Smilkovci Lake Killings

[DraganOfStip]

Another example about the information war.Albanian media say there were up to 10 000 people in Skopje while Macedonian TV's say there were several hundred in ALL towns.Well,the pictures and video material strongly oppose the Albanian side of the story.

[Niko777]

"We want a Greater Albania!" and "UCK" were slogans that were heard at today's protest by Albanian extremists

PROTESTA 11 MAJ NË SHKUP PORTALB.MK - YouTube

[EgejskaMakedonia]

By the looks of it the Albanian media was probably more accurate. That crowd is easily in the 1000s, not 100s. Worrying footage. At this stage I highly doubt the Macedonian protest will achieve a greater attendance than this.

[EgejskaMakedonia]

I would like to know what the arabic flags actually say.

ProMKD, according to a link posted by DedoAleko in another thread, this is the meaning of those arabic flags seen in the images you posted.

What does the Black Flag of Jihad mean?

The Black Flag of Jihad was evidently present at the protest for support of the suspected murders, held on May the 4th in Skopje, the capital of Macedonia. The photos from the previous post clearly show that this flag is adopted by a group of Macedonian citizens, members of Radical Islam. Many people still don’t understand the meaning of this flag, and in this post we will try to give an interpretation, based on several international sources.
It is somewhat hard to give an interpretation, since the script shown is a stylized form of Arabic. In this art form, letters are permitted to be stretched, bent and reordered in order to create an aesthetically pleasing image. Just so long as people can still make out enough of hte letters to understand what it is supposed to be. The style is typical for many architectural monuments, or mosaics, but it cannot be usually seen on flags.
First of all, the flag displays the shahada, the basic statement of the Islamic faith. The people familiar with this flag give their interpretation as such:

“La illaha ila Allah, wa Muhammadun rasul Allah.”Or more fully (including the implied affirmative declaration):

“[’ašhadu ’an] la ilaha illa-llah, wa [’ašhadu ’anna] muhammadan rasulu-llah.”
Which means:

“[I testify that] there is no god (ilah) but Allah, and [I testify that] Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.”

The recitation of the shahada in front of witnesses is necessary and sufficient to announce conversion to Islam. Once you have declared it, you are a Muslim for life. Under sharia, there is no way to reverse the shahada. Those who attempt to are considered apostates, and must be killed.

A few years ago two American Fox News journalists were kidnapped in Gaza and recited the shahada — declaring their conversion to Islam on camera — to earn their release. Once one of the journalists was safely home, he said he didn’t mean it, that he was forced to convert just to save his neck and get out of Gaza.
He may not realize it, but he is now a Muslim forever. If he should ever publicly reverse his conversion, his life will be forfeit, and under sharia he may (and should) be lawfully killed by any faithful Muslim.

Of far greater importance is, with the foregoing assumed to be rather well known doctrine (which many experts claim it is), these forced conversions are meaningless save for their propaganda value. Debasing one's most fundamental articles of faith for the sake of showmanship reveals just how deeply flawed and morally void the terrorists are, along with the entire doctrinal superstructure that countenances such utter manure. This makes the Black Flag ideal symbol for battles, conquests, murders and chaos.

And that’s what the Black Flag of Jihad is all about.

http://spreadthetruthmk.blogspot.com.au/

[Brian]

Typical Vangelovski spiel:
First you claim someone is wrong.
Second, you claim you're right.
Third, you give no examples as to why you're right.
Fourth, you ask for someone to provide justification or examples.
Fifth, when they do, you convince yourself that their examples don't constitute examples.
Sixth, you go off on some tangent.
Somewhere in the mix: 1) talk about how someone and something is irrelevant, and only that with which you agree is relevant; 2) make rude and disrespectful comments; 3) indirectly hint how your wife hasn't been wanting to put out for you...well, that's just an assumption I'm making based on your displays of all your frustration. But you're an expert at making unqualified assumptions, so I know you understand where I'm coming from.

I've seen some self-involved intellectuals and academics. But the pervasiveness of needing to be right in your case overpowers any inclination you may have for truth-seeking.

Which is ironic with regards to as why you're part of the MTO and an Administrator on this forum. I think people should seriously start questioning and considering your true motives and reasons for being involved in the "Macedonian Cause." Because you're definitely not doing it for Macedonia or the Macedonians.

Aside from that, Brian makes sense...more sense than you do, especially in this context. That he's not as diligent (capable?) at trying to sound like an intelligent dick doesn't make his opinions and statements less credible.

Nice pick-up, I've noticed it myself, like painting by numbers but it's arguing to a formula. Chief defence is pick on one thing that proof of would not be readily available and use that as the basis of 'you can't demonstrate it therefore your WHOLE argument must be wrong therefore I an correct in everything'.

This is not a court case where nothing can be assumed to be common knowledge as a given (unless conceded by the other side) and ever minute thing you say needs a corresponding 'exhibit A, exhibit B, ect' or your absolutely wrong. There would be things that you would have at least heard of even if you don't agree with and no need to prove there existence first eg why are most protests started by or have the greatest number of participants in the young age category?

It doesn't need proving before you can move on to the why - it's common knowledge that most protesters are young people, likewise the 'why' component has been discussed so widely that it's easy to assume it also to be common knowledge - A. human brain development is such that people see things more 'black or white' from birth to about age 25 from which time they use more 'shades of grey' in their arguments. It is one of the key reasons why young people are more ideological/utopian seeking. This fact, coupled with the fact that young people generally have less to loose (they haven't had time to accumulate much) are more inclined to fight for change.

I should not need to first go find the scientific studies/papers on human brain development to prove the point (have not you just noticed this to be true in society) and neither should I need to bring out the census statistics to show that most people by their early 20's have not accumulated much even if your lot is such that you and your friends made your first million or two before you turned 20 - all the points mention are just common knowledge and don't need proving.

The reverse side to the above argument is when people have accumulated key parts like job, house, car, some savings, family/children and feel they CAN loose them EASILY then they are less likely to protest - hence the 'I can't afford (to risk it) to protest - common knowledge.

If the above argument does not fit EVERY young person it does not make it wrong. Also arguing that people poorer than someone have protested does not counter the above argument but in reality supports it - very poor people like young people do not have much and so have less to loose and therefore are more likely to protest and only literately fearing for their lives may hold some back eg China, North Korea, ect.

Now did ANY of the above need citations or other proof to be believed, or is it common knowledge to any adult of reasonable education and exposure to the world would know/accept this to be true?

In my experience in dealing with Macedonians very generally speaking
1. Macedonians like to think they're ALLWAYS right but given enough evidence will backdown to 'maybe sometimes things are like that (whatever it is you've been telling them)

2. The smarter they think they are or the more they think they have achieved the less likely they are to backdown.

3. Old Macedonians, especially if they fit No.2 will squirm and argue to the Nth degree.

The koj sum jas is bigger in Macedonians than logic.

[Vangelovski]

By the looks of it the Albanian media was probably more accurate. That crowd is easily in the 1000s, not 100s. Worrying footage. At this stage I highly doubt the Macedonian protest will achieve a greater attendance than this.

I agree, the crowd is obviously in the thousands. Like I said earlier, they are a people who know what they want and are willing to take it. The Macedonians, on the other hand (who live in the exact same circumstances) have no idea what they want, and are waiting for someone else to tell them.

[Vangelovski]

Toby, I'm yet to see any evidence at all of anyone anywhere outside of the contemporary Macedonian people using poverty as an excuse not to stand up for their rights. For all of your babble you have not been able to provide a single example.

But here are some examples (including older Macedonian ones) of those who have lived/live in poverty and yet they are still able to stand up for their rights without excuses:

1. VMRO in the 19th century;
2. Macedonian partisans during WWII;
3. The American civil rights movement;
4. The Palestinian Liberation Organisation;
5. The numerous African liberation movements including most recently the South Sudanese;
6. FARC in Colombia; and
7. East Timor and Aceh in Indonesia.

There are literally hundreds more. In addition, bar one, the examples above demonstrate that poverty is no barrier to outright revolution, let alone peaceful protests.

What you consider to be "common knowledge" exists as such in your mind. If it was so "common" then there should be examples of people claiming they are too poor to stand up for their own rights all over the place and it would be a matter of simply copying/pasting it. Yet you are unable to provide anything more than irrelevant and incoherent rambling.

[lavce pelagonski]

И�лам�ки хулигани повредија �нимател и полицаец - YouTube

[Brian]

Pathetic.

A policeman gets clobbered on the head with a stone and they didn't baton-charge them. Just think of the message this act says - we can smash your head in and you'll just tuck your tail between your legs. Is it any wonder they worked up the nerve to do the shooting in the first place?

Most of the stone throwers looked like their faces were uncovered. Will the police match their faces to driver's licence, school ids or any other picture id and arrest them - probably not - pathetic.

Macedonia should use the laws she has - you have the right to peaceful protest and that was respected by the authorities but no country has a law that says police offices can be pelted with stones and the have to just cop it. Fear of escalation is an exercise in stupidity. No country on earth could have criticised Macedonia for attacking stone throwers - it's assault with a deadly weapon.

[lavce pelagonski]

Проте�т на му�лиманите во Скопје 11.05.2012 - YouTube

Кој ја контролира ИВЗ? - YouTube

Проте�ти на му�лиманите во Скопје и Куманово - YouTube

�а�илни и тензични проте�ти во Тетово - YouTube

[Brian]

Toby, I'm yet to see any evidence at all of anyone anywhere outside of the contemporary Macedonian people using poverty as an excuse not to stand up for their rights. For all of your babble you have not been able to provide a single example.

But here are some examples (including older Macedonian ones) of those who have lived/live in poverty and yet they are still able to stand up for their rights without excuses:

Did you kind of miss the central point? - when a person has more to loose AND can loose it easily they are less likely to protest, conversely if they do not have much to loose they are more likely to protest. Further if one's life is threatened then people, rich and poor, are more likely to resort to armed revolt then protest.

1. VMRO in the 19th century;
Armed revolt - I don't remember any stories of Macedonians marching up to the Ottomans only holding up signs - do you??? Dud example. Supports my point, next!
2. Macedonian partisans during WWII;
Armed revolt - ect. Dud example.

3. The American civil rights movement;
Mostly young people with not much to loose and plenty to gain.

4. The Palestinian Liberation Organisation;
As above - but also heavily financially supported by Arab states.

5. The numerous African liberation movements including most recently the South Sudanese;
6. FARC in Colombia; and
7. East Timor and Aceh in Indonesia.

Armed rebellions, not protests.

There are literally hundreds more.

All duds.

What do you want/expect the Macedonians to pick-up arms and violently overthrow the Government?

In addition, bar one, the examples above demonstrate that poverty is no barrier to outright revolution, let alone peaceful protests.

Only one example was a protest - Civil Rights Movement (USA), the rest were armed rebellions.

As previously stated when people feel they have little if anything to loose they are more likely to take-up arms in a rebelion - they are not examples of "too poor (can't risk it) to protest" but actually 'sooo poor I'll take a gun and take my chances or surely die', in fact in the South Sudan example people were being actively hunted down and exterminated like pests just for being Black and not Arab despite both being Muslims (so much for Muslim brotherhood).

Got any more dud examples you want demystified?

What you consider to be "common knowledge" exists as such in your mind.

And in the minds of a lot of people, that's why it's called "Common Knowledge". If I were you, I would be more worried why it's not in your mind.

"Common knowledge" is defined as that which the 'reasonable man' does know or ought to know. The fact that you claim not to know eg young people are less likely to have accumulated assets than older people, hence have less to loose and hence are more likely to take a chance and protest or rebel, says much about how well you fit the definition of 'reasonable man'. Don't blame me, you're the one claiming not to understand simple things such as the example in this paragraph.

If it was so "common" then there should be examples of people claiming they are too poor to stand up for their own rights all over the place and it would be a matter of simply copying/pasting it.

What do you think gets reported on more, the people who protested recently (Albanian or Macedonian) or the ones who stayed at home and didn't protest? Then of who do you think more examples could be found on the Net or elsewhere to do a "cut and past"?

Did I really need to explain this to you??? and if not then why are you asking?

Yet you are unable to provide anything more than irrelevant and incoherent rambling.

Facts are NOT only what you can easily point your finger at but also what you can derive from deduction. True to your 'arguing by formula' anything a person says that they cannot hold up and parade around you label "irrelevant and incoherent rambling". Deduction is derived from reasoning which needs to be explained. If you can't understand the reasoning then go look it up on the Net or a book. I'm done trying to prove common knowledge.

I don't believe your incapable of understanding my reasoning (which by the way is not mine personally but that of people who have studied social and political sciences and psychology and whose books on the subject have been around who knows how long) but instead you have a perverse pleasure in deliberately targeting points which people are unlikely to have files on their computer or bookshelf to readily point to and would have to spend/waste time looking up - "haha, made you waste your time" or give up because they can't be bothered wasting their time which you then claim as a victory - basically a 'war of attrition'.

For this to work you need to find an idiot stubborn enough to want to 1. win the point AND 2. accept your definition as the only proof and hence go off wasting time looking for it. I'd rather say it's common knowledge ANY reasonable person should know, and if you really don't, then go look it up.

You tried this style of arguing before with 'glorious USA or I'm a hypocrite for using the internet (USA invention), remember, and how could I "reconcile" my supposed opposite views to which was replied words to the effect of 'there's nothing for me to reconcile, it's your stupid definition which I don't accept'. Likewise in this case I'm not going to be stupid enough to go off wasting time trying to find citations/books to prove to you common knowledge items just because you want it. Labelling things "irrelevant" or "incoherent ramblings" are what you use to spur your chosen 'idiot' into action ie "I'll show him it's not irrelevant or incoherent ramblings" and off they go - 2nd try, 2nd fail - arguing by formula. You must have a low opinion of me and others to keep trying this.

[Vangelovski]

Toby, are you really that retarded? Did you not understand the point of the examples that included armed rebellion? The point being that poverty did not prevent them from standing up for their rights and that they were able to undertake much more difficult actions than just protesting peacefully.

You have no reasoning and you have no logic. Do I need to explain it to you again? Dragan claimed that he was "too poor to stand up for his rights" in general and specifically to attend a peaceful protest. I stated that I have not heard or seen of a non-Macedonian example of this claim. You claimed there was. You were unable to provide any examples. On the other hand, I have provided examples that demonstrate that the "too poor to stand up for their rights" claim is BS. In fact, poverty did in no way prevent the people in my examples from undertaking much more difficult and serious action than mere protesting.

Now you are ping-ponging and flip-flopping all over the place and you can't even remember what it is you, or anyone else, were debating.

You are completely irrelevant to this forum, not just to this thread, and your 'scratch pad' or 'corner' or whatever the F you want to call it better start contributing to the purpose of this forum or it won't be taking up valuable virtual space for much longer.

[Risto the Great]

Brian, I can't even get past your first sentence without getting drowsy. The combination of bad grammar, spelling and purposeless dribble is unique in a terrifying way. Do you actually know what you're trying to say?

[Brian]

Toby, are you really that retarded? Did you not understand the point of the examples that included armed rebellion? The point being that poverty did not prevent them from standing up for their rights and that they were able to undertake much more difficult actions than just protesting peacefully.

"Too poor (to risk it ie everything they have accumulated)" does not mean SO poor there's not much if anything to loose. This mentality exists in all societies. Nor does it mean I'm so in danger (rich or poor) that I HAVE TO do something (usually armed rebellion) as in your "rebellion" examples.

You have no reasoning and you have no logic. Do I need to explain it to you again? Dragan claimed that he was "too poor to stand up for his rights" in general and specifically to attend a peaceful protest. I stated that I have not heard or seen of a non-Macedonian example of this claim. You claimed there was. You were unable to provide any examples. On the other hand, I have provided examples that demonstrate that the "too poor to stand up for their rights" claim is BS. In fact, poverty did in no way prevent the people in my examples from undertaking much more difficult and serious action than mere protesting.

See above.

Now you are ping-ponging and flip-flopping all over the place and you can't even remember what it is you, or anyone else, were debating.

I have been nothing but consistent in my argument - it's you who are defining the argument "poor" to mean ANY level and ANY threat and hence your examples WILL show people taking action, but, all bar 1 of your examples were of people whose lives were in direct threat and their choice was "everything IS at risk already, one way or the other, so pick up a gun and chance it or wait and surely die", not exactly the mid point in thinking of "If I wait will things pick-up and I wont need to risk everything or is it so bad that I risk/forego everything and run for my/my families life or risk/forego everything and stand and fight".

There is a difference and lumping "poor" all into one is the error. Pointing this difference out is not me "ping-ponging and flip-flopping".

You are completely irrelevant to this forum, not just to this thread,

This again? Do I need to reprove everything a few times?

You got a reply in Brian Post569
( http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...t=6565&page=57 )

What kind of "relevant" were you after?

Haven't I already been relevant...

1. Pointing out that verbally bashing DraganOfStip, or any one person for that matter, is a waste of time and effort - at best it can only serve as a body to thump your frustrations out on. On the other hand I would be interested in warmer environment where more people wanted to join so that we could gain a broader view of what's what in RoM and does anyone know of activist organisations and could anyone from them join the MTO.

2. Suggested finding out are there activist organisations in RoM we from the diaspora could try to contact, ie do they have a web-site or Facebook page or blog where people can login to discus topics, position/views, strategy, resource hunting and announcements of actions/protests.

3. Suggested such organisation seek out any friendly business partners, ie from bus operators, or minivan operators/rental places, flag suppliers, stationary suppliers, T-shirt printing ect. that might want to do you a 'mates rates' or better deal.

4. Suggested approaching and engaging friendly journalists who can be counted on writing more favourable pieces.

5. Suggested not all protests need to be in Skopje - a news report of half the country has jumped up with protests in a dozen or more towns can also be effective followed up by a much larger one in Skopje in front of parliament.

Care to list your relevant contributions - shark feeding frenzy perhaps? but at least you told those lazy so and so RoMs what's what, their ears must be burning as they sit in a coffee shop sipping their coffee, Schweppes bitter lemon, ect while watching the Albanians march down the street.

which was a follow-up on Post536 about other people ie where are they

the politicians
the journalists
wealthier Macedonians
the educated/education elite
trade unionists
political/economic students

Seeing NOONE else provided positive suggestions but instead just went on about 'just do it/fix it' I believe I HAVE shown relevance. Can you answer the above question in red and show your relevance?

and your 'scratch pad' or 'corner' or whatever the F you want to call it better start contributing to the purpose of this forum or it won't be taking up valuable virtual space for much longer.

"Brian's Corner" has had a USA focus but then
1. There are many Macedonians in the USA (and Canada) and those issues directly affect them. Are those Macedonians NOT relevant?

2. The USA is one of the largest economies in the world. Ever heard of the saying "when the USA sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold"? Are those issues NOT relevant to ALL Macedonians including those in RoM and Australia to which this forum has a particular bent?

I believe on both points I have shown relevance and in the absence of others putting forward positive suggestions in this thread I am at a loss why you would question relevance.

As of next week I'm going into a busy phase and posting much less so you will have more free-reign to show "relevance".

[Brian]

Brian, I can't even get past your first sentence without getting drowsy. The combination of bad grammar, spelling and purposeless dribble is unique in a terrifying way. Do you actually know what you're trying to say?

There are no colors in this post RtG so it wont make you drowsy - have a good read.

Yes I do know what I'm saying RtG, maybe I just see things less 'black and white' then you and Vangelovski and can spot the error in logic.

If we choose to broadly define "too poor (to risk everything) to protest" as ANY level of poor against ANY level of threat then it is easy to show examples of people in high poverty to extreme poverty (ie worse than what many in RoM would be facing) taking action, including armed rebellion, and so claim that if these people in a more difficult position CAN AND DO take-up action then what real excuse do the people in RoM have, and hence then to claim to have proven the point that poverty is NOT an overriding factor in being able to or not taking action ie protest or rebellion and hence the people in RoM have NO real excuse for not taking action - they must be lying/making excuses.

ie suck eggs Dragan and Co., you have no excuse so stop lying and take some action ie your 'just do it' campaign RtG.

ie You and Vangelovski and Co. are geniuses in your logic and you win.

The above would be true IF we choose to broadly define "too poor" as above AND ignore other issues but IF we do not define it as such because it is not the case/reality faced by many people of RoM then the argument becomes false and you're not geniuses.

Are you expecting/wanting an armed rebellion by the Macedonians against the government?

This is drastic action and things would need to get very bad (life threatening?) before most people would consider risking all their possession, family and life for such a course of action. This is not yet the case in RoM and that's why the 'rebellion' examples cited by Vangelovski do NOT fit the given environment (ie RoM) we are talking about and hence become bad/irrelevant examples. eg if a bad war broke out in RoM threatening everyone's lives do you really think ANYONE in RoM would say, "I am too poor to defend myself and my family"? Of course not, so "poverty" would not be a factor in a life threatening situation in RoM nor in any of the examples cited by Vangelovski - threat is the REAL FACTOR in ALL the cases including RoM and hence why they are DUD examples to use to argue against the "too poor" issue. Get it??? It's NOT poverty but threat that makes someone (sane people) pick up a gun. eg in the Sudan example Blacks were being actively hunted down for extermination by the Arabs. Hardly the situation in RoM.

The THREAT factor can be in the form of poverty (eg induced by the government) where things are so poor that living becomes too difficult. Although the threat is in the form of extreme poverty nonetheless the key factor is threat and not poverty. eg I'm sure the people in France were poor for a very long time before it got to "let them eat cake" (ie no bread) time so if poverty is the factor should't they have rebelled long before then. Can you see that ONLY when poverty became the (life) threat did it become a factor for armed rebellion - just being sort of poor wasn't enough.

So when is "too poor (to risk everything) to take action" a 'valid' state of mind?

If eg you are a young person/student you are likely not to have amassed many assets (common sense would tell you so ie common knowledge, but still a point Vangelovski chose to challenged LOL maybe he made his first few million before he turned 20) so have little to loose and as long as you are not in a 'death state', like China or North Korea, where just protesting could get you shot then protesting for a better change means little to loose for the possibility of much to gain and so looks like a viable/valid course of action.

Also if you are in an affluent society and have resources then any slight downward turn would get you upset and are more likely to protest.

But let's say what if you are later in life and have a family/children and are responsible for their welfare but not in an affluent society and you yourself have very limited resources. Still through long hard hours at work you now have a mortgage, car loan repayments, utility bills and food and health bills to pay. Let's further say you're keeping your head above water and just making ends meet. Could all that you have worked hard for/amassed over some years be lost and those you cherish ie family/children be put in jeopardy if you lost your job, and because of your not so affluent society where jobs are hard to come by, present a genuine threat/concern to you? Are you too poor to live as you were? - No. Are you "too poor" to risk it ALL including the welfare of your family/children on a protest or two which may not have any immediate effect, if any at all? Would it not cross your mind to think why am I leading the cause and risking all when others in a more affluent position (in RoM) are sitting idle and not risking anything, or when those young people who are kicking back at cafes chasing girls with not much to loose are not doing anything about the 'cause'? Why is this burden placed on me when there are so many others in a much better position to shoulder it? Why are these wealthy guys from Ostralija bashing me around the ears telling me to 'just do it/fix it'? WTF? I'm "too poor (to risk it all) to take action", and for what, if it fails and I loose everything, would they not just say "budala bese" and continue with their lives unchanged?

And hence the mindset of "too poor (to risk it all) to take action".

Can you see how but for the Civil Rights Movement (USA) none of the examples cited by Vangelovski make any sense ie you're not geniuses with your 'just do it' campaign?

Historically the "too poor (to risk it all) to take action" group are one of the latter groups to take action, but well before the very rich who see loosing it 'all', including life and limb, the responsibility of the dumb masses. (Sound like anyone?)

You are well passed the young 'who cares/nothing to loose' years with families/children and responsibilities of your own. Are you that incapable of putting yourselves in another man's shoes?

Can you understand how daunting it looks to think of starting a political party to someone in that limited position and how stupid and offensive it sounds to be told, "Why don't you start-up a political party? I mean it."

Can you see the 'shades of grey' I'm talking about or are you still unable to understand what I'm saying?

I can only reiterate that one member of the MTO is NOT ALL the people in RoM and nor is he responsible for all their actions and inactions and your 'shark feeding frenzy' was appalling.

By the same token of what you're asking of him, what have you and your relatives in RoM done about setting up a political party or organising an activist movement? Are the president and vice president of the organisation yet?

Can I guess the answers would be "nothing at all" and "no"?

"Talk the talk....???....????" MIA?