time for help.

There is another problem to your argument. Albanians in Kosovo live on Serbian soil. The people called albanians already have a native country, Albania. Serbs wan't to unite all territories that belongs to them by history and international law and not necessarily the people living there.
(MikeC, 29 December 2009 18:08)

Many many points can be made here.

1. You say Serbian soil. Well starting from the very beginning. It is well known that the Serbs are not native to the balakans hence when they came they invaded Kosova.
Serbs also claim Albanians are not native to the Balkans. Lets take that to be true for a second. Then like the Serbs they must have invaded Kosova. Now since both Serbs and Albanian have invaded Kosova what makes the Serbian claim more legitimate than the Albanian claim since they are both invaders?

2. There are plenty of others who have ruled Kosova for much much longer periods of time then Serbia or the Serbs. For example Turkey is one of them. Based on longevity as rulers Turkey is more qualified to claim Kosova than Serbia.
The other one are the Romans. Now applying the Serbian logic. Since the Roman empire ceased to exist then the Italians should have it for the same reasons the Serbs point out that since Jugoslavia ceased to exist then Serbia should have it. Italians have the advantage based on the longevity of their time as rulers.

Now that we pointed out that history is being made continually,changes and does not remain static thus we have Serbs as invaders, Albanians as invaders (as seen by the Serb point of view), Ottomans as invaders, and Romans (title goes to the Italians) as invaders of Kosova we can go to the next point. That is Serbia's claim to Kosova is no more valid than that of Albanians, Turkey, or Italians.

3. In this situation who should have sovereignty over Kosova? Well given how things have come to be it is quite clear that for it to manageable it should be governed by those that live there and currently that is a very heavy majority Albanian. No sane person can claim that Serbia can manage Kosova without repeating the scenarios that went on the last century. Which brings me to the next point.

4. MikeC says: "Serbs wan't to unite all territories that belongs to them by history and international law and not necessarily the people living there."

So in a hypothetical scenario where Serbia has full sovereignty over Kosova then Albanians living there would still constitute a problem since Serbia wants the territory and not the people hence following that logic it must be emptied out of Albanians.
Now relating this to the points I made above. You mention territories that belong to you by history. History being subjective depending on who interprets it. Who is gonna be in charge of determine what territory belong to Serbia and what not because as pointed out early on the territory of Kosova there are also many others that lay claim to it and according to these other ones that territory belongs to them and not Serbia. How do you propose to solve the problem of emptying out Kosova of Albanians and making sure that everyone that interprets history will interpret it Serbia's way, in a peacuful non-combative way?

Now to international law. How do you know that international law sees things the way Serbia sees them. Especially when we look at Kosova. Even when talking on terms of international law this issue is disputed. There is an open case. Now lets hypothetically say international law goes against Serbia. How do you propose Serbia will come to an agreement in a peaceful and non-combative way between the way it interprets historical claims ( remember many other interpret them differently) and a disputed international law or international law that goes against it?

So it becomes clear as day that Serbia cannot in a peaceful-non combative way manage the issue of Kosova.

1. Because it first should be emptied out of Albanians since as it was pointed by MikeC it wants the territory and not the population.

2. Because its historical claims and international law claims go against historical claims of others and the way others see international law.

Under such situation the most manageable solution is for those who live in the territory to have full sovereignty of themselves.

A very good comment John. MikeC had no arguments against you and that is why he goes back to the church-argument. Then MikeC those turkish mosques built in kosovo during 500 years ? Does that mean Kosovo belong to the turks also ?
(Demi, 30 December 2009 14:13)

Nope, Turks were the invaders there.

"Mesic says,"West Germany did not recognize East Germany but continued to cooperate"."

-- Not only are they one again, but Bonn never ceased to push for eventual reunification. Even as late as Kohl's government were there elements even pushing for reclaiming the lands lost to Poland in 1945.

So should we chide West Germany for living in the past, or should we applaud it for sticking to its principles?

As always, Mesic makes a mess of things.

I have to disagree with Johny on several points.

I agree with him that a "who was first" contest is not a good basis to decide whether the Serbs or the Albanians have more right to Kosovo. However, I do think that "who was last" is important. And lastly Kosovo was worldwide recognized as being a part of Serbia. As MikeC points out history and international law determine the borders of all countries - and not the population. Johny is simply unfair to him when he claims that this means that MikeC advocates ethnic cleansing.

International law is clearly on Serbia's side. However, the US in its arrogance resorted to the older principle that "might makes right". Unfortunately for Kosovo's nationalists it appears that their might is not that huge.

A Serbian reconquest of Kosovo might be remarkably peaceful when the whole international community would support it. Albanians are smart enough not to fight an impossible fight - as they showed during much of the 1990s.

That doesn't mean that that would happen. The international community would demand strong minority rights from Serbia and my impression is that Serbia's leaders would prefer to give Kosovo independence given the right conditions, including some border changes and real minority rights.

(Wim Roffel, 30 December 2009 20:48)

I am interested to know which countries you are talking about when you mention the “international community? The only country that Albanians allude to is the US. What happens when the US has to leave? Who will then “demand strong minority rights’?

MikeC,

It has always been might makes right.


the only way serbia will regain Dardania back is through war and only if they win the war. That will never happen you know why, i doubt majority of serbs would want to sacrifice EU for another war. i would imagine its only the few hardline nationalist that come to this site.

Dont even bother with the historical claims because noone cares, just like noone cared for the voiceless Albanians when Europe deided to split Albanian lands among Serbs and greeks.

Albanians are the descendant of Illyrian tribe of Albanoi, The only historians who despute this are Yugoslavs so they could justify their land grabs from Illyria.

If you didn't claim your were the natives of Kosovo you would loose any argument for declaring independece.
(MikeC, 29 December 2009 21:11)

MikeC, read my post again. You have clearly not understood what I wrote. It is precisely because as you state that being native or not holds no value when claiming who Kosova belongs to, that I stated that even if Albanians are invaders like Serbs claim, then Serbs being invaders to the regions themselves, along with other invaders such as the Turks and the Romans, have no more legitimacy over their claims compared to other invaders. I stated that being that if all were to be considered invaders then one invader is no more eligible to claim the territory than others, and that based on the temporal factor Serbia's eligibility for her claims over the other invaders is vastly diminished. Such claims are further diminished when taking in regards the manageability of the territory in a peaceful manner and by simple population numbers. This of course is the case if we all agree for a peaceful non-combative end. You on the other side insinuate situations that are not peaceful or achievable through peaceful means.

Read carefully before venting.

John,

A very good comment John. MikeC had no arguments against you and that is why he goes back to the church-argument. Then MikeC those turkish mosques built in kosovo during 500 years ? Does that mean Kosovo belong to the turks also ?

John,

I must admit it has passed some time since I have not seen a better argumented contribution as yours in this forum, irrelevant of whose side you trying to support.

MikeC

You are either incapable of understanding John’s arguments or you are to dismissive to to even try to understand John’s arguments in his post. I and I’m pretty sure most of the readers of this forum highly welcome a good argumented post to the articles in this home page, otherwise this forum becomes “I am better since I have been chosen by the good to be better and” you know a kind of intolerant thing, which is not the purpose of this forum!

Wim Roffel said:

"However, I do think that "who was last" is important. And lastly Kosovo was worldwide recognized as being a part of Serbia. As MikeC points out history and international law determine the borders of all countries - and not the population."

Ok many things to point out here as well.

1. You say who was last is important. Ok lets take that as you say and talk about it for a moment. Then we must talk about the definition of LAST, so to speak. What do you exactly mean by LAST and who exactly decides what LAST means; speaking time-wise here?
If you say LAST do you mean LAST as in now Dec 31, 2009? Do you mean LAST as in after 1999? Do you mean LAST as in prior to 1999? Or do you mean LAST late 70's, and into the 80's? It might seem a little unusual to ask that but since according to you LAST is the determining factor that decides to whom Kosova goes to then we must examine all possibilities. Based on those questions alone LAST means a whole lot of different things to a whole lot of different people. So why should one of those LAST scenarios have priority over the others?

2.Now since you talk about those who were last should take it; then I guess you are in agreement that Kosova has passed through various invaders, and according to the Serbs Albanians are one of them also . Now if Kosova was invaded by the Romans, then Serbs, then Turks, then Albanians shortly (Serb point of view), then Serbs, then Albanians (now), then why shouldn't be Albanians considered to be the LAST according to you, LAST as in the very latest invaders (LAST as there have been no invaders after us). What specifically in history and/or international law makes prior invasions more legitimate then the ones that follow them? Where specifically in History and in International Law there is such a definition about who is to be considered LAST? I have also a difficulty understanding the notion of LAST especially since time is continuous and there are new things happening all the time hence it seems only natural to think that LAST is an ever changing notion, it does not remain static and it changes with time.

3. Now you mention that Kosova was under Serbia and it was recognized as that worldwide. Now I ask you to name me countries that declared their independence from other countries even though the world recognized them as being under the country they were seceding from. If you need help I can give you two as a start. USA was recognized to be under England and Finland was an autonomous province of Russia when it declared its independence. If you need more help I'll be glad to furnish you with a list of at least 100 cases like that. Now that we determined that Independence has not been stopped for a whole lot of countries ( I would dare say the majority of them) even though they prior to that they were recognized as being under the sovereignty of other countries let's move to the next point.

4. You mention that international Law and History determines the borders and not population.
Since history is made by populations then I think it is natural to say that populations do determine borders. If you need help I can compile a list of countries where populations have determined borders.
Now lets talk about international law. Can you specifically point me to any specific part of international law where it is unequivocally stated that Declarations of Independence are illegal and that the process of new State formations is illegal under such law? Now since there are no laws that prohibit formation of new states and Declaration of Independence then we agree there is no automatic process in international law that determines and/or prohibits the formations of new states and thus as a corollary international law does not determine borders of such new states. So it is rather the agreement within the population itself that determines where the borders of such population are (practically that is where such a population lives). That is why the vast majority of countries today are nation states.

5. Last but not least. I do not believe I am being unfair or accusing everyone. When MikeC states that Serbia wants the territory of Kosova and not necessarily the people, and when it is self-evident to everyone that the at least 90% of such population sees itself and irremovable from the territory, then simple logical deduction brings you to understand that in order to get the territory without the people that see themselves as irremovable excessive force must be used by those who want the territory devoid of populations that are deemed unwanted.