29 Dec 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe Bill Robinson tap dance miracle where he Steps around the truth and Fetches an almost plausable denial.
Just out of interest, what miracles have been attributed to Stepinac's intercession?
notice Ivanhoe's attack on liberals .
He knows Stepinac was a fascist-lover but he's unable to admit it, except maybe during one of the secret Opus Deis meetings.
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by no1marauderHe did not support Nazi-invaders. It is a fabricated accusation, constructed by the Yugoslav communists in their campaigne against the Church.
LMFAO!! Yes, it's certainly a minor "misjudgment" to support Nazi invaders but that in no way reduces his "personal holiness".🙄
In 1985 the trial prosecutor Jakov Blazevic admited publically that Cardinal Stepinac's trial was entirely framed, and that Stepinac was tried only because he refused to sever thousand year old ties between Croatians and the Roman Catholic Church.
You should be ashamed of yourself to rehash all these communist lies and manipulations in order to make your case against the Roman-Catholic Church.
30 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder"..... the imaginary persecution of the RCC" ? ...... marauder, you yourself are engaging in this "imaginary persecution". What else are you doing do you think ? Stepping in for the truth ? As I told you before you are not interested in the truth. You only pretend to be.
It's remarkable that you're soooooooooooo stupid that you can't understand what they are saying. It's also remarkable but predictable that you have managed to turn this discussion into another rant about the imaginary persecution of the RCC. The millions of Yugoslavs who actually resisted the Nazis and NDH rather than supporting them like your "saint" don't count; I guess they were pro-Communist conspirators against the Church, too.
The way you describe the situation in Yugoslavia shortly before and during the war shows you do not have any knowledge about the situation.
Why don't you enlighten us about the developments in Cardinal Stepinac's stances towards the nation of Croatia and its regime for instance ...... and please explain the difference between the two.
Why don't you enlighten us about the actions Cardinal Stepinac took to speak on behalf of the persecuted people under Nazi-rule ?
No, you simply chose to parrot the Yugoslav Communists.
Have you ever wondered how it was possible that the Serbian leader Milosevic once was a federal Yugoslav communist and turned out to be a vulgar Serb-nationalistic racist and fascist, ready to massacre thousands and thousands of Bosnians and Croats ? Explain please why this former federalist communist is now before the International Court of Justice in The Hague charged with genocide .... Please, don't come up with the excuse it has nothing to do with it ... it has everything to do with it.
30 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeI agree. Most conflicts around the world (Gulf Wars excepted) build on a base of centuries-old conflict between two racial or ethnic groups. Simply banding them together into a political unit does not create a shared national consciousness (the USA and India are the only two major exceptions I can think of). This is particularly true of Eastern Europe - you simply cannot understand, say, the collapse of the USSR without it.
Have you ever wondered how it was possible that the Serbian leader Milosevic once was a federal Yugoslav communist and turned out to be a vulgar Serb-nationalistic racist and fascist, ready to massacre thousands and thousands of Bosnians and Croats ? Explain please why this former federalist communist is now before the International Court of Justice in The H ...[text shortened]... don't come up with the excuse it has nothing to do with it ... it has everything to do with it.
When no1 talks about "millions of Yugoslavs" (I think he started off with "thousands", but the numbers went up as the debate progressed) resisting the NDH, he is giving it a legalistic reading ("They're all citizens of the political unit called Yugoslavia, hence they are Yugoslavs" ) rather than a sociological one ("The majority of the resistance were Serbs who feared oppression under the largely-Croat NDH" ).
30 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerLH: "I agree."
I agree. Most conflicts around the world (Gulf Wars excepted) build on a base of centuries-old conflict between two racial or ethnic groups. Simply banding them together into a political unit does not create a shared national consciousness (the USA and India are the only two major exceptions I can think of). This is particularly true of Eastern Europe rity of the resistance were Serbs who feared oppression under the largely-Croat NDH" ).
Thanks 🙂
LH: " ... he is giving it a legalistic reading"
The marauder almost always takes a formal legalistic stance. In this case a most hilarious one: "I don't care whether it was a show trial or not, the evidence was overwhelming."
30 Dec 05
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderReally?
When your country is invaded and you support some of it becoming "independent" as your countrymen are fighting and dying in heroic resistance it's treachery of the highest order to me.
Care to tell me how that's different from, say, the Kurds supporting the Americans in Gulf War II? Do you consider them traitors? Do you consider all Iraqis who helped the Americans to be traitors?
Or, for that matter, George Washington (who was, after all, a British colonist) for enlisting the military support of the French, the Spanish and the Dutch? After all, the loyalists fighting for the British side were no less American than he was, and the status quo was British government of America - so GW would, legally and by your logic, be a traitor.
30 Dec 05
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerStepanic supported a NAZI invasion of his country for the purpose of establishing a fascist regime in Croatia. He greeted Pavelic, a known fascist and an accused assassin, as the leader of Croatia while Nazi troops were still fighting the Yugoslav Army. And a tidbit: Stepanic held the post as military Vicar in the Yugoslav army; thus he was definitelty a traitor.
Really?
Care to tell me how that's different from, say, the Kurds supporting the Americans in Gulf War II? Do you consider them traitors? Do you consider all Iraqis who helped the Americans to be traitors?
Or, for that matter, George Washington (who was, after all, a British colonist) for enlisting the military support of the French, the ...[text shortened]... s quo was British government of America - so GW would, legally and by your logic, be a traitor.
Stepanic did not support a civil war for the independence of Croatia before the Nazi invasion. In your examples, both the Kurds and George Washington were fighting for their independence prior to any outside intervention. Iraqis who aid the invasion of their country are traitors, but even they haven't sent Iraqis troops into other countries to kill for the occupying power. Your historical analogies need work.
BTW, if the American Revolution had failed, George Washington and others probably would have been treated as traitors by the British. They accepted that as Benjamin Franklin's famous statement - "We must all hang together or assuredly we will all hang seperately" - indicates. The whining that is being done about Stepanic being convicted of treason, which he was certainly guilty of, is ridiculous. And making him a "marytr" for enduring house arrest when 1.5 million Yugoslavs were killed by the Nazis and their Croatian allies is sickening.
30 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeOne more time, Ivanhoe:
He did not support Nazi-invaders. It is a fabricated accusation, constructed by the Yugoslav communists in their campaigne against the Church.
In 1985 the trial prosecutor Jakov Blazevic admited publically that Cardinal Stepinac's trial was entirely framed, and that Stepinac was tried only because he refused to sever thousand year old ties between Croatia ...[text shortened]... communist lies and manipulations in order to make your case against the Roman-Catholic Church.
On April 6, 1941 Nazi Germany invaded Yugoslavia.
On April 10, 1941 Nazi troops reached Zagreb, the capital of Croatia.
On April 12, 1941 the Nazi's Italian allies transported Pavelic, a known fascist, to Zagreb to take over the NDH a puppet government being formed at Hitler's wishes.
On April 15, 1941, while Yugoslav troops in the field were still fighting, Cardinal Stepanic (military vicar of the Yugoslav Army) appeared with Pavelic supporting him becoming dictator of the NDH. He also made a radio address and a pastoral letter that was read in Churches to the same effect.
So, the Nazis created the NDH and installed a known fascist and accused assassin as dictator. Cardinal Stepanic supported this. Explain how these facts make the charge that Cardinal Stepanic supported Nazi invaders a "fabricated accusation".
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerYour historical ignorance is astounding. Please read up on the scale of the partisan movement in Yugoslavia. The leader of the largest partisan group by far was Tito, who was a Croat, not a Serb. Cardinal Stepanic choose to support fascist Croats colloborating with the Nazis rather than patriotic Croats resisting Nazi forces. That is a historical fact.
I agree. Most conflicts around the world (Gulf Wars excepted) build on a base of centuries-old conflict between two racial or ethnic groups. Simply banding them together into a political unit does not create a shared national consciousness (the USA and India are the only two major exceptions I can think of). This is particularly true of Eastern Europe ...[text shortened]... rity of the resistance were Serbs who feared oppression under the largely-Croat NDH" ).
30 Dec 05
6 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderMarauder: "You failed to give any evidence it was a "show trial" other than newspaper clippings during the McCarthy Era."*)
You failed to give any evidence it was a "show trial" other than newspaper clippings during the McCarthy Era. The link I gave put forth the evidence and it is overwhelming. The only thing "hilarious" is what an idiot you are. From other sources, I have determined that the trial had due process deficiencies when compared to what I would consider a "fair" ...[text shortened]... wasn't run in a optimal procedural way doesn't make Goering and the others less guilty.
Does it really matter ? You don't care whether it was a show-trial or not. The Cardinal was found guilty and that is what counts for you. He is guilty in your eyes because you want him to be guilty. You call yourself a lawyer ?
Marauder: " From other sources, I have determined that the trial had due process deficiencies when compared to what I would consider a "fair" trial but so did the Nuremberg Tribunal."
... the trial had due proces deficiences .....
Who cares ? Do you care ? .... of course not.
By the way, what are these "other sources" ? Any links ?
*)EDIT: I don't know why I even put energy in this, but here goes. You must have missed the trial's prosecutor's statement/confession I gave. Please read my posts more carefully and stop misrepresenting the facts I have brought forward in this thread.
EDIT2: You are again taking refuge in your annoying namecalling hobbies. Guess you are running out of arguments ..... oh well, that leaves us with the usual insults and manipulations ....