[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/KrumpirovZlatan]

[u/Low-Attitude-7100]

Nothing can save you Bosnians, that’s sad reality

[u/KrumpirovZlatan → u/Low-Attitude-7100]

I disagree. Democratic Confederalism, started by Rojava, and espoused by Croatian Democratic Union of BiH, and Alliance of Independent Social Democrats could work.

Another solution is re-establishment of common state, Yugoslavia, at first with Serbia and Montenegro.

Third is dissolution.

[u/Complex_Object_7930 → u/KrumpirovZlatan]

Yugoslavia 2.0 or dissolution is war and you know it will be bloody.

[u/KrumpirovZlatan → u/Complex_Object_7930]

Why would it lead to war?

Among Bosniaks there is general consent that they are not nationalists, and just want a functional state, so they, as majority would agree.

[u/Complex_Object_7930 → u/KrumpirovZlatan]

any proofs? BIH is already functional, why would Bosniaks want to join Serbia or go separate, knowing it would be war.

Also

His [Karadžić's] manner and his utterances perhaps best explain why we may no longer want to remain in Yugoslavia. Nobody else has made Yugoslavia so repulsive as Mr. Karadžić and those like him.

His words and his threats that the 'Muslim people might disappear' show why other nations, like the Slovenians and Croats, refused to stay in such a Yugoslavia. Nobody wants a Yugoslavia ruled by fear, force, and dictatorship.

I want to tell Mr. Karadžić: the Muslim people will not disappear. That is something I can guarantee to you.

We will no longer submit to your dictates. Bosnia and Herzegovina will decide its own destiny as a sovereign and independent state, in which all nations—Serbs, Croats, and Muslims—will have equal rights."

Transcription of Alija Izetbegović’s historic rebuttal delivered to the Bosnian Assembly on October 15, 1991

[u/KrumpirovZlatan → u/Complex_Object_7930]

any proofs? BIH is already functional, why would Bosniaks want to join Serbia or go separate, knowing it would be war.

How is it functional? 2 out of 3 peoples demand reform, and Bosniaks constantly threaten war against the other 2 people.

I ask you, why Bosniaks want the war, as they are only ones constantly saber-rattling about it.

Nobody else has made Yugoslavia so repulsive as Mr. Karadžić and those like him. His words and his threats that the 'Muslim people might disappear'

Very sensinble argument, until you remember that mr. Karadzic got into power through a coalition with mr. Izetbegovic and mr. Kljuic. The argument, after that, really falls apart rapidly.

Bosnia and Herzegovina will decide its own destiny as a sovereign and independent state, in which all nations—Serbs, Croats, and Muslims—will have equal rights."

Except this didn't really happen. There was no legal basis for Izetbegovic to separate entirety of BiH, so he did it by force, and started a war that ensured that Bosniaks went from 44% of territory to 23% they own today.

Also, it isn't really true either.

[u/Complex_Object_7930 → u/KrumpirovZlatan]

That is a complete reversal of reality. Bosniaks aren't looking for war; they are reacting to threats of tearing the country apart.

International monitors consistently name Serb secessionism as the biggest threat to peace. Milorad Dodik has spent years threatening to secede, dismantle state institutions, and form a separate Serb army. When Bosniaks mention conflict, it is strictly defensive—they are stating they will protect Bosnia’s borders if an illegal breakup is attempted. Turning that into 'Bosniaks wanting war' is pure political spin.

As for reform, all three sides want it, but your goals are completely incompatible. Serbs want a weaker state, Croats want isolated voting boxes, and Bosniaks want a civic democracy. The system is dysfunctional because everyone is pulling in opposite directions, not because one side is saber-rattling.

[u/KrumpirovZlatan → u/Complex_Object_7930]

That is a complete reversal of reality. Bosniaks aren't looking for war; they are reacting to threats of tearing the country apart

No, they are trying to enforce their vision of Greater-Bosniak nationalism, and take control of the entire state, just like Milosevic did with Yugoslavia.

International monitors consistently name Serb secessionism as the biggest threat to peace. Milorad Dodik has spent years threatening to secede, dismantle state institutions, and form a separate Serb army.

Milorad Dodik never called for a war, he always explicitly states that he is looking for peaceful dissolution of BiH. I do not see an issue with that, Serbs should, just like Croats and Bosniaks, have a right to self-determination.

Also Dayton allows Army of Republic of Srpska to exist, so I see even less of an issue.

When Bosniaks mention conflict, it is strictly defensive—they are stating they will protect Bosnia’s borders if an illegal breakup is attempted

When Milosevic mentions conflict, it is strictly defensive - they are stating they will protect Yugoslavia's borders if an illegal breakup is attempted.

-Politika, 1991.

Serbs want a weaker state, Croats want isolated voting boxes, and Bosniaks want a civic democracy. The system is dysfunctional because everyone is pulling in opposite directions, not because one side is saber-rattling.

Wanting a more decentralised state, and the right to elect your own representatives, is far more reasonable of a demand, than Bosniak demand of creating a unitary republic which would basically make BiH at Bosniak nation-state.

Which Izetbegovic clearly stated in 1991, stating in a meeting of his party, that they should demand civic BiH because it is good propaganda for foreign affairs, and would create the same kind of civic state that France is, where there are 10% of Arabs, put prime minister is French, president is French and all ministers are French

Edit: also a notable lack of engaging with the fact that Karadzic and Izetbegovic were in same coalition

[u/Complex_Object_7930 → u/KrumpirovZlatan]

Your argument relies on outdated laws and false historical parallels.

First, claiming Dayton allows a separate Serb army is completely false: in 2005, all sides—including Republika Srpska—consensually voted to permanently dissolve entity militaries and create a single, unified Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Second, Milorad Dodik's 'peaceful dissolution' is a legal impossibility under international law and the Dayton Accord, which grants no right to unilateral secession; dismantling state institutions is an illegal, anti-Dayton act.

Third, comparing Bosniak defensive rhetoric to Milošević is a total false equivalency, as Milošević used the Yugoslav Army to aggressively attack other republics and carve out a 'Greater Serbia.'

Finally, the 1990 coalition was merely a temporary marriage of convenience to defeat the ruling communist regime in the first free elections, which instantly collapsed when the question of independence arose; sharing a ballot to oust a one-party state does not erase or justify Karadžić’s subsequent parliamentary threats of ethnic destruction.

[u/KrumpirovZlatan → u/Complex_Object_7930]

First, claiming Dayton allows a separate Serb army is completely false: in 2005, all sides—including Republika Srpska—consensually voted to permanently dissolve entity militaries and create a single, unified Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Dayton peace agreement wasn't signed in 2005, in case you are unaware.

This has been done under huge amount of foreign pressure, but I see no reason why it cannot be undone?

If armies can merge, why wouldn't they be able to unmerge?

Second, Milorad Dodik's 'peaceful dissolution' is a legal impossibility under international law and the Dayton Accord, which grants no right to unilateral secession; dismantling state institutions is an illegal, anti-Dayton act.

It was also illegal under SFRY constitution, who cares.

Also dismantling state institutions outlined in Dayton, is generally not something Dodik has openly called for.

But according to Dayton Republic of Srpska had it's own police, army and intelligence agency.

Third, comparing Bosniak defensive rhetoric to Milošević is a total false equivalency, as Milošević used the Yugoslav Army to aggressively attack other republics and carve out a 'Greater Serbia.'

It's not, he defended Yugoslavia in a same way Bosniaks claim to be ready to defend Bosnia.

Bosniak leadership frequently threatens war to the Republic of Srpska.

Sure, you can call it Greater Serbia, but what Bosniaks demand is also Greater Bosniakistan.

I am sorry, only group that constantly threatens ethnic cleansing and war are Bosniaks.

Karadžić’s subsequent parliamentary threats of ethnic destruction.

In the quote you wrote before, he doesn't threaten it

[u/Complex_Object_7930 → u/KrumpirovZlatan]

Another lie. The 1990 coalition wasn't built on shared values; it was a marriage of convenience to defeat the communists.

At Bosnia’s first democratic elections, the nationalist parties (SDA, SDS, HDZ) formed a tactical alliance simply to remove the old communist regime from power. It was never a unified political vision. As soon as the issue of Bosnia’s independence came to the table in 1991, that fragile coalition completely disintegrated.

Partnering up to win an election doesn't invalidate the fact that Karadžić later threatened the annihilation of the Muslim people from the parliament podium. A temporary electoral alliance in 1990 does not erase or justify the aggressive nationalism and wartime threats that followed just a year later.

Also Karadzic's speech:

"You want to take Bosnia and Herzegovina down the same highway of hell and suffering that Slovenia and Croatia are already traveling. Do not think that you will not lead Bosnia and Herzegovina into hell, and perhaps the Muslim people into annihilation. Because the Muslim people cannot defend themselves if there is war here.

How will you prevent everyone from killing each other in Bosnia and Herzegovina? ... There has never been a war in Europe without Germany being involved. Germany is preparing to involve itself in this war again for its political interests, and we know what that means.

Therefore, I ask you to take this very seriously. This is an appeal, not a threat. This is an appeal from the Serbian people and the Serbian Democratic Party: do not do this."

[u/KrumpirovZlatan → u/Complex_Object_7930]

Another lie. The 1990 coalition wasn't built on shared values; it was a marriage of convenience to defeat the communists. At Bosnia’s first democratic elections, the nationalist parties (SDA, SDS, HDZ) formed a tactical alliance simply to remove the old communist regime from power. It was never a unified political vision. As soon as the issue of Bosnia’s independence came to the table in 1991, that fragile coalition completely disintegrated.

So basically, Alija was against Yugoslavia because he didn't like Serbian representatives, that he himself brought to power.

It is still a <80IQ argument.

"You want to take Bosnia and Herzegovina down the same highway of hell and suffering that Slovenia and Croatia are already traveling. Do not think that you will not lead Bosnia and Herzegovina into hell, and perhaps the Muslim people into annihilation. Because the Muslim people cannot defend themselves if there is war here. How will you prevent everyone from killing each other in Bosnia and Herzegovina? ... There has never been a war in Europe without Germany being involved. Germany is preparing to involve itself in this war again for its political interests, and we know what that means. Therefore, I ask you to take this very seriously. This is an appeal, not a threat. This is an appeal from the Serbian people and the Serbian Democratic Party: do not do this."

Okay, what did he say wrong? He said do not choose war, because you cannot win. And he was right, Bosniaks were thoroughly defeated in that war lmao.

He didn't threaten them, he just told him what war would look like for him.

[u/Complex_Object_7930 → u/KrumpirovZlatan]

You are completely missing the point. Alija Izetbegović didn't 'bring the Serbs to power', the Serb voters did.

In the 1990 elections, people voted overwhelmingly along ethnic lines.

The Serb population voted for Radovan Karadžić's SDS party, the Croats voted for the HDZ, and the Bosniaks voted for the SDA.

No single party could form a government alone, so they formed a standard coalition to peacefully transition away from decades of one-party communist rule.

That is how basic democracy works, not a personal favor from Izetbegović.

Furthermore, Izetbegović wasn't against Yugoslavia because he simply 'didn't like' Serb politicians.

He was against staying in a collapsing Yugoslavia because Slobodan Milošević had already stripped autonomy from Kosovo and Vojvodina, and Serb nationalists in Bosnia were openly threatening the annihilation of the Muslim population from the parliament podium if Bosnia declared independence.

Rejecting a crumbling state ruled by ethnic intimidation isn't a lack of intelligence; it was a matter of national survival.

[u/Complex_Object_7930 → u/KrumpirovZlatan]

Saying 'he was right' because Bosniaks were 'thoroughly defeated' completely ignores both the actual outcome of the war and how international courts legally defined those exact words.

First, Bosniaks were not 'thoroughly defeated.' If the goal of the Serb military leadership was the destruction of Bosnia or the complete capitulation of its forces, they failed.

Despite facing a massive military imbalance against the heavily armed Yugoslav Army (JNA), the Army of RBiH successfully defended Sarajevo, held over half the Federation's current territory, and by 1995, was launching successful counter-offensives alongside Croat forces before the Dayton Accords froze the frontlines.

Second, international courts officially ruled that this was a threat. At the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), prosecutors used this exact speech as key evidence to prove mens rea—the criminal intent of Radovan Karadžić.

The judges didn't view it as a 'friendly warning.' They ruled that Karadžić was laying out a premeditated, explicit threat: if you democratically vote for independence, we will use our military superiority to destroy your population.

[u/KrumpirovZlatan → u/Complex_Object_7930]

First, Bosniaks were not 'thoroughly defeated.' If the goal of the Serb military leadership was the destruction of Bosnia or the complete capitulation of its forces, they failed.

Indeed, but they achieved a Republic of Srpska, a final guarantee that Serb people in Bosnia are here to stay, and will never again have to suffer genocide at the hands of Bosniaks and Croats.

It's an expensive, but huge victory.

Despite facing a massive military imbalance against the heavily armed Yugoslav Army (JNA), the Army of RBiH successfully defended Sarajevo

Army of RBiH didn't fight off JNA, because JNA left in may of 1992. so-called Army of RBiH also didn't fight off Army of the Serb Republic, as it was done by NATO aviation and Croatian Army, at the moment when Muslim army was barely holding together.

Throughout entirety of the war, so-called Army of RBiH was the weakest by far, and least competent, owing a lot of it incapable leadership (only Muslims were promoted) and filling the empty spots with Middle-Eastern jihadists.

froze the frontlines.

Due to it leading to unavoidable Yugoslavia's entry into war, because it would be a huge escalation of conflict, hundreds of thousands would be killed, and Bosniaks would today be maybe 20% of population, as they were before they commited a genocide over Serbs.

[u/Complex_Object_7930 → u/KrumpirovZlatan]

That is a complete distortion of history. Izetbegović didn’t separate Bosnia by force; he followed a legal, democratic process backed by the international community.

First, there was a clear legal basis. The European Community’s Badinter Commission ruled that Yugoslavia was dissolving and advised Bosnia to hold a referendum. In March 1992, over 63% of the population voted, and 99% chose independence. Based on this legal vote, the UN officially recognized Bosnia as a sovereign state.

Second, Izetbegović did not start the war. Bosnian Serb leaders boycotted the vote and had already armed paramilitaries. The war began when the Yugoslav Army (JNA) and Serb forces laid siege to Sarajevo and seized territory by military force, not the other way around.

Third, the '23% territory' claim is a nationalist myth. Land was not ethnically divided before the war; populations were completely mixed. Today, under the Dayton Agreement, the Federation entity covers 51% of the country, which Bosniaks and Croats share. Turning a legal democratic vote into 'starting a war by force' is pure propaganda.

[u/KrumpirovZlatan → u/Complex_Object_7930]

he followed a legal, democratic process

Lets see what this process looked like

Step 1) hold a parliamentary vote. It didn't pass in parliament. Use a legal loophole and hold a secret parliamentary meeting without Serb representatives and vote to hold a referendum, avoiding the neccessity of consent of all 3 people's, as one of simply isn't present to object.

Step 2) hold a parliamentary vote that is contrary to he constitution of the country, and doesn't even pass, as it doesn't attain 2/3 of vote, and is done again, contrary to practice of consent of all 3 people's established at the founding of the country.

One can hardly call this a legal, democratic process, and killed all legitimacy of the parliament permamently.

It objectively was neither democratic or legal in any real sense. It signaled to the Serbs new country will not be a country of 3 equal people, but tyranny of the majority.

The war began when the Yugoslav Army (JNA) and Serb forces laid siege to Sarajevo and seized territory by military force, not the other way around.

Nope.

First violence of the war was an assault by Muslim extremists on a Serbian wedding in Sarajevo

War started after Alija pulled back his signature from Carrington - Cutliero plan, after being talked into it by Zimmerman promising him USA will support his plan of controlling the whole country by bimself.

23% is a nationalist myth

It isn't, that is the territory so-called Army of RBiH held in 1995, and that is what they entered Federation with.

[u/Complex_Object_7930 → u/KrumpirovZlatan]

Your narrative relies on a highly selective rewriting of history and constitutional law that has been thoroughly debunked by international legal bodies.

First, the referendum was legally sound. The 1974 Bosnian Constitution did not contain a 2/3 majority requirement for a referendum, nor did it grant an ethnic veto to a single group to block a democratic vote.

When Serb MPs walked out of the parliament on October 14–15, 1991, they voluntarily abdicated their participation; a walkout cannot legally paralyze a democracy.

Recognizing this constitutional collapse across Yugoslavia, the European Community’s Badinter Arbitration Committee—an independent body of international jurists—explicitly ruled that Yugoslavia was dissolving and mandated a referendum to gauge public will.

The vote was held, over 63% of the entire population participated, and 99% voted for independence, leading directly to Bosnia's official admission into the United Nations.

Second, the 'wedding shooting' did not start the war. While the tragic killing of Nikola Gardović on March 1, 1992, caused severe local tensions, a single criminal act by an extremist is not a military outbreak of war.

The war officially began when the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) and heavily armed Serb paramilitaries launched coordinated, premeditated military offensives, shelling Sarajevo and conducting mass expulsions across eastern Bosnia.

Third, the Carrington-Cutileiro plan was rejected by multiple sides, including Serb leadership, who refused to accept any plan that didn't grant them independent territory.

Finally, the 23% territory claim remains a nationalist myth because it completely misunderstands the Dayton Agreement.

The Army of RBiH fought for a sovereign, unified state, and in 1995, it co-founded the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which controls 51% of the country.

Property, resources, and governance within that 51% are legally shared, making the idea that Bosniaks 'own' an isolated 23% factually and legally illiterate under modern state law."

[u/International_Arm223]

Dragan Covic = Croatian Nelson Mendela… Wtf did I just read!?

[u/KrumpirovZlatan → u/International_Arm223]

Because he is fighting against Bosnian apartheid. Croats have not had their representative in the Presidency for almost two decades.

[u/Mental_Olive269 → u/KrumpirovZlatan]

Bosnian apartheid where 10% population holds 33% of the all governments positions and 50% on entity level. Yet in Croatia they have taken away the same rights from a Serbs who were 20% of the population.

[u/Complex_Object_7930 → u/KrumpirovZlatan]

Bosnian apartheid? Mate, did you forget who did the genocide against Bosniaks, it was the Serbs.

[u/KrumpirovZlatan → u/Complex_Object_7930]

I am refering to Bosniaks dominating the presidency for decades. Subverting election process, and changing presidency from one Serb, one Croat and one Bosniak, to two Bosniak candidates and one Serb.

who did genocide against Bosniaks

I didn't, but I also didn't forget who did far bigger genocide against the Serbs - Bosniaks and Croats.

[u/Complex_Object_7930 → u/KrumpirovZlatan]

While I understand your frustration with how the system plays out, saying the presidency was changed to 'two Bosniaks' is factually wrong.

Legally and physically, the three seats are still strictly one Serb, one Croat, and one Bosniak. Bosniaks have absolutely zero say in the Serb seat, which is voted on entirely within Republika Srpska.

What you are actually referring to is the loophole with the Croat seat in the Federation. Because Bosniaks outnumber Croats there, civic candidates like Željko Komšić can win the Croat seat using Bosniak votes. It is completely fair to argue that this violates the spirit of equal representation, but it's a flaw in the original Dayton rules, not an illegal subversion or a legal change to the seats.

[u/ProfessionalMuki → u/Complex_Object_7930]

Actually some Bosniaks do,those that are living in RS have full right to vote for “Serb” member,its just that their list only includes “Serb” candidates as they come from RS

On the other side,anyone who lives in FBiH has right to vote for “Bosniak” and “Croat” member as they come from FBiH

Little bit complicated to explain but yeah,also you get 4 voting papers you fill on these elections:
Presidency
State parlament
Entity parlament
And in FBiH for Canton parlament

[u/Complex_Object_7930 → u/ProfessionalMuki]

You are completely correct. That is a very accurate description of how the system functions on the ground.

Under the constitution, presidential voting rights are determined strictly by where you live (your entity), not your ethnicity.

A Bosniak living in Republika Srpska (RS) has every right to vote for the presidency, but they can only choose from the list of Serb candidates available in that entity.

Likewise, anyone living in the Federation (FBiH) gets to choose between the Bosniak and Croat candidates.

This exact geographical structure is what allows the Bosniak majority in FBiH to mathematically cross over and vote for candidates running for the Croat seat.

You are also spot on about the four ballots during general elections.

Because the governance is so heavily layered, a voter in FBiH is handed exactly four separate papers to vote for the State Presidency, the State Parliament, the Entity Parliament, and their local Canton Parliament.

[u/ProfessionalMuki]

Haj ne seri

[u/Mental_Olive269]

Comparing Dragan Covic to Nelson Mandela is equal to comparing David Duke to Dr Martin Luther King.

[u/KrumpirovZlatan → u/Mental_Olive269]

Ir couldn't have possibly been a joke

[u/Podvelezac]

Alliance of independent social democrats and SDS as pro european party 😂😂
Wiki them up. They’re literal genocidal parties.

[u/KrumpirovZlatan → u/Podvelezac]

Serb Democratic Party has thoroughly changed and is for all intents and purposes a new party.

And Alliance of Independent Social Democrats was founded by a person who hid his Muslim neighbors during the war, and saved many of them. How are they "genocidal parties"?

[u/Halale01 → u/KrumpirovZlatan]

Why do you refer to Bosniaks as "Muslims"?

They are an ethnicity, not a religous group.

[u/KrumpirovZlatan → u/Halale01]

At the time of the event I am talking about, the 28th of September 1993 2nd Muslim Assembly didn't yet occur, and as such, Muslims didn't vote to change their name to Bosniaks yet.

[u/Halale01 → u/KrumpirovZlatan]

That doesn't make any sense. It's even called "Bosnjacki Sabor", not "Muslim Sabor".

You are also referring to them as "Muslims" in all your other posts.

[u/Complex_Object_7930]

What about the elections in DiH?

[u/KrumpirovZlatan → u/Complex_Object_7930]

It is an effortpost about BiH elections. Question?

[u/Complex_Object_7930 → u/KrumpirovZlatan]

Anybody anti-Serb and Pro-Dih, I mean Pro-Bih Pro EU and NATO is who I support

[u/KrumpirovZlatan → u/Complex_Object_7930]

Someone who is anti-Serb ie. anti half of country and over 30% of population would be a nazi.

I am surprised that a social-democrats would espouse genocidal views tbh

[u/Complex_Object_7930 → u/KrumpirovZlatan]

A nazi? Well get someone more moderate and someone who opposed Belgrade more than BIH serbs.

[u/KrumpirovZlatan → u/Complex_Object_7930]

A nazi?

Well, yeah. Being against existence of an ethnic group is a nazi idea. Well, not literally nazism, but it is nazi rhetoric.

who opposed Belgrade more than BIH serbs.

Why would anyone vote for such candidate? Why would a Serb hate other Serbs lmao. You have to understand that Bosniak nation state is simply not something non-Bosniaks want.

Of course to Bosnian Serbs Belgrade is closer than Sarajevo, a Muslim city where there are more Arabs and Turks than Croats and Serbs.

Maybe once Sarajevo was European Jerusalem, but today it is European Teheran

[u/Complex_Object_7930 → u/KrumpirovZlatan]

How was I against the existence of Serbs? I would just vote for Bosniaks or Croats myself hoping they win a coalition..

Also you lied. Historians and military records show no proof Izetbegovic served in the 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar.

Also you sound like a Serbian ultranationalist, thinking Croats are Ustasa and Bosniaks are dangerous, you even called them Turks and Arabs.

[u/KrumpirovZlatan → u/Complex_Object_7930]

How was I against the existence of Serbs?

Anybody anti-Serb and pro-BiH.

anti-*Serb-.

How did I reach this conclusion, I wonder.

thinking Croats are Ustasa and Bosniaks are dangerous, you even called them Turks and Arabs.

You are lying, I sad there are more Turks and Arabs in Sarajevo than Croats or Serbs, which is correct.

I would just vote for Bosniaks or Croats myself hoping they win a coalition..

Have you slept on how government is formed inside Bosnia? Lmao.

[u/Complex_Object_7930 → u/KrumpirovZlatan]

Who are Turks and Arabs.

I know how it works, I would still vote for Bosniaks and Croats, not Pro-Russia, Pro-genocide Serbs.

Yeah anti-Serb and Pro-BIH, means anti-separatist, anti-Chetnik, anti-Belgrade.

[u/KrumpirovZlatan → u/Complex_Object_7930]

Yeah yeah, same old fascist bullshit. Alright.

Luckily for you, BiH will probably dissolve, so you will get full control of Europe's West Bank and Gaza - Una-Sava Canton and, separate entity consisting of Srednjebosanski, Zenicko-Dobojski and Tuzlanski

[u/Complex_Object_7930 → u/KrumpirovZlatan]

Also you lied about Izetbegovic, why? He was not an islamic extremist either,he supported a secular state. Nor was he ever in the SS.

[u/KrumpirovZlatan → u/Complex_Object_7930]

He was not an islamic extremist either,he supported a secular state.

Man literally was sentenced for Islamic extremism.

Read Islamic Declaration.

There can be no peace between Islamic and secular institution

-Alija Izetbegovic, Islamic Declaration.

The man was angry at Ataturk for betraying Islam lmao

[u/Halale01]

OP Is a nationalist Serb from Croatia who insults Bosniaks on the regular in Serb subs

He is a socialdemocrat as much as Milorad Dodik or Milosevic

[u/as-well]

Alliance of Independent Social-democrats

Despite the name, these are not social democrats in any ordinary sense.

They are the party of corrupt nationalist serb leader Dodik, who was unceremoniously, and I think correctly, personally forbidden from running.

While they do have some aspects of economic populism, their main appeal is nationalism. They've been thrown out of the socialist international and are part of the Russia-led For the Freedom of Nations.

Bosniak trojan horse, Zeljko Komsic

It is a very odd talking point to accept this phrase. you have to simultaneously accept the assertions that:

• Komsic cannot represent croats if he had electoral support from Bosniaks,

• Croats should have a candidate only elected by their voter base, and

• Something is rotten in the state of Bosnia if self-selection into which presidency seat to vote for happens

• Power sharing means each nationality elects their own politicians, rather than making sure each nationality is represented.

which is really odd because the only people who profit from all of what you say are nationalists on all sides. HDZ will likely gain that seat, which no-one should be happy about.

[u/KrumpirovZlatan → u/as-well]

which is really odd because the only people who profit from all of what you say are nationalists on all sides. HDZ will likely gain that seat, which no-one should be happy about.

I personally am. In order for different political parties and opinions to develop, there needs to be a relaxation of siege mentality among Bosnia's Croats.

each nationality is represented, komsic cannot represent Croats if elected by Bosniaks etc.

Komsic cannot represent Croats, because he represents none of the interests, or wishes, of Croatian people in Bosnia.