Comments
Lets replace the country names with letters and lets see how this reads:
Countries A, B, and C are all independent countries. On one day A comes to country of B and C. A steals and kills. Then, C drives back A from country C and also B. However, country C decides it will stay in B and steal and kill there. 50 years later country B is liberated again.
Now, in country B there is a monument for soldiers of C!! B wants to relocate it to military cemetery for soldiers of C. Is that wrong?
Countries A, B, and C are all independent countries. On one day A comes to country of B and C. A steals and kills. Then, C drives back A from country C and also B. However, country C decides it will stay in B and steal and kill there. 50 years later country B is liberated again.
Now, in country B there is a monument for soldiers of C!! B wants to relocate it to military cemetery for soldiers of C. Is that wrong?
(Reply to this) (Thread)
|
Kā jau teicu, man piedrāzt vēsturi un abu pušu aizbildinājumus. Nopietni, man pilnīgi pie vienas vietas, ko PSRS ar Igauniju darīja pirms 50 gadiem, jo neuzskatu, ka tas ir iemesls, lai tagad provocētu Krieviju, labi apzinoties, ka tas izsauks vardarbīgas sadursmes.
Atkārtoju vēlreiz: piemineklis ir tikai iegansts, un gan igauņiem, gan krieviem to patiesībā ir dziļi piedrāzt.
Atkārtoju vēlreiz: piemineklis ir tikai iegansts, un gan igauņiem, gan krieviem to patiesībā ir dziļi piedrāzt.
(Reply to this) (Parent)