[3rdEye]

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

Look Marulus, I deliberately didn't replied to him in the proper manner because I didn't wanted to start a new argument here about the war in ex Yugoslavia. I already had one, very long and tiring with Zrinski, and that's enough for me.

Every war has 2 sides and every history has 2 sides. This is official Croatian, as well as general western. Whether they're facts or not depends on the viewer's position. I understand your position, but I can't agree with it.

There's also Serbian side. How about reading both before making any final statement about anything?

I know that there are different versions of history. I'm very aware of it. I think most people who post here are aware of it. But I also think that there is truth, which is perhaps somewhere in the middle, or in a synthesis of some things from one account with other things from another account. To have a discussion is a shortcut to a glimpse of a possible wider horizon of truth, because if you read a book, it may overlook some aspects altogether - you read another one and it overlooks other aspects, and so on. I want to learn something from having a discussion - what would be hard or impossible to get from a book. Instead I can have it here as a prelude to further reading, and at the same time anyone else can follow it as well. Also, I think it's a mistake to confuse a Croatian point of view with a general western one, but that's a whole topic of its own, so let's leave it for now.

In all friendliness, how about just starting with what you have to object to the description I wrote? I also don't like "tiring" arguments; they tend to bore me with their yes-no-yes-no character. Of course I cannot know what will become of this discussion. I would just appreciate to have a discussion much more than not having it. I read many topics concerning the Balkans here, but there was always something I didn't understand, usually what was said in a language I don't understand. That's why I want to participate actively.