81

Wednesday, 29.12.2010.

10:11

Serb party wants to join Thaci

Independent Liberal Party (SLS) leader Slobodan Petrović says his party is willing to form a ruling coalition with Hashim Thaci's Democratic Party of Kosovo.

Izvor: Tanjug

Serb party wants to join Thaci IMAGE SOURCE
IMAGE DESCRIPTION

81 Komentari

Sortiraj po:

lowe

pre 13 godina

I see you are back!

“Of course because the data was not showing that. That’s why a news report is not a fact. It should rather serve as an incentive to research the facts.”

As I already told you previously, I considered that news source to be credible enough for me to use. B92 readers generally do this by the way in case you have not noticed, including those who are pro-Pristina or Pro-Yankee in case. Again you refer to your past data – how can they possibly show any POLITICAL decision to replace the greenback? Please answer this question.




“Somebody who thinks (they did not say it, but let’s assume for the sake of the argument that you had able mind readers) to dump the US dollar would not go to buy US treasuries (unless it’s stupid). Rather they would have started long ago to dump the treasuries.”

You used past treasury sales data showing PAST decision to buy US debts. How can these PAST data about US debts prove FUTURE decisions about replacing the dollar?????


“Not because they want to borrow, but because they CAN borrow. Creditors will not lend humongous amounts of money to somebody who’s not well off.”

So having to pay humongous interest payments, thereby representing a huge economic opportunity costs foregone is your idea of doing well! And conversely people who don’t need to borrow and don’t want to borrow are by your reasoning doing badly! Twisted logic if you ask me!


“I have the data :) I don’t trust the views; those are subjective.”

Your data are IRRELEVANT data because they are past data as I already pointed out above.


“They did not contain anything about China ?! But I thought they were about China !!! “

Those 3 specific links were NOT about China’s finances! Please stop pretending to overlook this material point. They were about the US financial position and the worries of US politicians and people! So, as I already stated so many times, using them as your proof amounts to pure falsehood!




“You are saying that now… Being “past” was the only reason you mentioned before”

Being past data was one reason why they are irrelevant and so I was not originally wrong. The second reason why they are irrelevant, as I already told you, was because they concerned US debts. Both reasons cannot explain any possible future political decision by G20 leaders to dump the dollar.




“They predict the future for decades to come. If A lends to B for 30 years, A has to be sure that B's currency is OK for, at least, 30 years, otherwise it may get paid back with worthless paper.”

Show me the proof that they are being used to predict poltical decisions of the future, in this case, about POLITICAL decisions to dump the greenback.


“Of course is has to be paid back with interest. But money is not borrowed to put it under the mattress. It is borrowed to do something with it. It that something generates more than the interest, than the debt is good, if not it is bad. I don’t have data for either the good or the bad. If you do, please show them. Show what is the net economic benefit of the US from this debt; is it positive or negative ? “

Show me the proof that the money borrowed is in fact being used to “generate more” for the entire US economy. Your claim doesn’t seem to square with the worries that US leaders and citizens have been airing in the news! And you have no proof to back your claim in any case.




“No, I did not say having a lot of money in a bank account means doing badly. But those articles you provided about China did not show that China has a lot of money in a bank account (or, at least, I missed it).”

Those 3 specific links were not about China’s finances and so for you to use them as your proof amounts to false proof. It is like using an article about Mongolia to make a claim about Kosovo.



“That may be your logic, but not mine, I did not say that people with “fat bank accounts and do not owe any money to anyone must be “doing badly””. They may be doing good or bad; it depends. The same thing with people owning money; they may or may not be doing badly. All depends on what’s higher; the income or the expenses.
(icj1, 5 March 2011 20:26)”

You basically made the claim that the US is doing great because of its humongous debts from its huge borrowings. I therefore asked you about the flip side -- whether people who have fat accounts and don’t need to borrow are conversely doing badly to show the absurdity of your logic. So far you have failed to show that the entire US economy borrowed in order to reinvest and benefit from the net gain, and that this was its main intention for borrowing in the first place.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

In that thread I provided a link to a news report that G20 countries are thinking about replacing the dollar in the future. You chose to disregard it in that thread. I think it is this one [link]/
(lowe, 16 January 2011 06:36)

Of course because the data was not showing that. That’s why a news report is not a fact. It should rather serve as an incentive to research the facts.


I have provided the above link in that thread which you conveniently chose to not to see and so it is not my fault. How your past treasury data can show the thinking of those G20 governments about dumping the dollar in the future is beyond me.
(lowe, 16 January 2011 06:36)

Somebody who thinks (they did not say it, but let’s assume for the sake of the argument that you had able mind readers) to dump the US dollar would not go to buy US treasuries (unless it’s stupid). Rather they would have started long ago to dump the treasuries.


And your conclusion that the Yankees are doing well because they borrow more and more from creditors sounds fishy to me.
(lowe, 16 January 2011 06:36)

Not because they want to borrow, but because they CAN borrow. Creditors will not lend humongous amounts of money to somebody who’s not well off.


At least I have the links containing the views of the Yankee officials to back me up. You have nothing. Zero.
(lowe, 16 January 2011 06:36)

I have the data :) I don’t trust the views; those are subjective.


You quoted my 3 specific links – this means you were ONLY referring to these 3 links and not to others. And these 3 links do not contain any discussion of China’s financial position. So using my 3 links as your evidence amounts to utterly FALSE proof as I already mentioned above.
(lowe, 16 January 2011 06:36)

They did not contain anything about China ?! But I thought they were about China !!!


And being past data was only one reason why they are irrelevant.
(lowe, 16 January 2011 06:36)

You are saying that now… Being “past” was the only reason you mentioned before


Not only are they past data but they concerned US debts, and I fail to see how these can explain whether leaders from some countries will dump the greenback or not as an exchange currency in the future.
(lowe, 16 January 2011 06:36)

They predict the future for decades to come. If A lends to B for 30 years, A has to be sure that B's currency is OK for, at least, 30 years, otherwise it may get paid back with worthless paper.



Lastly I must say that I find it real strange that you consider it to be “doing well” when lenders lend you money. You seem to forget that the money borrowed must be paid back with interests.
(lowe, 16 January 2011 06:36)

Of course is has to be paid back with interest. But money is not borrowed to put it under the mattress. It is borrowed to do something with it. It that something generates more than the interest, than the debt is good, if not it is bad. I don’t have data for either the good or the bad. If you do, please show them. Show what is the net economic benefit of the US from this debt; is it positive or negative ?


On the flip side, am I “doing badly” if I have a fat bank account and no one lends me money?
(lowe, 16 January 2011 06:36)

No, I did not say having a lot of money in a bank account means doing badly. But those articles you provided about China did not show that China has a lot of money in a bank account (or, at least, I missed it).



Did it ever occur to you that maybe I don’t need to borrow and don’t want to borrow? By your definition, it appears that all the people in this world who have fat bank accounts and do not owe any money to anyone must be “doing badly” – not sure that they would agree with your so called logic!
(lowe, 16 January 2011 06:36)

That may be your logic, but not mine, I did not say that people with “fat bank accounts and do not owe any money to anyone must be “doing badly””. They may be doing good or bad; it depends. The same thing with people owning money; they may or may not be doing badly. All depends on what’s higher; the income or the expenses.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Of course, I just pointed out that Thaci and Milosevic are not in the same position (at least for now) (note FOR NOW), because there was evidence against Milosevic sufficient for a judge to issue an arrest warrant; whereas for Thaci even the evidence is not there..
(icj1, 15 January 2011 20:09)"

Warrants of arrest and sufficiency of evidence mean nothing unless the court actually uses those evidence to convict an accused. So Milosevic remains legally innocent despite that warrant and despite the amount of evidence. And he will always be legally innocent unless they change the rules and decide to waste money and try the dead!

On the other hand, should Thaci be charged in the future, it is possible for him to be convicted on just one piece of evidence -- so you don't need tons of them.

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

“You did not show anything below, but thanks for accepting the dates. “

On the contrary I did. I showed that your treasury data was irrelevant to any possible future decision by the G20 countries to replace the greenback.


“Proof please that the G20 countries were thinking about replacing the greenback… “

In that thread I provided a link to a news report that G20 countries are thinking about replacing the dollar in the future. You chose to disregard it in that thread. I think it is this one http://moneymorning.com/2010/11/11/g-20-finally-dump-dollar-worlds-main-reserve-currency/


“First you did not bring any proof about what the opinion of the politicians will be. Second, the data is highly relevant since, I’m assuming, that by “greenback” you mean the “USD” (I apologize if this assumption of mine is incorrect). In any case, the proof that I brought to you was not about the above, but about “the world is no longer blind to the reality of the Yankee financial situation today unlike the last 2 decades. And that's why the Yankee had to pretend to be a bit nicer these days”. So my data is highly relevant because it shows how the creditors see the FUTURE Yankee financial situation. “

I have provided the above link in that thread which you conveniently chose to not to see and so it is not my fault. How your past treasury data can show the thinking of those G20 governments about dumping the dollar in the future is beyond me. And your conclusion that the Yankees are doing well because they borrow more and more from creditors sounds fishy to me. You seem to be assuming that they borrow more for free and need not pay humongous interests. Moreover, if you are so right then why is the US government and people so worried about their debt situation?



“Of course, if they are supported by the data. Show me the data that supports the views of the Yankee officials and I’ll agree with them. But I can’t agree with something just because an official, especially a Yankee one, said so.”

At least I have the links containing the views of the Yankee officials to back me up. You have nothing. Zero.


“Of course they did contain the comparison. The articles were about China and showed that nobody was lending to China (I did not see anywhere in the articles that somebody was lending to China – I apologize if I missed it, but you can show to me which article said that lenders are lending to China). But they did show that lenders were lending to the US significant amounts of money. “

You are being blatantly dishonest here! Whether China wanted to borrow or not was NOT discussed in any of these links!.Those 3 articles did NOT contain any relative Chinese-Yankee comparisons at all. But you are claiming that they did! Are these relative comparisons written in invisible ink that only you and your fortune teller can see? You used my 3 links as your evidence and in this case your proof was and still is FALSE!



“Of course they do show that US is better off because you provided articles about China, which show that lenders are not lending to China but are lending to the US. There is the comparison. I don’t understand why it’s so difficult for you to grasp it. “

You quoted my 3 specific links – this means you were ONLY referring to these 3 links and not to others. And these 3 links do not contain any discussion of China’s financial position. So using my 3 links as your evidence amounts to utterly FALSE proof as I already mentioned above.


“That’s not what you said before. You are only mentioning the relevance now. Before you only mentioned that the data was from the "past". In any case, as I explained, my data is highly relevant. Whereas in your case, you don’t even have the data to support anything you say.
(icj1, 15 January 2011 20:38)”

Let me put it clearly enough for you and your fortune teller – I did not accept your data because I think they are irrelevant. And being past data was only one reason why they are irrelevant. Not only are they past data but they concerned US debts, and I fail to see how these can explain whether leaders from some countries will dump the greenback or not as an exchange currency in the future. In other words, your past data had been irrelevant all along and that’s why I rejected them.

Lastly I must say that I find it real strange that you consider it to be “doing well” when lenders lend you money. You seem to forget that the money borrowed must be paid back with interests. Aren’t there enough Yankees who borrowed from willing lenders (the banks) during before the financial crisis only to have their homes and assets foreclosed when they couldn’t repay their loans? And the interest payments that the US must pay its creditors would represent an economic opportunity cost lost as these payments could otherwise be used for the production of goods and services. On the flip side, am I “doing badly” if I have a fat bank account and no one lends me money? Did it ever occur to you that maybe I don’t need to borrow and don’t want to borrow? By your definition, it appears that all the people in this world who have fat bank accounts and do not owe any money to anyone must be “doing badly” – not sure that they would agree with your so called logic!

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

It took years for Milosevic to be issued a warrant and so logically it might also take years for Thaci to be given one if it does come to that. My point all along was that Milosevic today is still legally innocent which johny appears to have difficulty understanding.
(lowe, 10 January 2011 02:24)

Of course, I just pointed out that Thaci and Milosevic are not in the same position (at least for now) (note FOR NOW), because there was evidence against Milosevic sufficient for a judge to issue an arrest warrant; whereas for Thaci even the evidence is not there..

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 13 godina

Even if I were to accept your dates now, the data was still irrelevant as shall be shown below.
(lowe, 10 January 2011 03:14)

You did not show anything below, but thanks for accepting the dates.



It definitely concerned the news report about the G20 countries thinking about replacing the greenback!
(lowe, 10 January 2011 03:14)

Proof please that the G20 countries were thinking about replacing the greenback…



You brought in your past treasury data which was really irrelevant to any possible future decision to replace the greenback by these countries. Your treasury data cannot be relevant to any possible political decisions (which would depend on the opinions of politicians however much you seemed to distrust people’s opinions) to replace the dollar. Using your treasury data, it is like using nitrogen to prove that water contains hydrogen, whether now or in the future!
(lowe, 10 January 2011 03:14)

First you did not bring any proof about what the opinion of the politicians will be. Second, the data is highly relevant since, I’m assuming, that by “greenback” you mean the “USD” (I apologize if this assumption of mine is incorrect). In any case, the proof that I brought to you was not about the above, but about “the world is no longer blind to the reality of the Yankee financial situation today unlike the last 2 decades. And that's why the Yankee had to pretend to be a bit nicer these days”. So my data is highly relevant because it shows how the creditors see the FUTURE Yankee financial situation.



Since you admit not to have data to support that the US is doing marvellously with its humongous debt, then logically the views of the US government officials (including the president himself) about the US economic position would be the best thing that Americans and foreigners can rely on.
(lowe, 10 January 2011 03:14)

Of course, if they are supported by the data. Show me the data that supports the views of the Yankee officials and I’ll agree with them. But I can’t agree with something just because an official, especially a Yankee one, said so.



WRONG! In that particular thread, I listed 3 links for Joe to read. Those 3 links contained only articles which negatively portrayed US debt and the grave concerns of some US officials. They do NOT contain any relative comparison between the Chinese and Yankees!
(lowe, 10 January 2011 03:14)

Of course they did contain the comparison. The articles were about China and showed that nobody was lending to China (I did not see anywhere in the articles that somebody was lending to China – I apologize if I missed it, but you can show to me which article said that lenders are lending to China). But they did show that lenders were lending to the US significant amounts of money.



You however QUOTED these 3 links when you stated that the US is much better off than China even though there was no relative comparison between these countries. In other words, you were only referring to these 3 links when you stated that they showed that the US are much better off than China – which is definitely FALSE!
(lowe, 10 January 2011 03:14)

Of course they do show that US is better off because you provided articles about China, which show that lenders are not lending to China but are lending to the US. There is the comparison. I don’t understand why it’s so difficult for you to grasp it.



I do accept these provided they are logical and relevant. Not in your case though, I should think.
(lowe, 10 January 2011 03:14)

That’s not what you said before. You are only mentioning the relevance now. Before you only mentioned that the data was from the "past". In any case, as I explained, my data is highly relevant. Whereas in your case, you don’t even have the data to support anything you say.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
lowe

pre 13 godina

“No sir, it is you that are recalling incorrectly. I posted it on 13 Nov with the auction data from 29 Oct, i.e. 15 days old (which hardly classifies even as weeks, it’s more about days). “

Even if I were to accept your dates now, the data was still irrelevant as shall be shown below.



“No, again you recall incorrectly. It was not about that, since neither me nor you showed data or facts that investments in the US doesn’t appear that important “for many other countries such as those in the G20” (beside the mind reading stuff that you expected the G20 leaders to come out and deny).

That’s what I was saying that you don't need data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments. Glad we agree on that. Also, you need to replace “will” with “could”.”

It definitely concerned the news report about the G20 countries thinking about replacing the greenback! You brought in your past treasury data which was really irrelevant to any possible future decision to replace the greenback by these countries. Your treasury data cannot be relevant to any possible political decisions (which would depend on the opinions of politicians however much you seemed to distrust people’s opinions) to replace the dollar. Using your treasury data, it is like using nitrogen to prove that water contains hydrogen, whether now or in the future!


“No, I did not say that. I brought two examples that debt could be good as you appeared unconvinced about that. Note “could”; of course I could bring you other examples about debt being bad, but I’m not doing it since you appear to be convinced about that. I’m not taking any position whether the debt the US is issuing is actually good or bad. I repeatedly said that. The reason I’m not taking a position is that I don’t have sufficient data to support either side. “

Since you admit not to have data to support that the US is doing marvellously with its humongous debt, then logically the views of the US government officials (including the president himself) about the US economic position would be the best thing that Americans and foreigners can rely on. And their views are generally in a very negative direction!


“Yes, because the links about China that you brought showed that lenders are not lending to China but are lending to the US. So the US is better off than China otherwise the lenders would not do the above. Note I said “better off”, not “better off issuing debt”. “

WRONG! In that particular thread, I listed 3 links for Joe to read. Those 3 links contained only articles which negatively portrayed US debt and the grave concerns of some US officials. They do NOT contain any relative comparison between the Chinese and Yankees! You however QUOTED these 3 links when you stated that the US is much better off than China even though there was no relative comparison between these countries. In other words, you were only referring to these 3 links when you stated that they showed that the US are much better off than China – which is definitely FALSE!

“I don’t expect that because as said before you don't need data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments.
(icj1, 9 January 2011 22:55)”

I do accept these provided they are logical and relevant. Not in your case though, I should think.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Of course, that's why I pointed out that Thaci and Milosevic are not in the same position (at least for now) (note FOR NOW), because there was evidence against Milosevic sufficient for a judge to issue an arrest warrant; that's not the case with Thaci. Can’t tell about the future…. We can discuss when it arrives.
(icj1, 9 January 2011 22:57) "

It took years for Milosevic to be issued a warrant and so logically it might also take years for Thaci to be given one if it does come to that. My point all along was that Milosevic today is still legally innocent which johny appears to have difficulty understanding.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

And it still does not rule out that Thaci could still be charged by the courts sometime in the future. And only piece of evidence is enough to convict an accused and so the amount of evidence is really not the be all and end all.
(lowe, 9 January 2011 01:27)

Of course, that's why I pointed out that Thaci and Milosevic are not in the same position (at least for now) (note FOR NOW), because there was evidence against Milosevic sufficient for a judge to issue an arrest warrant; that's not the case with Thaci. Can’t tell about the future…. We can discuss when it arrives.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

It was you who recalled wrongly. Firstly it wasn’t merely weeks before that discussion.
(lowe, 9 January 2011 01:46)

No sir, it is you that are recalling incorrectly. I posted it on 13 Nov with the auction data from 29 Oct, i.e. 15 days old (which hardly classifies even as weeks, it’s more about days).



Moreover I remembered that the issue was about a news report that some G20 countries are thinking of jettisoning the greenback as the currency of exchange in the future which could take many years or even decades.
(lowe, 9 January 2011 01:46)

No, again you recall incorrectly. It was not about that, since neither me nor you showed data or facts that investments in the US doesn’t appear that important “for many other countries such as those in the G20” (beside the mind reading stuff that you expected the G20 leaders to come out and deny).



So even if I were to accept that your past data was just a few weeks old then, they still cannot logically in this case be used to predict currency events that will occur only years or decades into the future. Hence your past treasury is irrelevant.
(lowe, 9 January 2011 01:46)

That’s what I was saying that you don't need data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments. Glad we agree on that. Also, you need to replace “will” with “could”.



As for US debt, you did seem to imply that they are nothing to worry and you brought in those 2 corporations to back your point.
(lowe, 9 January 2011 01:46)

No, I did not say that. I brought two examples that debt could be good as you appeared unconvinced about that. Note “could”; of course I could bring you other examples about debt being bad, but I’m not doing it since you appear to be convinced about that. I’m not taking any position whether the debt the US is issuing is actually good or bad. I repeatedly said that. The reason I’m not taking a position is that I don’t have sufficient data to support either side.



Moreover you also stated separately, in response to my URL links about the humongous US debt, that the Yankees were doing much better than China on this issue based on these links alone.
(lowe, 9 January 2011 01:46)

Yes, because the links about China that you brought showed that lenders are not lending to China but are lending to the US. So the US is better off than China otherwise the lenders would not do the above. Note I said “better off”, not “better off issuing debt”.



So of course I was and remain unconvinced by your arguments and past data.
(lowe, 9 January 2011 01:46)

I don’t expect that because as said before you don't need data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

“No, you recall incorrectly, because the data that I was using in that discussion was from the latest treasury auctions just few weeks before of that discussion…

And by the way, not sure if you are celebrating, but I did not make any point anywhere that the US debt today is something for the Yankees to celebrate about.

And, of course, I don’t except you to be convinced because past data is totally irrelevant for you
(icj1, 8 January 2011 06:09)”

It was you who recalled wrongly. Firstly it wasn’t merely weeks before that discussion. Moreover I remembered that the issue was about a news report that some G20 countries are thinking of jettisoning the greenback as the currency of exchange in the future which could take many years or even decades. So even if I were to accept that your past data was just a few weeks old then, they still cannot logically in this case be used to predict currency events that will occur only years or decades into the future. Hence your past treasury is irrelevant.

As for US debt, you did seem to imply that they are nothing to worry and you brought in those 2 corporations to back your point. Moreover you also stated separately, in response to my URL links about the humongous US debt, that the Yankees were doing much better than China on this issue based on these links alone.

So of course I was and remain unconvinced by your arguments and past data.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Of course, that's why I pointed out that Thaci and Milosevic are not in the same position (at least for now) (note FOR NOW), because there was evidence against Milosevic sufficient for a judge to issue an arrest warrant; that's not the case with Thaci
(icj1, 8 January 2011 05:57) "

And it still does not rule out that Thaci could still be charged by the courts sometime in the future. And only piece of evidence is enough to convict an accused and so the amount of evidence is really not the be all and end all.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

As for the past data, it depends on what the data is about. I recall that in our discussion, you were using past US Treasury data (when the Yankee economy was booming and its currency exchange rates much higher than today’s) to support your point that the humongous US debt of today is something for the Yankees to celebrate about and that the greenback will definitely be in greater demand in the future based on these past data. And I remain unconvinced by your so called “evidence” to date.
(lowe, 7 January 2011 11:01)

No, you recall incorrectly, because the data that I was using in that discussion was from the latest treasury auctions just few weeks before of that discussion…

And by the way, not sure if you are celebrating, but I did not make any point anywhere that the US debt today is something for the Yankees to celebrate about.

And, of course, I don’t except you to be convinced because past data is totally irrelevant for you

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 13 godina

Of course do not forget that any evidence against Thaci must be carefully evaluated before any judge will issue that warrant of arrest -- you can't expect this to happen overnight. And it can still happen in the future. Only time will tell.
(lowe, 7 January 2011 10:30)

Of course, that's why I pointed out that Thaci and Milosevic are not in the same position (at least for now) (note FOR NOW), because there was evidence against Milosevic sufficient for a judge to issue an arrest warrant; that's not the case with Thaci

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
lowe

pre 13 godina

“No sir, I am not blatantly dishonest, I’m being respectful for the readers to not offend their intelligence by stating the obvious. That is because everybody with a minimum of intelligence knows that people analyze past data in order to predict FUTURE; people don’t analyze past data because they don’t have where to spend their time.
(icj1, 7 January 2011 04:52)”

Well, if you call boasting about getting tons of evidence through your fortune teller (and then failing to do so) as being “respectful for the readers to not offend their intelligence …”, I would certainly beg to differ.

As for the past data, it depends on what the data is about. I recall that in our discussion, you were using past US Treasury data (when the Yankee economy was booming and its currency exchange rates much higher than today’s) to support your point that the humongous US debt of today is something for the Yankees to celebrate about and that the greenback will definitely be in greater demand in the future based on these past data. And I remain unconvinced by your so called “evidence” to date.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Of course that's what I said, about both the innocence and the Thaci issue.
Indeed, I pointed out though that Thaci and Milosevic are not in the same position (at least for now), because there was evidence against Milosevic sufficient for a judge to issue an arrest warrant; that's not the case with Thaci
(icj1, 7 January 2011 04:55) "

Of course do not forget that any evidence against Thaci must be carefully evaluated before any judge will issue that warrant of arrest -- you can't expect this to happen overnight. And it can still happen in the future. Only time will tell.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

And as I pointed out, all the evidence against Milosevic might have been ruled inadmissible had his trial continued. At the time of trial, the accused is still innocent regardless of the amount of evidence against him/her. Also, do bear in mind that the accusations against Thaci are relatively recent. It is not reasonable to expect a warrant to be issued on the spot. It can take years, decades even -- some Nazi suspects like Samuel Kunz, for example, are put on trial over half a century after their alleged crimes.
(lowe, 6 January 2011 11:19)

Of course that's what I said, about both the innocence and the Thaci issue.
Indeed, I pointed out though that Thaci and Milosevic are not in the same position (at least for now), because there was evidence against Milosevic sufficient for a judge to issue an arrest warrant; that's not the case with Thaci

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 13 godina

In that particular thread, I stated that past data cannot be used to predict In that particular thread, I stated that past data cannot be used to predict FUTURE events unless of course you have reasonable grounds to believe in their correlation. By conveniently omitting the fact that I was referring to FUTURE events, you are being blatantly dishonest.
(lowe, 6 January 2011 11:08)

No sir, I am not blatantly dishonest, I’m being respectful for the readers to not offend their intelligence by stating the obvious. That is because everybody with a minimum of intelligence knows that people analyze past data in order to predict FUTURE; people don’t analyze past data because they don’t have where to spend their time.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
lowe

pre 13 godina

"I don't think you do because you think that past data is totally irrelevant (unless, of course, there was a different "lowe" who expressed those thoughts, in which case I apologize)
(icj1, 6 January 2011 05:18) "

In that particular thread, I stated that past data cannot be used to predict FUTURE events unless of course you have reasonable grounds to believe in their correlation. By conveniently omitting the fact that I was referring to FUTURE events, you are being blatantly dishonest. But then what should I expect from someone who relies on his/her fortune teller for "tons of evidence"?

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Of course that's what I said.

I just pointed out though that Thaci and Milosevic are not in the same position (at least for now), because there was evidence against Milosevic sufficient for a judge to issue an arrest warrant; that's not the case with Thaci.
(icj1, 6 January 2011 05:11) "

And as I pointed out, all the evidence against Milosevic might have been ruled inadmissible had his trial continued. At the time of trial, the accused is still innocent regardless of the amount of evidence against him/her.

Also, do bear in mind that the accusations against Thaci are relatively recent. It is not reasonable to expect a warrant to be issued on the spot. It can take years, decades even -- some Nazi suspects like Samuel Kunz, for example, are put on trial over half a century after their alleged crimes.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

That still doesn't change the fact that Milosevic remains innocent which was my point all along.
(lowe, 3 January 2011 10:48)

Of course that's what I said.

I just pointed out though that Thaci and Milosevic are not in the same position (at least for now), because there was evidence against Milosevic sufficient for a judge to issue an arrest warrant; that's not the case with Thaci.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 13 godina

I evaluate the evidence, data, facts, arguments etc etc as they are found in my sources and decide if they are credible enough for me to believe them. (lowe, 3 January 2011 10:53)

I don't think you do because you think that past data is totally irrelevant (unless, of course, there was a different "lowe" who expressed those thoughts, in which case I apologize)

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
lowe

pre 13 godina

"We agree then... that's what I was saying that you don't need data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments. You just need your judgement regardless of data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments. In other words you if you believe it is reasonable, that it is so, regardless of data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments.
(icj1, 2 January 2011 23:22) "

I evaluate the evidence, data, facts, arguments etc etc as they are found in my sources and decide if they are credible enough for me to believe them. Unlike you who claimed to find your "tons of evidence" in your fortune teller, and then failed to produce them!

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Of course, but the judge found sufficient evidence existed for Milosevic to issue an arrest warrant against him. That's not the case for Thaci, me or you.
(icj1, 2 January 2011 23:19) "

That still doesn't change the fact that Milosevic remains innocent which was my point all along. It was possible that the judge could have decided to throw out all the evidence in the end, no matter how matter were submitted by the prosecution.

Thaci is innocent for now, no charges were levied against him yet. But it is possible that could change in the future. But this was not the issue in my first post which asked whether Milosevic is legally innocent or not.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

Yes, if my judgment call tells me that the online source is reliable, I will form my opinion on that basis.
(lowe, 2 January 2011 13:53)

We agree then... that's what I was saying that you don't need data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments. You just need your judgement regardless of data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments. In other words you if you believe it is reasonable, that it is so, regardless of data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 13 godina

I only asked someone whether Milosevic is legally innocent. But johny had to make a mountain out of a molehill by suggesting that there are different degrees of innocence based on the amount of evidence produced. The prosecution can produce one million evidences against the accused but if these are rejected by the courts, the accused remains innocent. But if the prosecutor produces just one piece of evidence against an accused and the court convicts him/her on that sole evidence, then that accused becomes guilty. So the amount of evidence is irrelevant to me. What is relevant is what the judge/jury make of the evidence.
(lowe, 2 January 2011 13:44)

Of course, but the judge found sufficient evidence existed for Milosevic to issue an arrest warrant against him. That's not the case for Thaci, me or you.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Of course both Thaci and Milosevic are innocent, but in the criminal prosecution process there are three stages.

1. Suspicions somebody committed a criminal act which are not sufficient to issue an arrest warrant (Thaci's case)

2. Facts/evidence somebody committed a criminal act which are sufficient to issue an arrest warrant (Milosevic's case)

3. Conviction of somebody for committing a criminal act
(icj1, 2 January 2011 07:08) "

There could be a million stages in the criminal process for all I care but that's irrelevant to my point that the accused is innocent until actually proven guilty by the courts.

I only asked someone whether Milosevic is legally innocent. But johny had to make a mountain out of a molehill by suggesting that there are different degrees of innocence based on the amount of evidence produced. The prosecution can produce one million evidences against the accused but if these are rejected by the courts, the accused remains innocent. But if the prosecutor produces just one piece of evidence against an accused and the court convicts him/her on that sole evidence, then that accused becomes guilty. So the amount of evidence is irrelevant to me. What is relevant is what the judge/jury make of the evidence.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Johny, for Lowe “skepticism” does not exist. If something is published online, that is sufficient for him/her. He/she does not need data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments; something written somewhere in the web is all he/she needs. Here is what Lowe has to say when asked about this:

“But I’m asking for the reason. You must have a reason to consider them reliable. Tell me those reasons and I may very well consider them reliable, too. But you can’t say that they are reliable because you say so. “
(icj1, 21 November 2010 19:27)

My reason is simple – simply because I find them reliable enough to form the basis for my opinion.
(Lowe, 21 November 2010 22:42)
(icj1, 2 January 2011 07:31) "

Yes, if my judgment call tells me that the online source is reliable, I will form my opinion on that basis. I never said that you have to agree with my opinion. In any case, that's better than having no sources to back your position at all -- like your previous assertion, if I recalled correctly, that soccer and the sun are correlated! And maybe that's why you needed to rely on your fortune teller too!

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

"And why does anybody need a "scientific background" to understand this simple legal principle?"
(lowe, 30 December 2010 00:12)

-- You don't need it. However someone with a scientific background will always be skeptic unless evidence exists.
(johny, 30 December 2010 23:17)

Johny, for Lowe “skepticism” does not exist. If something is published online, that is sufficient for him/her. He/she does not need data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments; something written somewhere in the web is all he/she needs. Here is what Lowe has to say when asked about this:

“But I’m asking for the reason. You must have a reason to consider them reliable. Tell me those reasons and I may very well consider them reliable, too. But you can’t say that they are reliable because you say so. “
(icj1, 21 November 2010 19:27)

My reason is simple – simply because I find them reliable enough to form the basis for my opinion.
(Lowe, 21 November 2010 22:42)

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 13 godina

I'm not sure how successful the NATO court investigating itself will be.
(Zoran, 30 December 2010 09:16)

What do you mean by NATO Court ? I don't think Russia, China, Serbia, etc... are part of NATO

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 13 godina

Well, Milosevic may have been brought to the Hague, but he was NOT convicted by them. So that makes him innocent too right? You have evaded this question. Or are there double standards here?
(lowe, 29 December 2010 13:03)

Of course both Thaci and Milosevic are innocent, but in the criminal prosecution process there are three stages.

1. Suspicions somebody committed a criminal act which are not sufficient to issue an arrest warrant (Thaci's case)

2. Facts/evidence somebody committed a criminal act which are sufficient to issue an arrest warrant (Milosevic's case)

3. Conviction of somebody for committing a criminal act

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 1
lowe

pre 13 godina

“-- Not at all. That is not at all what I have been saying. A person is the accused the moment he is officially charged. That happens only if there is ample evidence against that person and such evidence is presented to the justice system which then makes such charges. A person is not the accused the moment a tabloid story appears on the internet; simply because the appearance of a tabloid story is no indication that ample evidence was submitted to the justice system to make official charges against the person. There is a big difference here. Once a person is charged by the justice system; even though he is not guilty, part of the justice system believes that there is enough evidence to prove the person's guilt. Now if a person is not charged but only appears on a tabloid story then that means there is no evidence whatsoever and no part of the justice system which believes there is ample evidence to prove the person's guilt. So the difference is pretty big. Tabloid stories= no evidence whatsoever presented to the justice system and no part of the justice system has any evidence to prove the person's guilt. Charged by the justice system= part of the justice system has ample evidence to believe that guilt can be proven. “

Your long tirade still cannot change the legal principle that an accused is presumed innocent until actually proven guilty. The fact that “part of the justice system has ample evidence” is irrelevant because the judge(s) can still decide to reject those “ample evidence”. And then what good would these copious amounts of evidence be for except perhaps to make a laughing stock of the prosecution?


“-- I hope what I stated above satisfies you.”

Likewise my reply to your first point applies to this one too.


“--Sure they are all innocent because they weren't proven guilty. However they are not equivalent to each other. I'll explain below. “

If a person is innocent, then he/she is innocent period. I’m amazed that you appeared to think that there are different shades or degrees of innocence on the basis of the amount of evidence presented. My point was that until these evidence are accepted by the courts to establish guilt, the accused remains 100% innocent and this applies to everyone, including Milosevic too. I think that legally it is rubbish to suggest that Thaci is more innocent than Milosevic simply because the former has not yet been charged and lots of evidence were submitted by the prosecutors against the latter.


“-- You don't need it. However someone with a scientific background will always be skeptic unless evidence exists …….

Now in your case you want to lump Thaci together with Milosevic. …..”

Well, when you decried my lack of scientific background, I would have thought this wondrous scientific quality is necessary to understand even simple legal principles. Your longest tirade thus far (which I quoted only the first sentence of each paragraph so as not to waste space) still cannot alter the fact that Milosevic is legally as innocent as Thaci. In fact he’s as innocent as you, me and some 99.99% of mankind who have not been convicted by a court of law. And that’s why I lumped both men together -- they are both legally innocent for now.



“-- Whatever floats your boat.
(johny, 30 December 2010 23:17)”

You just tripped on your tongue again! I should think you would need at least some elementary scientific background to understand why a boat floats aka Archimedes Principle! :)

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 4
johny

pre 13 godina

"So a person is guilty the moment he/she is charged? He/she is also guilty as long as a lot of evidence is presented in court? "

-- Not at all. That is not at all what I have been saying. A person is the accused the moment he is officially charged. That happens only if there is ample evidence against that person and such evidence is presented to the justice system which then makes such charges. A person is not the accused the moment a tabloid story appears on the internet; simply because the appearance of a tabloid story is no indication that ample evidence was submitted to the justice system to make official charges against the person. There is a big difference here. Once a person is charged by the justice system; even though he is not guilty, part of the justice system believes that there is enough evidence to prove the person's guilt. Now if a person is not charged but only appears on a tabloid story then that means there is no evidence whatsoever and no part of the justice system which believes there is ample evidence to prove the person's guilt. So the difference is pretty big. Tabloid stories= no evidence whatsoever presented to the justice system and no part of the justice system has any evidence to prove the person's guilt. Charged by the justice system= part of the justice system has ample evidence to believe that guilt can be proven.

"How do these square with the legal principle that the accused remains innocent UNTIL proven guilty? You have not been able to refute this point. "

-- I hope what I stated above satisfies you.

"My point was that an accused can still be found not guilty in the end notwithstanding the gravity of the accusations and the tons of evidence presented in court to support the prosecution's case. "

-- Sure. Nobody is saying the opposite.

"In thi sense, Milosevic, Hitler, Jack the Ripper and, yes, even your precious Thaci are legally innocent."

--Sure they are all innocent because they weren't proven guilty. However they are not equivalent to each other. I'll explain below.

"And why does anybody need a "scientific background" to understand this simple legal principle?"


-- You don't need it. However someone with a scientific background will always be skeptic unless evidence exists. I'll explain. In the scientific world, credence is given to data. Data is the evidence. That is why no scientific paper is published and taken as true without releasing your data and without releasing your methods and procedures. These are the evidence. Once such evidence is released; then it is peer reviewed to ensure their accuracy. For example there is ample evidence about the existence of gravity. The evidence has been reproduced thousands of times. Now there are allegations about the existence of parallel universes; but nobody has been able to show any evidence about it. So the existence of such allegations by some scientists without any evidence to back it up, doesn't exactly make parallel universes the scientific equivalent of gravity. This is why people are still skeptic about the existence of parallel universes but not skeptic about the existence of gravity. This is also what brings us to Marty.

Now in your case you want to lump Thaci together with Milosevic. So while they're innocent because nobody has been proven guilty; they certainly are not the equivalent of each other. Thats is why Milosevic was sitting in prison for years while Thaci visits the EU and the US. If they were equivalent to each other than you would also be equal to Milosevic as well. The difference is in the fact that even though Milosevic was unable to stand trial till the end; there was ample evidence collected against him; which warranted for such evidence to be presented in a trial. Such a thing is not the case for Thaci or even you, and this is where that attempt at equivalence fails. I am saying that someone with a scientific background has no problem at all differentiating between the two. This may not be exactly the case if you have no scientific background; because some people just want to blindly believe even though no evidence whatsoever has been presented to the justice system and the situation, due to the lack of evidence, requires healthy skepticism. In Milosevic's case the analogy is a scientific paper published by some scientists making a hypothesis based on the evidence (data) they have. That is where things stopped. Such paper has not been able to undergo a full peer-review (trial didn't finish). Meaning Milosevic died and without his presence the data(evidence) was not able to be fully reviewed by others (the court; jury etc.). It doesn't mean that the evidence no longer exists though. In Thaci's case the analogy is the following. There has been no scientific paper published hence there has been no data (evidence) released. What we have is someone talking about a possibility of something but he/she has no evidence to back up the claims. As such we do not even get the chance to review the evidence since it doesn't exist. However we can read the allegations like any other tabloid story, rather than like a scientific paper which needs to be peer reviewed. The concept is not hard at all to grasp. While guilt has not been shown for one; enough evidence was gathered to warrant a trial while for the other there is nothing out there but a tabloid story. Evidence does not exist. You certainly do not need a scientific background to comprehend this; but certainly if you have it, you would naturally be skeptic until evidence is released. In the case of Milosevic such evidence was released. In Thaci's case; we have yet to see any evidence released to the justice system.

"I put it to you that it is actually yourself who lacked this "scientific background"."

-- Whatever floats your boat.

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 1
metrod

pre 13 godina

According to the usual propagators here Milosevic was a nice guy who went down because of Western progapanda and their efforts to bring down Serbia.

Someone please help me understand how you expect the rest of the world to respect you or take you seriously when you put forth such monstreous allegations.

Anyone...(other than Peggy or Highduke)?

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 1
Peggy

pre 13 godina

I guess you're confusing the Yanks with the Russians. It is the Russians who do the bribing!
(Ian, UK, 29 December 2010 19:37)
======================

I am guessing you have never seen that documentary titled "The War on Democracy" by John Pilger.

Do yourself a favour and watch it. It will open you eyes. If you eyes are already open and all you want to do is smear your opponent and hope your side is never seen in truthful way then I have bad news for you. Other people around you are watching and reading material from credible people who totally oppose everything you say.

Preporučujem 7 Ne preporučujem 7
Zoran

pre 13 godina

There is enough evidence of witness intimidation at the Hague both in Milosevic's and Seselj's case. They have been subject to sleep deprivation, pressured during interviews, blackmailed, threatened and offered illegal payments of money. Here is a good documentary about Milosevic's case with witnesses admitting they were forced to lie.

Check http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FusfOqCtqc (there are 5 parts to that documentary)

As for Seselj's trial, we are 7 years into it now while it had taken 4 years just to get it started. In 2009, with only 7 hours of prosecution time left and having no intention of providing a defence the case still hasn't finished. It's nearly 2011!

Now listen to this - "The presiding judge however has declared he no longer wants a part of the trial as he deems it immoral and irrational as there is no way he can justly find Šešelj guilty."

Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seselj

It looks like the NATO court is investigating witness intimidation now.

"Spokesperson Christian Chartier noted that, following the independent investigation, due within six months, the court will determine if there are sufficient grounds to initiate contempt proceedings against investigators. According to statements sent to the court by Seselj, witnesses claimed that they were subject to sleep deprivation, pressured during interviews, blackmailed, threatened and offered illegal payments of money, and that their statements were not read before being signed."

Check http://jurist.org/paperchase/2010/08/icty-orders-independent-investigation-of-witness-intimidation-at-seselj-trial.php

I'm not sure how successful the NATO court investigating itself will be.

Anyway, you can continue wearing a blindfold and believe the propaganda or you can get the facts.

Preporučujem 8 Ne preporučujem 6
truthiness

pre 13 godina

@(Jugoslavija, 29 December 2010 22:51)

Great comments. No seriouslly , I couldnt stop laughing !!!
Your logic is perfect - simply ignore ALL empirical evidence that doesnt fit with your view. And then invent the rest. I have actually met pople like you. They are usually all conspiracy theorists.

Simple but effective !

Have a nice day :)

Preporučujem 11 Ne preporučujem 7
Je¿-Jedi

pre 13 godina

the recent outpouring of hate here -- the orchestrated campaign, whether fr belgrade, marty, moscow
(roberto, 29 December 2010 19:25)

It is planned carefully by Darth Vader and Jar-Jar Binks who are living on Death Star-II. And Moscow is instructing them. Be careful, the two perpetrators targeting anyone who has albanomania because of robot lobotomy.

Preporučujem 6 Ne preporučujem 9
The Lion This Time

pre 13 godina

I guess the americans can no longer afford to pay countries to recognize Kosovo so they have turned to bribing ordinary people.
(Mikael C, 29 December 2010 17:59)

I guess you're confusing the Yanks with the Russians. It is the Russians who do the bribing!
(Ian, UK, 29 December 2010 19:37)

You're grasping for straws and it is so obvious and pathetic. We all thought that after making yourself look like a complete fool by championing destroyed evidence as lack of evidence, that you would have picked up your toys by now and and gone home. Anyone that finds the organ harvesting issue so important to defend must feel personally threatened, or bought to spew forth lies and half- truths. If I am mistaken on the first assessment then it must be that your insufferable ego must feed on itself constantly by fooling you and making you believe that you are right and must be right no matter what the issue.

Preporučujem 8 Ne preporučujem 6
kgregovic@yahoo.ca

pre 13 godina

-- The difference being that the justice system saw enough evidence that decided to charge Milosevic and officially accuse him of war crimes. Now such a thing hasn't happened with Thaci. (johny, 29 December 2010 19:51)

RE; Wrong again Sherlock

There was no evidence to indict Slobodan Milosevic, he was apprehended to first face local charges and held in a Belgrade prison but they could not find any evidence to lay charges on him.

Contrary to the Yugoslav constitution at that time, he was held in jail and then Djinjdic and eventually Kostunica signed him over to the Hague Tribunal, from a false indictment produced by the Hague Tribunal.

The proseecutors main witness was Rade Markovic , the former head of the secret police of Yugoslavia. He actually revealed in his testimony the attempt to change his testimony to convict Milosevic blowing the prosecutors case to pieces. This was taken to closed camera session, so what happened after that remains a mystery, but Rade Markovic sentence was shortened to try to nail his President.

The cross examination of Rade Markovic was a pure act of cunning; you should read it sometime, you might actually learn something.

Regardless of Milosevic of possibly being a criminal in his own country, certainly not an international criminal by an stretch of the imagination.

As for Thaci, he has been a criminal all his life and has been on interpol on numerous occasions. He is no different than the Serbian drug lord Arkan, another war criminal who lived by the sword and eventually died by the sword; that fate awaits Thaci.

Preporučujem 8 Ne preporučujem 5
lowe

pre 13 godina

"-- The difference being that the justice system saw enough evidence that decided to charge Milosevic and officially accuse him of war crimes. Now such a thing hasn't happened with Thaci. When and if that happens you might actually have a point. Until then we're only dealing with your burning desire to believe in the current tabloid stories. However skepticism until ample evidence is presented, is how this world operates. If you had a scientific background you might be in a position to actually be able to understand that.
(johny, 29 December 2010 19:51) "

So a person is guilty the moment he/she is charged? He/she is also guilty as long as a lot of evidence is presented in court? How do these square with the legal principle that the accused remains innocent UNTIL proven guilty? You have not been able to refute this point.

My point was that an accused can still be found not guilty in the end notwithstanding the gravity of the accusations and the tons of evidence presented in court to support the prosecution's case.

In thi sense, Milosevic, Hitler, Jack the Ripper and, yes, even your precious Thaci are legally innocent. And why does anybody need a "scientific background" to understand this simple legal principle? I put it to you that it is actually yourself who lacked this "scientific background".

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 6
Simpatiku

pre 13 godina

Some people come cheap and Slobodan Petrović is one of them. Here is Thaci's contribution to Serbians in KiM with the help of NATO.

Before -> [link]
After -> [link]

And the thing is, Thaci and KiM Albanians are proud of their achievement. Slobodan Petrović has no morals.
(Zoran, 29 December 2010 11:11)

And Glas Javnosti is a source for you?

Preporučujem 12 Ne preporučujem 8
Jugoslavija

pre 13 godina

RE: To even hint at Milosevic's innocence should be a crime in itself.
(voiceofreason, 29 December 2010 16:01)

Re; The Voice of Treason

Let us again go through the following which you will agree with I am sure;

(1) "Milosevic started four war's"

False, he didn't start any wars. The JNA was caught in a middle of a civil war in Slovenia, Croatian and B&H whereby many barrackes were seized. In Kosovo, the KLA started the war murdering Serbian officers and cleansing Serbian civilians for many year's

(2) " The Butcher of the Balkans"

False, that was Andrija Artukovic, the Ustasha Commander during WW II who butchered many Yugoslavs. He was protected by the United States government until the late 1980's and finaly released for Trial In Yugoslavia. It was convenient for American public relations firms to steal the name from a true butcher and killer.

I can go on and on but if you can read.... the transcripts are still available on the ICTY website; of course he is innocent of international war crimes.

Not only is Milosevic innocent, he proved himself to be the best lawyer in the entire Hague Tribunal shredding the prosecutors case to pieces.

General Wesely Clark made a cameo appearance and found himself defending his book which incriminated himself; Rugova nearly spewed out that he was under protection of Milosevic protecting himself from the KLA who at the time were ready to eliminate him.

To bad the Hague Tribunal resorted to murder because it would have been entertaining to see the real war criminals on the witness stand like Bill Clinton, Half Bright Blair and the rest.

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 14
peggy

pre 13 godina

Sure! According to some Serbs, he is. And of course, the ICTY is biased and anti-Serbian, and couldn't find any evidence, and Milosevic was killed. And some more fairy tales, of an "anti-Serbian network"...
(Top, 29 December 2010 17:45)
======================

I know you are being sarcastic but that's exactly what happened.
One day the truth about this will come out too and you will feel silly for trying to be sarcastic now.
I am not naive to think that Milosevic was a saint. But just remember, in civil war everyone does things which are not to be proud of so Milosevic is no more guilty than the rest of them.
Guilty of genocide as he was indicted? Certainly not and you can laugh at this all you want.

Preporučujem 15 Ne preporučujem 18
Peggy

pre 13 godina

Your tirade cannot alter the fact that if a person is considered innocent until proven guilty by a court, then Milosevic is legally innocent. Any other way would be double standards.
(lowe, 29 December 2010 17:06)
=========================

True but like you said lack of proof does not indicate innocence, especially when witnesses are murdered and international community helps you by destroying evidence of your crimes.

Now none of this happened with Milosevic. No evidence being destroyed. Instead evidence was being manufactured even. They took years to exhaust any ridiculous witness they had and even tried to get some to incriminate themselves under the promise of immunity and still nothing.

Death was the only choice left.

Preporučujem 10 Ne preporučujem 18
Jaja

pre 13 godina

The tide is turning. With link this time!!

http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/sXDEVo_tAQqx0XkxrBkdEvQ/view.m?id=15&gid=commentisfree/2010/dec/29/us-israel-palestine-independence&cat=world

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 13
Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

pre 13 godina

To even hint at Milosevic's innocence should be a crime in itself.
(voiceofreason, 29 December 2010 16:01)

"You assert yourself to be what you are not and deny yourself what you are".

Preporučujem 7 Ne preporučujem 13
Joe

pre 13 godina

Before -> [link]
After -> [link]
Zoran

Due to the very high density of population in Kosovo I imagine that Serbs who moved from Kosovo to Central Serbia (low density) did the right thing.

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 6
johny

pre 13 godina

"Milosevic was never found guilty by the international court and so is innocent too, right?"
(lowe, 29 December 2010 11:26)

-- The difference being that the justice system saw enough evidence that decided to charge Milosevic and officially accuse him of war crimes. Now such a thing hasn't happened with Thaci. When and if that happens you might actually have a point. Until then we're only dealing with your burning desire to believe in the current tabloid stories. However skepticism until ample evidence is presented, is how this world operates. If you had a scientific background you might be in a position to actually be able to understand that.

Preporučujem 18 Ne preporučujem 11
Ian, UK

pre 13 godina

I guess the americans can no longer afford to pay countries to recognize Kosovo so they have turned to bribing ordinary people.
(Mikael C, 29 December 2010 17:59)

I guess you're confusing the Yanks with the Russians. It is the Russians who do the bribing!

Preporučujem 20 Ne preporučujem 15
roberto

pre 13 godina

--Independent Liberal Party (SLS) leader Slobodan Petrović says his party is willing to form a ruling coalition with Hashim Thaci's Democratic Party of Kosovo.--

Well, some hopeful news coming from Kosova.

This is NOT all about Thaci, and allegations of organ trafficking, regardless of the spin.

this IS about compromise. this IS about pragmatism. this IS about looking forward. this IS about not being tied to the strings of the blg regime, but looking out for your own people's interests, for common interests.

IF thaci (or others) ends up standing trial on whichever (if any)charges are supported by real evidence, then petrovic and his peers will find other Kosovar albanian leaders, parties, with whom to make alliances.

for the separatists, racists, ethnic cleansers, this is all heresy. big time. Petrovic will surely be accused of treason, taking $$ from the west, being an enemy of the people -- in other words, the usual. he will also be target of their "nice" assassination squads (sorry to say) -- mark my words on that. so, security...

these kinds of pragmatic steps are encouraging, and also reminiscent of the djindjic govt, remember him? now we just have cedi and a few of his colleagues, not to mention ngo's and independent dissidents(still silenced here).

the recent outpouring of hate here -- the orchestrated campaign, whether fr belgrade, marty, moscow, whatever, is just same old, same old, the spec's may differ slightly.

if there are real charges, do the damn investigation, file the charges, take people to court. demand justice! but the campaign ag. Kosova has been so sleazy, so nasty, so over-the-top -- like i said, same old, same old, fr this "nice" shark tank.

compromise and pragmatism is the name of the game. criminals and crime need to be prosecuted, while real progress needs to be encouraged. keep issues distinct and clear, not confused and murky. (like: "kosova is going down!!")

and i am so glad that mladic has finally been turned in to the hague. mazel tov. it was about time.

oh, he hasn't been? never mind.

ciao!

roberto
michi-game

Preporučujem 11 Ne preporučujem 25
iliri

pre 13 godina

''How many K-Serbs did vote in the election? Did we ever get the final count?
(Mike, 29 December 2010 17:50) ''

Yep, those damn traitors ! Beograd should have eleminated more slavic activists who collborated with Pristina. Appearently, K-serbs did not get the message...

Preporučujem 16 Ne preporučujem 10
Mikael C

pre 13 godina

I wonder how much money they paid this Serb to say what he did? He problably lives in the West and cashes in on being a "politician" in Kosovo. I guess the americans can no longer afford to pay countries to recognize Kosovo so they have turned to bribing ordinary people.

Preporučujem 18 Ne preporučujem 22
Mike

pre 13 godina

Public Relations Nightmare (PRN) and other members of the Albanian cyber intelligenstia seem to forget that Petrovic's SLS party is basically financed by Pristina and has ties to Thaci. Joining his government (however long it lasts) is not a surprise. Additionally, the SLS was reported by Trajkovic's party to have paid 50 euros to any Serb that voted for them. Corruption and voting fraud seem to find allies.

"Tides" turning and Serbs coming to accept "reality" are the illogical statements from the usual clueless suspects.

How many K-Serbs did vote in the election? Did we ever get the final count?

Preporučujem 16 Ne preporučujem 18
Jovan

pre 13 godina

it´s really amazing!

not a week has passed, since the greater-albanian project hast suffered a heavy blow just because of one single report from an european official, and that puts our dear k-albanian friends so much on fear that they are not even identifying the "suddenly" emerging counter-propaganda as what it actually is!

well, if there are some very few Serbs bought or even forced to comply with criminal temporary rulers in occupied southern Serbia,... that´s more a sign of what brutal oppression can achieve.
but,...
no Albanian should fool himself with naive expectations about getting away with serbian territory.

you will fail. keep that in mind, before you write such a nonsense again, my dear k-albanian friends.

@PRN: you are falling for the most primitive propaganda-tricks! my compliments for that level of ....

you made my day! =)

Preporučujem 16 Ne preporučujem 20
Top

pre 13 godina

"Milosevic was never found guilty by the international court and so is innocent too, right?"
(lowe, 29 December 2010 11:26)

Sure! According to some Serbs, he is. And of course, the ICTY is biased and anti-Serbian, and couldn't find any evidence, and Milosevic was killed. And some more fairy tales, of an "anti-Serbian network"...

Preporučujem 19 Ne preporučujem 10
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Huge difference in innocence and not proven guilty especially when the world was robbed of a verdict. What single country benefitted from Milosevic's early death?
Also a big difference in documented actions and allegations without documentation.
To even hint at Milosevic's innocence should be a crime in itself.
(voiceofreason, 29 December 2010 16:01) "

Your tirade cannot alter the fact that if a person is considered innocent until proven guilty by a court, then Milosevic is legally innocent. Any other way would be double standards.

Preporučujem 12 Ne preporučujem 15
Belarus Tractor

pre 13 godina

Yes this party is facing the reality.Once the north is partitioned they will be stuck with our loyal brothers in the south.And yes the North is already partitioned which will be public in the coming months.And I cant wait to see when Vojoslav S! comes back to Serbia to have a town hall meeting with serbian citizens in presavo.

Preporučujem 6 Ne preporučujem 19
Je¿ neoliberalny

pre 13 godina

A good news is that SKY are clearing up
(PRN, 29 December 2010 15:28)

Yes. Mother Russia sh*t the pants: one organic Hashish Baksheesh with 5 neo-lieral Serbs in tow is emerging. We shall run.

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 14
voiceofreason

pre 13 godina

Milosevic was never found guilty by the international court and so is innocent too, right?
(lowe, 29 December 2010 11:26)
Huge difference in innocence and not proven guilty especially when the world was robbed of a verdict. What single country benefitted from Milosevic's early death?
Also a big difference in documented actions and allegations without documentation.
To even hint at Milosevic's innocence should be a crime in itself.

Preporučujem 25 Ne preporučujem 14
Jaja

pre 13 godina

The tide is starting to turn. I wonder if this is a result of Wikileaks. Articles pointing out the hypocrisy of the West and the il"legal" UDI. You never would have read this a year ago.

Preporučujem 12 Ne preporučujem 11
Zoran

pre 13 godina

I think Zoran got the second link during the time Slobo was doing Ethnic cleansing.
(kebnkos, 29 December 2010 15:30)
--
The second link was at a time KiM Albanians and NATO were involved in their second wave of ethnic cleansing. Slobo had already spent his 4th year in the Hague by then so nice try attempting to blame him.

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 22
kebnkos

pre 13 godina

Some people come cheap and Slobodan Petrović is one of them. Here is Thaci's contribution to Serbians in KiM with the help of NATO.
Before -> [link]
After -> [link]

-I think Zoran got the second link during the time Slobo was doing Ethnic cleansing.

Preporučujem 17 Ne preporučujem 15
PRN

pre 13 godina

As I pointed out, Serbians are beginning to face REALITY

See how clean is being seen Thaci by the VBA....strange but true http://www.nspm.rs/hronika/svetko-kovac-vojno-bezbednosna-agencija-nema-tacijev-dosije.html?alphabet=l

Serbs need to get serious and withhold the check to Mr. Marty, as the latter deserve some rehabilitation somewhere in Kosovo.

A good news is that SKY are clearing up

Preporučujem 21 Ne preporučujem 17
PRN

pre 13 godina

As I pointed out, Serbians are beginning to face REALITY

See how clean is being seen Thaci by the VBA....strange but true http://www.nspm.rs/hronika/svetko-kovac-vojno-bezbednosna-agencija-nema-tacijev-dosije.html?alphabet=l

Serbs need to get serious and withhold the check to Mr. Marty, as the latter deserve some rehabilitation somewhere in Kosovo.

A good news is that SKY are clearing up

Preporučujem 22 Ne preporučujem 20
lowe

pre 13 godina

"remember mr thaqi is free man for new thet make him not guilty milosevic died in hage all 'iwhant to see evidence where is the evidence thet mr thaqi did commite those crimes where is the evidence we all waiting for evidence but in the and it looks just like more like hollywood movie (drama)
(rolandi, 29 December 2010 12:20) "

You stated that a person is innocent until found guilty -- which I agree with.

Well, Milosevic may have been brought to the Hague, but he was NOT convicted by them. So that makes him innocent too right? You have evaded this question. Or are there double standards here?

Preporučujem 34 Ne preporučujem 21
Olli

pre 13 godina

It is a simple fact: Thaci is innocent until proven guilty in court. We can't overstep this righteous conduct.

We can say he is a suspect.

Preporučujem 34 Ne preporučujem 15
arbrije

pre 13 godina

at rolandi i'egree with you if ther is no evidence how are you goin to prove thet hi and KLA did comite those crimes. i'thing this drama is goin to come out thet never happen. dick marty and carla delponte are goin to make ther won book about ther life

Preporučujem 19 Ne preporučujem 15
rolandi

pre 13 godina

Milosevic was never found guilty by the international court and so is innocent too, right?
(lowe) remember mr thaqi is free man for new thet make him not guilty milosevic died in hage all 'iwhant to see evidence where is the evidence thet mr thaqi did commite those crimes where is the evidence we all waiting for evidence but in the and it looks just like more like hollywood movie (drama)

Preporučujem 28 Ne preporučujem 23
lowe

pre 13 godina

"I agree with him 100 %. remember, thaci is innocent until proven guilty.
(rolandi, 29 December 2010 10:55)"

Milosevic was never found guilty by the international court and so is innocent too, right?

Preporučujem 32 Ne preporučujem 30
jb

pre 13 godina

and karadzic and milosovic want in. I also spoke with mladic, and he is also thinking about it. Milo also wants to have a go at another job.

Preporučujem 23 Ne preporučujem 20
Ancient Illyria

pre 13 godina

I am baffled.

These words coming from a Serb and living in Kosova.

I hope there are many Serbs out there who think the same and that the few (mostly those give their weird comment on B92) are the minority.

Perhaps there is light at the end of the tunnel between the Albanians & Serbs.

I sure hope so.

Preporučujem 51 Ne preporučujem 39
Drownotherday

pre 13 godina

""These are serious accusations, but in this case we need to work on the principle that everyone is innocent until proven otherwise," the SLS leader stressed."

Proud day for Kosovo, please continue :)

Preporučujem 32 Ne preporučujem 29
Zoran

pre 13 godina

Some people come cheap and Slobodan Petrović is one of them. Here is Thaci's contribution to Serbians in KiM with the help of NATO.

Before -> http://www.alternativeinsight.com/KOSOVO1999.jpeg
After -> http://www.alternativeinsight.com/KOSOVO2004.jpeg

And the thing is, Thaci and KiM Albanians are proud of their achievement. Slobodan Petrović has no morals.

Preporučujem 36 Ne preporučujem 42
highduke

pre 13 godina

A proportionally larger number of those deceased people that Thaci manipulated for fake votes probably went to this fake puppet 'serb' party more than any other

Preporučujem 28 Ne preporučujem 23
PRN

pre 13 godina

"Serb party wants to join Thaci"

Ohhhh YES.
The Serbian lies lasted 3 days. Though new 'findings' by BIA (about Thaci and Berisha) in the coming days, may not be excluded.

Gooood Moooorning...
WAKE UP dear friends. Now it is time to get back to real BUSINESS.

Serbs in Kosovo CANNOT be manipulated anymore.

Preporučujem 64 Ne preporučujem 49
rolandi

pre 13 godina

Commenting of the Council of Europe rapporteur Dick Marty's report on trafficking in organs of Kosovo Serbs, he said it contained some grave charges.

"These are serious accusations, but in this case we need to work on the principle that everyone is innocent until proven otherwise," the SLS leader stressed. I agree with him 100 %. remember, thaci is innocent until proven guilty.

Preporučujem 50 Ne preporučujem 29
PRN

pre 13 godina

"Serb party wants to join Thaci"

Ohhhh YES.
The Serbian lies lasted 3 days. Though new 'findings' by BIA (about Thaci and Berisha) in the coming days, may not be excluded.

Gooood Moooorning...
WAKE UP dear friends. Now it is time to get back to real BUSINESS.

Serbs in Kosovo CANNOT be manipulated anymore.

Preporučujem 64 Ne preporučujem 49
Ancient Illyria

pre 13 godina

I am baffled.

These words coming from a Serb and living in Kosova.

I hope there are many Serbs out there who think the same and that the few (mostly those give their weird comment on B92) are the minority.

Perhaps there is light at the end of the tunnel between the Albanians & Serbs.

I sure hope so.

Preporučujem 51 Ne preporučujem 39
rolandi

pre 13 godina

Commenting of the Council of Europe rapporteur Dick Marty's report on trafficking in organs of Kosovo Serbs, he said it contained some grave charges.

"These are serious accusations, but in this case we need to work on the principle that everyone is innocent until proven otherwise," the SLS leader stressed. I agree with him 100 %. remember, thaci is innocent until proven guilty.

Preporučujem 50 Ne preporučujem 29
Zoran

pre 13 godina

Some people come cheap and Slobodan Petrović is one of them. Here is Thaci's contribution to Serbians in KiM with the help of NATO.

Before -> http://www.alternativeinsight.com/KOSOVO1999.jpeg
After -> http://www.alternativeinsight.com/KOSOVO2004.jpeg

And the thing is, Thaci and KiM Albanians are proud of their achievement. Slobodan Petrović has no morals.

Preporučujem 36 Ne preporučujem 42
Olli

pre 13 godina

It is a simple fact: Thaci is innocent until proven guilty in court. We can't overstep this righteous conduct.

We can say he is a suspect.

Preporučujem 34 Ne preporučujem 15
lowe

pre 13 godina

"remember mr thaqi is free man for new thet make him not guilty milosevic died in hage all 'iwhant to see evidence where is the evidence thet mr thaqi did commite those crimes where is the evidence we all waiting for evidence but in the and it looks just like more like hollywood movie (drama)
(rolandi, 29 December 2010 12:20) "

You stated that a person is innocent until found guilty -- which I agree with.

Well, Milosevic may have been brought to the Hague, but he was NOT convicted by them. So that makes him innocent too right? You have evaded this question. Or are there double standards here?

Preporučujem 34 Ne preporučujem 21
Drownotherday

pre 13 godina

""These are serious accusations, but in this case we need to work on the principle that everyone is innocent until proven otherwise," the SLS leader stressed."

Proud day for Kosovo, please continue :)

Preporučujem 32 Ne preporučujem 29
lowe

pre 13 godina

"I agree with him 100 %. remember, thaci is innocent until proven guilty.
(rolandi, 29 December 2010 10:55)"

Milosevic was never found guilty by the international court and so is innocent too, right?

Preporučujem 32 Ne preporučujem 30
highduke

pre 13 godina

A proportionally larger number of those deceased people that Thaci manipulated for fake votes probably went to this fake puppet 'serb' party more than any other

Preporučujem 28 Ne preporučujem 23
rolandi

pre 13 godina

Milosevic was never found guilty by the international court and so is innocent too, right?
(lowe) remember mr thaqi is free man for new thet make him not guilty milosevic died in hage all 'iwhant to see evidence where is the evidence thet mr thaqi did commite those crimes where is the evidence we all waiting for evidence but in the and it looks just like more like hollywood movie (drama)

Preporučujem 28 Ne preporučujem 23
voiceofreason

pre 13 godina

Milosevic was never found guilty by the international court and so is innocent too, right?
(lowe, 29 December 2010 11:26)
Huge difference in innocence and not proven guilty especially when the world was robbed of a verdict. What single country benefitted from Milosevic's early death?
Also a big difference in documented actions and allegations without documentation.
To even hint at Milosevic's innocence should be a crime in itself.

Preporučujem 25 Ne preporučujem 14
jb

pre 13 godina

and karadzic and milosovic want in. I also spoke with mladic, and he is also thinking about it. Milo also wants to have a go at another job.

Preporučujem 23 Ne preporučujem 20
PRN

pre 13 godina

As I pointed out, Serbians are beginning to face REALITY

See how clean is being seen Thaci by the VBA....strange but true http://www.nspm.rs/hronika/svetko-kovac-vojno-bezbednosna-agencija-nema-tacijev-dosije.html?alphabet=l

Serbs need to get serious and withhold the check to Mr. Marty, as the latter deserve some rehabilitation somewhere in Kosovo.

A good news is that SKY are clearing up

Preporučujem 22 Ne preporučujem 20
PRN

pre 13 godina

As I pointed out, Serbians are beginning to face REALITY

See how clean is being seen Thaci by the VBA....strange but true http://www.nspm.rs/hronika/svetko-kovac-vojno-bezbednosna-agencija-nema-tacijev-dosije.html?alphabet=l

Serbs need to get serious and withhold the check to Mr. Marty, as the latter deserve some rehabilitation somewhere in Kosovo.

A good news is that SKY are clearing up

Preporučujem 21 Ne preporučujem 17
Ian, UK

pre 13 godina

I guess the americans can no longer afford to pay countries to recognize Kosovo so they have turned to bribing ordinary people.
(Mikael C, 29 December 2010 17:59)

I guess you're confusing the Yanks with the Russians. It is the Russians who do the bribing!

Preporučujem 20 Ne preporučujem 15
arbrije

pre 13 godina

at rolandi i'egree with you if ther is no evidence how are you goin to prove thet hi and KLA did comite those crimes. i'thing this drama is goin to come out thet never happen. dick marty and carla delponte are goin to make ther won book about ther life

Preporučujem 19 Ne preporučujem 15
Top

pre 13 godina

"Milosevic was never found guilty by the international court and so is innocent too, right?"
(lowe, 29 December 2010 11:26)

Sure! According to some Serbs, he is. And of course, the ICTY is biased and anti-Serbian, and couldn't find any evidence, and Milosevic was killed. And some more fairy tales, of an "anti-Serbian network"...

Preporučujem 19 Ne preporučujem 10
Mikael C

pre 13 godina

I wonder how much money they paid this Serb to say what he did? He problably lives in the West and cashes in on being a "politician" in Kosovo. I guess the americans can no longer afford to pay countries to recognize Kosovo so they have turned to bribing ordinary people.

Preporučujem 18 Ne preporučujem 22
johny

pre 13 godina

"Milosevic was never found guilty by the international court and so is innocent too, right?"
(lowe, 29 December 2010 11:26)

-- The difference being that the justice system saw enough evidence that decided to charge Milosevic and officially accuse him of war crimes. Now such a thing hasn't happened with Thaci. When and if that happens you might actually have a point. Until then we're only dealing with your burning desire to believe in the current tabloid stories. However skepticism until ample evidence is presented, is how this world operates. If you had a scientific background you might be in a position to actually be able to understand that.

Preporučujem 18 Ne preporučujem 11
kebnkos

pre 13 godina

Some people come cheap and Slobodan Petrović is one of them. Here is Thaci's contribution to Serbians in KiM with the help of NATO.
Before -> [link]
After -> [link]

-I think Zoran got the second link during the time Slobo was doing Ethnic cleansing.

Preporučujem 17 Ne preporučujem 15
Mike

pre 13 godina

Public Relations Nightmare (PRN) and other members of the Albanian cyber intelligenstia seem to forget that Petrovic's SLS party is basically financed by Pristina and has ties to Thaci. Joining his government (however long it lasts) is not a surprise. Additionally, the SLS was reported by Trajkovic's party to have paid 50 euros to any Serb that voted for them. Corruption and voting fraud seem to find allies.

"Tides" turning and Serbs coming to accept "reality" are the illogical statements from the usual clueless suspects.

How many K-Serbs did vote in the election? Did we ever get the final count?

Preporučujem 16 Ne preporučujem 18
Jovan

pre 13 godina

it´s really amazing!

not a week has passed, since the greater-albanian project hast suffered a heavy blow just because of one single report from an european official, and that puts our dear k-albanian friends so much on fear that they are not even identifying the "suddenly" emerging counter-propaganda as what it actually is!

well, if there are some very few Serbs bought or even forced to comply with criminal temporary rulers in occupied southern Serbia,... that´s more a sign of what brutal oppression can achieve.
but,...
no Albanian should fool himself with naive expectations about getting away with serbian territory.

you will fail. keep that in mind, before you write such a nonsense again, my dear k-albanian friends.

@PRN: you are falling for the most primitive propaganda-tricks! my compliments for that level of ....

you made my day! =)

Preporučujem 16 Ne preporučujem 20
iliri

pre 13 godina

''How many K-Serbs did vote in the election? Did we ever get the final count?
(Mike, 29 December 2010 17:50) ''

Yep, those damn traitors ! Beograd should have eleminated more slavic activists who collborated with Pristina. Appearently, K-serbs did not get the message...

Preporučujem 16 Ne preporučujem 10
peggy

pre 13 godina

Sure! According to some Serbs, he is. And of course, the ICTY is biased and anti-Serbian, and couldn't find any evidence, and Milosevic was killed. And some more fairy tales, of an "anti-Serbian network"...
(Top, 29 December 2010 17:45)
======================

I know you are being sarcastic but that's exactly what happened.
One day the truth about this will come out too and you will feel silly for trying to be sarcastic now.
I am not naive to think that Milosevic was a saint. But just remember, in civil war everyone does things which are not to be proud of so Milosevic is no more guilty than the rest of them.
Guilty of genocide as he was indicted? Certainly not and you can laugh at this all you want.

Preporučujem 15 Ne preporučujem 18
Jaja

pre 13 godina

The tide is starting to turn. I wonder if this is a result of Wikileaks. Articles pointing out the hypocrisy of the West and the il"legal" UDI. You never would have read this a year ago.

Preporučujem 12 Ne preporučujem 11
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Huge difference in innocence and not proven guilty especially when the world was robbed of a verdict. What single country benefitted from Milosevic's early death?
Also a big difference in documented actions and allegations without documentation.
To even hint at Milosevic's innocence should be a crime in itself.
(voiceofreason, 29 December 2010 16:01) "

Your tirade cannot alter the fact that if a person is considered innocent until proven guilty by a court, then Milosevic is legally innocent. Any other way would be double standards.

Preporučujem 12 Ne preporučujem 15
Simpatiku

pre 13 godina

Some people come cheap and Slobodan Petrović is one of them. Here is Thaci's contribution to Serbians in KiM with the help of NATO.

Before -> [link]
After -> [link]

And the thing is, Thaci and KiM Albanians are proud of their achievement. Slobodan Petrović has no morals.
(Zoran, 29 December 2010 11:11)

And Glas Javnosti is a source for you?

Preporučujem 12 Ne preporučujem 8
roberto

pre 13 godina

--Independent Liberal Party (SLS) leader Slobodan Petrović says his party is willing to form a ruling coalition with Hashim Thaci's Democratic Party of Kosovo.--

Well, some hopeful news coming from Kosova.

This is NOT all about Thaci, and allegations of organ trafficking, regardless of the spin.

this IS about compromise. this IS about pragmatism. this IS about looking forward. this IS about not being tied to the strings of the blg regime, but looking out for your own people's interests, for common interests.

IF thaci (or others) ends up standing trial on whichever (if any)charges are supported by real evidence, then petrovic and his peers will find other Kosovar albanian leaders, parties, with whom to make alliances.

for the separatists, racists, ethnic cleansers, this is all heresy. big time. Petrovic will surely be accused of treason, taking $$ from the west, being an enemy of the people -- in other words, the usual. he will also be target of their "nice" assassination squads (sorry to say) -- mark my words on that. so, security...

these kinds of pragmatic steps are encouraging, and also reminiscent of the djindjic govt, remember him? now we just have cedi and a few of his colleagues, not to mention ngo's and independent dissidents(still silenced here).

the recent outpouring of hate here -- the orchestrated campaign, whether fr belgrade, marty, moscow, whatever, is just same old, same old, the spec's may differ slightly.

if there are real charges, do the damn investigation, file the charges, take people to court. demand justice! but the campaign ag. Kosova has been so sleazy, so nasty, so over-the-top -- like i said, same old, same old, fr this "nice" shark tank.

compromise and pragmatism is the name of the game. criminals and crime need to be prosecuted, while real progress needs to be encouraged. keep issues distinct and clear, not confused and murky. (like: "kosova is going down!!")

and i am so glad that mladic has finally been turned in to the hague. mazel tov. it was about time.

oh, he hasn't been? never mind.

ciao!

roberto
michi-game

Preporučujem 11 Ne preporučujem 25
truthiness

pre 13 godina

@(Jugoslavija, 29 December 2010 22:51)

Great comments. No seriouslly , I couldnt stop laughing !!!
Your logic is perfect - simply ignore ALL empirical evidence that doesnt fit with your view. And then invent the rest. I have actually met pople like you. They are usually all conspiracy theorists.

Simple but effective !

Have a nice day :)

Preporučujem 11 Ne preporučujem 7
Peggy

pre 13 godina

Your tirade cannot alter the fact that if a person is considered innocent until proven guilty by a court, then Milosevic is legally innocent. Any other way would be double standards.
(lowe, 29 December 2010 17:06)
=========================

True but like you said lack of proof does not indicate innocence, especially when witnesses are murdered and international community helps you by destroying evidence of your crimes.

Now none of this happened with Milosevic. No evidence being destroyed. Instead evidence was being manufactured even. They took years to exhaust any ridiculous witness they had and even tried to get some to incriminate themselves under the promise of immunity and still nothing.

Death was the only choice left.

Preporučujem 10 Ne preporučujem 18
Zoran

pre 13 godina

I think Zoran got the second link during the time Slobo was doing Ethnic cleansing.
(kebnkos, 29 December 2010 15:30)
--
The second link was at a time KiM Albanians and NATO were involved in their second wave of ethnic cleansing. Slobo had already spent his 4th year in the Hague by then so nice try attempting to blame him.

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 22
Je¿ neoliberalny

pre 13 godina

A good news is that SKY are clearing up
(PRN, 29 December 2010 15:28)

Yes. Mother Russia sh*t the pants: one organic Hashish Baksheesh with 5 neo-lieral Serbs in tow is emerging. We shall run.

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 14
Joe

pre 13 godina

Before -> [link]
After -> [link]
Zoran

Due to the very high density of population in Kosovo I imagine that Serbs who moved from Kosovo to Central Serbia (low density) did the right thing.

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 6
Jugoslavija

pre 13 godina

RE: To even hint at Milosevic's innocence should be a crime in itself.
(voiceofreason, 29 December 2010 16:01)

Re; The Voice of Treason

Let us again go through the following which you will agree with I am sure;

(1) "Milosevic started four war's"

False, he didn't start any wars. The JNA was caught in a middle of a civil war in Slovenia, Croatian and B&H whereby many barrackes were seized. In Kosovo, the KLA started the war murdering Serbian officers and cleansing Serbian civilians for many year's

(2) " The Butcher of the Balkans"

False, that was Andrija Artukovic, the Ustasha Commander during WW II who butchered many Yugoslavs. He was protected by the United States government until the late 1980's and finaly released for Trial In Yugoslavia. It was convenient for American public relations firms to steal the name from a true butcher and killer.

I can go on and on but if you can read.... the transcripts are still available on the ICTY website; of course he is innocent of international war crimes.

Not only is Milosevic innocent, he proved himself to be the best lawyer in the entire Hague Tribunal shredding the prosecutors case to pieces.

General Wesely Clark made a cameo appearance and found himself defending his book which incriminated himself; Rugova nearly spewed out that he was under protection of Milosevic protecting himself from the KLA who at the time were ready to eliminate him.

To bad the Hague Tribunal resorted to murder because it would have been entertaining to see the real war criminals on the witness stand like Bill Clinton, Half Bright Blair and the rest.

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 14
kgregovic@yahoo.ca

pre 13 godina

-- The difference being that the justice system saw enough evidence that decided to charge Milosevic and officially accuse him of war crimes. Now such a thing hasn't happened with Thaci. (johny, 29 December 2010 19:51)

RE; Wrong again Sherlock

There was no evidence to indict Slobodan Milosevic, he was apprehended to first face local charges and held in a Belgrade prison but they could not find any evidence to lay charges on him.

Contrary to the Yugoslav constitution at that time, he was held in jail and then Djinjdic and eventually Kostunica signed him over to the Hague Tribunal, from a false indictment produced by the Hague Tribunal.

The proseecutors main witness was Rade Markovic , the former head of the secret police of Yugoslavia. He actually revealed in his testimony the attempt to change his testimony to convict Milosevic blowing the prosecutors case to pieces. This was taken to closed camera session, so what happened after that remains a mystery, but Rade Markovic sentence was shortened to try to nail his President.

The cross examination of Rade Markovic was a pure act of cunning; you should read it sometime, you might actually learn something.

Regardless of Milosevic of possibly being a criminal in his own country, certainly not an international criminal by an stretch of the imagination.

As for Thaci, he has been a criminal all his life and has been on interpol on numerous occasions. He is no different than the Serbian drug lord Arkan, another war criminal who lived by the sword and eventually died by the sword; that fate awaits Thaci.

Preporučujem 8 Ne preporučujem 5
The Lion This Time

pre 13 godina

I guess the americans can no longer afford to pay countries to recognize Kosovo so they have turned to bribing ordinary people.
(Mikael C, 29 December 2010 17:59)

I guess you're confusing the Yanks with the Russians. It is the Russians who do the bribing!
(Ian, UK, 29 December 2010 19:37)

You're grasping for straws and it is so obvious and pathetic. We all thought that after making yourself look like a complete fool by championing destroyed evidence as lack of evidence, that you would have picked up your toys by now and and gone home. Anyone that finds the organ harvesting issue so important to defend must feel personally threatened, or bought to spew forth lies and half- truths. If I am mistaken on the first assessment then it must be that your insufferable ego must feed on itself constantly by fooling you and making you believe that you are right and must be right no matter what the issue.

Preporučujem 8 Ne preporučujem 6
Zoran

pre 13 godina

There is enough evidence of witness intimidation at the Hague both in Milosevic's and Seselj's case. They have been subject to sleep deprivation, pressured during interviews, blackmailed, threatened and offered illegal payments of money. Here is a good documentary about Milosevic's case with witnesses admitting they were forced to lie.

Check http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FusfOqCtqc (there are 5 parts to that documentary)

As for Seselj's trial, we are 7 years into it now while it had taken 4 years just to get it started. In 2009, with only 7 hours of prosecution time left and having no intention of providing a defence the case still hasn't finished. It's nearly 2011!

Now listen to this - "The presiding judge however has declared he no longer wants a part of the trial as he deems it immoral and irrational as there is no way he can justly find Šešelj guilty."

Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seselj

It looks like the NATO court is investigating witness intimidation now.

"Spokesperson Christian Chartier noted that, following the independent investigation, due within six months, the court will determine if there are sufficient grounds to initiate contempt proceedings against investigators. According to statements sent to the court by Seselj, witnesses claimed that they were subject to sleep deprivation, pressured during interviews, blackmailed, threatened and offered illegal payments of money, and that their statements were not read before being signed."

Check http://jurist.org/paperchase/2010/08/icty-orders-independent-investigation-of-witness-intimidation-at-seselj-trial.php

I'm not sure how successful the NATO court investigating itself will be.

Anyway, you can continue wearing a blindfold and believe the propaganda or you can get the facts.

Preporučujem 8 Ne preporučujem 6
Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

pre 13 godina

To even hint at Milosevic's innocence should be a crime in itself.
(voiceofreason, 29 December 2010 16:01)

"You assert yourself to be what you are not and deny yourself what you are".

Preporučujem 7 Ne preporučujem 13
Peggy

pre 13 godina

I guess you're confusing the Yanks with the Russians. It is the Russians who do the bribing!
(Ian, UK, 29 December 2010 19:37)
======================

I am guessing you have never seen that documentary titled "The War on Democracy" by John Pilger.

Do yourself a favour and watch it. It will open you eyes. If you eyes are already open and all you want to do is smear your opponent and hope your side is never seen in truthful way then I have bad news for you. Other people around you are watching and reading material from credible people who totally oppose everything you say.

Preporučujem 7 Ne preporučujem 7
Belarus Tractor

pre 13 godina

Yes this party is facing the reality.Once the north is partitioned they will be stuck with our loyal brothers in the south.And yes the North is already partitioned which will be public in the coming months.And I cant wait to see when Vojoslav S! comes back to Serbia to have a town hall meeting with serbian citizens in presavo.

Preporučujem 6 Ne preporučujem 19
Je¿-Jedi

pre 13 godina

the recent outpouring of hate here -- the orchestrated campaign, whether fr belgrade, marty, moscow
(roberto, 29 December 2010 19:25)

It is planned carefully by Darth Vader and Jar-Jar Binks who are living on Death Star-II. And Moscow is instructing them. Be careful, the two perpetrators targeting anyone who has albanomania because of robot lobotomy.

Preporučujem 6 Ne preporučujem 9
Jaja

pre 13 godina

The tide is turning. With link this time!!

http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/sXDEVo_tAQqx0XkxrBkdEvQ/view.m?id=15&gid=commentisfree/2010/dec/29/us-israel-palestine-independence&cat=world

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 13
lowe

pre 13 godina

"-- The difference being that the justice system saw enough evidence that decided to charge Milosevic and officially accuse him of war crimes. Now such a thing hasn't happened with Thaci. When and if that happens you might actually have a point. Until then we're only dealing with your burning desire to believe in the current tabloid stories. However skepticism until ample evidence is presented, is how this world operates. If you had a scientific background you might be in a position to actually be able to understand that.
(johny, 29 December 2010 19:51) "

So a person is guilty the moment he/she is charged? He/she is also guilty as long as a lot of evidence is presented in court? How do these square with the legal principle that the accused remains innocent UNTIL proven guilty? You have not been able to refute this point.

My point was that an accused can still be found not guilty in the end notwithstanding the gravity of the accusations and the tons of evidence presented in court to support the prosecution's case.

In thi sense, Milosevic, Hitler, Jack the Ripper and, yes, even your precious Thaci are legally innocent. And why does anybody need a "scientific background" to understand this simple legal principle? I put it to you that it is actually yourself who lacked this "scientific background".

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 6
johny

pre 13 godina

"So a person is guilty the moment he/she is charged? He/she is also guilty as long as a lot of evidence is presented in court? "

-- Not at all. That is not at all what I have been saying. A person is the accused the moment he is officially charged. That happens only if there is ample evidence against that person and such evidence is presented to the justice system which then makes such charges. A person is not the accused the moment a tabloid story appears on the internet; simply because the appearance of a tabloid story is no indication that ample evidence was submitted to the justice system to make official charges against the person. There is a big difference here. Once a person is charged by the justice system; even though he is not guilty, part of the justice system believes that there is enough evidence to prove the person's guilt. Now if a person is not charged but only appears on a tabloid story then that means there is no evidence whatsoever and no part of the justice system which believes there is ample evidence to prove the person's guilt. So the difference is pretty big. Tabloid stories= no evidence whatsoever presented to the justice system and no part of the justice system has any evidence to prove the person's guilt. Charged by the justice system= part of the justice system has ample evidence to believe that guilt can be proven.

"How do these square with the legal principle that the accused remains innocent UNTIL proven guilty? You have not been able to refute this point. "

-- I hope what I stated above satisfies you.

"My point was that an accused can still be found not guilty in the end notwithstanding the gravity of the accusations and the tons of evidence presented in court to support the prosecution's case. "

-- Sure. Nobody is saying the opposite.

"In thi sense, Milosevic, Hitler, Jack the Ripper and, yes, even your precious Thaci are legally innocent."

--Sure they are all innocent because they weren't proven guilty. However they are not equivalent to each other. I'll explain below.

"And why does anybody need a "scientific background" to understand this simple legal principle?"


-- You don't need it. However someone with a scientific background will always be skeptic unless evidence exists. I'll explain. In the scientific world, credence is given to data. Data is the evidence. That is why no scientific paper is published and taken as true without releasing your data and without releasing your methods and procedures. These are the evidence. Once such evidence is released; then it is peer reviewed to ensure their accuracy. For example there is ample evidence about the existence of gravity. The evidence has been reproduced thousands of times. Now there are allegations about the existence of parallel universes; but nobody has been able to show any evidence about it. So the existence of such allegations by some scientists without any evidence to back it up, doesn't exactly make parallel universes the scientific equivalent of gravity. This is why people are still skeptic about the existence of parallel universes but not skeptic about the existence of gravity. This is also what brings us to Marty.

Now in your case you want to lump Thaci together with Milosevic. So while they're innocent because nobody has been proven guilty; they certainly are not the equivalent of each other. Thats is why Milosevic was sitting in prison for years while Thaci visits the EU and the US. If they were equivalent to each other than you would also be equal to Milosevic as well. The difference is in the fact that even though Milosevic was unable to stand trial till the end; there was ample evidence collected against him; which warranted for such evidence to be presented in a trial. Such a thing is not the case for Thaci or even you, and this is where that attempt at equivalence fails. I am saying that someone with a scientific background has no problem at all differentiating between the two. This may not be exactly the case if you have no scientific background; because some people just want to blindly believe even though no evidence whatsoever has been presented to the justice system and the situation, due to the lack of evidence, requires healthy skepticism. In Milosevic's case the analogy is a scientific paper published by some scientists making a hypothesis based on the evidence (data) they have. That is where things stopped. Such paper has not been able to undergo a full peer-review (trial didn't finish). Meaning Milosevic died and without his presence the data(evidence) was not able to be fully reviewed by others (the court; jury etc.). It doesn't mean that the evidence no longer exists though. In Thaci's case the analogy is the following. There has been no scientific paper published hence there has been no data (evidence) released. What we have is someone talking about a possibility of something but he/she has no evidence to back up the claims. As such we do not even get the chance to review the evidence since it doesn't exist. However we can read the allegations like any other tabloid story, rather than like a scientific paper which needs to be peer reviewed. The concept is not hard at all to grasp. While guilt has not been shown for one; enough evidence was gathered to warrant a trial while for the other there is nothing out there but a tabloid story. Evidence does not exist. You certainly do not need a scientific background to comprehend this; but certainly if you have it, you would naturally be skeptic until evidence is released. In the case of Milosevic such evidence was released. In Thaci's case; we have yet to see any evidence released to the justice system.

"I put it to you that it is actually yourself who lacked this "scientific background"."

-- Whatever floats your boat.

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 1
lowe

pre 13 godina

“You did not show anything below, but thanks for accepting the dates. “

On the contrary I did. I showed that your treasury data was irrelevant to any possible future decision by the G20 countries to replace the greenback.


“Proof please that the G20 countries were thinking about replacing the greenback… “

In that thread I provided a link to a news report that G20 countries are thinking about replacing the dollar in the future. You chose to disregard it in that thread. I think it is this one http://moneymorning.com/2010/11/11/g-20-finally-dump-dollar-worlds-main-reserve-currency/


“First you did not bring any proof about what the opinion of the politicians will be. Second, the data is highly relevant since, I’m assuming, that by “greenback” you mean the “USD” (I apologize if this assumption of mine is incorrect). In any case, the proof that I brought to you was not about the above, but about “the world is no longer blind to the reality of the Yankee financial situation today unlike the last 2 decades. And that's why the Yankee had to pretend to be a bit nicer these days”. So my data is highly relevant because it shows how the creditors see the FUTURE Yankee financial situation. “

I have provided the above link in that thread which you conveniently chose to not to see and so it is not my fault. How your past treasury data can show the thinking of those G20 governments about dumping the dollar in the future is beyond me. And your conclusion that the Yankees are doing well because they borrow more and more from creditors sounds fishy to me. You seem to be assuming that they borrow more for free and need not pay humongous interests. Moreover, if you are so right then why is the US government and people so worried about their debt situation?



“Of course, if they are supported by the data. Show me the data that supports the views of the Yankee officials and I’ll agree with them. But I can’t agree with something just because an official, especially a Yankee one, said so.”

At least I have the links containing the views of the Yankee officials to back me up. You have nothing. Zero.


“Of course they did contain the comparison. The articles were about China and showed that nobody was lending to China (I did not see anywhere in the articles that somebody was lending to China – I apologize if I missed it, but you can show to me which article said that lenders are lending to China). But they did show that lenders were lending to the US significant amounts of money. “

You are being blatantly dishonest here! Whether China wanted to borrow or not was NOT discussed in any of these links!.Those 3 articles did NOT contain any relative Chinese-Yankee comparisons at all. But you are claiming that they did! Are these relative comparisons written in invisible ink that only you and your fortune teller can see? You used my 3 links as your evidence and in this case your proof was and still is FALSE!



“Of course they do show that US is better off because you provided articles about China, which show that lenders are not lending to China but are lending to the US. There is the comparison. I don’t understand why it’s so difficult for you to grasp it. “

You quoted my 3 specific links – this means you were ONLY referring to these 3 links and not to others. And these 3 links do not contain any discussion of China’s financial position. So using my 3 links as your evidence amounts to utterly FALSE proof as I already mentioned above.


“That’s not what you said before. You are only mentioning the relevance now. Before you only mentioned that the data was from the "past". In any case, as I explained, my data is highly relevant. Whereas in your case, you don’t even have the data to support anything you say.
(icj1, 15 January 2011 20:38)”

Let me put it clearly enough for you and your fortune teller – I did not accept your data because I think they are irrelevant. And being past data was only one reason why they are irrelevant. Not only are they past data but they concerned US debts, and I fail to see how these can explain whether leaders from some countries will dump the greenback or not as an exchange currency in the future. In other words, your past data had been irrelevant all along and that’s why I rejected them.

Lastly I must say that I find it real strange that you consider it to be “doing well” when lenders lend you money. You seem to forget that the money borrowed must be paid back with interests. Aren’t there enough Yankees who borrowed from willing lenders (the banks) during before the financial crisis only to have their homes and assets foreclosed when they couldn’t repay their loans? And the interest payments that the US must pay its creditors would represent an economic opportunity cost lost as these payments could otherwise be used for the production of goods and services. On the flip side, am I “doing badly” if I have a fat bank account and no one lends me money? Did it ever occur to you that maybe I don’t need to borrow and don’t want to borrow? By your definition, it appears that all the people in this world who have fat bank accounts and do not owe any money to anyone must be “doing badly” – not sure that they would agree with your so called logic!

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Of course, I just pointed out that Thaci and Milosevic are not in the same position (at least for now) (note FOR NOW), because there was evidence against Milosevic sufficient for a judge to issue an arrest warrant; whereas for Thaci even the evidence is not there..
(icj1, 15 January 2011 20:09)"

Warrants of arrest and sufficiency of evidence mean nothing unless the court actually uses those evidence to convict an accused. So Milosevic remains legally innocent despite that warrant and despite the amount of evidence. And he will always be legally innocent unless they change the rules and decide to waste money and try the dead!

On the other hand, should Thaci be charged in the future, it is possible for him to be convicted on just one piece of evidence -- so you don't need tons of them.

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 0
metrod

pre 13 godina

According to the usual propagators here Milosevic was a nice guy who went down because of Western progapanda and their efforts to bring down Serbia.

Someone please help me understand how you expect the rest of the world to respect you or take you seriously when you put forth such monstreous allegations.

Anyone...(other than Peggy or Highduke)?

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 1
lowe

pre 13 godina

“-- Not at all. That is not at all what I have been saying. A person is the accused the moment he is officially charged. That happens only if there is ample evidence against that person and such evidence is presented to the justice system which then makes such charges. A person is not the accused the moment a tabloid story appears on the internet; simply because the appearance of a tabloid story is no indication that ample evidence was submitted to the justice system to make official charges against the person. There is a big difference here. Once a person is charged by the justice system; even though he is not guilty, part of the justice system believes that there is enough evidence to prove the person's guilt. Now if a person is not charged but only appears on a tabloid story then that means there is no evidence whatsoever and no part of the justice system which believes there is ample evidence to prove the person's guilt. So the difference is pretty big. Tabloid stories= no evidence whatsoever presented to the justice system and no part of the justice system has any evidence to prove the person's guilt. Charged by the justice system= part of the justice system has ample evidence to believe that guilt can be proven. “

Your long tirade still cannot change the legal principle that an accused is presumed innocent until actually proven guilty. The fact that “part of the justice system has ample evidence” is irrelevant because the judge(s) can still decide to reject those “ample evidence”. And then what good would these copious amounts of evidence be for except perhaps to make a laughing stock of the prosecution?


“-- I hope what I stated above satisfies you.”

Likewise my reply to your first point applies to this one too.


“--Sure they are all innocent because they weren't proven guilty. However they are not equivalent to each other. I'll explain below. “

If a person is innocent, then he/she is innocent period. I’m amazed that you appeared to think that there are different shades or degrees of innocence on the basis of the amount of evidence presented. My point was that until these evidence are accepted by the courts to establish guilt, the accused remains 100% innocent and this applies to everyone, including Milosevic too. I think that legally it is rubbish to suggest that Thaci is more innocent than Milosevic simply because the former has not yet been charged and lots of evidence were submitted by the prosecutors against the latter.


“-- You don't need it. However someone with a scientific background will always be skeptic unless evidence exists …….

Now in your case you want to lump Thaci together with Milosevic. …..”

Well, when you decried my lack of scientific background, I would have thought this wondrous scientific quality is necessary to understand even simple legal principles. Your longest tirade thus far (which I quoted only the first sentence of each paragraph so as not to waste space) still cannot alter the fact that Milosevic is legally as innocent as Thaci. In fact he’s as innocent as you, me and some 99.99% of mankind who have not been convicted by a court of law. And that’s why I lumped both men together -- they are both legally innocent for now.



“-- Whatever floats your boat.
(johny, 30 December 2010 23:17)”

You just tripped on your tongue again! I should think you would need at least some elementary scientific background to understand why a boat floats aka Archimedes Principle! :)

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 4
icj1

pre 13 godina

Well, Milosevic may have been brought to the Hague, but he was NOT convicted by them. So that makes him innocent too right? You have evaded this question. Or are there double standards here?
(lowe, 29 December 2010 13:03)

Of course both Thaci and Milosevic are innocent, but in the criminal prosecution process there are three stages.

1. Suspicions somebody committed a criminal act which are not sufficient to issue an arrest warrant (Thaci's case)

2. Facts/evidence somebody committed a criminal act which are sufficient to issue an arrest warrant (Milosevic's case)

3. Conviction of somebody for committing a criminal act

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 1
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Of course that's what I said, about both the innocence and the Thaci issue.
Indeed, I pointed out though that Thaci and Milosevic are not in the same position (at least for now), because there was evidence against Milosevic sufficient for a judge to issue an arrest warrant; that's not the case with Thaci
(icj1, 7 January 2011 04:55) "

Of course do not forget that any evidence against Thaci must be carefully evaluated before any judge will issue that warrant of arrest -- you can't expect this to happen overnight. And it can still happen in the future. Only time will tell.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

“No sir, I am not blatantly dishonest, I’m being respectful for the readers to not offend their intelligence by stating the obvious. That is because everybody with a minimum of intelligence knows that people analyze past data in order to predict FUTURE; people don’t analyze past data because they don’t have where to spend their time.
(icj1, 7 January 2011 04:52)”

Well, if you call boasting about getting tons of evidence through your fortune teller (and then failing to do so) as being “respectful for the readers to not offend their intelligence …”, I would certainly beg to differ.

As for the past data, it depends on what the data is about. I recall that in our discussion, you were using past US Treasury data (when the Yankee economy was booming and its currency exchange rates much higher than today’s) to support your point that the humongous US debt of today is something for the Yankees to celebrate about and that the greenback will definitely be in greater demand in the future based on these past data. And I remain unconvinced by your so called “evidence” to date.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

I'm not sure how successful the NATO court investigating itself will be.
(Zoran, 30 December 2010 09:16)

What do you mean by NATO Court ? I don't think Russia, China, Serbia, etc... are part of NATO

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 13 godina

"And why does anybody need a "scientific background" to understand this simple legal principle?"
(lowe, 30 December 2010 00:12)

-- You don't need it. However someone with a scientific background will always be skeptic unless evidence exists.
(johny, 30 December 2010 23:17)

Johny, for Lowe “skepticism” does not exist. If something is published online, that is sufficient for him/her. He/she does not need data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments; something written somewhere in the web is all he/she needs. Here is what Lowe has to say when asked about this:

“But I’m asking for the reason. You must have a reason to consider them reliable. Tell me those reasons and I may very well consider them reliable, too. But you can’t say that they are reliable because you say so. “
(icj1, 21 November 2010 19:27)

My reason is simple – simply because I find them reliable enough to form the basis for my opinion.
(Lowe, 21 November 2010 22:42)

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 1
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Of course both Thaci and Milosevic are innocent, but in the criminal prosecution process there are three stages.

1. Suspicions somebody committed a criminal act which are not sufficient to issue an arrest warrant (Thaci's case)

2. Facts/evidence somebody committed a criminal act which are sufficient to issue an arrest warrant (Milosevic's case)

3. Conviction of somebody for committing a criminal act
(icj1, 2 January 2011 07:08) "

There could be a million stages in the criminal process for all I care but that's irrelevant to my point that the accused is innocent until actually proven guilty by the courts.

I only asked someone whether Milosevic is legally innocent. But johny had to make a mountain out of a molehill by suggesting that there are different degrees of innocence based on the amount of evidence produced. The prosecution can produce one million evidences against the accused but if these are rejected by the courts, the accused remains innocent. But if the prosecutor produces just one piece of evidence against an accused and the court convicts him/her on that sole evidence, then that accused becomes guilty. So the amount of evidence is irrelevant to me. What is relevant is what the judge/jury make of the evidence.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Johny, for Lowe “skepticism” does not exist. If something is published online, that is sufficient for him/her. He/she does not need data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments; something written somewhere in the web is all he/she needs. Here is what Lowe has to say when asked about this:

“But I’m asking for the reason. You must have a reason to consider them reliable. Tell me those reasons and I may very well consider them reliable, too. But you can’t say that they are reliable because you say so. “
(icj1, 21 November 2010 19:27)

My reason is simple – simply because I find them reliable enough to form the basis for my opinion.
(Lowe, 21 November 2010 22:42)
(icj1, 2 January 2011 07:31) "

Yes, if my judgment call tells me that the online source is reliable, I will form my opinion on that basis. I never said that you have to agree with my opinion. In any case, that's better than having no sources to back your position at all -- like your previous assertion, if I recalled correctly, that soccer and the sun are correlated! And maybe that's why you needed to rely on your fortune teller too!

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Of course, but the judge found sufficient evidence existed for Milosevic to issue an arrest warrant against him. That's not the case for Thaci, me or you.
(icj1, 2 January 2011 23:19) "

That still doesn't change the fact that Milosevic remains innocent which was my point all along. It was possible that the judge could have decided to throw out all the evidence in the end, no matter how matter were submitted by the prosecution.

Thaci is innocent for now, no charges were levied against him yet. But it is possible that could change in the future. But this was not the issue in my first post which asked whether Milosevic is legally innocent or not.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"We agree then... that's what I was saying that you don't need data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments. You just need your judgement regardless of data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments. In other words you if you believe it is reasonable, that it is so, regardless of data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments.
(icj1, 2 January 2011 23:22) "

I evaluate the evidence, data, facts, arguments etc etc as they are found in my sources and decide if they are credible enough for me to believe them. Unlike you who claimed to find your "tons of evidence" in your fortune teller, and then failed to produce them!

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"I don't think you do because you think that past data is totally irrelevant (unless, of course, there was a different "lowe" who expressed those thoughts, in which case I apologize)
(icj1, 6 January 2011 05:18) "

In that particular thread, I stated that past data cannot be used to predict FUTURE events unless of course you have reasonable grounds to believe in their correlation. By conveniently omitting the fact that I was referring to FUTURE events, you are being blatantly dishonest. But then what should I expect from someone who relies on his/her fortune teller for "tons of evidence"?

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Of course that's what I said.

I just pointed out though that Thaci and Milosevic are not in the same position (at least for now), because there was evidence against Milosevic sufficient for a judge to issue an arrest warrant; that's not the case with Thaci.
(icj1, 6 January 2011 05:11) "

And as I pointed out, all the evidence against Milosevic might have been ruled inadmissible had his trial continued. At the time of trial, the accused is still innocent regardless of the amount of evidence against him/her.

Also, do bear in mind that the accusations against Thaci are relatively recent. It is not reasonable to expect a warrant to be issued on the spot. It can take years, decades even -- some Nazi suspects like Samuel Kunz, for example, are put on trial over half a century after their alleged crimes.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Of course, that's why I pointed out that Thaci and Milosevic are not in the same position (at least for now) (note FOR NOW), because there was evidence against Milosevic sufficient for a judge to issue an arrest warrant; that's not the case with Thaci
(icj1, 8 January 2011 05:57) "

And it still does not rule out that Thaci could still be charged by the courts sometime in the future. And only piece of evidence is enough to convict an accused and so the amount of evidence is really not the be all and end all.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

“No, you recall incorrectly, because the data that I was using in that discussion was from the latest treasury auctions just few weeks before of that discussion…

And by the way, not sure if you are celebrating, but I did not make any point anywhere that the US debt today is something for the Yankees to celebrate about.

And, of course, I don’t except you to be convinced because past data is totally irrelevant for you
(icj1, 8 January 2011 06:09)”

It was you who recalled wrongly. Firstly it wasn’t merely weeks before that discussion. Moreover I remembered that the issue was about a news report that some G20 countries are thinking of jettisoning the greenback as the currency of exchange in the future which could take many years or even decades. So even if I were to accept that your past data was just a few weeks old then, they still cannot logically in this case be used to predict currency events that will occur only years or decades into the future. Hence your past treasury is irrelevant.

As for US debt, you did seem to imply that they are nothing to worry and you brought in those 2 corporations to back your point. Moreover you also stated separately, in response to my URL links about the humongous US debt, that the Yankees were doing much better than China on this issue based on these links alone.

So of course I was and remain unconvinced by your arguments and past data.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Of course, that's why I pointed out that Thaci and Milosevic are not in the same position (at least for now) (note FOR NOW), because there was evidence against Milosevic sufficient for a judge to issue an arrest warrant; that's not the case with Thaci. Can’t tell about the future…. We can discuss when it arrives.
(icj1, 9 January 2011 22:57) "

It took years for Milosevic to be issued a warrant and so logically it might also take years for Thaci to be given one if it does come to that. My point all along was that Milosevic today is still legally innocent which johny appears to have difficulty understanding.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

“No sir, it is you that are recalling incorrectly. I posted it on 13 Nov with the auction data from 29 Oct, i.e. 15 days old (which hardly classifies even as weeks, it’s more about days). “

Even if I were to accept your dates now, the data was still irrelevant as shall be shown below.



“No, again you recall incorrectly. It was not about that, since neither me nor you showed data or facts that investments in the US doesn’t appear that important “for many other countries such as those in the G20” (beside the mind reading stuff that you expected the G20 leaders to come out and deny).

That’s what I was saying that you don't need data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments. Glad we agree on that. Also, you need to replace “will” with “could”.”

It definitely concerned the news report about the G20 countries thinking about replacing the greenback! You brought in your past treasury data which was really irrelevant to any possible future decision to replace the greenback by these countries. Your treasury data cannot be relevant to any possible political decisions (which would depend on the opinions of politicians however much you seemed to distrust people’s opinions) to replace the dollar. Using your treasury data, it is like using nitrogen to prove that water contains hydrogen, whether now or in the future!


“No, I did not say that. I brought two examples that debt could be good as you appeared unconvinced about that. Note “could”; of course I could bring you other examples about debt being bad, but I’m not doing it since you appear to be convinced about that. I’m not taking any position whether the debt the US is issuing is actually good or bad. I repeatedly said that. The reason I’m not taking a position is that I don’t have sufficient data to support either side. “

Since you admit not to have data to support that the US is doing marvellously with its humongous debt, then logically the views of the US government officials (including the president himself) about the US economic position would be the best thing that Americans and foreigners can rely on. And their views are generally in a very negative direction!


“Yes, because the links about China that you brought showed that lenders are not lending to China but are lending to the US. So the US is better off than China otherwise the lenders would not do the above. Note I said “better off”, not “better off issuing debt”. “

WRONG! In that particular thread, I listed 3 links for Joe to read. Those 3 links contained only articles which negatively portrayed US debt and the grave concerns of some US officials. They do NOT contain any relative comparison between the Chinese and Yankees! You however QUOTED these 3 links when you stated that the US is much better off than China even though there was no relative comparison between these countries. In other words, you were only referring to these 3 links when you stated that they showed that the US are much better off than China – which is definitely FALSE!

“I don’t expect that because as said before you don't need data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments.
(icj1, 9 January 2011 22:55)”

I do accept these provided they are logical and relevant. Not in your case though, I should think.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

I see you are back!

“Of course because the data was not showing that. That’s why a news report is not a fact. It should rather serve as an incentive to research the facts.”

As I already told you previously, I considered that news source to be credible enough for me to use. B92 readers generally do this by the way in case you have not noticed, including those who are pro-Pristina or Pro-Yankee in case. Again you refer to your past data – how can they possibly show any POLITICAL decision to replace the greenback? Please answer this question.




“Somebody who thinks (they did not say it, but let’s assume for the sake of the argument that you had able mind readers) to dump the US dollar would not go to buy US treasuries (unless it’s stupid). Rather they would have started long ago to dump the treasuries.”

You used past treasury sales data showing PAST decision to buy US debts. How can these PAST data about US debts prove FUTURE decisions about replacing the dollar?????


“Not because they want to borrow, but because they CAN borrow. Creditors will not lend humongous amounts of money to somebody who’s not well off.”

So having to pay humongous interest payments, thereby representing a huge economic opportunity costs foregone is your idea of doing well! And conversely people who don’t need to borrow and don’t want to borrow are by your reasoning doing badly! Twisted logic if you ask me!


“I have the data :) I don’t trust the views; those are subjective.”

Your data are IRRELEVANT data because they are past data as I already pointed out above.


“They did not contain anything about China ?! But I thought they were about China !!! “

Those 3 specific links were NOT about China’s finances! Please stop pretending to overlook this material point. They were about the US financial position and the worries of US politicians and people! So, as I already stated so many times, using them as your proof amounts to pure falsehood!




“You are saying that now… Being “past” was the only reason you mentioned before”

Being past data was one reason why they are irrelevant and so I was not originally wrong. The second reason why they are irrelevant, as I already told you, was because they concerned US debts. Both reasons cannot explain any possible future political decision by G20 leaders to dump the dollar.




“They predict the future for decades to come. If A lends to B for 30 years, A has to be sure that B's currency is OK for, at least, 30 years, otherwise it may get paid back with worthless paper.”

Show me the proof that they are being used to predict poltical decisions of the future, in this case, about POLITICAL decisions to dump the greenback.


“Of course is has to be paid back with interest. But money is not borrowed to put it under the mattress. It is borrowed to do something with it. It that something generates more than the interest, than the debt is good, if not it is bad. I don’t have data for either the good or the bad. If you do, please show them. Show what is the net economic benefit of the US from this debt; is it positive or negative ? “

Show me the proof that the money borrowed is in fact being used to “generate more” for the entire US economy. Your claim doesn’t seem to square with the worries that US leaders and citizens have been airing in the news! And you have no proof to back your claim in any case.




“No, I did not say having a lot of money in a bank account means doing badly. But those articles you provided about China did not show that China has a lot of money in a bank account (or, at least, I missed it).”

Those 3 specific links were not about China’s finances and so for you to use them as your proof amounts to false proof. It is like using an article about Mongolia to make a claim about Kosovo.



“That may be your logic, but not mine, I did not say that people with “fat bank accounts and do not owe any money to anyone must be “doing badly””. They may be doing good or bad; it depends. The same thing with people owning money; they may or may not be doing badly. All depends on what’s higher; the income or the expenses.
(icj1, 5 March 2011 20:26)”

You basically made the claim that the US is doing great because of its humongous debts from its huge borrowings. I therefore asked you about the flip side -- whether people who have fat accounts and don’t need to borrow are conversely doing badly to show the absurdity of your logic. So far you have failed to show that the entire US economy borrowed in order to reinvest and benefit from the net gain, and that this was its main intention for borrowing in the first place.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

I only asked someone whether Milosevic is legally innocent. But johny had to make a mountain out of a molehill by suggesting that there are different degrees of innocence based on the amount of evidence produced. The prosecution can produce one million evidences against the accused but if these are rejected by the courts, the accused remains innocent. But if the prosecutor produces just one piece of evidence against an accused and the court convicts him/her on that sole evidence, then that accused becomes guilty. So the amount of evidence is irrelevant to me. What is relevant is what the judge/jury make of the evidence.
(lowe, 2 January 2011 13:44)

Of course, but the judge found sufficient evidence existed for Milosevic to issue an arrest warrant against him. That's not the case for Thaci, me or you.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 13 godina

Yes, if my judgment call tells me that the online source is reliable, I will form my opinion on that basis.
(lowe, 2 January 2011 13:53)

We agree then... that's what I was saying that you don't need data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments. You just need your judgement regardless of data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments. In other words you if you believe it is reasonable, that it is so, regardless of data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 13 godina

That still doesn't change the fact that Milosevic remains innocent which was my point all along.
(lowe, 3 January 2011 10:48)

Of course that's what I said.

I just pointed out though that Thaci and Milosevic are not in the same position (at least for now), because there was evidence against Milosevic sufficient for a judge to issue an arrest warrant; that's not the case with Thaci.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 13 godina

I evaluate the evidence, data, facts, arguments etc etc as they are found in my sources and decide if they are credible enough for me to believe them. (lowe, 3 January 2011 10:53)

I don't think you do because you think that past data is totally irrelevant (unless, of course, there was a different "lowe" who expressed those thoughts, in which case I apologize)

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 13 godina

In that particular thread, I stated that past data cannot be used to predict In that particular thread, I stated that past data cannot be used to predict FUTURE events unless of course you have reasonable grounds to believe in their correlation. By conveniently omitting the fact that I was referring to FUTURE events, you are being blatantly dishonest.
(lowe, 6 January 2011 11:08)

No sir, I am not blatantly dishonest, I’m being respectful for the readers to not offend their intelligence by stating the obvious. That is because everybody with a minimum of intelligence knows that people analyze past data in order to predict FUTURE; people don’t analyze past data because they don’t have where to spend their time.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 13 godina

And as I pointed out, all the evidence against Milosevic might have been ruled inadmissible had his trial continued. At the time of trial, the accused is still innocent regardless of the amount of evidence against him/her. Also, do bear in mind that the accusations against Thaci are relatively recent. It is not reasonable to expect a warrant to be issued on the spot. It can take years, decades even -- some Nazi suspects like Samuel Kunz, for example, are put on trial over half a century after their alleged crimes.
(lowe, 6 January 2011 11:19)

Of course that's what I said, about both the innocence and the Thaci issue.
Indeed, I pointed out though that Thaci and Milosevic are not in the same position (at least for now), because there was evidence against Milosevic sufficient for a judge to issue an arrest warrant; that's not the case with Thaci

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 13 godina

Of course do not forget that any evidence against Thaci must be carefully evaluated before any judge will issue that warrant of arrest -- you can't expect this to happen overnight. And it can still happen in the future. Only time will tell.
(lowe, 7 January 2011 10:30)

Of course, that's why I pointed out that Thaci and Milosevic are not in the same position (at least for now) (note FOR NOW), because there was evidence against Milosevic sufficient for a judge to issue an arrest warrant; that's not the case with Thaci

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 13 godina

As for the past data, it depends on what the data is about. I recall that in our discussion, you were using past US Treasury data (when the Yankee economy was booming and its currency exchange rates much higher than today’s) to support your point that the humongous US debt of today is something for the Yankees to celebrate about and that the greenback will definitely be in greater demand in the future based on these past data. And I remain unconvinced by your so called “evidence” to date.
(lowe, 7 January 2011 11:01)

No, you recall incorrectly, because the data that I was using in that discussion was from the latest treasury auctions just few weeks before of that discussion…

And by the way, not sure if you are celebrating, but I did not make any point anywhere that the US debt today is something for the Yankees to celebrate about.

And, of course, I don’t except you to be convinced because past data is totally irrelevant for you

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 13 godina

It was you who recalled wrongly. Firstly it wasn’t merely weeks before that discussion.
(lowe, 9 January 2011 01:46)

No sir, it is you that are recalling incorrectly. I posted it on 13 Nov with the auction data from 29 Oct, i.e. 15 days old (which hardly classifies even as weeks, it’s more about days).



Moreover I remembered that the issue was about a news report that some G20 countries are thinking of jettisoning the greenback as the currency of exchange in the future which could take many years or even decades.
(lowe, 9 January 2011 01:46)

No, again you recall incorrectly. It was not about that, since neither me nor you showed data or facts that investments in the US doesn’t appear that important “for many other countries such as those in the G20” (beside the mind reading stuff that you expected the G20 leaders to come out and deny).



So even if I were to accept that your past data was just a few weeks old then, they still cannot logically in this case be used to predict currency events that will occur only years or decades into the future. Hence your past treasury is irrelevant.
(lowe, 9 January 2011 01:46)

That’s what I was saying that you don't need data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments. Glad we agree on that. Also, you need to replace “will” with “could”.



As for US debt, you did seem to imply that they are nothing to worry and you brought in those 2 corporations to back your point.
(lowe, 9 January 2011 01:46)

No, I did not say that. I brought two examples that debt could be good as you appeared unconvinced about that. Note “could”; of course I could bring you other examples about debt being bad, but I’m not doing it since you appear to be convinced about that. I’m not taking any position whether the debt the US is issuing is actually good or bad. I repeatedly said that. The reason I’m not taking a position is that I don’t have sufficient data to support either side.



Moreover you also stated separately, in response to my URL links about the humongous US debt, that the Yankees were doing much better than China on this issue based on these links alone.
(lowe, 9 January 2011 01:46)

Yes, because the links about China that you brought showed that lenders are not lending to China but are lending to the US. So the US is better off than China otherwise the lenders would not do the above. Note I said “better off”, not “better off issuing debt”.



So of course I was and remain unconvinced by your arguments and past data.
(lowe, 9 January 2011 01:46)

I don’t expect that because as said before you don't need data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

And it still does not rule out that Thaci could still be charged by the courts sometime in the future. And only piece of evidence is enough to convict an accused and so the amount of evidence is really not the be all and end all.
(lowe, 9 January 2011 01:27)

Of course, that's why I pointed out that Thaci and Milosevic are not in the same position (at least for now) (note FOR NOW), because there was evidence against Milosevic sufficient for a judge to issue an arrest warrant; that's not the case with Thaci. Can’t tell about the future…. We can discuss when it arrives.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

It took years for Milosevic to be issued a warrant and so logically it might also take years for Thaci to be given one if it does come to that. My point all along was that Milosevic today is still legally innocent which johny appears to have difficulty understanding.
(lowe, 10 January 2011 02:24)

Of course, I just pointed out that Thaci and Milosevic are not in the same position (at least for now) (note FOR NOW), because there was evidence against Milosevic sufficient for a judge to issue an arrest warrant; whereas for Thaci even the evidence is not there..

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 13 godina

Even if I were to accept your dates now, the data was still irrelevant as shall be shown below.
(lowe, 10 January 2011 03:14)

You did not show anything below, but thanks for accepting the dates.



It definitely concerned the news report about the G20 countries thinking about replacing the greenback!
(lowe, 10 January 2011 03:14)

Proof please that the G20 countries were thinking about replacing the greenback…



You brought in your past treasury data which was really irrelevant to any possible future decision to replace the greenback by these countries. Your treasury data cannot be relevant to any possible political decisions (which would depend on the opinions of politicians however much you seemed to distrust people’s opinions) to replace the dollar. Using your treasury data, it is like using nitrogen to prove that water contains hydrogen, whether now or in the future!
(lowe, 10 January 2011 03:14)

First you did not bring any proof about what the opinion of the politicians will be. Second, the data is highly relevant since, I’m assuming, that by “greenback” you mean the “USD” (I apologize if this assumption of mine is incorrect). In any case, the proof that I brought to you was not about the above, but about “the world is no longer blind to the reality of the Yankee financial situation today unlike the last 2 decades. And that's why the Yankee had to pretend to be a bit nicer these days”. So my data is highly relevant because it shows how the creditors see the FUTURE Yankee financial situation.



Since you admit not to have data to support that the US is doing marvellously with its humongous debt, then logically the views of the US government officials (including the president himself) about the US economic position would be the best thing that Americans and foreigners can rely on.
(lowe, 10 January 2011 03:14)

Of course, if they are supported by the data. Show me the data that supports the views of the Yankee officials and I’ll agree with them. But I can’t agree with something just because an official, especially a Yankee one, said so.



WRONG! In that particular thread, I listed 3 links for Joe to read. Those 3 links contained only articles which negatively portrayed US debt and the grave concerns of some US officials. They do NOT contain any relative comparison between the Chinese and Yankees!
(lowe, 10 January 2011 03:14)

Of course they did contain the comparison. The articles were about China and showed that nobody was lending to China (I did not see anywhere in the articles that somebody was lending to China – I apologize if I missed it, but you can show to me which article said that lenders are lending to China). But they did show that lenders were lending to the US significant amounts of money.



You however QUOTED these 3 links when you stated that the US is much better off than China even though there was no relative comparison between these countries. In other words, you were only referring to these 3 links when you stated that they showed that the US are much better off than China – which is definitely FALSE!
(lowe, 10 January 2011 03:14)

Of course they do show that US is better off because you provided articles about China, which show that lenders are not lending to China but are lending to the US. There is the comparison. I don’t understand why it’s so difficult for you to grasp it.



I do accept these provided they are logical and relevant. Not in your case though, I should think.
(lowe, 10 January 2011 03:14)

That’s not what you said before. You are only mentioning the relevance now. Before you only mentioned that the data was from the "past". In any case, as I explained, my data is highly relevant. Whereas in your case, you don’t even have the data to support anything you say.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 13 godina

In that thread I provided a link to a news report that G20 countries are thinking about replacing the dollar in the future. You chose to disregard it in that thread. I think it is this one [link]/
(lowe, 16 January 2011 06:36)

Of course because the data was not showing that. That’s why a news report is not a fact. It should rather serve as an incentive to research the facts.


I have provided the above link in that thread which you conveniently chose to not to see and so it is not my fault. How your past treasury data can show the thinking of those G20 governments about dumping the dollar in the future is beyond me.
(lowe, 16 January 2011 06:36)

Somebody who thinks (they did not say it, but let’s assume for the sake of the argument that you had able mind readers) to dump the US dollar would not go to buy US treasuries (unless it’s stupid). Rather they would have started long ago to dump the treasuries.


And your conclusion that the Yankees are doing well because they borrow more and more from creditors sounds fishy to me.
(lowe, 16 January 2011 06:36)

Not because they want to borrow, but because they CAN borrow. Creditors will not lend humongous amounts of money to somebody who’s not well off.


At least I have the links containing the views of the Yankee officials to back me up. You have nothing. Zero.
(lowe, 16 January 2011 06:36)

I have the data :) I don’t trust the views; those are subjective.


You quoted my 3 specific links – this means you were ONLY referring to these 3 links and not to others. And these 3 links do not contain any discussion of China’s financial position. So using my 3 links as your evidence amounts to utterly FALSE proof as I already mentioned above.
(lowe, 16 January 2011 06:36)

They did not contain anything about China ?! But I thought they were about China !!!


And being past data was only one reason why they are irrelevant.
(lowe, 16 January 2011 06:36)

You are saying that now… Being “past” was the only reason you mentioned before


Not only are they past data but they concerned US debts, and I fail to see how these can explain whether leaders from some countries will dump the greenback or not as an exchange currency in the future.
(lowe, 16 January 2011 06:36)

They predict the future for decades to come. If A lends to B for 30 years, A has to be sure that B's currency is OK for, at least, 30 years, otherwise it may get paid back with worthless paper.



Lastly I must say that I find it real strange that you consider it to be “doing well” when lenders lend you money. You seem to forget that the money borrowed must be paid back with interests.
(lowe, 16 January 2011 06:36)

Of course is has to be paid back with interest. But money is not borrowed to put it under the mattress. It is borrowed to do something with it. It that something generates more than the interest, than the debt is good, if not it is bad. I don’t have data for either the good or the bad. If you do, please show them. Show what is the net economic benefit of the US from this debt; is it positive or negative ?


On the flip side, am I “doing badly” if I have a fat bank account and no one lends me money?
(lowe, 16 January 2011 06:36)

No, I did not say having a lot of money in a bank account means doing badly. But those articles you provided about China did not show that China has a lot of money in a bank account (or, at least, I missed it).



Did it ever occur to you that maybe I don’t need to borrow and don’t want to borrow? By your definition, it appears that all the people in this world who have fat bank accounts and do not owe any money to anyone must be “doing badly” – not sure that they would agree with your so called logic!
(lowe, 16 January 2011 06:36)

That may be your logic, but not mine, I did not say that people with “fat bank accounts and do not owe any money to anyone must be “doing badly””. They may be doing good or bad; it depends. The same thing with people owning money; they may or may not be doing badly. All depends on what’s higher; the income or the expenses.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
PRN

pre 13 godina

"Serb party wants to join Thaci"

Ohhhh YES.
The Serbian lies lasted 3 days. Though new 'findings' by BIA (about Thaci and Berisha) in the coming days, may not be excluded.

Gooood Moooorning...
WAKE UP dear friends. Now it is time to get back to real BUSINESS.

Serbs in Kosovo CANNOT be manipulated anymore.

Preporučujem 64 Ne preporučujem 49
Zoran

pre 13 godina

Some people come cheap and Slobodan Petrović is one of them. Here is Thaci's contribution to Serbians in KiM with the help of NATO.

Before -> http://www.alternativeinsight.com/KOSOVO1999.jpeg
After -> http://www.alternativeinsight.com/KOSOVO2004.jpeg

And the thing is, Thaci and KiM Albanians are proud of their achievement. Slobodan Petrović has no morals.

Preporučujem 36 Ne preporučujem 42
Ancient Illyria

pre 13 godina

I am baffled.

These words coming from a Serb and living in Kosova.

I hope there are many Serbs out there who think the same and that the few (mostly those give their weird comment on B92) are the minority.

Perhaps there is light at the end of the tunnel between the Albanians & Serbs.

I sure hope so.

Preporučujem 51 Ne preporučujem 39
lowe

pre 13 godina

"I agree with him 100 %. remember, thaci is innocent until proven guilty.
(rolandi, 29 December 2010 10:55)"

Milosevic was never found guilty by the international court and so is innocent too, right?

Preporučujem 32 Ne preporučujem 30
rolandi

pre 13 godina

Commenting of the Council of Europe rapporteur Dick Marty's report on trafficking in organs of Kosovo Serbs, he said it contained some grave charges.

"These are serious accusations, but in this case we need to work on the principle that everyone is innocent until proven otherwise," the SLS leader stressed. I agree with him 100 %. remember, thaci is innocent until proven guilty.

Preporučujem 50 Ne preporučujem 29
Drownotherday

pre 13 godina

""These are serious accusations, but in this case we need to work on the principle that everyone is innocent until proven otherwise," the SLS leader stressed."

Proud day for Kosovo, please continue :)

Preporučujem 32 Ne preporučujem 29
roberto

pre 13 godina

--Independent Liberal Party (SLS) leader Slobodan Petrović says his party is willing to form a ruling coalition with Hashim Thaci's Democratic Party of Kosovo.--

Well, some hopeful news coming from Kosova.

This is NOT all about Thaci, and allegations of organ trafficking, regardless of the spin.

this IS about compromise. this IS about pragmatism. this IS about looking forward. this IS about not being tied to the strings of the blg regime, but looking out for your own people's interests, for common interests.

IF thaci (or others) ends up standing trial on whichever (if any)charges are supported by real evidence, then petrovic and his peers will find other Kosovar albanian leaders, parties, with whom to make alliances.

for the separatists, racists, ethnic cleansers, this is all heresy. big time. Petrovic will surely be accused of treason, taking $$ from the west, being an enemy of the people -- in other words, the usual. he will also be target of their "nice" assassination squads (sorry to say) -- mark my words on that. so, security...

these kinds of pragmatic steps are encouraging, and also reminiscent of the djindjic govt, remember him? now we just have cedi and a few of his colleagues, not to mention ngo's and independent dissidents(still silenced here).

the recent outpouring of hate here -- the orchestrated campaign, whether fr belgrade, marty, moscow, whatever, is just same old, same old, the spec's may differ slightly.

if there are real charges, do the damn investigation, file the charges, take people to court. demand justice! but the campaign ag. Kosova has been so sleazy, so nasty, so over-the-top -- like i said, same old, same old, fr this "nice" shark tank.

compromise and pragmatism is the name of the game. criminals and crime need to be prosecuted, while real progress needs to be encouraged. keep issues distinct and clear, not confused and murky. (like: "kosova is going down!!")

and i am so glad that mladic has finally been turned in to the hague. mazel tov. it was about time.

oh, he hasn't been? never mind.

ciao!

roberto
michi-game

Preporučujem 11 Ne preporučujem 25
highduke

pre 13 godina

A proportionally larger number of those deceased people that Thaci manipulated for fake votes probably went to this fake puppet 'serb' party more than any other

Preporučujem 28 Ne preporučujem 23
rolandi

pre 13 godina

Milosevic was never found guilty by the international court and so is innocent too, right?
(lowe) remember mr thaqi is free man for new thet make him not guilty milosevic died in hage all 'iwhant to see evidence where is the evidence thet mr thaqi did commite those crimes where is the evidence we all waiting for evidence but in the and it looks just like more like hollywood movie (drama)

Preporučujem 28 Ne preporučujem 23
Zoran

pre 13 godina

I think Zoran got the second link during the time Slobo was doing Ethnic cleansing.
(kebnkos, 29 December 2010 15:30)
--
The second link was at a time KiM Albanians and NATO were involved in their second wave of ethnic cleansing. Slobo had already spent his 4th year in the Hague by then so nice try attempting to blame him.

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 22
Mikael C

pre 13 godina

I wonder how much money they paid this Serb to say what he did? He problably lives in the West and cashes in on being a "politician" in Kosovo. I guess the americans can no longer afford to pay countries to recognize Kosovo so they have turned to bribing ordinary people.

Preporučujem 18 Ne preporučujem 22
lowe

pre 13 godina

"remember mr thaqi is free man for new thet make him not guilty milosevic died in hage all 'iwhant to see evidence where is the evidence thet mr thaqi did commite those crimes where is the evidence we all waiting for evidence but in the and it looks just like more like hollywood movie (drama)
(rolandi, 29 December 2010 12:20) "

You stated that a person is innocent until found guilty -- which I agree with.

Well, Milosevic may have been brought to the Hague, but he was NOT convicted by them. So that makes him innocent too right? You have evaded this question. Or are there double standards here?

Preporučujem 34 Ne preporučujem 21
jb

pre 13 godina

and karadzic and milosovic want in. I also spoke with mladic, and he is also thinking about it. Milo also wants to have a go at another job.

Preporučujem 23 Ne preporučujem 20
PRN

pre 13 godina

As I pointed out, Serbians are beginning to face REALITY

See how clean is being seen Thaci by the VBA....strange but true http://www.nspm.rs/hronika/svetko-kovac-vojno-bezbednosna-agencija-nema-tacijev-dosije.html?alphabet=l

Serbs need to get serious and withhold the check to Mr. Marty, as the latter deserve some rehabilitation somewhere in Kosovo.

A good news is that SKY are clearing up

Preporučujem 22 Ne preporučujem 20
Jovan

pre 13 godina

it´s really amazing!

not a week has passed, since the greater-albanian project hast suffered a heavy blow just because of one single report from an european official, and that puts our dear k-albanian friends so much on fear that they are not even identifying the "suddenly" emerging counter-propaganda as what it actually is!

well, if there are some very few Serbs bought or even forced to comply with criminal temporary rulers in occupied southern Serbia,... that´s more a sign of what brutal oppression can achieve.
but,...
no Albanian should fool himself with naive expectations about getting away with serbian territory.

you will fail. keep that in mind, before you write such a nonsense again, my dear k-albanian friends.

@PRN: you are falling for the most primitive propaganda-tricks! my compliments for that level of ....

you made my day! =)

Preporučujem 16 Ne preporučujem 20
Belarus Tractor

pre 13 godina

Yes this party is facing the reality.Once the north is partitioned they will be stuck with our loyal brothers in the south.And yes the North is already partitioned which will be public in the coming months.And I cant wait to see when Vojoslav S! comes back to Serbia to have a town hall meeting with serbian citizens in presavo.

Preporučujem 6 Ne preporučujem 19
Mike

pre 13 godina

Public Relations Nightmare (PRN) and other members of the Albanian cyber intelligenstia seem to forget that Petrovic's SLS party is basically financed by Pristina and has ties to Thaci. Joining his government (however long it lasts) is not a surprise. Additionally, the SLS was reported by Trajkovic's party to have paid 50 euros to any Serb that voted for them. Corruption and voting fraud seem to find allies.

"Tides" turning and Serbs coming to accept "reality" are the illogical statements from the usual clueless suspects.

How many K-Serbs did vote in the election? Did we ever get the final count?

Preporučujem 16 Ne preporučujem 18
peggy

pre 13 godina

Sure! According to some Serbs, he is. And of course, the ICTY is biased and anti-Serbian, and couldn't find any evidence, and Milosevic was killed. And some more fairy tales, of an "anti-Serbian network"...
(Top, 29 December 2010 17:45)
======================

I know you are being sarcastic but that's exactly what happened.
One day the truth about this will come out too and you will feel silly for trying to be sarcastic now.
I am not naive to think that Milosevic was a saint. But just remember, in civil war everyone does things which are not to be proud of so Milosevic is no more guilty than the rest of them.
Guilty of genocide as he was indicted? Certainly not and you can laugh at this all you want.

Preporučujem 15 Ne preporučujem 18
Peggy

pre 13 godina

Your tirade cannot alter the fact that if a person is considered innocent until proven guilty by a court, then Milosevic is legally innocent. Any other way would be double standards.
(lowe, 29 December 2010 17:06)
=========================

True but like you said lack of proof does not indicate innocence, especially when witnesses are murdered and international community helps you by destroying evidence of your crimes.

Now none of this happened with Milosevic. No evidence being destroyed. Instead evidence was being manufactured even. They took years to exhaust any ridiculous witness they had and even tried to get some to incriminate themselves under the promise of immunity and still nothing.

Death was the only choice left.

Preporučujem 10 Ne preporučujem 18
PRN

pre 13 godina

As I pointed out, Serbians are beginning to face REALITY

See how clean is being seen Thaci by the VBA....strange but true http://www.nspm.rs/hronika/svetko-kovac-vojno-bezbednosna-agencija-nema-tacijev-dosije.html?alphabet=l

Serbs need to get serious and withhold the check to Mr. Marty, as the latter deserve some rehabilitation somewhere in Kosovo.

A good news is that SKY are clearing up

Preporučujem 21 Ne preporučujem 17
Olli

pre 13 godina

It is a simple fact: Thaci is innocent until proven guilty in court. We can't overstep this righteous conduct.

We can say he is a suspect.

Preporučujem 34 Ne preporučujem 15
arbrije

pre 13 godina

at rolandi i'egree with you if ther is no evidence how are you goin to prove thet hi and KLA did comite those crimes. i'thing this drama is goin to come out thet never happen. dick marty and carla delponte are goin to make ther won book about ther life

Preporučujem 19 Ne preporučujem 15
kebnkos

pre 13 godina

Some people come cheap and Slobodan Petrović is one of them. Here is Thaci's contribution to Serbians in KiM with the help of NATO.
Before -> [link]
After -> [link]

-I think Zoran got the second link during the time Slobo was doing Ethnic cleansing.

Preporučujem 17 Ne preporučujem 15
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Huge difference in innocence and not proven guilty especially when the world was robbed of a verdict. What single country benefitted from Milosevic's early death?
Also a big difference in documented actions and allegations without documentation.
To even hint at Milosevic's innocence should be a crime in itself.
(voiceofreason, 29 December 2010 16:01) "

Your tirade cannot alter the fact that if a person is considered innocent until proven guilty by a court, then Milosevic is legally innocent. Any other way would be double standards.

Preporučujem 12 Ne preporučujem 15
Ian, UK

pre 13 godina

I guess the americans can no longer afford to pay countries to recognize Kosovo so they have turned to bribing ordinary people.
(Mikael C, 29 December 2010 17:59)

I guess you're confusing the Yanks with the Russians. It is the Russians who do the bribing!

Preporučujem 20 Ne preporučujem 15
voiceofreason

pre 13 godina

Milosevic was never found guilty by the international court and so is innocent too, right?
(lowe, 29 December 2010 11:26)
Huge difference in innocence and not proven guilty especially when the world was robbed of a verdict. What single country benefitted from Milosevic's early death?
Also a big difference in documented actions and allegations without documentation.
To even hint at Milosevic's innocence should be a crime in itself.

Preporučujem 25 Ne preporučujem 14
Je¿ neoliberalny

pre 13 godina

A good news is that SKY are clearing up
(PRN, 29 December 2010 15:28)

Yes. Mother Russia sh*t the pants: one organic Hashish Baksheesh with 5 neo-lieral Serbs in tow is emerging. We shall run.

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 14
Jugoslavija

pre 13 godina

RE: To even hint at Milosevic's innocence should be a crime in itself.
(voiceofreason, 29 December 2010 16:01)

Re; The Voice of Treason

Let us again go through the following which you will agree with I am sure;

(1) "Milosevic started four war's"

False, he didn't start any wars. The JNA was caught in a middle of a civil war in Slovenia, Croatian and B&H whereby many barrackes were seized. In Kosovo, the KLA started the war murdering Serbian officers and cleansing Serbian civilians for many year's

(2) " The Butcher of the Balkans"

False, that was Andrija Artukovic, the Ustasha Commander during WW II who butchered many Yugoslavs. He was protected by the United States government until the late 1980's and finaly released for Trial In Yugoslavia. It was convenient for American public relations firms to steal the name from a true butcher and killer.

I can go on and on but if you can read.... the transcripts are still available on the ICTY website; of course he is innocent of international war crimes.

Not only is Milosevic innocent, he proved himself to be the best lawyer in the entire Hague Tribunal shredding the prosecutors case to pieces.

General Wesely Clark made a cameo appearance and found himself defending his book which incriminated himself; Rugova nearly spewed out that he was under protection of Milosevic protecting himself from the KLA who at the time were ready to eliminate him.

To bad the Hague Tribunal resorted to murder because it would have been entertaining to see the real war criminals on the witness stand like Bill Clinton, Half Bright Blair and the rest.

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 14
Jaja

pre 13 godina

The tide is turning. With link this time!!

http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/sXDEVo_tAQqx0XkxrBkdEvQ/view.m?id=15&gid=commentisfree/2010/dec/29/us-israel-palestine-independence&cat=world

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 13
Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

pre 13 godina

To even hint at Milosevic's innocence should be a crime in itself.
(voiceofreason, 29 December 2010 16:01)

"You assert yourself to be what you are not and deny yourself what you are".

Preporučujem 7 Ne preporučujem 13
Jaja

pre 13 godina

The tide is starting to turn. I wonder if this is a result of Wikileaks. Articles pointing out the hypocrisy of the West and the il"legal" UDI. You never would have read this a year ago.

Preporučujem 12 Ne preporučujem 11
johny

pre 13 godina

"Milosevic was never found guilty by the international court and so is innocent too, right?"
(lowe, 29 December 2010 11:26)

-- The difference being that the justice system saw enough evidence that decided to charge Milosevic and officially accuse him of war crimes. Now such a thing hasn't happened with Thaci. When and if that happens you might actually have a point. Until then we're only dealing with your burning desire to believe in the current tabloid stories. However skepticism until ample evidence is presented, is how this world operates. If you had a scientific background you might be in a position to actually be able to understand that.

Preporučujem 18 Ne preporučujem 11
Top

pre 13 godina

"Milosevic was never found guilty by the international court and so is innocent too, right?"
(lowe, 29 December 2010 11:26)

Sure! According to some Serbs, he is. And of course, the ICTY is biased and anti-Serbian, and couldn't find any evidence, and Milosevic was killed. And some more fairy tales, of an "anti-Serbian network"...

Preporučujem 19 Ne preporučujem 10
iliri

pre 13 godina

''How many K-Serbs did vote in the election? Did we ever get the final count?
(Mike, 29 December 2010 17:50) ''

Yep, those damn traitors ! Beograd should have eleminated more slavic activists who collborated with Pristina. Appearently, K-serbs did not get the message...

Preporučujem 16 Ne preporučujem 10
Je¿-Jedi

pre 13 godina

the recent outpouring of hate here -- the orchestrated campaign, whether fr belgrade, marty, moscow
(roberto, 29 December 2010 19:25)

It is planned carefully by Darth Vader and Jar-Jar Binks who are living on Death Star-II. And Moscow is instructing them. Be careful, the two perpetrators targeting anyone who has albanomania because of robot lobotomy.

Preporučujem 6 Ne preporučujem 9
Simpatiku

pre 13 godina

Some people come cheap and Slobodan Petrović is one of them. Here is Thaci's contribution to Serbians in KiM with the help of NATO.

Before -> [link]
After -> [link]

And the thing is, Thaci and KiM Albanians are proud of their achievement. Slobodan Petrović has no morals.
(Zoran, 29 December 2010 11:11)

And Glas Javnosti is a source for you?

Preporučujem 12 Ne preporučujem 8
Peggy

pre 13 godina

I guess you're confusing the Yanks with the Russians. It is the Russians who do the bribing!
(Ian, UK, 29 December 2010 19:37)
======================

I am guessing you have never seen that documentary titled "The War on Democracy" by John Pilger.

Do yourself a favour and watch it. It will open you eyes. If you eyes are already open and all you want to do is smear your opponent and hope your side is never seen in truthful way then I have bad news for you. Other people around you are watching and reading material from credible people who totally oppose everything you say.

Preporučujem 7 Ne preporučujem 7
truthiness

pre 13 godina

@(Jugoslavija, 29 December 2010 22:51)

Great comments. No seriouslly , I couldnt stop laughing !!!
Your logic is perfect - simply ignore ALL empirical evidence that doesnt fit with your view. And then invent the rest. I have actually met pople like you. They are usually all conspiracy theorists.

Simple but effective !

Have a nice day :)

Preporučujem 11 Ne preporučujem 7
Joe

pre 13 godina

Before -> [link]
After -> [link]
Zoran

Due to the very high density of population in Kosovo I imagine that Serbs who moved from Kosovo to Central Serbia (low density) did the right thing.

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 6
lowe

pre 13 godina

"-- The difference being that the justice system saw enough evidence that decided to charge Milosevic and officially accuse him of war crimes. Now such a thing hasn't happened with Thaci. When and if that happens you might actually have a point. Until then we're only dealing with your burning desire to believe in the current tabloid stories. However skepticism until ample evidence is presented, is how this world operates. If you had a scientific background you might be in a position to actually be able to understand that.
(johny, 29 December 2010 19:51) "

So a person is guilty the moment he/she is charged? He/she is also guilty as long as a lot of evidence is presented in court? How do these square with the legal principle that the accused remains innocent UNTIL proven guilty? You have not been able to refute this point.

My point was that an accused can still be found not guilty in the end notwithstanding the gravity of the accusations and the tons of evidence presented in court to support the prosecution's case.

In thi sense, Milosevic, Hitler, Jack the Ripper and, yes, even your precious Thaci are legally innocent. And why does anybody need a "scientific background" to understand this simple legal principle? I put it to you that it is actually yourself who lacked this "scientific background".

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 6
The Lion This Time

pre 13 godina

I guess the americans can no longer afford to pay countries to recognize Kosovo so they have turned to bribing ordinary people.
(Mikael C, 29 December 2010 17:59)

I guess you're confusing the Yanks with the Russians. It is the Russians who do the bribing!
(Ian, UK, 29 December 2010 19:37)

You're grasping for straws and it is so obvious and pathetic. We all thought that after making yourself look like a complete fool by championing destroyed evidence as lack of evidence, that you would have picked up your toys by now and and gone home. Anyone that finds the organ harvesting issue so important to defend must feel personally threatened, or bought to spew forth lies and half- truths. If I am mistaken on the first assessment then it must be that your insufferable ego must feed on itself constantly by fooling you and making you believe that you are right and must be right no matter what the issue.

Preporučujem 8 Ne preporučujem 6
Zoran

pre 13 godina

There is enough evidence of witness intimidation at the Hague both in Milosevic's and Seselj's case. They have been subject to sleep deprivation, pressured during interviews, blackmailed, threatened and offered illegal payments of money. Here is a good documentary about Milosevic's case with witnesses admitting they were forced to lie.

Check http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FusfOqCtqc (there are 5 parts to that documentary)

As for Seselj's trial, we are 7 years into it now while it had taken 4 years just to get it started. In 2009, with only 7 hours of prosecution time left and having no intention of providing a defence the case still hasn't finished. It's nearly 2011!

Now listen to this - "The presiding judge however has declared he no longer wants a part of the trial as he deems it immoral and irrational as there is no way he can justly find Šešelj guilty."

Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seselj

It looks like the NATO court is investigating witness intimidation now.

"Spokesperson Christian Chartier noted that, following the independent investigation, due within six months, the court will determine if there are sufficient grounds to initiate contempt proceedings against investigators. According to statements sent to the court by Seselj, witnesses claimed that they were subject to sleep deprivation, pressured during interviews, blackmailed, threatened and offered illegal payments of money, and that their statements were not read before being signed."

Check http://jurist.org/paperchase/2010/08/icty-orders-independent-investigation-of-witness-intimidation-at-seselj-trial.php

I'm not sure how successful the NATO court investigating itself will be.

Anyway, you can continue wearing a blindfold and believe the propaganda or you can get the facts.

Preporučujem 8 Ne preporučujem 6
kgregovic@yahoo.ca

pre 13 godina

-- The difference being that the justice system saw enough evidence that decided to charge Milosevic and officially accuse him of war crimes. Now such a thing hasn't happened with Thaci. (johny, 29 December 2010 19:51)

RE; Wrong again Sherlock

There was no evidence to indict Slobodan Milosevic, he was apprehended to first face local charges and held in a Belgrade prison but they could not find any evidence to lay charges on him.

Contrary to the Yugoslav constitution at that time, he was held in jail and then Djinjdic and eventually Kostunica signed him over to the Hague Tribunal, from a false indictment produced by the Hague Tribunal.

The proseecutors main witness was Rade Markovic , the former head of the secret police of Yugoslavia. He actually revealed in his testimony the attempt to change his testimony to convict Milosevic blowing the prosecutors case to pieces. This was taken to closed camera session, so what happened after that remains a mystery, but Rade Markovic sentence was shortened to try to nail his President.

The cross examination of Rade Markovic was a pure act of cunning; you should read it sometime, you might actually learn something.

Regardless of Milosevic of possibly being a criminal in his own country, certainly not an international criminal by an stretch of the imagination.

As for Thaci, he has been a criminal all his life and has been on interpol on numerous occasions. He is no different than the Serbian drug lord Arkan, another war criminal who lived by the sword and eventually died by the sword; that fate awaits Thaci.

Preporučujem 8 Ne preporučujem 5
lowe

pre 13 godina

“-- Not at all. That is not at all what I have been saying. A person is the accused the moment he is officially charged. That happens only if there is ample evidence against that person and such evidence is presented to the justice system which then makes such charges. A person is not the accused the moment a tabloid story appears on the internet; simply because the appearance of a tabloid story is no indication that ample evidence was submitted to the justice system to make official charges against the person. There is a big difference here. Once a person is charged by the justice system; even though he is not guilty, part of the justice system believes that there is enough evidence to prove the person's guilt. Now if a person is not charged but only appears on a tabloid story then that means there is no evidence whatsoever and no part of the justice system which believes there is ample evidence to prove the person's guilt. So the difference is pretty big. Tabloid stories= no evidence whatsoever presented to the justice system and no part of the justice system has any evidence to prove the person's guilt. Charged by the justice system= part of the justice system has ample evidence to believe that guilt can be proven. “

Your long tirade still cannot change the legal principle that an accused is presumed innocent until actually proven guilty. The fact that “part of the justice system has ample evidence” is irrelevant because the judge(s) can still decide to reject those “ample evidence”. And then what good would these copious amounts of evidence be for except perhaps to make a laughing stock of the prosecution?


“-- I hope what I stated above satisfies you.”

Likewise my reply to your first point applies to this one too.


“--Sure they are all innocent because they weren't proven guilty. However they are not equivalent to each other. I'll explain below. “

If a person is innocent, then he/she is innocent period. I’m amazed that you appeared to think that there are different shades or degrees of innocence on the basis of the amount of evidence presented. My point was that until these evidence are accepted by the courts to establish guilt, the accused remains 100% innocent and this applies to everyone, including Milosevic too. I think that legally it is rubbish to suggest that Thaci is more innocent than Milosevic simply because the former has not yet been charged and lots of evidence were submitted by the prosecutors against the latter.


“-- You don't need it. However someone with a scientific background will always be skeptic unless evidence exists …….

Now in your case you want to lump Thaci together with Milosevic. …..”

Well, when you decried my lack of scientific background, I would have thought this wondrous scientific quality is necessary to understand even simple legal principles. Your longest tirade thus far (which I quoted only the first sentence of each paragraph so as not to waste space) still cannot alter the fact that Milosevic is legally as innocent as Thaci. In fact he’s as innocent as you, me and some 99.99% of mankind who have not been convicted by a court of law. And that’s why I lumped both men together -- they are both legally innocent for now.



“-- Whatever floats your boat.
(johny, 30 December 2010 23:17)”

You just tripped on your tongue again! I should think you would need at least some elementary scientific background to understand why a boat floats aka Archimedes Principle! :)

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 4
icj1

pre 13 godina

I'm not sure how successful the NATO court investigating itself will be.
(Zoran, 30 December 2010 09:16)

What do you mean by NATO Court ? I don't think Russia, China, Serbia, etc... are part of NATO

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 13 godina

In that particular thread, I stated that past data cannot be used to predict In that particular thread, I stated that past data cannot be used to predict FUTURE events unless of course you have reasonable grounds to believe in their correlation. By conveniently omitting the fact that I was referring to FUTURE events, you are being blatantly dishonest.
(lowe, 6 January 2011 11:08)

No sir, I am not blatantly dishonest, I’m being respectful for the readers to not offend their intelligence by stating the obvious. That is because everybody with a minimum of intelligence knows that people analyze past data in order to predict FUTURE; people don’t analyze past data because they don’t have where to spend their time.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 13 godina

And as I pointed out, all the evidence against Milosevic might have been ruled inadmissible had his trial continued. At the time of trial, the accused is still innocent regardless of the amount of evidence against him/her. Also, do bear in mind that the accusations against Thaci are relatively recent. It is not reasonable to expect a warrant to be issued on the spot. It can take years, decades even -- some Nazi suspects like Samuel Kunz, for example, are put on trial over half a century after their alleged crimes.
(lowe, 6 January 2011 11:19)

Of course that's what I said, about both the innocence and the Thaci issue.
Indeed, I pointed out though that Thaci and Milosevic are not in the same position (at least for now), because there was evidence against Milosevic sufficient for a judge to issue an arrest warrant; that's not the case with Thaci

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 13 godina

Of course do not forget that any evidence against Thaci must be carefully evaluated before any judge will issue that warrant of arrest -- you can't expect this to happen overnight. And it can still happen in the future. Only time will tell.
(lowe, 7 January 2011 10:30)

Of course, that's why I pointed out that Thaci and Milosevic are not in the same position (at least for now) (note FOR NOW), because there was evidence against Milosevic sufficient for a judge to issue an arrest warrant; that's not the case with Thaci

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 13 godina

As for the past data, it depends on what the data is about. I recall that in our discussion, you were using past US Treasury data (when the Yankee economy was booming and its currency exchange rates much higher than today’s) to support your point that the humongous US debt of today is something for the Yankees to celebrate about and that the greenback will definitely be in greater demand in the future based on these past data. And I remain unconvinced by your so called “evidence” to date.
(lowe, 7 January 2011 11:01)

No, you recall incorrectly, because the data that I was using in that discussion was from the latest treasury auctions just few weeks before of that discussion…

And by the way, not sure if you are celebrating, but I did not make any point anywhere that the US debt today is something for the Yankees to celebrate about.

And, of course, I don’t except you to be convinced because past data is totally irrelevant for you

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
metrod

pre 13 godina

According to the usual propagators here Milosevic was a nice guy who went down because of Western progapanda and their efforts to bring down Serbia.

Someone please help me understand how you expect the rest of the world to respect you or take you seriously when you put forth such monstreous allegations.

Anyone...(other than Peggy or Highduke)?

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 1
johny

pre 13 godina

"So a person is guilty the moment he/she is charged? He/she is also guilty as long as a lot of evidence is presented in court? "

-- Not at all. That is not at all what I have been saying. A person is the accused the moment he is officially charged. That happens only if there is ample evidence against that person and such evidence is presented to the justice system which then makes such charges. A person is not the accused the moment a tabloid story appears on the internet; simply because the appearance of a tabloid story is no indication that ample evidence was submitted to the justice system to make official charges against the person. There is a big difference here. Once a person is charged by the justice system; even though he is not guilty, part of the justice system believes that there is enough evidence to prove the person's guilt. Now if a person is not charged but only appears on a tabloid story then that means there is no evidence whatsoever and no part of the justice system which believes there is ample evidence to prove the person's guilt. So the difference is pretty big. Tabloid stories= no evidence whatsoever presented to the justice system and no part of the justice system has any evidence to prove the person's guilt. Charged by the justice system= part of the justice system has ample evidence to believe that guilt can be proven.

"How do these square with the legal principle that the accused remains innocent UNTIL proven guilty? You have not been able to refute this point. "

-- I hope what I stated above satisfies you.

"My point was that an accused can still be found not guilty in the end notwithstanding the gravity of the accusations and the tons of evidence presented in court to support the prosecution's case. "

-- Sure. Nobody is saying the opposite.

"In thi sense, Milosevic, Hitler, Jack the Ripper and, yes, even your precious Thaci are legally innocent."

--Sure they are all innocent because they weren't proven guilty. However they are not equivalent to each other. I'll explain below.

"And why does anybody need a "scientific background" to understand this simple legal principle?"


-- You don't need it. However someone with a scientific background will always be skeptic unless evidence exists. I'll explain. In the scientific world, credence is given to data. Data is the evidence. That is why no scientific paper is published and taken as true without releasing your data and without releasing your methods and procedures. These are the evidence. Once such evidence is released; then it is peer reviewed to ensure their accuracy. For example there is ample evidence about the existence of gravity. The evidence has been reproduced thousands of times. Now there are allegations about the existence of parallel universes; but nobody has been able to show any evidence about it. So the existence of such allegations by some scientists without any evidence to back it up, doesn't exactly make parallel universes the scientific equivalent of gravity. This is why people are still skeptic about the existence of parallel universes but not skeptic about the existence of gravity. This is also what brings us to Marty.

Now in your case you want to lump Thaci together with Milosevic. So while they're innocent because nobody has been proven guilty; they certainly are not the equivalent of each other. Thats is why Milosevic was sitting in prison for years while Thaci visits the EU and the US. If they were equivalent to each other than you would also be equal to Milosevic as well. The difference is in the fact that even though Milosevic was unable to stand trial till the end; there was ample evidence collected against him; which warranted for such evidence to be presented in a trial. Such a thing is not the case for Thaci or even you, and this is where that attempt at equivalence fails. I am saying that someone with a scientific background has no problem at all differentiating between the two. This may not be exactly the case if you have no scientific background; because some people just want to blindly believe even though no evidence whatsoever has been presented to the justice system and the situation, due to the lack of evidence, requires healthy skepticism. In Milosevic's case the analogy is a scientific paper published by some scientists making a hypothesis based on the evidence (data) they have. That is where things stopped. Such paper has not been able to undergo a full peer-review (trial didn't finish). Meaning Milosevic died and without his presence the data(evidence) was not able to be fully reviewed by others (the court; jury etc.). It doesn't mean that the evidence no longer exists though. In Thaci's case the analogy is the following. There has been no scientific paper published hence there has been no data (evidence) released. What we have is someone talking about a possibility of something but he/she has no evidence to back up the claims. As such we do not even get the chance to review the evidence since it doesn't exist. However we can read the allegations like any other tabloid story, rather than like a scientific paper which needs to be peer reviewed. The concept is not hard at all to grasp. While guilt has not been shown for one; enough evidence was gathered to warrant a trial while for the other there is nothing out there but a tabloid story. Evidence does not exist. You certainly do not need a scientific background to comprehend this; but certainly if you have it, you would naturally be skeptic until evidence is released. In the case of Milosevic such evidence was released. In Thaci's case; we have yet to see any evidence released to the justice system.

"I put it to you that it is actually yourself who lacked this "scientific background"."

-- Whatever floats your boat.

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 13 godina

Well, Milosevic may have been brought to the Hague, but he was NOT convicted by them. So that makes him innocent too right? You have evaded this question. Or are there double standards here?
(lowe, 29 December 2010 13:03)

Of course both Thaci and Milosevic are innocent, but in the criminal prosecution process there are three stages.

1. Suspicions somebody committed a criminal act which are not sufficient to issue an arrest warrant (Thaci's case)

2. Facts/evidence somebody committed a criminal act which are sufficient to issue an arrest warrant (Milosevic's case)

3. Conviction of somebody for committing a criminal act

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 13 godina

"And why does anybody need a "scientific background" to understand this simple legal principle?"
(lowe, 30 December 2010 00:12)

-- You don't need it. However someone with a scientific background will always be skeptic unless evidence exists.
(johny, 30 December 2010 23:17)

Johny, for Lowe “skepticism” does not exist. If something is published online, that is sufficient for him/her. He/she does not need data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments; something written somewhere in the web is all he/she needs. Here is what Lowe has to say when asked about this:

“But I’m asking for the reason. You must have a reason to consider them reliable. Tell me those reasons and I may very well consider them reliable, too. But you can’t say that they are reliable because you say so. “
(icj1, 21 November 2010 19:27)

My reason is simple – simply because I find them reliable enough to form the basis for my opinion.
(Lowe, 21 November 2010 22:42)

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 13 godina

I only asked someone whether Milosevic is legally innocent. But johny had to make a mountain out of a molehill by suggesting that there are different degrees of innocence based on the amount of evidence produced. The prosecution can produce one million evidences against the accused but if these are rejected by the courts, the accused remains innocent. But if the prosecutor produces just one piece of evidence against an accused and the court convicts him/her on that sole evidence, then that accused becomes guilty. So the amount of evidence is irrelevant to me. What is relevant is what the judge/jury make of the evidence.
(lowe, 2 January 2011 13:44)

Of course, but the judge found sufficient evidence existed for Milosevic to issue an arrest warrant against him. That's not the case for Thaci, me or you.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 13 godina

Yes, if my judgment call tells me that the online source is reliable, I will form my opinion on that basis.
(lowe, 2 January 2011 13:53)

We agree then... that's what I was saying that you don't need data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments. You just need your judgement regardless of data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments. In other words you if you believe it is reasonable, that it is so, regardless of data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 13 godina

That still doesn't change the fact that Milosevic remains innocent which was my point all along.
(lowe, 3 January 2011 10:48)

Of course that's what I said.

I just pointed out though that Thaci and Milosevic are not in the same position (at least for now), because there was evidence against Milosevic sufficient for a judge to issue an arrest warrant; that's not the case with Thaci.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 13 godina

I evaluate the evidence, data, facts, arguments etc etc as they are found in my sources and decide if they are credible enough for me to believe them. (lowe, 3 January 2011 10:53)

I don't think you do because you think that past data is totally irrelevant (unless, of course, there was a different "lowe" who expressed those thoughts, in which case I apologize)

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 13 godina

It took years for Milosevic to be issued a warrant and so logically it might also take years for Thaci to be given one if it does come to that. My point all along was that Milosevic today is still legally innocent which johny appears to have difficulty understanding.
(lowe, 10 January 2011 02:24)

Of course, I just pointed out that Thaci and Milosevic are not in the same position (at least for now) (note FOR NOW), because there was evidence against Milosevic sufficient for a judge to issue an arrest warrant; whereas for Thaci even the evidence is not there..

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 13 godina

Even if I were to accept your dates now, the data was still irrelevant as shall be shown below.
(lowe, 10 January 2011 03:14)

You did not show anything below, but thanks for accepting the dates.



It definitely concerned the news report about the G20 countries thinking about replacing the greenback!
(lowe, 10 January 2011 03:14)

Proof please that the G20 countries were thinking about replacing the greenback…



You brought in your past treasury data which was really irrelevant to any possible future decision to replace the greenback by these countries. Your treasury data cannot be relevant to any possible political decisions (which would depend on the opinions of politicians however much you seemed to distrust people’s opinions) to replace the dollar. Using your treasury data, it is like using nitrogen to prove that water contains hydrogen, whether now or in the future!
(lowe, 10 January 2011 03:14)

First you did not bring any proof about what the opinion of the politicians will be. Second, the data is highly relevant since, I’m assuming, that by “greenback” you mean the “USD” (I apologize if this assumption of mine is incorrect). In any case, the proof that I brought to you was not about the above, but about “the world is no longer blind to the reality of the Yankee financial situation today unlike the last 2 decades. And that's why the Yankee had to pretend to be a bit nicer these days”. So my data is highly relevant because it shows how the creditors see the FUTURE Yankee financial situation.



Since you admit not to have data to support that the US is doing marvellously with its humongous debt, then logically the views of the US government officials (including the president himself) about the US economic position would be the best thing that Americans and foreigners can rely on.
(lowe, 10 January 2011 03:14)

Of course, if they are supported by the data. Show me the data that supports the views of the Yankee officials and I’ll agree with them. But I can’t agree with something just because an official, especially a Yankee one, said so.



WRONG! In that particular thread, I listed 3 links for Joe to read. Those 3 links contained only articles which negatively portrayed US debt and the grave concerns of some US officials. They do NOT contain any relative comparison between the Chinese and Yankees!
(lowe, 10 January 2011 03:14)

Of course they did contain the comparison. The articles were about China and showed that nobody was lending to China (I did not see anywhere in the articles that somebody was lending to China – I apologize if I missed it, but you can show to me which article said that lenders are lending to China). But they did show that lenders were lending to the US significant amounts of money.



You however QUOTED these 3 links when you stated that the US is much better off than China even though there was no relative comparison between these countries. In other words, you were only referring to these 3 links when you stated that they showed that the US are much better off than China – which is definitely FALSE!
(lowe, 10 January 2011 03:14)

Of course they do show that US is better off because you provided articles about China, which show that lenders are not lending to China but are lending to the US. There is the comparison. I don’t understand why it’s so difficult for you to grasp it.



I do accept these provided they are logical and relevant. Not in your case though, I should think.
(lowe, 10 January 2011 03:14)

That’s not what you said before. You are only mentioning the relevance now. Before you only mentioned that the data was from the "past". In any case, as I explained, my data is highly relevant. Whereas in your case, you don’t even have the data to support anything you say.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 13 godina

In that thread I provided a link to a news report that G20 countries are thinking about replacing the dollar in the future. You chose to disregard it in that thread. I think it is this one [link]/
(lowe, 16 January 2011 06:36)

Of course because the data was not showing that. That’s why a news report is not a fact. It should rather serve as an incentive to research the facts.


I have provided the above link in that thread which you conveniently chose to not to see and so it is not my fault. How your past treasury data can show the thinking of those G20 governments about dumping the dollar in the future is beyond me.
(lowe, 16 January 2011 06:36)

Somebody who thinks (they did not say it, but let’s assume for the sake of the argument that you had able mind readers) to dump the US dollar would not go to buy US treasuries (unless it’s stupid). Rather they would have started long ago to dump the treasuries.


And your conclusion that the Yankees are doing well because they borrow more and more from creditors sounds fishy to me.
(lowe, 16 January 2011 06:36)

Not because they want to borrow, but because they CAN borrow. Creditors will not lend humongous amounts of money to somebody who’s not well off.


At least I have the links containing the views of the Yankee officials to back me up. You have nothing. Zero.
(lowe, 16 January 2011 06:36)

I have the data :) I don’t trust the views; those are subjective.


You quoted my 3 specific links – this means you were ONLY referring to these 3 links and not to others. And these 3 links do not contain any discussion of China’s financial position. So using my 3 links as your evidence amounts to utterly FALSE proof as I already mentioned above.
(lowe, 16 January 2011 06:36)

They did not contain anything about China ?! But I thought they were about China !!!


And being past data was only one reason why they are irrelevant.
(lowe, 16 January 2011 06:36)

You are saying that now… Being “past” was the only reason you mentioned before


Not only are they past data but they concerned US debts, and I fail to see how these can explain whether leaders from some countries will dump the greenback or not as an exchange currency in the future.
(lowe, 16 January 2011 06:36)

They predict the future for decades to come. If A lends to B for 30 years, A has to be sure that B's currency is OK for, at least, 30 years, otherwise it may get paid back with worthless paper.



Lastly I must say that I find it real strange that you consider it to be “doing well” when lenders lend you money. You seem to forget that the money borrowed must be paid back with interests.
(lowe, 16 January 2011 06:36)

Of course is has to be paid back with interest. But money is not borrowed to put it under the mattress. It is borrowed to do something with it. It that something generates more than the interest, than the debt is good, if not it is bad. I don’t have data for either the good or the bad. If you do, please show them. Show what is the net economic benefit of the US from this debt; is it positive or negative ?


On the flip side, am I “doing badly” if I have a fat bank account and no one lends me money?
(lowe, 16 January 2011 06:36)

No, I did not say having a lot of money in a bank account means doing badly. But those articles you provided about China did not show that China has a lot of money in a bank account (or, at least, I missed it).



Did it ever occur to you that maybe I don’t need to borrow and don’t want to borrow? By your definition, it appears that all the people in this world who have fat bank accounts and do not owe any money to anyone must be “doing badly” – not sure that they would agree with your so called logic!
(lowe, 16 January 2011 06:36)

That may be your logic, but not mine, I did not say that people with “fat bank accounts and do not owe any money to anyone must be “doing badly””. They may be doing good or bad; it depends. The same thing with people owning money; they may or may not be doing badly. All depends on what’s higher; the income or the expenses.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Of course both Thaci and Milosevic are innocent, but in the criminal prosecution process there are three stages.

1. Suspicions somebody committed a criminal act which are not sufficient to issue an arrest warrant (Thaci's case)

2. Facts/evidence somebody committed a criminal act which are sufficient to issue an arrest warrant (Milosevic's case)

3. Conviction of somebody for committing a criminal act
(icj1, 2 January 2011 07:08) "

There could be a million stages in the criminal process for all I care but that's irrelevant to my point that the accused is innocent until actually proven guilty by the courts.

I only asked someone whether Milosevic is legally innocent. But johny had to make a mountain out of a molehill by suggesting that there are different degrees of innocence based on the amount of evidence produced. The prosecution can produce one million evidences against the accused but if these are rejected by the courts, the accused remains innocent. But if the prosecutor produces just one piece of evidence against an accused and the court convicts him/her on that sole evidence, then that accused becomes guilty. So the amount of evidence is irrelevant to me. What is relevant is what the judge/jury make of the evidence.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Johny, for Lowe “skepticism” does not exist. If something is published online, that is sufficient for him/her. He/she does not need data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments; something written somewhere in the web is all he/she needs. Here is what Lowe has to say when asked about this:

“But I’m asking for the reason. You must have a reason to consider them reliable. Tell me those reasons and I may very well consider them reliable, too. But you can’t say that they are reliable because you say so. “
(icj1, 21 November 2010 19:27)

My reason is simple – simply because I find them reliable enough to form the basis for my opinion.
(Lowe, 21 November 2010 22:42)
(icj1, 2 January 2011 07:31) "

Yes, if my judgment call tells me that the online source is reliable, I will form my opinion on that basis. I never said that you have to agree with my opinion. In any case, that's better than having no sources to back your position at all -- like your previous assertion, if I recalled correctly, that soccer and the sun are correlated! And maybe that's why you needed to rely on your fortune teller too!

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Of course, but the judge found sufficient evidence existed for Milosevic to issue an arrest warrant against him. That's not the case for Thaci, me or you.
(icj1, 2 January 2011 23:19) "

That still doesn't change the fact that Milosevic remains innocent which was my point all along. It was possible that the judge could have decided to throw out all the evidence in the end, no matter how matter were submitted by the prosecution.

Thaci is innocent for now, no charges were levied against him yet. But it is possible that could change in the future. But this was not the issue in my first post which asked whether Milosevic is legally innocent or not.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"We agree then... that's what I was saying that you don't need data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments. You just need your judgement regardless of data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments. In other words you if you believe it is reasonable, that it is so, regardless of data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments.
(icj1, 2 January 2011 23:22) "

I evaluate the evidence, data, facts, arguments etc etc as they are found in my sources and decide if they are credible enough for me to believe them. Unlike you who claimed to find your "tons of evidence" in your fortune teller, and then failed to produce them!

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"I don't think you do because you think that past data is totally irrelevant (unless, of course, there was a different "lowe" who expressed those thoughts, in which case I apologize)
(icj1, 6 January 2011 05:18) "

In that particular thread, I stated that past data cannot be used to predict FUTURE events unless of course you have reasonable grounds to believe in their correlation. By conveniently omitting the fact that I was referring to FUTURE events, you are being blatantly dishonest. But then what should I expect from someone who relies on his/her fortune teller for "tons of evidence"?

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Of course that's what I said.

I just pointed out though that Thaci and Milosevic are not in the same position (at least for now), because there was evidence against Milosevic sufficient for a judge to issue an arrest warrant; that's not the case with Thaci.
(icj1, 6 January 2011 05:11) "

And as I pointed out, all the evidence against Milosevic might have been ruled inadmissible had his trial continued. At the time of trial, the accused is still innocent regardless of the amount of evidence against him/her.

Also, do bear in mind that the accusations against Thaci are relatively recent. It is not reasonable to expect a warrant to be issued on the spot. It can take years, decades even -- some Nazi suspects like Samuel Kunz, for example, are put on trial over half a century after their alleged crimes.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Of course that's what I said, about both the innocence and the Thaci issue.
Indeed, I pointed out though that Thaci and Milosevic are not in the same position (at least for now), because there was evidence against Milosevic sufficient for a judge to issue an arrest warrant; that's not the case with Thaci
(icj1, 7 January 2011 04:55) "

Of course do not forget that any evidence against Thaci must be carefully evaluated before any judge will issue that warrant of arrest -- you can't expect this to happen overnight. And it can still happen in the future. Only time will tell.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

“No sir, I am not blatantly dishonest, I’m being respectful for the readers to not offend their intelligence by stating the obvious. That is because everybody with a minimum of intelligence knows that people analyze past data in order to predict FUTURE; people don’t analyze past data because they don’t have where to spend their time.
(icj1, 7 January 2011 04:52)”

Well, if you call boasting about getting tons of evidence through your fortune teller (and then failing to do so) as being “respectful for the readers to not offend their intelligence …”, I would certainly beg to differ.

As for the past data, it depends on what the data is about. I recall that in our discussion, you were using past US Treasury data (when the Yankee economy was booming and its currency exchange rates much higher than today’s) to support your point that the humongous US debt of today is something for the Yankees to celebrate about and that the greenback will definitely be in greater demand in the future based on these past data. And I remain unconvinced by your so called “evidence” to date.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Of course, that's why I pointed out that Thaci and Milosevic are not in the same position (at least for now) (note FOR NOW), because there was evidence against Milosevic sufficient for a judge to issue an arrest warrant; that's not the case with Thaci
(icj1, 8 January 2011 05:57) "

And it still does not rule out that Thaci could still be charged by the courts sometime in the future. And only piece of evidence is enough to convict an accused and so the amount of evidence is really not the be all and end all.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

“No, you recall incorrectly, because the data that I was using in that discussion was from the latest treasury auctions just few weeks before of that discussion…

And by the way, not sure if you are celebrating, but I did not make any point anywhere that the US debt today is something for the Yankees to celebrate about.

And, of course, I don’t except you to be convinced because past data is totally irrelevant for you
(icj1, 8 January 2011 06:09)”

It was you who recalled wrongly. Firstly it wasn’t merely weeks before that discussion. Moreover I remembered that the issue was about a news report that some G20 countries are thinking of jettisoning the greenback as the currency of exchange in the future which could take many years or even decades. So even if I were to accept that your past data was just a few weeks old then, they still cannot logically in this case be used to predict currency events that will occur only years or decades into the future. Hence your past treasury is irrelevant.

As for US debt, you did seem to imply that they are nothing to worry and you brought in those 2 corporations to back your point. Moreover you also stated separately, in response to my URL links about the humongous US debt, that the Yankees were doing much better than China on this issue based on these links alone.

So of course I was and remain unconvinced by your arguments and past data.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

It was you who recalled wrongly. Firstly it wasn’t merely weeks before that discussion.
(lowe, 9 January 2011 01:46)

No sir, it is you that are recalling incorrectly. I posted it on 13 Nov with the auction data from 29 Oct, i.e. 15 days old (which hardly classifies even as weeks, it’s more about days).



Moreover I remembered that the issue was about a news report that some G20 countries are thinking of jettisoning the greenback as the currency of exchange in the future which could take many years or even decades.
(lowe, 9 January 2011 01:46)

No, again you recall incorrectly. It was not about that, since neither me nor you showed data or facts that investments in the US doesn’t appear that important “for many other countries such as those in the G20” (beside the mind reading stuff that you expected the G20 leaders to come out and deny).



So even if I were to accept that your past data was just a few weeks old then, they still cannot logically in this case be used to predict currency events that will occur only years or decades into the future. Hence your past treasury is irrelevant.
(lowe, 9 January 2011 01:46)

That’s what I was saying that you don't need data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments. Glad we agree on that. Also, you need to replace “will” with “could”.



As for US debt, you did seem to imply that they are nothing to worry and you brought in those 2 corporations to back your point.
(lowe, 9 January 2011 01:46)

No, I did not say that. I brought two examples that debt could be good as you appeared unconvinced about that. Note “could”; of course I could bring you other examples about debt being bad, but I’m not doing it since you appear to be convinced about that. I’m not taking any position whether the debt the US is issuing is actually good or bad. I repeatedly said that. The reason I’m not taking a position is that I don’t have sufficient data to support either side.



Moreover you also stated separately, in response to my URL links about the humongous US debt, that the Yankees were doing much better than China on this issue based on these links alone.
(lowe, 9 January 2011 01:46)

Yes, because the links about China that you brought showed that lenders are not lending to China but are lending to the US. So the US is better off than China otherwise the lenders would not do the above. Note I said “better off”, not “better off issuing debt”.



So of course I was and remain unconvinced by your arguments and past data.
(lowe, 9 January 2011 01:46)

I don’t expect that because as said before you don't need data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

And it still does not rule out that Thaci could still be charged by the courts sometime in the future. And only piece of evidence is enough to convict an accused and so the amount of evidence is really not the be all and end all.
(lowe, 9 January 2011 01:27)

Of course, that's why I pointed out that Thaci and Milosevic are not in the same position (at least for now) (note FOR NOW), because there was evidence against Milosevic sufficient for a judge to issue an arrest warrant; that's not the case with Thaci. Can’t tell about the future…. We can discuss when it arrives.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Of course, that's why I pointed out that Thaci and Milosevic are not in the same position (at least for now) (note FOR NOW), because there was evidence against Milosevic sufficient for a judge to issue an arrest warrant; that's not the case with Thaci. Can’t tell about the future…. We can discuss when it arrives.
(icj1, 9 January 2011 22:57) "

It took years for Milosevic to be issued a warrant and so logically it might also take years for Thaci to be given one if it does come to that. My point all along was that Milosevic today is still legally innocent which johny appears to have difficulty understanding.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

“No sir, it is you that are recalling incorrectly. I posted it on 13 Nov with the auction data from 29 Oct, i.e. 15 days old (which hardly classifies even as weeks, it’s more about days). “

Even if I were to accept your dates now, the data was still irrelevant as shall be shown below.



“No, again you recall incorrectly. It was not about that, since neither me nor you showed data or facts that investments in the US doesn’t appear that important “for many other countries such as those in the G20” (beside the mind reading stuff that you expected the G20 leaders to come out and deny).

That’s what I was saying that you don't need data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments. Glad we agree on that. Also, you need to replace “will” with “could”.”

It definitely concerned the news report about the G20 countries thinking about replacing the greenback! You brought in your past treasury data which was really irrelevant to any possible future decision to replace the greenback by these countries. Your treasury data cannot be relevant to any possible political decisions (which would depend on the opinions of politicians however much you seemed to distrust people’s opinions) to replace the dollar. Using your treasury data, it is like using nitrogen to prove that water contains hydrogen, whether now or in the future!


“No, I did not say that. I brought two examples that debt could be good as you appeared unconvinced about that. Note “could”; of course I could bring you other examples about debt being bad, but I’m not doing it since you appear to be convinced about that. I’m not taking any position whether the debt the US is issuing is actually good or bad. I repeatedly said that. The reason I’m not taking a position is that I don’t have sufficient data to support either side. “

Since you admit not to have data to support that the US is doing marvellously with its humongous debt, then logically the views of the US government officials (including the president himself) about the US economic position would be the best thing that Americans and foreigners can rely on. And their views are generally in a very negative direction!


“Yes, because the links about China that you brought showed that lenders are not lending to China but are lending to the US. So the US is better off than China otherwise the lenders would not do the above. Note I said “better off”, not “better off issuing debt”. “

WRONG! In that particular thread, I listed 3 links for Joe to read. Those 3 links contained only articles which negatively portrayed US debt and the grave concerns of some US officials. They do NOT contain any relative comparison between the Chinese and Yankees! You however QUOTED these 3 links when you stated that the US is much better off than China even though there was no relative comparison between these countries. In other words, you were only referring to these 3 links when you stated that they showed that the US are much better off than China – which is definitely FALSE!

“I don’t expect that because as said before you don't need data, facts, evidence, reasoning or arguments.
(icj1, 9 January 2011 22:55)”

I do accept these provided they are logical and relevant. Not in your case though, I should think.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

“You did not show anything below, but thanks for accepting the dates. “

On the contrary I did. I showed that your treasury data was irrelevant to any possible future decision by the G20 countries to replace the greenback.


“Proof please that the G20 countries were thinking about replacing the greenback… “

In that thread I provided a link to a news report that G20 countries are thinking about replacing the dollar in the future. You chose to disregard it in that thread. I think it is this one http://moneymorning.com/2010/11/11/g-20-finally-dump-dollar-worlds-main-reserve-currency/


“First you did not bring any proof about what the opinion of the politicians will be. Second, the data is highly relevant since, I’m assuming, that by “greenback” you mean the “USD” (I apologize if this assumption of mine is incorrect). In any case, the proof that I brought to you was not about the above, but about “the world is no longer blind to the reality of the Yankee financial situation today unlike the last 2 decades. And that's why the Yankee had to pretend to be a bit nicer these days”. So my data is highly relevant because it shows how the creditors see the FUTURE Yankee financial situation. “

I have provided the above link in that thread which you conveniently chose to not to see and so it is not my fault. How your past treasury data can show the thinking of those G20 governments about dumping the dollar in the future is beyond me. And your conclusion that the Yankees are doing well because they borrow more and more from creditors sounds fishy to me. You seem to be assuming that they borrow more for free and need not pay humongous interests. Moreover, if you are so right then why is the US government and people so worried about their debt situation?



“Of course, if they are supported by the data. Show me the data that supports the views of the Yankee officials and I’ll agree with them. But I can’t agree with something just because an official, especially a Yankee one, said so.”

At least I have the links containing the views of the Yankee officials to back me up. You have nothing. Zero.


“Of course they did contain the comparison. The articles were about China and showed that nobody was lending to China (I did not see anywhere in the articles that somebody was lending to China – I apologize if I missed it, but you can show to me which article said that lenders are lending to China). But they did show that lenders were lending to the US significant amounts of money. “

You are being blatantly dishonest here! Whether China wanted to borrow or not was NOT discussed in any of these links!.Those 3 articles did NOT contain any relative Chinese-Yankee comparisons at all. But you are claiming that they did! Are these relative comparisons written in invisible ink that only you and your fortune teller can see? You used my 3 links as your evidence and in this case your proof was and still is FALSE!



“Of course they do show that US is better off because you provided articles about China, which show that lenders are not lending to China but are lending to the US. There is the comparison. I don’t understand why it’s so difficult for you to grasp it. “

You quoted my 3 specific links – this means you were ONLY referring to these 3 links and not to others. And these 3 links do not contain any discussion of China’s financial position. So using my 3 links as your evidence amounts to utterly FALSE proof as I already mentioned above.


“That’s not what you said before. You are only mentioning the relevance now. Before you only mentioned that the data was from the "past". In any case, as I explained, my data is highly relevant. Whereas in your case, you don’t even have the data to support anything you say.
(icj1, 15 January 2011 20:38)”

Let me put it clearly enough for you and your fortune teller – I did not accept your data because I think they are irrelevant. And being past data was only one reason why they are irrelevant. Not only are they past data but they concerned US debts, and I fail to see how these can explain whether leaders from some countries will dump the greenback or not as an exchange currency in the future. In other words, your past data had been irrelevant all along and that’s why I rejected them.

Lastly I must say that I find it real strange that you consider it to be “doing well” when lenders lend you money. You seem to forget that the money borrowed must be paid back with interests. Aren’t there enough Yankees who borrowed from willing lenders (the banks) during before the financial crisis only to have their homes and assets foreclosed when they couldn’t repay their loans? And the interest payments that the US must pay its creditors would represent an economic opportunity cost lost as these payments could otherwise be used for the production of goods and services. On the flip side, am I “doing badly” if I have a fat bank account and no one lends me money? Did it ever occur to you that maybe I don’t need to borrow and don’t want to borrow? By your definition, it appears that all the people in this world who have fat bank accounts and do not owe any money to anyone must be “doing badly” – not sure that they would agree with your so called logic!

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Of course, I just pointed out that Thaci and Milosevic are not in the same position (at least for now) (note FOR NOW), because there was evidence against Milosevic sufficient for a judge to issue an arrest warrant; whereas for Thaci even the evidence is not there..
(icj1, 15 January 2011 20:09)"

Warrants of arrest and sufficiency of evidence mean nothing unless the court actually uses those evidence to convict an accused. So Milosevic remains legally innocent despite that warrant and despite the amount of evidence. And he will always be legally innocent unless they change the rules and decide to waste money and try the dead!

On the other hand, should Thaci be charged in the future, it is possible for him to be convicted on just one piece of evidence -- so you don't need tons of them.

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

I see you are back!

“Of course because the data was not showing that. That’s why a news report is not a fact. It should rather serve as an incentive to research the facts.”

As I already told you previously, I considered that news source to be credible enough for me to use. B92 readers generally do this by the way in case you have not noticed, including those who are pro-Pristina or Pro-Yankee in case. Again you refer to your past data – how can they possibly show any POLITICAL decision to replace the greenback? Please answer this question.




“Somebody who thinks (they did not say it, but let’s assume for the sake of the argument that you had able mind readers) to dump the US dollar would not go to buy US treasuries (unless it’s stupid). Rather they would have started long ago to dump the treasuries.”

You used past treasury sales data showing PAST decision to buy US debts. How can these PAST data about US debts prove FUTURE decisions about replacing the dollar?????


“Not because they want to borrow, but because they CAN borrow. Creditors will not lend humongous amounts of money to somebody who’s not well off.”

So having to pay humongous interest payments, thereby representing a huge economic opportunity costs foregone is your idea of doing well! And conversely people who don’t need to borrow and don’t want to borrow are by your reasoning doing badly! Twisted logic if you ask me!


“I have the data :) I don’t trust the views; those are subjective.”

Your data are IRRELEVANT data because they are past data as I already pointed out above.


“They did not contain anything about China ?! But I thought they were about China !!! “

Those 3 specific links were NOT about China’s finances! Please stop pretending to overlook this material point. They were about the US financial position and the worries of US politicians and people! So, as I already stated so many times, using them as your proof amounts to pure falsehood!




“You are saying that now… Being “past” was the only reason you mentioned before”

Being past data was one reason why they are irrelevant and so I was not originally wrong. The second reason why they are irrelevant, as I already told you, was because they concerned US debts. Both reasons cannot explain any possible future political decision by G20 leaders to dump the dollar.




“They predict the future for decades to come. If A lends to B for 30 years, A has to be sure that B's currency is OK for, at least, 30 years, otherwise it may get paid back with worthless paper.”

Show me the proof that they are being used to predict poltical decisions of the future, in this case, about POLITICAL decisions to dump the greenback.


“Of course is has to be paid back with interest. But money is not borrowed to put it under the mattress. It is borrowed to do something with it. It that something generates more than the interest, than the debt is good, if not it is bad. I don’t have data for either the good or the bad. If you do, please show them. Show what is the net economic benefit of the US from this debt; is it positive or negative ? “

Show me the proof that the money borrowed is in fact being used to “generate more” for the entire US economy. Your claim doesn’t seem to square with the worries that US leaders and citizens have been airing in the news! And you have no proof to back your claim in any case.




“No, I did not say having a lot of money in a bank account means doing badly. But those articles you provided about China did not show that China has a lot of money in a bank account (or, at least, I missed it).”

Those 3 specific links were not about China’s finances and so for you to use them as your proof amounts to false proof. It is like using an article about Mongolia to make a claim about Kosovo.



“That may be your logic, but not mine, I did not say that people with “fat bank accounts and do not owe any money to anyone must be “doing badly””. They may be doing good or bad; it depends. The same thing with people owning money; they may or may not be doing badly. All depends on what’s higher; the income or the expenses.
(icj1, 5 March 2011 20:26)”

You basically made the claim that the US is doing great because of its humongous debts from its huge borrowings. I therefore asked you about the flip side -- whether people who have fat accounts and don’t need to borrow are conversely doing badly to show the absurdity of your logic. So far you have failed to show that the entire US economy borrowed in order to reinvest and benefit from the net gain, and that this was its main intention for borrowing in the first place.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0