Forum Klix.ba

"Zar je Dodik malo!

Pojedinim bošnjačkim političkim liderima nije, izgleda, jasno da je Milorad Dodik danas dovoljno moćan da rasturi cijelu Bosnu i Hercegovinu i "jedan narod odvede u nestanak", već se i sami uključuju u njegov pohod na Bosnu i Hercegovinu kao zajedničku državu njenih naroda i građana.

Dodik iz dana u dan sve otvorenije govori o tome da mu se Bosna i Hercegovina kao država gadi i da on Srbiju smatra svojom otadžbinom. Ne samo da negira postojanja Bosne i Hercegovine kao države i da iz dna duše mrzi sve što u njoj nije srpsko, a posebno mrzi sve što imalo "tukne" na Bošnjake, već je i cijeloj međunarodnoj zajednici dao do znanja da ne uvažava njene odluke koje podržavaju cjelovitu BiH. Na sjednici Pakta stabilnosti, održanoj u petak u Briselu, Dodik je toliko prkosio cijeloj Evropi kao da ima posla s traktoristima iz okoline Laktaša, a ne s evropskim moćnicima. I poručuje im: Na svako ugrožavanje njegovih pozicija u RS (koje on poistovjećuje s dejtonskom pozicijom RS), "naš odgovor biće disolucija". Dakle, raspad BiH, otcjepljenje dejtonske RS od BiH i njeno pripajanje Srbiji. Za bonska ovlašćenja visokog predstavnika međunarodne zajednice koja se budu odnosila na RS Dodik je rekao da će biti – odbijena.

Ništa Dodik nije novo rekao. On samo ponavlja svoje već poznate antibosanskohercegovačke stavove, ali ih od izjave do izjave, od situacije do situacije, sve više radikalizira. A ti stavovi su, prije svega, upereni protiv bošnjačkog naroda, njegovih strateških nacionalnih interesa i njegovog opstanka na ovim prostorima.

U ovoj fazi rušenja Bosne i Hercegovine kao zajedničke države njenih građana i naroda, Dodik iz taktičko-političkih razloga izbjegava da udara i na bosanskohercegovačke Hrvate. I stoga oni i šute. Njemu su, u ovoj fazi rušenja BiH, Bošnjaci glavna prepreka i stoga na njih i udara. A za Hrvate, biva, ima vremena da se "otpečate".

Začuđuje, međutim, činjenica da se lider političke partije koja se, i po svom nazivu, zaklinje u "sto posto BiH", dakle Haris Silajdžić, sve više i sve češće primiče Dodiku. A sve više i sve češće udaljava od temeljne bošnjačke stranke u kojoj je i sam (na)pravio političku karijeru. Gotovo je neshvatljivo, pa i nevjerojatno, da Silajdžić danas ima ikakvih dodirnih tačaka s Dodikom kad je riječ o sudbini BiH. Dodik čini sve da ovu državu rasturi, a to bi prvenstveno za bošnjački narod predstavljalo dramu čiji završetak samo može da se nasluti. I upravo u takvoj situaciji Silajdžić se sve više primiče Dodiku, a sve više udaljava od Sulejmana Tihića kao lidera temeljne bošnjačke stranke, a i od Zlatka Lagumdžije kao lidera jedine relevantne multietničke političke partije u BiH.

Zbog Silajdžićeve podrške Dodiku i njegovim (ne)uračunljivim političkim nasrtajima na BiH, ozbiljno je ugrožena kakva-takva politička koalicija bošnjačkih stranaka - SDA i SBiH. Posebno su zabrinuti članovi SDA iz RS i stoga zahtijevaju da se preispita opravdanost koalicije SDA sa SBiH. Razlog za tu zabrinutost jeste podrška SBiH Dodikovom modelu reforme policije s kojim se SDA duboko ne slaže. Posebno su, kažu u SDA, zabrinuti povratinici u RS jer bi ih, po tom Dodikovom i Silajdžićevom modelu, štitila ona policija koja ih je i protjerivala iz RS.

Milorad Dodik se po svojim današnjim postupcima, kad je riječ o sudbini BiH, ni po čemu ne razlikuje od svog idejnog prethodnika Radovana Karadžića.

I to je to.

Haris Silajdžić se nije izdvojio iz SDA i odvojio od Alije Izetbegovića ni iz kakvih ideološko-političkih razloga. Njegova ambicija je bila da postane "prvi u Bošnjaka". S obzirom na to da to nije mogao ostvariti dok je Izetbegović bio živ, izdvojio se i osnovao svoju stranku. Činio je sve da se popne na "bošnjački vrh". I na prošlim izborima je to ostvario prvenstveno zahvaljujući devizi "Sto posto BiH". Ali, tu je i dalje SDA koja mu ne dozvoljava da u ime bošnjačkog naroda radi šta hoće. I stoga je, kad-tad, moralo doći do sukoba između matice i surogata. Pa makar to bilo na štetu bošnjačkog naroda, kao što se upravo i događa.

Šta ćeš, tako ti je. Narod je narod, on će se nekako snaći. Ali, vlast je vlast."

NALIK SMO MEĐEDU.... ali sve više mršamo.. pa se možda i probudimo...

Nema potrebe za sekiracijom. Da Dodik može išta učiniti sam da promijeni granice Bosne i Hercegovine, budite sigurni da bi to već bilo gotovo. Ali, nešto ga definitivno zeza, a to je ona čuvena Badinterova komisija koja je jasno definirala "pravila igre" u bivšoj Jugoslaviji i njenim bivšim republikama (sada nezavisnim državama). Ko ima vremena neka pročita (ima nešto jako zanimljivo u tom nalazu komisije, između ostalog da se Srbi u Bosni i Srbi u Hrvatskoj, na primjer, trebaju tretirati kao i sve ostale etničke manjine na osnovu međunarodnog prava... uostalom, ko zna engleski, neka čita:

The Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee: A Second Breath for the Self-Determination of Peoples
Appendix: Opinions of the Arbitration Committee
Opinion No. 1
The President of the Arbitration Committee received the following letter from Lord Carring-ton, President of the Conference on Yugoslavia, on 20 November 1991:
We find ourselves with a major legal question.
Serbia considers that those Republics which have declared or would declare themselves independent or sovereign have seceded or would secede from the SFRY which would otherwise continue to exist.
Other Republics on the contrary consider that there is no question of secession, but the question is one of a disintegration or breaking-up of the SDRY as the result of the concurring will of a number of Republics. They consider that the six Republics are to be considered equal successors to the SFRY, without any of them or group of them being able to claim to be the continuation thereof.
I should like the Arbitration Committee to consider the matter in order to formulate any opin-ion or recommendation which it might deem useful.
The Arbitration Committee has been apprised of the memoranda and documents communi-cated respectively by the Republics of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Monte-negro, Slovenia, Serbia, and by the President of the collegiate Presidency of the SFRY.
1) The Committee considers:
a) that the answer to the question should be based on the principles of public international law which serve to define the conditions on which an entity constitutes a state; that in this respect, the existence or disappearance of the state is a question of fact; that the effects of recognition by other states are purely declaratory;
b) that the state is commonly defined as a community which consists of a territory and a population subject to an organized political authority; that such a state is characterized by sovereignty;
c) that, for the purpose of applying these criteria, the form of internal political organization and the constitutional provisions are mere facts, although it is necessary to take them into consideration in order to determine the Government's way over the population and the terri-tory;
d) that in the case of a federal-type state, which embraces communities that possess a degree of autonomy and, moreover, participate in the exercise of political power within the framework of institutions common to the Federation, the existence of the state implies that the fed-eral organs represent the components of the Federation and wield effective power;
e) that, in compliance with the accepted definition in international law, the expression `state succession' means the replacement of one state by another in the responsibility for the interna-tional relations of territory. This occurs whenever there is a change in the territory of the state. The phenomenon of state succession is governed by the principles of international law, from which the Vienna Conventions of 23 August 1978 and 8 April 1983 have drawn inspiration. In compliance with these principles, the outcome of succession should be equitable, the states concerned being free of terms of settlement and conditions by agreement. Moreover, the per-emptory norms of general international law and, in particular, respect for the fundamental rights of the individual and the rights of peoples and minorities, are binding on all the parties to the succession.
2) The Arbitration Committee notes that:
a) - although the SFRY has until now retained its international personality, notably inside in-ternational organizations, the Republics have expressed their desire for independence;
- in Slovenia, by a referendum in December 1990, followed by a declaration of independence on 25 June 1991, which was suspended for three months and confirmed on 8 October 1991;
- in Croatia, by a referendum held in May 1991, followed by a declaration of independence on 25 June 1991, which was suspended for three months and confirmed on 8 October 1991;
- in Macedonia, by a referendum held in September 1991 in favour of a sovereign and inde-pendent Macedonia within an association of Yugoslav states;
- in Bosnia and Herzegovina, by a sovereignty resolution adopted by Parliament on 14 October 1991, whose validity has been contested by the Serbian community of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
b) - The composition and workings of the essential organs of the Federation, be they the Federal Presidency, the Federal Council, the Council of the Republics and the Provinces, the Fed-eral Executive Council, the Constitutional Court or the Federal Army, no longer meet the criteria of participation and representatives inherent in a federal state;
c) - The recourse to force has led to armed conflict between the different elements of the Fed-eration which has caused the death of thousands of people and wrought considerable destruction within a few months. The authorities of the Federation and the Republics have shown themselves to be powerless to enforce respect for the succeeding ceasefire agreements con-cluded under the auspices of the European Communities or the United Nations Organization.
3) - Consequently, the Arbitration Committee is of the opinion:
- that the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is in the process of dissolution;
- that it is incumbent upon the Republics to settle such problems of state succession as may arise from this process in keeping with the principles and rules of international law, with particular regard for human rights and the rights of peoples and minorities;
- that it is up to those Republics that so wish, to work together to form a new association endowed with the democratic institutions of their choice.
Opinion No. 2
On 20 November 1991 the Chairman of the Arbitration Committee received a letter from Lord Carrington, Chairman of the Conference on Yugoslavia, requesting the Committee's opinion on the following question put by the Republic of Serbia:
Does the Serbian population in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, as one of the constituent peoples of Yugoslavia, have the right to self-determination?
The Committee took note of the aide-mémoires, observations and other materials submitted by the Republics of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Slovenia and Serbia, by the Presidency of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) and by the `Assembly of the Serbian People of Bosnia-Herzegovina'.
1. The Committee considers that, whatever the circumstances, the right to self-determination must not involve changes to existing frontiers at the time of independence (uti possidetis ju-ris) except where the states concerned agree otherwise.
2. Where there are one or more groups within a state constituting one or more ethnic, religious or language communities, they have the right to recognition of their identity under interna-tional law.
As the Committee emphasized in its Opinion No. 1 of 29 November 1991, published on 7 De-cember, the - now peremptory - norms of international law require states to ensure respect for the rights of minorities. This requirement applies to all the Republics vis-à-vis the minorities on their territory.
The Serbian population in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia must therefore be afforded every right accorded to minorities under international convention as well as national and interna-tional guarantees consistent with the principles of international law and the provisions of Chapter II of the draft Convention of 4 November 1991, which has been accepted by these Republics.3. Article 1 of the two 1986 International Covenants on human rights establishes that the prin-ciple of the right to self-determination serves to safeguard human rights. By virtue of that right every individual may choose to belong to whatever ethnic, religious or language com-munity he or she wishes.
In the Committee's view one possible consequence of this principle might be for the members of the Serbian population in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia to be recognized under agree-ments between the Republics as having the nationality of their choice, with all the rights and obligations which that entails with respect to the states concerned.
4. The Arbitration Committee is therefore of the opinion:
(i) that the Serbian population in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia is entitled to all the rights concerned to minorities and ethnic groups under international law and under the provisions of the draft Convention of the Conference on Yugoslavia of 4 November 1991, to which the Re-publics of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia have undertaken to give effect; and
(ii) that the Republics must afford the members of those minorities and ethnic groups all the human rights and fundamental freedoms recognized in international law, including, where ap-propriate, the right to choose their nationality.
Opinion No. 3
On 20 November 1991 the Chairman of the Arbitration Committee received a letter from Lord Carrington, Chairman of the Conference on Yugoslavia, requesting the Committee's opinion on the following question put by the Republic of Serbia:
Can the internal boundaries between Croatia and Serbia and between Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia be regarded as frontiers in terms of public international law?
The Committee took note of the aide-mémoires, observations and other materials submitted by the Republics of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Slovenia and Serbia, by the Presidency of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) and by the `Assembly of the Serbian People of Bosnia-Herzegovina'.
1. In its Opinion No. 1 of 29 November, published on 7 December, the Committee found that `the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is in the process of breaking up'. Bearing in mind that the Republics of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, inter alia, have sought interna-tional recognition as independent states, the Committee is mindful of the fact that its answer to the question before it will necessarily be given in the context of a fluid and changing situa-tion and must therefore be founded on the principles and rules of public international law.
2. The Committee therefore takes the view that once the process in the SFRY leads to the creation of one or more independent states, the issue of frontiers, in particular those of the Republics referred to in the question before it, must be resolved in accordance with the fol-lowing principles:
First - All external frontiers must be respected in line with the principles stated in the United Nations Charter, in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV)) and in the Helsinki Final Act, a principle which also underlies Article 11 of the Vienna Convention of 23 August 1978 on the Succession of States in Respect of Treaties.
Second - The boundaries between Croatia and Serbia, between Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia, and possibly other adjacent independent states may not be altered except by agreement freely arrived at.[/b]
Third - Except where otherwise agreed, the former boundaries become frontiers protected by international law. This conclusion follows from the principle of respect for the territorial status quo and, in particular, from the principle of uti possidetis. Uti possidetis, though ini-tially applied in settling decolonisation issues in America and Africa, is today recognized as a general principle, as stated by the International Court of Justice in its Judgment of 22 Decem-ber 1986 in the case between Burkina Fase and Hali (Frontier Dispute, (1986) Law Reports 554 at 565):
Nevertheless the principle is not a special rule which pertains solely to one specific system of international law. It is a general principle, which is logically connected with the phenomenon of the obtaining of independence, wherever it occurs. Its obvious purpose is to prevent the in-dependence and stability of new states being endangered by fratricidal struggles...
The principle applies all the more readily to the Republic since the second and fourth para-graphs of Article 5 of the Constitution of the SFRY stipulated that the Republics' territories and boundaries could not be altered without their consent.
Fourth - According to a well-established principle of international law the alteration of exist-ing frontiers or boundaries by force is not capable of producing any legal effect. This princi-ple is to be found, for instance, in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concern-ing Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV)) and in the Helsinki Final Act; it was cited by the Hague Conference on 7 September 1991 and is enshrined in the draft Con-vention of 4 November 1991 drawn up by the Conference on Yugoslavia.

ETO DRAGI MOJI, DODIK MOŽE SAMO DA PRIČA ALI NEMA PRAVO NIŠTA TRAŽITI ŠTO BI MOGLO MIJENJATI VANJSKE GRANICE BOSNE (osim ako mu naši jadovi ne dozvole svojim dobrovoljnim potpisom)

Izjave dvojice crkvenih velikodostojnika zbunile javnost
Artemije oštro napao Amfilohija
Vladika Artemije: Mitropolit Amfilohije se drsko meša u poslove druge eparhije. To je nedopustivo, u pitanju je kanonski prekršaj. Eparhija raško-prizrenska oštro kritikovala Sinod SPC jer je podržao Tadića koji uporno ponavlja da „Srbija neće odustati od svoje evropske perspektive“, i pored činjenice da joj Evropa čupa srce iz grudi

Dve izjave uglednih crkvenih velikodostijnika o (ne)saradnji sveštenstva i monaštva SPC na Kosovu i Metohiji sa pojedinim institucijama vlasti u pokrajini zbunile su srpsku javnost, ali i (najverovatnije) deo sveštenstva i monaštva SPC na Kosmetu.

Naime, pre tri dana vladika raško-prizrenski i kosovskometohijski Artemije izdao je naredbu svim upravama manastira i arhijerejskim namesnicima svoje eparhije „da ne održavaju nikakve kontakte sa predstavnicima nelegitimne i nezakonite šiptarske vlasti Kosova i Metohije na svim nivoima, predstavnicima Misije EU na svim nivoima, kao i predstavnicima država koje su priznale nezavisnost Kosova.

„Oni su uzurpatori i okupatori i za nas jednostavno - ne postoje“, nedvosmisleno je preko našeg lista poručio vladika Artemije, dodajući „da se naredba ne odnosi na predstavnike Unmika i Kfora jer se oni na Kosovu nalaze legalno, na osnovu Rezolucije 1244“.

„Oni su uzurpatori i okupatori i za nas jednostavno - ne postoje“,

nas reis Ceric tako ne misli kad je bio kod Dodika u Banja Luci,kaze da se ugodno i rahat osjecao sjedeci ispod cetnickog orla.

nase ce jade doci nama glave.

Teroristi u bosanskom okruženju

GDJE JE SADA BIJELA EL-KAIDA?!


Da li je na plamenu, u kojem je gorjela Američka ambasada u Beogradu, definitivno spaljena ova iluzija, ne možemo ustvrditi. Ali jasno je da je vascijeli (zapadni) svijet bio povjerovao i sprskoj propagandi da će pred spaljenom Američkom amabsadom, u Sarajevu na primjer, vidjeti bradate islamske militante
Priznanje kosovske nezavisnosti otkrilo je Zapadu (EU i SAD) jednu veliku političku zbaludu u koju su bili upali nakon sloma komunizma. Protekla decenija je bila u znaku konfrontacije Zapada sa islamskim svijetom. Činilo se da se geopolitička sudbina svijeta odvija prema proročanstvu najpoznatijeg proroka moderne geopolitike Henrija Kisindžera, koji je bio ustvrdio da je Zapadu, nakon sloma komunizma, islam neprijatelj broj jedan.
Rat protiv El-Kaide davao je za pravo Kisindžeru i on je sasvim razumljivo dobio mentorsku ulogu i kod Georga W. Busha u vrijeme američke invazije na Irak.
Takve koordinate svjetske politike premrežile su i Balkan, odnosno Istočnu Evropu, s obzirom da je na tom području bio komunizam, ali se održao i islam. Ratovi u bivšoj komunističkoj Jugoslaviji započeli su po historijskim, geografskim i religijskim šavovima pravoslavlja i islama. Srbi kao pravoslavci su tražili oslonac u komunističkom susjedstvu, te preostalim evropskim uporištima socijalista, a Albanici i Bošnjaci, kao muslimani, tražili su utočište i saveznika u nekomunističkom, dakle zapadnom demokratskom svijetu.
Danas, ako su ratovi završeni, može se vidjeti da su političke koordinate ostale iste. Bukvalno, onaj ko je podržavao Slobodana Miloševića, socijal-komunisti u Grčkoj, Kipru, Rumuniji, Španiji, Rusiji i Kini i danas drže srpsku stranu glede priznanja nezavisnosti Kosova. Čak i prosrpski lobi koji je podržavao Miloševića u SAD, poput Lorensa Igelbergera, bliskog suradnika Kisindžera, i danas je protiv američkog priznanja nezavisnosti Kosova. Od Miloševićevih pomagača danas nema Fransoa Miterana, nekadašnjeg gurua evropskih socijalista. Srbi su šokirani francuskom «izdajom stoljetnog prijetlejstva». Malo su zaboravili ko je vezao uz bandere francuske vojnike na Palama, ali i da je Miteran mrtav. Iznenađenje je i engleska politika, jer osim pokojnog Robina Kuka, svi engleski političari bili su bliži rusko-sprkoj strani. Ali, valjda su se desila ubistva špijuna velikog kalibra u Engleskoj za koja su osumnjičeni Putinovi agenti!

Srpski teroristi spaljuju američku zastavu
Tako su tokom dvije decenije politike straha i genocida srpski voždovi gazili sve međunarodne konvecije i međunarodno pravo, a u tome ih nesebično, i vojno i politički, podržavali komunističko-socijalistički sveznici, uspjevali uvjeravati Zapad kako «čine prljavi posao za Evopru» i stoje «na braniku odbrane Evrope od najezde islama». A od njujorškog 11. septembra cjelopkupna sprska politika bazirala se na propagandi o strahu i opasnosti od bijele Al Kaide koja ima svoje ćelije na Kosovu i u BiH. Da li je na plamenu, u kojem je gorjela Američka ambasada u Beogradu, definitivno spaljena ova iluzija, ne možemo ustvrditi. Ali, jasno je da je cijeli (zapadni) svijet bio povjerovao (i) sprskoj propagandi da će pred spaljenom Američkom ambasadom, u Sarajevu na primjer, vidjeti bradate islamske militante.
Putinova militantna retorika, kao i ostrašćena antizapadna mržnja koju ispoljavaju Srbi zbog nezavisnosti Kosova diljem svijeta, dat će vrlo ozbiljnu lekciju EU i SAD iz geopolitike. Prizma svijeta gledana kroz Kisindžerove debele naočale očito je bila mutna.
Ima ko postavljati ovakva pitanja i raspravljati s Kisindžerom. Ima mu ko i naočale obrisati ako hoće. Mi se trebamo zapitati šta je sa nama Bošnjacima. Da li je ovo šansa za nas? Treba li se šta poduzimati glede Sandžaka, u smislu zahtjeva za političkom autonomijom? Da li je moguće da Sandažak završi kao Čečenija? Kako odgovoriti na delirijum sprskog nacionalizma u RS-u? E, na ta pitanja je veoma teško dati odgovor. Bošnjaci se nalaze u drugom paklenom trouglu SDA-SDP - Stranke za BiH. U tom trouglu se moraju spaliti iluzije da postoji ikakva nacionalna politika! Ako ovako depresivan zaključak ne stoji, lahko ga je bilo provjeriti. Zašto niko, iz SDA-a, SDP-a i Stranke za BiH, nije pozvao narod na miting pred Vječnom vatrom, 1. marta, na dan referenduma o nazavisnosti BiH, sa parolom: Bosna je vječna!, pa izišao pred okupljene građane...? Tvrdim da bi bio ismijan i izviždan. Ne stoga što Bošnjaci više ne vjeruju u tu ideju, već stoga što ne vjeruju niti jednom bošnjačkom političaru da se bori za BiH, nego samo za vlastite, najčešće stranačke, materijalne interese i pozicije! U toj stranačkoj borbi, nakon rata, izgubili smo priliku koja nam se sada ukazala!

Srpski teroristi spalili Američku ambasadu

covjecijojribici????????