Bošnjaci su Iliri (starosjedioci) Bosne

stanje
Zatvorena za pisanje odgovora.
C

ca-mu47

Primećen član
Banovan
Poruka
686
Bošnjaci su Iliri (starosjedioci) Bosne


PROF. ENVER IMAMOVIĆ SA UNIVERZITETA U SARAJEVU TVRDI DA SU BOŠNJACI ILIRI:

Citat:
KO SU BOSNJACI, SLAVENI ILI ILIRI

Iako su Bošnjacke rane još uvijek otvorene, i peku kao ziva vatra, ima jedan dio našeg naslijeda koji je dozivio daleko više zlotvorenja i ubadanja u srce nego što su tijela i duše Bošnjacke. Rijec je o našoj historiji.

Naime, historija našeg prostora i naše nacije vjerovatno je pojedinacno najubijaniji elemenat tradicije ljudi koje nekoc nazivahu Ilirima, Teutanima, dobrim Bošnjanima, Patarenima, Bogumilima, Bošnjacima, Muslimanima, Bošnjacima-muslimanima, te danas evo, valjda i zauvijek kako i spada po redu i adetu -- Bošnjacima.

I baš kao da je i sam zbunjen (ako je suditi po šarolikosti gornje lepeze imena za jedan te isti narod), dunjaluk se polahko ali sigurno miri sa cinjenicom da ti ljudi ne samo da su bili i te kako sposobni oduprijeti se naletima zla otjelotvorenog u srpskoj (JNA) teškoj artiljeriji, nego da su zapravo oni i nacionalno svjesni te da sacinjavaju etnološki-poseban elemenat Evrope, nezavisan od srbijanskog i hrvatijanskog.

Narodi se ne isparavaju.

Ova, i u najprimitivnoj laboratoriji za fiziku lahko dokaziva cinjenica, nekako je izgleda "promakla" svim našim "etnogeneškim tezaistima" koji od puke zelje da riješe svoje stambeno pitanje ili redovno naplate topli obrok, baciše pod noge najjednostavniju logiku koja je stravicno nametljivo lahka za svariti: Bošnjaci su zapravo Iliri, cujte dobro -- Iliri. I l i r i .

Ne "Slaveni". Razlika je uocljiva i obicnim vizuelnim eksperimentom: antropološki definisane crte lica u Bošnjaka i srbijanaca/hrvatijanaca daleko su i od slicnog! Ove su razlike najjasnije kod djece u dobi 2-6 godina, a nešto slabije izrazene (usljed fizioloških faktora) kod starijih osoba.

Od Rimskog Carstva, preko Tartara, Vatikana pa sve do Napoleona -- svi nazivahu Bosnu isto: Iliricum. Svi osim -- Srba.

Danas znamo i zašto. To jest, trebali bismo znati, nakon Genocida 1992-1996.

Niti jedan, AMA BAŠ NITI JEDAN od poznati nam historicara, sav zajampuren i obraza rumenih od silnog objašnjavanja ljudima koji ama baš nešto i ne kontaju što li nas to "oni" toliko vec vijekovima hoce istrijebiti, kad smo baš eto -- (Slavensko c)isti (?), ne sjeti se usput objsniti i šta se to desilo sa "prastanovnicima Balkana" (sjecate se ovog iz križaljki, cesto pradeno i dopunskim "Teutini podanici")?

Takvim historicarima koji napuniše biblioteke za buducnost djece nam potpuno bezvrijednim bibliografijama, valjda licna ljudska sudbina bješe draža od sudbine nacije koja je investirala u njihovo obrazovanje i podarila im lagodan život da izucavaju, njeguju i budu joj cuvari tradicije i putokazi u buducnost.

Umjesto toga, najbolje što su im naši hajvani "historicari", rijetko recenzirani u inostranstvu, bili u stanju podariti bio je najobicniji -- slavenski falsifikat.

Ako vjerujete u X-files-e, povjerovacete i pro-slavenskim "historicarima". Po njima vjerovatno, ako se vec nisu "isparili", onda je Ilire u najmanju ruku otela neka izvanzemaljska viša inteligencija, koja eto nije nešto bila raspolozena izdavati saopštenje za štampu u kojem bi pobliže objasnila razloge za ovaj nesvakidašnji cin...

I dok se mi moramo stidjeti po bijelom dunjaluku što imamo historicare koji se stide što su pripadnici malog i žilavog pra-evropskog plemena Ilira, nego bi radije da za rad "mira u kuci" (koji je sve osim mira!) pod noge bace ono što im toliko malo znaci -- istinu, ipak postoje i casni izuzeci koji i te kako dobro znaju za ovu vezu, i spremni su vam potvrditi kako su "Bošnjaci u 60%+ svoje etno-genetske strukture Iliri, koji su usljed kulturološko-fenomenoloških uticaja (trgovina, vojska itd.) sasvim uobicajenih u srednjevjekovnoj Evropi, prihvatili jezik ali i ništa više od okolnih Slavenskih plemena." (Prof. E.Imamovic) Sve ovo nalaz je antropologije, tj. one grane historije koja mjeri velicinu i oblik kostiju, lobanje itd., i povezuje takve cinjenice proizašle iz analize eksperimentalne etnogeneze sa poznatim historijskim faktima, u cilju projektovanja nepoznatih detalja i momenata iz historije pojedinih nacija.

To se zove -- nauka. I postoji, cuvajuci cinjenice, uprkos Aliji Izetbegovicu i njegovim "Vijecima intelektualaca" s izvjesnima Purivatrama i sl. gubitnicima na celu, za vakat kad njih i njihove pro-srpske izdaje više ne bude, i kad svi pa i glavni vozdovi budu sjedili u Hagu a armije špijuna im i uljeza što i bez rata rasturaju Bosnu kriminalom, švercom droga, oruzja i ljudskih organa, bude zauvijek zbrisana s lica zemlje.

Tada će Bošnjacka nacija napokon moci progledati svojim ocima i prozboriti ustima svojih historicara. Tada ce nastupiti razdoblje uspona nove Tvrtkove Bosne.

Tada ce Bošnjaci pisati Bošnjacku historiju, Bošnjacka djeca biti odgajana na Bošnjackom jeziku, Bošnjaci oruzjem braniti Bošnjacku zemljicu.

Krvavo kolo kakvim jeste, historija je sve osim vrtuljak ljubavi.

Ko to zna bolje nego mi sami? I još poneko: "nama toliko draga, zla nam maceha Evropa..."


(http://www.angelfire.com/me/BOSNJACKITOPRAZI/2.html)

==========================

PROFESOR JOHN WILKES SA UNIVERZITETA LONDON NEDAVNO JE USTANOVIO DA SU BOSANCI UGLAVNOM ILIRI. ON TVRDI DA SE ROMANIZACIJA, HELENIZACIJA I SLAVENIZACIJA ILIRA NISU NIKADA NI DESILI I PODRŽAVA STAV KOJI KAŽE DA JE BOSNA A NE ALBANIJA CENTAR ILIRIJE:
 
Komentar Amazon-a

Citat:
"Wilkes is the foremost LIVING authority on the Illyrians. His is the LATEST comprehensive work on the Illyrian people. In his book, "The Illyrians", John Wilkes states on pg: 219:
"NOT MUCH RELIANCE SHOULD PERHAPS BE PLACED ON ATTEMPTS TO IDENTIFY AN ILLYRIAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL TYPE AS SHORT AND DARK SKINNED SIMMILAR TO MODERN ALBANIANS."

Wilkes has been proven CORRECT by science when the Human Genome Project's Y-chromosome study of European populations, confirmed that the vast majority of contemporary Albanians do not share an Illyrian or any Indo-European linneage - they are mostly a pre-IE Mediterranean population.

John Wilkes correctly puts Illyrian descendants among contemporary ex-Yugoslavs, centered around Montenegro and Bosnia and branching out into Dalmatia and south-western Serbia. Wilkes hints that ex-Yugoslavs are slavicized Illyrians and he leans on C.S Coon who insists that Albanians are of mixed Slavic, Thracian, Turkish, Armenoid and Illyrian origin.

This work was published in 1991 and based on the newest excavations undertaken in ex-Illyria. Wilkes brings out plenty of the most recent archaeological and anthropological evidence which other's in his field did not have access to.

Ten years after he published this work, the Human Genome Project's Y-chromosome study proved him correct. Modern science has dealt a huge blow to Albanian attempts to usurpe the Illyrian legacy. He was a decade ahead of his time. Because of his work, many academics within Albania have also come out in favour of accepting the new findings; namely: Kaplan Resuli, Fatos Lubonja, Ardian Qosi and Ardian Vebiu. They are joined by many international critics of the now debunked Albanian-Illyrian theory: Paul, Hirt, Weigand, Tomashek, Georgiev, Pushcariu and many others.

Read this book. Keep in mind that it is based on evidence older works did not have access to and keep in mind that science has proven Wilkes correct ten years after he published this long-overdue honest and objective, thorough analysis of the legacy of one of Europe's oldest civilizations. The Albanians can no longer unjustly monopolise a whole people as they have done in the past."

http://www.amazon.com/Illyrians-Peo...4859657?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188920131&sr=1-1

==========================

OVO POSTAJE SVE BOLJE I BOLJE: JESTE LI ZNALI DA SU I VISOČKE "PIRAMIDE" DJELO ILIRA I RIMLJANA, KAKO TVRDI DR. MENSUR OMERBASHICH SA BERKLYA:

Citat:
"Two great misconceptions, mostly malicious (nationalist-chauvinist-driven), reign the historical sciences in the western-Balkans for the last two and a half centuries. The first misconception concerns the never-ending disputation between the Albanian and the Serbian school. While the former school claims Albanians to be the last (only authentic?) surviving Illyrians, the latter claims not only that Albanians are Thracians (i.e., not Illyrians) but it also says that no such people as Illyrians has ever existed, instead contending that the locals were all Slav/Serb because ancient sources are filled with references to "sclavs" and "serfs"... The second misconception is related to the first, and it concerns the issue of who the Slavs were (or weren't) in the Balkans before the national awakening of the 18th century... The reason for the two schools being so unapologetic lies in the possible answers to the crucial question they thus pose: Whose is the western Balkans? But being so extreme, neither of those two views seems very authentic; besides, no other interested parties living in the area have ever been asked for their opinion on the above two fundamental disputes that can (and do - as we speak) have great repercussions on lives of millions. At the same time, both schools oppose wholeheartedly and fight fiercely any idea of Bosnia-centered Illyria, even though the idea is supported by a world's leading authority on Illyrians, Professor of Roman and Greek archaeology John Wilkes (the author of "The Illyrians", Oxford Press 2000).

I
 
The first dispute is dealt with easily just by stacking ancient maps in time. Thus by looking at the Ptolemy's Map [on the left] one can see that (province of) Illyria was alive and well just around year 100 AD, i.e. about the time the legend of Christ took roots. Following the situation as it developed, some centuries later there it is yet again [on the right] - amongst other Roman provinces including the conquered Dacia (today's Romania). What's curious about this however is that of all the provinces shown on the maps, only the detailed records on how Illyria was conquered are missing, unlike say the well-documented conquest of Dacia (see article of 26 August). However, it's not just that military papers are mysteriously lost, but according to Wilkes "even today Illyrians barely make the footnotes in most versions of ancient history" as well. Indeed, with exception of a partly preserved appendix on Illyrian wars, by Appian of Alexandria (95-165 AD), there is virtually no complete account available on (the conquest of) Illyria!

Wilkes supports the concept of a Bosnia-centered Illyria, proposing that it's actually Bosnia, not Albania, which was (the center of) Illyria. This is also obvious from the maps shown here. It's rather a mystery how Bosnia, so prominent and nearby the Rome itself, could have gotten omitted from most texts from/on the Roman Empire. He writes of Illyrians:
(1) "...A separate group of Illyrians identified by renowned historian Geza Alfoldy: he identifies 'Pannonian peoples' in Bosnia, northern Montenegro [around Pljevlja and Prijepolje, p.84] and western Serbia [Sandžak]". p.75
(2) "Not much reliance should perhaps be placed on attempts to identify an Illyrian anthropological type as short and dark-skinned similar to modern Albanians." p.219
(3) "...a documented description of Illyrians, Pannonian family: -Pannonians are tall and strong, always ready for a fight and to face dangeour but slow-witted." p.219
(4) "Life has always been hard in the Illyrian lands and countless wars of resistance against invaders are testimony to the durability of their populations." p.220
(5) "In sum, the destructive impact [of Bosnia-centred theory] on the earlier generalizations regarding Illyrians should be regarded as a step forward." p.40.

The Illyrians-Bogomils-Bosniaks continuity is self-evident as the above finds coincide with the settlements of today's Bosniaks (the Muslims of the Balkans). Note ancient maps [above] corroborating the early Antiquity-Ottoman Empire continuity too: there
you can see that, of the entire western Balkans, only Bosnia was called Illyria (proper) with own Sea called Illyricum Mare (part of a larger, Adriatic - Emperor Hadrian's Sea). It can be also seen that during the whole time of their independence, Illyrians had a coast from today's Dubrovnik to Šibenik. This simply continued (wasn't given to Bosnia by anyone!) during the entire period of Middle Ages
, after the Holy Sea helped establish Kingdom of Bosnia just like many other European kingdoms that Vatican designed so to replace the fallen Roman Empire with a kingdoms-padded geopolitical shield protecting Rome for millennia to come - if you can't have one huge empire any more, then have a number of loyal and small nonetheless resilient states instead. Given that there are more than 200 scholastic theories on why the Empire fell (meaning no one has a slightest clue as to why it happened), it could also be that it never has fallen but was transformed (in the above described manner) instead.​
 
Contrary to common belief, for the most part of their long history Illyrians/Bosnians had a strong fleet, brave infantry, and able generals. As immediate neighbors of the Romans and Greeks, they were enormously envied however. Therefore no Roman or Greek record referred to the Illyrians in any other way except as "pirates", "thieves", "barbarians", "rebels" or even "sclavs" and "serfs" (Lat. sclavo = Slav; serf = servus = slave, later on 'exiled Russian slave'), both terms used by the Romans as insult only, i.e., long before the 6th century when real Slav hordes began attacking and committing mass murder of thousands of Illyrians at a time, always careful not to encounter the Roman legions but only unarmed civilians (thus "softening" the Roman defenses that semi-relied on non-Italian recruits in Illyria and Thracia; before moving the border of civilizations westward to Drina River and on). Probably, the insults were part of the first geopolitical game ever played in the Antiquity, where both Rome and Greece played on the card of a well-known geopolitical fact that your immediate neighbor is your enemy, and that your immediate neighbor's neighbor is your natural ally. Similarly, later on, in the 18th century, Serbian nationalists will claim that all "sclav" and "serf" ever mentioned in the Antiquity were actually Serbs. (In the same grabbing manner they simplistically and systematically translated all appearances of 'Sclavoniae' in Latin texts, as 'Serbia(n)'.) Thus it's Serbian relentless nationalism that makes it important to set the record straight - today more than ever. Hence etymology of the word 'sclav' is completely unrelated to what's contended, so Serbia's historians cannot claim Slavic heritage from the ancient times for any of the peoples westward from the Drina, just like Albanians cannot claim their exclusive, pure-Illyrian heritage either. The real (and the only statistically significant) Slavs that exist in Bosnia nowadays are the Bosnian Orthodox (self-styled "Bosnian Serbs" although most are born in Bosnia) whose immediate ancestors (up to third knee) largely moved in from Serbia and Croatia during the last ninety years or so, thanks to Austria's and Serbia's administrations trying to Christianize the domestic Illyrian population.

No wonder both (and only) the Serbian and Albanian schools largely dismiss Wilkes (thus giving him an enormous credibility), for Wilkes says it's hard to believe Bosnian-Illyrian tribes were "Romanized", "Hellenized", etc. This however is what the Serbian school needs desperately so that they too can claim that the same tribes had been also "Slavicized" after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and into the Mid Ages. Everyday experience however teaches us that assimilation of entire peoples/tribes under occupation is practically impossible, and can instead be expected to occur only in individuals moving to a foreign land. The maximum extent to which assimilation is able to get is already known from everyday life, the best example being our present-day diaspora: our refugees who got entirely surrounded by foreign language adopt that language as quickly as by 2nd generation. On the other hand, an occupation is an occupation is... then as nowadays - take for instance the Ottoman occupation of Bosnia (1453-1878) during which time Bosnians acquired only religion from their occupationists, but not their culture, tradition, or language for that matter. It has been suggested that Bosnians had attained language from the Slavs, and religion from the Turks, but it's a fact that they had never adopted both from the both. This arbitrariness is an important circumstantial evidence that "Romanization", "Hellenization", "Slavization", "Turkization", or "Germanization" were all practically impossible in Bosnia! Finally, if such "izations" were at all possible, why is it that the Bosnians adopted neither religion nor language from the Austrian occupationists too? The relatively shorter duration of that occupation compared to the other two occupations cannot be the answer because say the Roman occupation had lasted much longer than any other, yet most of the Illyrians-Bosnians had adopted neither Latin language nor Catholic religion, not to mention Roman culture, art or tradition.

Also, as Wilkes suggests, given the military mindedness of the Illyrians [royal armor shown above, soldier's armor on the left], as well as their vigilance and resistance to numerous conquerors through ages, it can be said with high certainty that today's Bosnians [Bosnian Muslims and Catholics] are direct descendants of the Illyrians who never "disappeared" or "got assimilated". Add to this the non-stop putting-down of Bosnians (via jokes akin of those on "slow-witted" Illyrians) that continues to this day and is mostly favored in Serbia and Croatia (same as in Greece and Rome a few millennia ago). Namely, this is an anecdotal evidence for validity of the Bosnia-centered theory of Illyria. Be it noted at the end that authenticity of many intermediate maps (produced in times before or after the maps showed above) can also be questioned, as such maps mostly come from Serbian (and to a lesser extent Croatian, albeit not less confused and not less nationalist-chauvinist) sources. Therefore it'd be useful to deliberately dispute all Serbian and Croatian historical references (sources, maps, analyses) on ancient and medieval Bosnia, at least until the time tells the true science from nationalist-driven (geo)politics. Unfortunately, history of Europe is history of war, even more so in case of the Balkans, and even more so still in case of Bosnia. Therefore, most of the grand events/undertakings in the area can probably be explained by geopolitical motives and related military activities. I don't need to remind the reader that the same overlaying set of rules applies to Bosnia even today, as it did in her recent past (Dayton Accord 1995, Teheran Conference 1943, Berlin Congress 1878), the most recent Kosovo-Bosnia connection - including the 1992-1995 aggression - being its latest manifestation as we speak... This is also why in the above I use geopolitical maps only (to show that most of the intermediate maps are unreliable), for geopolitics is "oberpolitics", with everything else (including history) from Antiquity till today being nothing more than its byproduct."

http://omerbashich.blogspot.com/

=========================


Nameću se zaključci:

1. Vodeći strani naučnici kažu da smo ILIRI,

2. Vodeći domaći naučnici kažu da smo ILIR
 
cuj,nemogu to da citam sve ima mnogo
znas ca-mu sad je moderno ovde na balkanu da svaki narod bude ono sto nije,vec nesto drugo,sto je u njihovim glavama bolje
tako ste vi iliri,i potomci spanskih nbogumila koje je kulin primio,hrvati su arijevci i germani a srbi....srbi su nastali pre ameba...sto bi verovatno imalo logike jer su nebeski narod..jeli

e sad,mi ovde imamo Deretica,vi tamo Imamovica i tako te neke koji su placeni da smsljaju te gluposti

sad ti meni reci,jeste li vi i siptari isti narod?????
posto su i oni iliri...jeste li vi braca?
po jeziku ne
po facama ne
po inteligenciji ne
po kulturi ne

nipocemu,veruj mi
vi te kratko i jasno,sloveni,podpleme slovena,eventualno zvano bosanci.......koji ste bili delom bogumuli...delom pravoslavci,imalo je i katolika
taj deo koji su cinili bogumili je prihvatio lako islam,jer nije bio verski toliko vezan nizasta,jer osnovna greska te vere je u tome sto nije gradila verskew objekte,vec su boga videli u bilo cemu oko njih....tu je bila greska,jer njih nije imalo sta da drzi na okupu u kriznim vrremenima,kao recimo srbe ili hrvate...tj porobljene pravoslavce i katolike

zassto nemozes da kazes sebi,da je cista logika,jednostavno se namece prosto resenje,a ti otkrivas neku matematiu
vi,mi i hrvati smo potpuno isti narod,

dali pricamo isti jezik da
dali licimo da
dali smo intelektualno isti...mislim humorom,kapiranjem nekih stvari da
dali smo po kulturi slicni...muzici,knjizevnosti da

znaci momak,bolje se bavi nekim manje zaludnim stvarima
jer u svakoj normalnoj velikoj zemlji...kao sto je nekad bila sfrj normalno je imati podgrupe tog istog naqroda.....ali su oni svi isti narod i rade za istu stvar....samo su ovde budale dovoljno glupe da o neshvate

primeri su brojni nemacka ima bavare,svabe,vestfale,saksonce,pruse svi se oni medjusobno bas ne gotive...ali kad ih ti pitas sta su,reci ce nemci..i tacka
rade za korist jedne drzave i katolici i protestanti i evangelisti i baptisti

britanija ima i vece podele,francuska takodje ima pokrajine....niko normalan nece isticati tu podgrupu kao bazicnu,ved tek ako bas bas ti insistiras

recimo,austrijanci,nemci,vajcarci,svi pricaju svoije dijalekte,pogotovo svajcarci...milim na nemacki deo,razlike su i u nemackoj u akcentu i izgovoru kao i ovde.....ali kad pricaju ozbiljno nesto,oni pricaju hoch deutch,znaci nema austrijski jezik,ili svajcarski jezik,ili bavatrski dijalekat kao zvanican....vec samo hoch deutch
a ovde sad vidim od tebe postoji bosancica....****** kakav je to jezik....bosancica i da ne pominjem sta sve lupate....crnogorski jezik
samo cekam da cujem jedan dan vojvodjanski.....onda mislim da sam sve cuo :):):)
 
ljuta_mamba:
cuj,nemogu to da citam sve ima mnogo
znas ca-mu sad je moderno ovde na balkanu da svaki narod bude ono sto nije,vec nesto drugo,sto je u njihovim glavama bolje
tako ste vi iliri,i potomci spanskih nbogumila koje je kulin primio,hrvati su arijevci i germani a srbi....srbi su nastali pre ameba...sto bi verovatno imalo logike jer su nebeski narod..jeli

e sad,mi ovde imamo Deretica,vi tamo Imamovica i tako te neke koji su placeni da smsljaju te gluposti

sad ti meni reci,jeste li vi i siptari isti narod?????
posto su i oni iliri...jeste li vi braca?
po jeziku ne
po facama ne
po inteligenciji ne
po kulturi ne

nipocemu,veruj mi
vi te kratko i jasno,sloveni,podpleme slovena,eventualno zvano bosanci.......koji ste bili delom bogumuli...delom pravoslavci,imalo je i katolika
taj deo koji su cinili bogumili je prihvatio lako islam,jer nije bio verski toliko vezan nizasta,jer osnovna greska te vere je u tome sto nije gradila verskew objekte,vec su boga videli u bilo cemu oko njih....tu je bila greska,jer njih nije imalo sta da drzi na okupu u kriznim vrremenima,kao recimo srbe ili hrvate...tj porobljene pravoslavce i katolike

zassto nemozes da kazes sebi,da je cista logika,jednostavno se namece prosto resenje,a ti otkrivas neku matematiu
vi,mi i hrvati smo potpuno isti narod,

dali pricamo isti jezik da
dali licimo da
dali smo intelektualno isti...mislim humorom,kapiranjem nekih stvari da
dali smo po kulturi slicni...muzici,knjizevnosti da

znaci momak,bolje se bavi nekim manje zaludnim stvarima
jer u svakoj normalnoj velikoj zemlji...kao sto je nekad bila sfrj normalno je imati podgrupe tog istog naqroda.....ali su oni svi isti narod i rade za istu stvar....samo su ovde budale dovoljno glupe da o neshvate

primeri su brojni nemacka ima bavare,svabe,vestfale,saksonce,pruse svi se oni medjusobno bas ne gotive...ali kad ih ti pitas sta su,reci ce nemci..i tacka
rade za korist jedne drzave i katolici i protestanti i evangelisti i baptisti

britanija ima i vece podele,francuska takodje ima pokrajine....niko normalan nece isticati tu podgrupu kao bazicnu,ved tek ako bas bas ti insistiras

recimo,austrijanci,nemci,vajcarci,svi pricaju svoije dijalekte,pogotovo svajcarci...milim na nemacki deo,razlike su i u nemackoj u akcentu i izgovoru kao i ovde.....ali kad pricaju ozbiljno nesto,oni pricaju hoch deutch,znaci nema austrijski jezik,ili svajcarski jezik,ili bavatrski dijalekat kao zvanican....vec samo hoch deutch
a ovde sad vidim od tebe postoji bosancica....****** kakav je to jezik....bosancica i da ne pominjem sta sve lupate....crnogorski jezik
samo cekam da cujem jedan dan vojvodjanski.....onda mislim da sam sve cuo :):):)
Kliknite za proširenje...
"vi,mi i hrvati smo potpuno isti narod,"

ne,nikako ne pristajem na tvoju tvrdnju,Bosnjaci su u devedeset posto slucajeva plav narod,dok su Srbi u devedeset slucajeva crni,miksani od raznih naroda,dok su Bosnjaci cisti,ne miksani.

drugo,Bosnjaci po prirodi i dusi svojoj nisu krvolocni,nisu nikad u svojoj historiji pocinili genocid i u dusi mrze nasilje i nepravdu.da dalje ne nabrajam psihofizicke razlike izmedju dva naroda.muzike,humorii i neke manje bitne stvari su posljedica visedecenijskog zajednickog zivljenja u jenoj drzavi.
 
stanje
Zatvorena za pisanje odgovora.

Slične teme

Gruban
Druga Srbija i Republika Srpska, Bošnjaci, BiH...
Odgovora
12
Pregleda
502
38imak
38imak
S
Zasto su Srbi jedini koji su se nakon 1992 potpuno povinovali Amerikancima?
2
Odgovora
27
Pregleda
447
capitosinora
C
I
Trzni centri su najslabija karika
Odgovora
7
Pregleda
245
Jary
Jary

Back
Top