|
Post by amoureux24 on Jan 10, 2008 12:11:43 GMT -5
Sandzak kao sastavni dio Bosne je nelegalno oduzet od strane Srbije i Crne Gore i nikada vracen.
Tamo su se desila prisilna pokrstavanja Bosnjaka, ubijanja i protjerivanja u Tursku.
Vrijeme je da se povjest ispravi i Bosni vratio vlastiti dio teritorije.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 10, 2008 13:08:16 GMT -5
Prvo, ilegalna austrijska okupacija Bosne je bila veoma kratkog vijeka (Bosna: 1878-1918) i nevidim da ona moze da posluzi kao baza icemu valjanom sto se tice sadasnje analize zapadnog balkana. To bi bilo kao kad bi sada neko koristio njemacku okupaciju bivse Juge za vrijeme 2SR kao fokus svoje analize. Drugo, koliko sam upoznat Sandjak (Raska je originalno ime) je bila i dalje pod Otomanskom okupacijom za vecinu tog vrijema (1878-prvi balkanski rat). Raska je originalna zona Srbije tj zona iz koje je ponikla i u kojoj i dalje ima znatan broj Srba (koje su Otomani gonili za vrijeme njihovoge okupacije i nastanjivali muslimane). Trece, ogromna vecina takozvanih 'Bosnjaka' Sandzaka veze nemaju ama nikakve veze sa Bosnom vec su iz stare Crne Gore porijeklom (otadle izgnani za vrijeme takozvane 'potjere poturica' o kojoj je pisao Njegos kada su se crnogorski muslimani ili preobratili u vjeru ili bjezali na Otomansku teritoriju (Sandjak) i maji dio je od lokalnih Arbanasa. Dakle ovaj narod je sto je godj narod u CG. Nije ovo srednji vijek vise pa da primitivni narod sebe identifikuje preko vjere a i pak da jeste tako onda zbog cega bise crnogorski muslimani zvali Bosnjacima (nije im Bosna dala tu vjeru niti poticu iz Bosne) isto kao sto crnogorski katolici nemogu biti Hrvati samo zbog vjere (nije im Hrvatska dala vjeru dok su Duklja i Zeta vec bile katolicke zemlje). Etnicka Mapa Austro-Ugarske Prvi Balkanski rat (oslobodjenje Balkana od visevjekovne Otomanske okupacije) Etnicka mapa Balkana 1861 (French: G.Lejean)
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 10, 2008 15:39:29 GMT -5
Two thirds of Sandzak Bosniaks trace their ancestry to the regions of Montenegro proper, which they started leaving first in 1687, after Turkey lost Boka Kotorska. The trend continued in Old Montenegro after 1711 with the extermination of converts to Islam (“istraga poturica”). Another contributing factor that spurred the migration to Sandzak from the Old Montenegro was the fact that the old Orthodox population of Sandžak moved towards Serbia and the Habsburg Monarchy (Vojvodina) in two waves, first after 1687, and then, after 1740, leaving Sandžak basically depopulated.
Some twenty percent of Bosniaks stem from the Catholic Albanian clans of Northern Albania and neighbouring Montenegro. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand%C5%BEak#Bosniaksdakle (65%+ 20% =) bar 85% tih Bosnjaka nemaju veze sa Bosnom sto se tice porijekla.
|
|
tyson
Amicus
Posts: 1,256
|
Post by tyson on Jan 10, 2008 17:46:33 GMT -5
dakle (65%+ 20% =) bar 85% tih Bosnjaka nemaju veze sa Bosnom sto se tice porijekla. no , it cant be said like that, because the percentages overlap each other, because sandzak bosniaks all mix with one and another. sandzaklije can have ancestors from montenegro, but then they could also have ancestors from BiH, and then they could also have ancestors from albania. so out of the population of sandzaklije, there is said to be 60% that can trace roots to montenegro, but that does not mean all those people solely trace their roots to only montenegro. also i heard that 10% of sandzaklije can trace their roots to slavonija, because after the turks lost the territories north of the sava river, all the muslim converts retreated with the turks. alot of them went to sandzak. so these percentage overlap each other, so you cant say that only 15% of sandzaklije can trace their roots to BiH, just because you added up the 65% of sandzaklije that can trace their roots to montenegro with the 20% that can trace their roots to albania. i know that sandzaklije that can trace their roots to BiH is alot more than 15%. i think a realistic figure of sandzaklije that can trace their roots to BiH would be between 40 and 50%.
|
|
|
Post by amoureux24 on Jan 11, 2008 11:01:52 GMT -5
I am not nagainst Serbia or Montenegro, the fact is that legally Sandzak should belong to Bosnia. Also for protection of those people is better to belong to Bosnia because those Bosniaks in Sandzak are every day a target for serbian extrimist(not all Serbs of course because there are good serbs or montenegrins too)
My family is in Bosnia.We are real Bosniaks by land (of catholic spring ,Croats by slavic origen,islamic confession) but my surname exists in Sandzak too which I believe happened after procecution of some people of my family from Bosnia by Christians. There was this migration of Bosniaks from Bosnia into Sandzak. Why do we have these patches in Bosnia where muslim populaton was completely cleansened.
If Serbs say Sandzak was Rascia, I am telling them they had many centres of serbdom like in Kosovo where lokal dardanian people took became slavs or Serbs.Later on they moved towards the north. I do not believe that Serb people who are ment to be good slavic people are in Serbia about 20%. There is a lot of Vlack element who were wariors and soldier in the roman legions and that is why Bosniaks do not like agressive behaviour of these people.
Bosniaks in Sandzak declared themselves as Bosniaks not just like 10 years ago but 400 years ago in their epic poems.
For the sake of peace it could look like in Serbia or Monenegro but Sandzak has one centre and that is Sarajevo.
When we enter EU there will not be borders anymore.
I will be able to live in Montenegro just like in Bosnia for example.
One big pity is that Croatia,Bosnia,Serbia and Montenegro aren't one country.
That is one nation regardless on the past rules during history.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 11, 2008 11:27:51 GMT -5
One big pity is that Croatia,Bosnia,Serbia and Montenegro aren't one country. That is one nation regardless on the past rules during history.
That I can not disagree with.
|
|
|
Post by Sh1 Shonić on Jan 11, 2008 18:16:05 GMT -5
Ako je Sandzak bosnjacki onda je Krajina srpska po istom principu.
A posto Karjina nije srpska onda ni Sandzak nece biti bosnjacki.
|
|
|
Post by amoureux24 on Jan 12, 2008 6:00:13 GMT -5
Krajinu su Bosnjaci odbranili 1737 kada su Turci Bosnu ostavili na milost ili na nemilost Austriji pa je svako bosnjacko celjade ustalo na noge da odbrane Bosnu.
Jedino su Visocaci odbili da ucestuju u tom ratu pod izgovorom da im je tidzaret ili trgovina prica. Izdajnici!!!!!!!!!(Bosnjaci)
Banja Luka je bila vecinom Bosnjacka da bi kad je Bosna usla u Kraljevinu Jugoslaviju, srbski kralj naredio da se Bosnjaci banjaluckog kraja protjeraju, oduzme im se zemlja i poda Srbima sa raznih stana pa cak su dolazili iz Srbije. Mnogi Bosnjaci iz Banjaluke su otisli u Tursku ili u Sandzak se primjestili. Po istom principu je dosta zemlje oduzeto Bosnjacima u Hercegovini. A jos prije toga kad su katolici vrsili prisilno pokatolicavanje po dolasku austougara dosta Bosnjaka je otislo u Tursku.
Ovo Bosnjaka sto je ostalo u Bosni je mudziza (cudo) Bozije.
Da napomenem da Bosnjaci nisu odbranili Bosnu 1737 danas bi taj dio bio Hrvatska.
Vlasi(samozvani Srbi koji bi trebali biti nasa dobra slavenska braca ako to uopce jesu) su dosli sa Turcima u Bosnu a bilo je Bosnjaka katolika koji su po dolasku Turaka primili pravoslavnu vjeru i oni su nasa Bosnjacka braca a ne Vlasi.
Ako ih nista drugo ne bi trebalo vezati za nas Bosnjake onda ih privrzenost Bosanjaninskijem kraljevima i katolocanstvo treba vezati za nas.
Nema car Dusan nista sa Bosnom ako uopce mislite jer cak je i on mrzio Vlahe a nije ima nista ni sa Bosnjackim pravoslavcima.
|
|
|
Post by zgembo on Jan 24, 2008 3:12:59 GMT -5
Pa ovo je najobicniji idiotizam, opstine "Sandzaka" sto granice sa Bosnom imaju Srpsku vecinu... jos je svakako Republika Srpska i Srpski zivalj i sa druge strane Drine sad
Deset puta je logicnije traziti da se Muslimanski dio Sandzaka pripoji Kosovu... ovo nema blage veze sa razumom, ocigledno reakcija na neke nacionalne frustracije (vjerovatno postojanje RS)
|
|