Framework Agreement doesn't exist!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Bratot
    Senior Member
    • Sep 2008
    • 2855

    Framework Agreement doesn't exist!

    What do you think of this?
    • The Framework Agreement is not peace treaty, it is political agreement signed between the legal political parties, not warring sides!
    • R. of Macedonia is NOT a signatory, neither is ONA!
    • Consequently, the Macedonian Army was not defeated, but only under political pressure from the international community has suffered collateral damage in the context of regional and global developments.
    • The Framework Agreement does not exist, because it is a political agreement transformed into the Constitution, after what legally and formally ceased to exist.





    Last edited by Bratot; 08-27-2010, 06:56 AM.
    The purpose of the media is not to make you to think that the name must be changed, but to get you into debate - what name would suit us! - Bratot
  • Daskalot
    Senior Member
    • Sep 2008
    • 4345

    #2
    Very interesting, I have never seen the agreement in that light before.
    Macedonian Truth Organisation

    Comment

    • George S.
      Senior Member
      • Aug 2009
      • 10116

      #3
      the albanians had a lot of these rights & has enjoyed rights well ahead of any other minority.The politicians of macedonian persuasion so readily capitulated.
      Last edited by George S.; 08-27-2010, 10:32 AM. Reason: edit
      "Ido not want an uprising of people that would leave me at the first failure, I want revolution with citizens able to bear all the temptations to a prolonged struggle, what, because of the fierce political conditions, will be our guide or cattle to the slaughterhouse"
      GOTSE DELCEV

      Comment

      • Pelister
        Senior Member
        • Sep 2008
        • 2742

        #4
        Those points defy all the hard evidence.

        I think that whowever posted that is trying to 'soften' the intepretation of the events of that period.

        It is a Treaty brokered by the West between Macedonian and Albanian representatives, after the West made sure the Macedonians had lost the winning military edge in the fight.

        Comment

        • Bratot
          Senior Member
          • Sep 2008
          • 2855

          #5
          Originally posted by Pelister View Post
          Those points defy all the hard evidence.

          I think that whowever posted that is trying to 'soften' the intepretation of the events of that period.

          It is a Treaty brokered by the West between Macedonian and Albanian representatives, after the West made sure the Macedonians had lost the winning military edge in the fight.

          Could you point out the hard evidence and where exactly these points defy all of it?

          For a moment try to get out from the conspiracy theories about 'hidden purpose' in every single post and try to approach it with more formal logic.


          We are facing propaganda pressure for imposing new obligations on Macedonia, through the interpretation of this Framework Agreement, that hasn't been fully implemented yet etc. by the Albanian parties, which directly contradicts the Constitution and supports further expansion of Albanian claims.

          It's a fact that Macedonia was not defeated military nor did capitulated military but politically, as a result of the traitorous political parties.

          It has to be cleared who failed in defending the state and our citizens, while we stay in this political fog we still are going to be ruled by the same perfidious politicians.

          I think we have to point out this things and to end with the manipulation of Macedonian public opinion.
          The purpose of the media is not to make you to think that the name must be changed, but to get you into debate - what name would suit us! - Bratot

          Comment

          • julie
            Senior Member
            • May 2009
            • 3869

            #6
            Bratot, you are amazing, that is so true, how can it be enforced if RoM has not signed anything! Why do the political parties in RoM instill so much brainwashing on the citizens about the saviours of EU and NATO is beyond me. None of the parties are to be trusted, they are all traitorous to the Macedonian cause and have demonstrated this by their actions. All for their self serving financial interests. That is all it is, a game to be played, where checkmate is Macedonia being the pawn that will lose, they are playing with our identity
            "The moral revolution - the revolution of the mind, heart and soul of an enslaved people, is our greatest task."__________________Gotse Delchev

            Comment

            • Pelister
              Senior Member
              • Sep 2008
              • 2742

              #7
              Originally posted by Bratot View Post
              Could you point out the hard evidence and where exactly these points defy all of it?

              For a moment try to get out from the conspiracy theories about 'hidden purpose' in every single post and try to approach it with more formal logic.

              It's a fact that Macedonia was not defeated military nor did capitulated military but politically, as a result of the traitorous political parties.

              It has to be cleared who failed in defending the state and our citizens, while we stay in this political fog we still are going to be ruled by the same perfidious politicians.

              First of all the idea that 'its not a Peace Treaty, but a political Agreement' is absolute rubbish, becuase its both.

              All Treaties that follow a war are political by nature and by nature demonstrate a show of force - the simple conclusion to a military confrontation is one side dictating the terms (following military force) and the other side capitulating to those terms.

              Albanian insurgents made their demands following a show of military force, and the Macedonian government capitulated.

              This was the conclusion to a military confrontation, therefore it was a peace treaty.

              I witnessed them signing it - it was all over the news and all over youtuble.
              Last edited by Pelister; 08-30-2010, 08:09 PM.

              Comment

              • Bratot
                Senior Member
                • Sep 2008
                • 2855

                #8
                Originally posted by Pelister View Post
                First of all the idea that 'its not a Peace Treaty, but a political Agreement' is absolute rubbish, becuase its both.

                All Treaties that follow a war are political by nature and by nature demonstrate a show of force - the simple conclusion to a military confrontation is one side dictating the terms (following military force) and the other side capitulating to those terms.

                Albanian insurgents made their demands following a show of military force, and the Macedonian government capitulated.

                This was the conclusion to a military confrontation, therefore it was a peace treaty.

                I witnessed them signing it - it was all over the news and all over youtuble.


                By which sides this "Peace Treaty" has been signed?

                Who were those "Albanian insurgents" and what were their demands?

                You have unclear impression of what happened, who was the agressor, what were the demands, what is a Peace Treaty ... and the differencies from political agreement for rearrangement of the social concept.

                Although all the points of the contract were embedded in the Constitution, the framework agreement is still held in life for the purpose to be filled with new annexes.

                That's why this subject is important, to establish factual knowledge, not interpretations used on daily basis for all kinds of misleading definitions about what happened in 2001.
                Last edited by Bratot; 08-31-2010, 03:11 AM.
                The purpose of the media is not to make you to think that the name must be changed, but to get you into debate - what name would suit us! - Bratot

                Comment

                • Prolet
                  Senior Member
                  • Sep 2009
                  • 5241

                  #9
                  R. of Macedonia is NOT a signatory, neither is ONA!
                  What exactly do you mean by this? Ali Ahmeti,Arben Dzaferi,Ljubco Georgievski,Boris Trajkovski all signed it.
                  МАКЕДОНЕЦ си кога кавал ќе ти ја распара душата,зурла ќе ти го раскине срцето,кога секое влакно од кожата ќе ти се наежи кога ќе видиш шеснаесеткрако сонце,кога до коска ќе те заболи кога ќе слушнеш ПЈРМ,кога немаш ни за леб,а полн си во душата затоа што ја сакаш МАКЕДОНИЈА. МАКЕДОНИЈА во срце те носиме.

                  Comment

                  • Bratot
                    Senior Member
                    • Sep 2008
                    • 2855

                    #10
                    Originally posted by Prolet View Post
                    What exactly do you mean by this? Ali Ahmeti,Arben Dzaferi,Ljubco Georgievski,Boris Trajkovski all signed it.
                    I hate to correct you for such basic elements of the discussion, ONA was not a signatory.



                    If you bothered to open the link you could read:

                    Boris Trajkovski - 2nd President of the Republic of Macedonia
                    Ljubco Georgievski - 3rd Prime Minister of the Republic of Macedonia
                    Branko Crvenkovski - 3rd President of the Republic of Macedonia, that time leader of SDSM
                    Arbën Xhaferri - Leader of DPA
                    Ymer Ymeri - Leader of PDP

                    François Léotard - European Union Mediator
                    James W. Pardew - United States Mediator
                    The purpose of the media is not to make you to think that the name must be changed, but to get you into debate - what name would suit us! - Bratot

                    Comment

                    • Pelister
                      Senior Member
                      • Sep 2008
                      • 2742

                      #11
                      By which sides this "Peace Treaty" has been signed?

                      Who were those "Albanian insurgents" and what were their demands?

                      You have unclear impression of what happened, who was the agressor, what were the demands, what is a Peace Treaty ... and the differencies from political agreement for rearrangement of the social concept.
                      I'm not sure what you trying to say here.

                      The Treaty was the conclusion to a military confrontation.

                      There does not need to be a clear winner on the battle field, Bratot. It does not really matter 'who' was behind it. The Agreement was the conclusion of hostilities between Albanian forces and Macedonian forces, regardless of who you suspect was backing the Albanian forces. The Macedonian forces, represented by politicians accepted, Albanian terms.

                      It is a Peace Treaty and a political agreement, in no small part because if the Macedonians had not capitulated to Albanian terms - the fighting probably would have resumed.
                      Last edited by Pelister; 08-31-2010, 08:31 PM.

                      Comment

                      • Prolet
                        Senior Member
                        • Sep 2009
                        • 5241

                        #12
                        My apologies Bratot you are right

                        You also said Macedonia is not a signatory, The President and Prime Minister signed the accord.
                        МАКЕДОНЕЦ си кога кавал ќе ти ја распара душата,зурла ќе ти го раскине срцето,кога секое влакно од кожата ќе ти се наежи кога ќе видиш шеснаесеткрако сонце,кога до коска ќе те заболи кога ќе слушнеш ПЈРМ,кога немаш ни за леб,а полн си во душата затоа што ја сакаш МАКЕДОНИЈА. МАКЕДОНИЈА во срце те носиме.

                        Comment

                        • Bratot
                          Senior Member
                          • Sep 2008
                          • 2855

                          #13
                          Originally posted by Pelister View Post
                          I'm not sure what you trying to say here.

                          The Treaty was the conclusion to a military confrontation.

                          There does not need to be a clear winner on the battle field, Bratot. It does not really matter 'who' was behind it. The Agreement was the conclusion of hostilities between Albanian forces and Macedonian forces, regardless of who you suspect was backing the Albanian forces. The Macedonian forces, represented by politicians accepted, Albanian terms.

                          It is a Peace Treaty and a political agreement, in no small part because if the Macedonians had not capitulated to Albanian terms - the fighting probably would have resumed.
                          Pelister,

                          you are missing the factual logic and to make a long story short, you got it all wrong.

                          What was the demand of the ONA, Constitutional changes or territorial changes?

                          1. Ali Ahmeti as a commander of the ONA did not declared war on Macedonia for human rights, but in the five statements unequivocally declared war with territorial claims.

                          2. The attack on Macedonia did not happen from within, but from Kosovo.
                          Kosovo and it's borders were already protected by NATO.
                          NATO military and logisticaly helped the UCK and ONA.

                          3. Officially, Macedonia was not at war.
                          And was not attacked by anyone.


                          This was achieved thanks to Crvenkovski and Trajkovski, when both refused to agree to a declaration of state of war.


                          The constitutional changes that were caused by the obligation of the framework agreement the history has classified them as 'granted'.
                          They are not produced by normal democratic political process, but under a coercion and blackmail with weapons.
                          The acts arising from this capitulation sre of limited duration and have a tendency to be rejected at the first opportunity of regionally or globally changed historical circumstances.

                          Because of this regularity, the creators and the actors of the events in 2001 must be comprehensively evaluated and their actions which caused the effects need to be analyzed and evaluated.

                          Originally posted by Prolet View Post
                          My apologies Bratot you are right

                          You also said Macedonia is not a signatory, The President and Prime Minister signed the accord.
                          Prolet,

                          when you sign an agreement between parties, of any kind, do you need only one or two sides to the agreement?

                          If this agreement is signed only as a deal among Macedonian political parties which got incorporated in the Constitution it's nothing else from the rest of regulatives, laws, decissions etc. made in the Parlament.

                          According to you we signed an Peace Treaty with ourselfs? Macedonia vs. Macedonia? The President of Macedonia and the President of... ?

                          Don't go further in aimless discussion on this thread.
                          Last edited by Bratot; 09-01-2010, 05:04 AM.
                          The purpose of the media is not to make you to think that the name must be changed, but to get you into debate - what name would suit us! - Bratot

                          Comment

                          • Pelister
                            Senior Member
                            • Sep 2008
                            • 2742

                            #14
                            Pelister,

                            you are missing the factual logic and to make a long story short, you got it all wrong.

                            What was the demand of the ONA, Constitutional changes or territorial changes?

                            1. Ali Ahmeti as a commander of the ONA did not declared war on Macedonia for human rights, but in the five statements unequivocally declared war with territorial claims.

                            2. The attack on Macedonia did not happen from within, but from Kosovo.
                            Kosovo and it's borders were already protected by NATO.
                            NATO military and logisticaly helped the UCK and ONA.

                            3. Officially, Macedonia was not at war.
                            And was not attacked by anyone.

                            This was achieved thanks to Crvenkovski and Trajkovski, when both refused to agree to a declaration of military situation.
                            I am not convinced of it. Point 1 contradicts point 3.

                            Can we agree that a war was being fought by the Albanians against the Macedonians? I hope that we can.

                            If that is the case, then the Treaty signalled the end of hostilities between the two parties. The terms were signed under duress, and under the threat of further conflict.

                            Of coures it was a war for territorial expansion. That is directly reflected in the terms of the Treaty. Take a closer look at the terms themselves.

                            I think you have missed the point, entirely. Ali Ahmeti's war for 'territorial expansion' was exactly what happened, and the Framework Agreement was exactly what he wanted.

                            The idea behind the war was to remove central government control from Albanian dominated regions in Macedonia. The Albanians achieved that! The Macedonians capitulated, knowing that to relinquish soveriegn control over some areas, was unconstitutional. They would never have signed such a thing, knowing that they were undermining the soveriegnty of their own State. Entire regions of south West Macedonia know are run by Albanians - Albanian courts, Albanian policie, Albanian juries...etc.
                            Last edited by Pelister; 09-01-2010, 04:03 AM.

                            Comment

                            • Bratot
                              Senior Member
                              • Sep 2008
                              • 2855

                              #15
                              Originally posted by Pelister View Post
                              I am not convinced of it. Point 1 contradicts point 3.

                              Can we agree that a war was being fought by the Albanians against the Macedonians? I hope that we can.

                              If that is the case, then the Treaty signalled the end of hostilities between the two parties. The terms were signed under duress, and under the threat of further conflict.

                              Of coures it was a war for territorial expansion. That is directly reflected in the terms of the Treaty. Take a closer look at the terms themselves.

                              I think you have missed the point, entirely. Ali Ahmeti's war for 'territorial expansion' was exactly what happened, and the Framework Agreement was exactly what he wanted.

                              The idea behind the war was to remove central government control from Albanian dominated regions in Macedonia. The Albanians achieved that! The Macedonians capitulated, knowing that to relinquish soveriegn control over some areas, was unconstitutional. They would never have signed such a thing, knowing that they were undermining the soveriegnty of their own State. Entire regions of south West Macedonia know are run by Albanians - Albanian courts, Albanian policie, Albanian juries...etc.
                              Again, first learn the legal definitions and not rely on intepretation only.

                              The official international protocol for declaring war

                              One country has to declare "State of War" and this was not the case in 2001 with Macedonia, that's why Macedonia OFFICIALY was NOT at war!(Point 3)

                              Laws of War :
                              Opening of Hostilities (Hague III); October 18, 1907



                              gives the international actions a country should perform when opening hostilities.
                              1. For this purpose the state leadership must support the justification of the war and to come up with conditional demands.
                              2. Furthermore the other side need to be described in order to know against who the war is directed. (Point 3)

                              Nothing of this came out from our side and the 'terrorist groups' suddenly became ''fighters for human rights''!

                              And it's certainly not on what me and you will agree to but what is formally correct.


                              Ali Ahmeti DID NOT wanted Constitutional changes! (Point 1)

                              Those Constitutional changes were already agreed even before the armed conflict started in the Coalition Agreement between VMRO-DPMNE and DPA.

                              Then Georgievski, has publicly expressed his astonishment at all why it was necessary to stage a war for such an agreement, when during the entire time of his mandate this 'agreement' was already agreed in a peaceful, institutional and political manner, and has already began to be implemented during the ruling coalition of VMRO-DPMNE and DPA.

                              It was already agreed upon production of bilingual passports, preparing a formalization of the public use of the Albanian language, it has been developed the new territorial division.

                              Please check your informations twice before you let your assumptions take on delussional direction in this discussion.
                              Last edited by Bratot; 09-01-2010, 04:48 AM.
                              The purpose of the media is not to make you to think that the name must be changed, but to get you into debate - what name would suit us! - Bratot

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X