Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Nikolic's Serbia

Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 5:28:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Serbian president Nikolic apologises for Srebrenica massacre

Kosovo-Serbia deal clears path Serbia's path to EU accession
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 6:11:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Quite contrary to what he said earlier. Not to mention the tensions he builds up by calling Republika Srpska "another Serb country." It's a part of Bosnia - some Serbs cannot deal with the fact. He realizes he should, otherwise Serbia won't be recognized on the map with Vojvodina and Sandzak ripping apart.

Good with the apology, but it is not a practical action.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2013 2:20:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 6:11:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
Quite contrary to what he said earlier. Not to mention the tensions he builds up by calling Republika Srpska "another Serb country." It's a part of Bosnia - some Serbs cannot deal with the fact. He realizes he should, otherwise Serbia won't be recognized on the map with Vojvodina and Sandzak ripping apart.

Good with the apology, but it is not a practical action.
Did he use the words "srpski narod" or "srpska nacija"?

No one denies that it is internationally, legally, Bosnian, but it is a nation of Serb government - as Montenegro and the former Srpska Krajina u Hrvatskoj were.

I find Nikolic's new period of sycophancy pretty pathetic. It isn't going to get him into the EU; it's going to end up with him trying to jump through a series of obtuse hoops like Turkey did.
-----

Do you have a transcript or undubbed video of the interview? I only have clips from euro-news ect. which end with a montage of funeral scenes.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2013 3:10:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2013 2:20:20 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Did he use the words "srpski narod" or "srpska nacija"?
Haven't watched all of it. From the part where he apologizes -- he points out that this was carried out by "individuals." Individuals don't commit genocide. It is group strategy.

No one denies that it is internationally, legally, Bosnian, but it is a nation of Serb government - as Montenegro and the former Srpska Krajina u Hrvatskoj were.
Republika Srpska comes from war, greed, and genocide. Nothing more needs to be recognized of it.

Do you have a transcript or undubbed video of the interview? I only have clips from euro-news ect. which end with a montage of funeral scenes.
Yes. http://tinyurl.com... No transcript.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2013 4:20:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2013 3:10:07 PM, Mirza wrote:
So, you are a student of Izetbegovic. Republika Srpska is no more of a genocidal creation as a Muslim lead Bosnia or the BiH Federation. Do Serbs not live in Fed BiH, do Muslims not live in the RS?

During the war there were incidents of mass murder, yes, mass rape, yes, terrible acts, yes, but no ethnic cleansing or genocide. No act ever suggested a plan to eliminate of the Muslim-by-ethnicity people in Bosna-Hercegovina. This follows the ICJ judgment.

Thank you for the video.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2013 7:02:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2013 4:20:20 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 4/27/2013 3:10:07 PM, Mirza wrote:
So, you are a student of Izetbegovic. Republika Srpska is no more of a genocidal creation as a Muslim lead Bosnia or the BiH Federation.
It arose through genocide. That doesn't speak of it functions, only its blood-thirsty leaders and founders.

Do Serbs not live in Fed BiH, do Muslims not live in the RS?
Correct.

During the war there were incidents of mass murder, yes, mass rape, yes, terrible acts, yes, but no ethnic cleansing or genocide. No act ever suggested a plan to eliminate of the Muslim-by-ethnicity people in Bosna-Hercegovina. This follows the ICJ judgment.
This was the purpose of Radovan Karadzic and his siege on Sarajevo -- to commit ethnic cleansing. He threatened this prior to the war in the Bosnian parliament.

Genocide is hard to define. If we narrow it to strategic mass-murder of people based on their ethnicity/religion, and thousands of casualties within days -- then it's genocide.

I hope you're not pulling an argument from authority. The ICJ judgement ruled that genocide did not take place in ALL of Bosnia -- i.e., the war itself was not a case of genocide -- but Srebrenica was. I don't care about the classification. Point in case: Republika Srpska was founded through war and blood, shed on Bosniaks.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2013 7:07:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2013 4:20:20 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Muslim lead Bosnia or the BiH Federation. Do Serbs not live in Fed BiH, do Muslims not live in the RS?
In addition -- Bosnia was NOT created in any similar fashion as the RS. Bosnia existed for centuries and was created pretty much like other nations. Moreover, you're committing a strawman -- a "Muslim lead federation" is nonexistent. Bosniaks tend to be discriminated even in the federation, so your point is nonsensical.

Whether a Muslim lead Bosnia would function better than the status quo is questionable. Nobody asks for that. We gladly point out the disgusting nature of the RS and its creation.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2013 7:13:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 5:28:23 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Serbian president Nikolic apologises for Srebrenica massacre

Kosovo-Serbia deal clears path Serbia's path to EU accession

The EU is finished.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 4:00:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2013 7:02:16 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/27/2013 4:20:20 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 4/27/2013 3:10:07 PM, Mirza wrote:
So, you are a student of Izetbegovic. Republika Srpska is no more of a genocidal creation as a Muslim lead Bosnia or the BiH Federation.
It arose through genocide. That doesn't speak of it functions, only its blood-thirsty leaders and founders.
Debatable. There was no genocide, only a war with massive human rights abuses, see below for the rationale.

Do Serbs not live in Fed BiH, do Muslims not live in the RS?
Correct.
Lies, you're better than this. See the demography, there are municipalities of other ethnicities in both federations - about 28.1% of RS is Muslim, with Croats making another 9%. The other federation is much the same.

During the war there were incidents of mass murder, yes, mass rape, yes, terrible acts, yes, but no ethnic cleansing or genocide. No act ever suggested a plan to eliminate of the Muslim-by-ethnicity people in Bosna-Hercegovina. This follows the ICJ judgment.
This was the purpose of Radovan Karadzic and his siege on Sarajevo -- to commit ethnic cleansing. He threatened this prior to the war in the Bosnian parliament.
I know that scene very well: "nemojte da mislite da necete odvesti BiH u pakao, a muslimanski narod u nestanak". I beg you to please listen to the whole part speech again. My Serbo-Croatian (or is it Bosnian, to you?) is bad so pardon me, I did this first part by ear:

"Ja vas ? molim, ne pretim, nego molim, da ozbiljno macinje ? i politike volje srpskog naroda i ? srpska demokratska stranka i srpski pokret obnove i poneki Srbi iz drugih, drugih stranaka. Molim vas da dobro ? ovo nije dobro sto vi radite. Ovo je put na koji vi yelite da izvedete Bosnu i Hercegovinu ista ona autostrada pakla i stradanja kojom su posle Slovenija i Hrvatska. Nemojte da mislite da necete odvesti Bosnu i Hercegovinu u pakao a muslimanski narod mozda u nestanak. Jer muslimanski narod ne moze da se odbrani ako bude rat ovde."

The Muslims used the same rhetoric, if not worse, prior to the war.

Genocide is hard to define. If we narrow it to strategic mass-murder of people based on their ethnicity/religion, and thousands of casualties within days -- then it's genocide.

I hope you're not pulling an argument from authority. The ICJ judgement ruled that genocide did not take place in ALL of Bosnia -- i.e., the war itself was not a case of genocide -- but Srebrenica was. I don't care about the classification. Point in case: Republika Srpska was founded through war and blood, shed on Bosniaks.
No, just giving an relevant 'authority's consensus; I don't recognise the ICJ but it is a relevant mention. It would be an fallacy if the logic were, ICJ says it's not genocide ergo: it's not genocide.

Here is the case against genocide at Srebrenica is event itself. The Scropion squads of Republika Srpska lead by Mladic marched into the camp and said, demanded for the men, Mladic promised he would not hurt them then shot them in the woods. Srbrenica and Sandići were about killing able bodied males, the youngest being 13 and the oldest 85; the corpses being overwhelmingly male.

So, you see, Srebrenica was about soldiers, not a race. Its no more of a genocide than Katyn was. A horrible act - mass murder of POW and possible civilians but - not genocide.

At 4/27/2013 7:07:56 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/27/2013 4:20:20 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Muslim lead Bosnia or the BiH Federation. Do Serbs not live in Fed BiH, do Muslims not live in the RS?
In addition -- Bosnia was NOT created in any similar fashion as the RS. Bosnia existed for centuries and was created pretty much like other nations. Moreover, you're committing a strawman -- a "Muslim lead federation" is nonexistent. Bosniaks tend to be discriminated even in the federation, so your point is nonsensical.

Whether a Muslim lead Bosnia would function better than the status quo is questionable. Nobody asks for that. We gladly point out the disgusting nature of the RS and its creation.
It is the Muslims, 'Bosniaks', who lead the international politics of Bosnia. The also dominate the second Federation, the one for Croats and Muslims. This was their compensation at Dayton for the great crimes against them. It would be better to separate Bosnia by ethnic lines but that would show the world that expulsion and ethnic cleansing gets you independence/unification. Despite how Bosnia is a government of three 'ethnicities' it is the Muslims who dictate international affairs. Only a fool believes that the three presidencies are equal, Izetbegovic is the true premier. If anyone has the least representation it is the Croats, but that's another debate all together.

The Dayton was a 51-49 land, 70-30 political compromise in favour of the Muslims. Everybody lost just so no one can win. Today, a Muslim in Banju Luka must travel half way across the country for emergency medical provisions because his insurance only applies in one area, a product of Bosnian Federalism; such is the price for a Bosnia of the same borders as the former Bosnian Yugoslav Republic. A smaller but non-Federal Muslim Bosnia or a Bosnia within Yugoslavia would have been better for the people, but no one must sacrifice welfare for political lessons.

Historical Bosnia is not the same as modern Bosnia; modern Bosniaks are defined by their religion not ancestry. Modern Bosnia merely takes the name of the medieval Serb Kingdom in the same place. See how Bulgaria takes the name of the Avar Bulgars, France from the Frankish Kingdom and German Prussia from the Old Prussians (a Baltic speaking people). Bosnian Bogomilism is a silly as Albanian Illyrianism.

At 4/27/2013 7:26:49 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/27/2013 4:20:20 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Thank you for the video.
How do you get transcripts -- software?
No software to my knowledge is that good. I can understand a great deal of written Serbo-Croatian only having to check vocab. None the less my listening is wanting - sentences here and there - 60% babble. I have a Croatian friend who also wanted to see it, she explained most of it to me.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 4:09:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2013 7:13:54 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/25/2013 5:28:23 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Serbian president Nikolic apologises for Srebrenica massacre

Kosovo-Serbia deal clears path Serbia's path to EU accession

The EU is finished.
It's growing.

I'm up for a more decentralised EU but the way it's going...

a "Muslim lead federation" is nonexistent. Bosniaks tend to be discriminated even in the federation, so your point is nonsensical.
Bosnia is a federation of two constitutive nations, Federacija Bosne-Hercegovine i Republika Srpska. Bosnian share a federation with the Croats, whom which they can outvote with relative ease.

I'm referring to the Bosnia federation, not the Serbian federation. Of course Muslims are discriminated in the Serbian republic and vise versa, such is to be expected from such a rubbish peace settlement.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 6:51:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 4:00:17 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Debatable. There was no genocide, only a war with massive human rights abuses, see below for the rationale.
Repetition doesn't go a long way. I defined genocide for you.

Lies, you're better than this.
Uh oh, let's find out.

See the demography,
Here we go--

there are municipalities of other ethnicities in both federations - about 28.1% of RS is Muslim, with Croats making another 9%. The other federation is much the same.
First, you're using he statistics from Wikipedia that show numbers from YEAR 1991 - which was BEFORE the war. Second, new census shows completely different numbers -- not to mention any first-hand experience you get in Bosnia. http://www.politika.rs...

"Prema procenama, u Republici Srpskoj danas "ivi 80 odsto Srba, a ostalo su Bo"njaci, Hrvati i nacionalne manjine. Bo"njaka u Republici Srpskoj ima oko 250.000." http://www.politika.rs... 80% of the people in RS are Serbs, while barely 18% are Muslims - rest Croats.

In the Federation: "75 odsto Bo"njaci, 20 odsto Hrvati, četiri procenta Srbi i jedan odsto ostali." Only 4% are Serbs. Interesting how you attempt to refute my claim with ancient statistics.

I know that scene very well: "nemojte da mislite da necete odvesti BiH u pakao, a muslimanski narod u nestanak". I beg you to please listen to the whole part speech again. My Serbo-Croatian (or is it Bosnian, to you?) is bad so pardon me, I did this first part by ear:

"Ja vas ? molim, ne pretim, nego molim, da ozbiljno macinje ? i politike volje srpskog naroda i ? srpska demokratska stranka i srpski pokret obnove i poneki Srbi iz drugih, drugih stranaka. Molim vas da dobro ? ovo nije dobro sto vi radite. Ovo je put na koji vi yelite da izvedete Bosnu i Hercegovinu ista ona autostrada pakla i stradanja kojom su posle Slovenija i Hrvatska. Nemojte da mislite da necete odvesti Bosnu i Hercegovinu u pakao a muslimanski narod mozda u nestanak. Jer muslimanski narod ne moze da se odbrani ako bude rat ovde."

The Muslims used the same rhetoric, if not worse, prior to the war.
First, I made TWO claims about him - one for his rhetoric, another for his mission to annihilate Bosniaks from Sarajevo, and likely any other places. This is well-documented, particularly on video. Second, what the Bosniaks wanted was independence from Serbian-controlled Yugoslavia, and he threatened to bring Hell to Muslims because they did not listen to his proposal - that is, to remain within Yugoslavia. He's a maniac. Bosniak rhetoric wasn't gentle either, but no high figure threatened anything like this prior to his fiery speech.

Here is the case against genocide at Srebrenica is event itself. The Scropion squads of Republika Srpska lead by Mladic marched into the camp and said, demanded for the men, Mladic promised he would not hurt them then shot them in the woods. Srbrenica and Sandići were about killing able bodied males, the youngest being 13 and the oldest 85; the corpses being overwhelmingly male.

So, you see, Srebrenica was about soldiers, not a race. Its no more of a genocide than Katyn was. A horrible act - mass murder of POW and possible civilians but - not genocide.
What a load of nonsense. If it was about soldiers, why didn't they aim for the UN troops? Clearly they targeted people of Bosniak ethnicity. You're undermining the entire cause behind the genocide - to obliterate Muslim men, and possess control of the town. Those men were NOT armed, and the children were particularly as harmless as possible. None of them had the will to fight the Serbs, nor would they be able to in any case.

It is the Muslims, 'Bosniaks', who lead the international politics of Bosnia.
Define the term.

The also dominate the second Federation, the one for Croats and Muslims.
That's the only federation. A federation is the part where the majority of people within a country live.

The Dayton was a 51-49 land, 70-30 political compromise in favour of the Muslims. Everybody lost just so no one can win. Today, a Muslim in Banju Luka must travel half way across the country for emergency medical provisions because his insurance only applies in one area, a product of Bosnian Federalism; such is the price for a Bosnia of the same borders as the former Bosnian Yugoslav Republic. A smaller but non-Federal Muslim Bosnia or a Bosnia within Yugoslavia would have been better for the people, but no one must sacrifice welfare for political lessons.
No, a Bosnia without the RS would have been better. We were not in need of Serb-controlled politics.

Historical Bosnia is not the same as modern Bosnia;
Nor did I say that. The country has existed for centuries, and arose same way as other states. The RS is not comparable.

modern Bosniaks are defined by their religion not ancestry.
NOT true. In Yugoslavia, they were labelled Muslims - after the war, Bosniaks.

Modern Bosnia merely takes the name of the medieval Serb Kingdom in the same place.
A large part of modern Bosnia is located where medieval Bosnia was. Not the same.

See how Bulgaria takes the name of the Avar Bulgars, France from the Frankish Kingdom and German Prussia from the Old Prussians (a Baltic speaking people). Bosnian Bogomilism is a silly as Albanian Illyrianism.
Silly as in, untrue - Ma'am?
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 8:01:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 6:51:08 PM, Mirza wrote:
See the demography,
Here we go--

First, you're using he statistics from Wikipedia that show numbers from YEAR 1991 - which was BEFORE the war. Second, new census shows completely different numbers -- not to mention any first-hand experience you get in Bosnia. http://www.politika.rs...

"Prema procenama, u Republici Srpskoj danas "ivi 80 odsto Srba, a ostalo su Bo"njaci, Hrvati i nacionalne manjine. Bo"njaka u Republici Srpskoj ima oko 250.000." http://www.politika.rs... 80% of the people in RS are Serbs, while barely 18% are Muslims - rest Croats.

In the Federation: "75 odsto Bo"njaci, 20 odsto Hrvati, četiri procenta Srbi i jedan odsto ostali." Only 4% are Serbs. Interesting how you attempt to refute my claim with ancient statistics.
1 in 5 residence of RS is a Muslim; that's pretty good.

I know that scene very well: "nemojte da mislite da necete odvesti BiH u pakao, a muslimanski narod u nestanak". I beg you to please listen to the whole part speech again. My Serbo-Croatian (or is it Bosnian, to you?) is bad so pardon me, I did this first part by ear:

First, I made TWO claims about him - one for his rhetoric, another for his mission to annihilate Bosniaks from Sarajevo, and likely any other places. This is well-documented, particularly on video. Second, what the Bosniaks wanted was independence from Serbian-controlled Yugoslavia, and he threatened to bring Hell to Muslims because they did not listen to his proposal - that is, to remain within Yugoslavia. He's a maniac. Bosniak rhetoric wasn't gentle either, but no high figure threatened anything like this prior to his fiery speech.
Karadzik says many times he will allow the sovereign Muslim people to leave Bosnia if they so choose, what the Muslims cannot do however is speak for the Serbs. What Alija Izetbegovic desired is to cede a Muslim Bosnia with the same borders of the Yugoslav Republic -- THIS lead to war. If Bosnia had legally attempted to cede in areas which are now the BiH Federation, leaving Republika Srpska out of it, as Karadzic suggested, then war would have been adverted. The illegal referendum included Serbian areas and Germany's reckless recognition (+the incoming weapons, islamic mujaheddin and Serbian paranoid media) forced the respective factions to mobilise.

Karadzic is a war criminal, a thief and criminal, but that speech clearly anti war. It is the Izetbegovic who lead Bosnia to the highway of hell and suffering.

mission to annihilate Bosniaks from Sarajevo
This is news to me.

Here is the case against genocide at Srebrenica is event itself. The Scropion squads of Republika Srpska lead by Mladic marched into the camp and said, demanded for the men, Mladic promised he would not hurt them then shot them in the woods. Srbrenica and Sandići were about killing able bodied males, the youngest being 13 and the oldest 85; the corpses being overwhelmingly male.

So, you see, Srebrenica was about soldiers, not a race. Its no more of a genocide than Katyn was. A horrible act - mass murder of POW and possible civilians but - not genocide.
What a load of nonsense. If it was about soldiers, why didn't they aim for the UN troops? Clearly they targeted people of Bosniak ethnicity. You're undermining the entire cause behind the genocide - to obliterate Muslim men, and possess control of the town. Those men were NOT armed, and the children were particularly as harmless as possible. None of them had the will to fight the Serbs, nor would they be able to in any case.
Maybe because the UN and RS were not at war. There are images of the Dutch UN leadership and Mladic drinking tea together. Mladic wasn't stupid enough to shot at UN troops; not even Taliban fighters high on heroin are that stupid.

Now, the UN/ICJ recognises that 8,373 men and boy perished. The boys really being teenagers - the youngest identified being 13 - these were mistakes, physically precocious teenagers can often mistaken as young men (not saying the Mujaheddin were adverse to recruiting able bodied boys under 17). Now, if there had bad been say pregnant women or infant children to be found then you have a genocide case. Remember that the Dutch force even commented that while moving the 20,000 non-combatants from Srebrenica there were few men among them, the families were unharmed. I might add that the Serb rationale is the attack was that Bosnian forces were striking from the refugee camp (patriot by day; father by night).

Before NATO intervention and Croat withdrawal 70% of Bosnia was controlled by the Republika Srpska irregulars - some 2 million people. If the Serbs wanted Muslims dead the tens of thousands Muslims FAMILIES would be dead and the Serbian Jasenovac would be world known. But there wasn't one to be known.

War crimes, mass murder, yet no intent to exterminate a race.

It is the Muslims, 'Bosniaks', who lead the international politics of Bosnia.
Define the term.
The also dominate the second Federation, the one for Croats and Muslims.
That's the only federation. A federation is the part where the majority of people within a country live.
No, a federation is either the constituent state within a country or a country which is made up of federal states. Constitutionally, the BiH Fed has the same status as Republika Srpska. RS isn't a mere autonomous province it's part of the dual-nation federation.
The Dayton was a 51-49 land, 70-30 political compromise in favour of the Muslims. Everybody lost just so no one can win. Today, a Muslim in Banju Luka must travel half way across the country for emergency medical provisions because his insurance only applies in one area, a product of Bosnian Federalism; such is the price for a Bosnia of the same borders as the former Bosnian Yugoslav Republic. A smaller but non-Federal Muslim Bosnia or a Bosnia within Yugoslavia would have been better for the people, but no one must sacrifice welfare for political lessons.
No, a Bosnia without the RS would have been better. We were not in need of Serb-controlled politics.
Then why not let the RS cede to Serbia in 1995?
Historical Bosnia is not the same as modern Bosnia;
Nor did I say that. The country has existed for centuries, and arose same way as other states. The RS is not comparable.
So did Dalmacija, Zeta, Moravska Srbija, Velbazhd, Walachia, Transylvania - but not Albania or Kosovo.

The ancient history is irrelevant to what constitutes as a modern nation state. The point I made is that Bosnians who justify their statehood on medieval history are idiots because they cannot justify their claim of direct ancestry.
modern Bosniaks are defined by their religion not ancestry.
NOT true. In Yugoslavia, they were labelled Muslims - after the war, Bosniaks.
How is that not what I'm saying:
Moslim-by-nationality = Bosniak
Modern Bosnia merely takes the name of the medieval Serb Kingdom in the same place.
A large part of modern Bosnia is located where medieval Bosnia was. Not the same.
Okay, you see how this adds to the debate?
See how Bulgaria takes the name of the Avar Bulgars, France from the Frankish Kingdom and German Prussia from the Old Prussians (a Baltic speaking people). Bosnian Bogomilism is a silly as Albanian Illyrianism.
Silly as in, untrue - Ma'am?
Yes. I've met ultra nationalist people of any races. I'm sure your to smart to not subscribe to their 'vecna Bosna' drivell.
'sup DDO -- july 2013