7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0.
7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0
Don't have a knife!
Okay, we hear that there was an explosion.
and she was very strong on the use of intervening in the Dhafori of the Serbian army.
Wander had all the opportunities, let's say, a strategic advantage,
the ability to connect with communication and so on.
At those points she was satisfied with the common people
that she allowed NATO's cooperation.
And you have to understand that in Africa she is not prepared to allow NATO to come to Sudan
because she has her own local interests.
NATO has to strengthen its presence.
NATO has to strengthen its presence.
Kosovo is a different country.
Kosovo has not yet been spoken about.
Kosovo was not spoken about in 1999.
Wander, if you want to measure today's situation in Afghanistan with Sudan,
then we have to be careful.
In both examples, there is a war between the armed people.
In Afghanistan there is NATO.
That is the state of emergency.
In Sudan there is the state of emergency in Africa.
If Africa was satisfied that NATO would come to Sudan,
it would be there.
Do you understand?
Those regional mechanisms are not necessarily prepared to allow NATO to come to Sudan.
Why does Africa not allow NATO to come to Sudan?
Who is the main force of Africa?
The South African Republic.
The South African Republic and Nigeria.
Do you think that NATO would be satisfied
that NATO would allow NATO to come to Sudan in that region?
Yes.
What does NATO mean?
We have interests here.
You are talking about the Netherlands.
The Netherlands is in 1994.
NATO is in that region.
We have not yet seen it.
It is a few years before the so-called communitarian fighting.
It was 5 years ago.
In relation to NATO's use of NATO,
it happened exactly in those years.
From 1989 to 1995.
Then we, in 1991, in Slovenia,
did not get NATO's help.
Now we are familiar with that.
We asked NATO to come to help us in 1991.
But we did not.
We were forced to do so.
The only organization that we were so proud of
was the organization that came to help us.
What would we say?
NATO was the organization for the war in Europe.
The first company that came to help us,
and we have to thank Austria for that.
The country that came to help us,
that came to help us,
that came to help us,
that came to help us,
was NATO.
The country in which we,
the Slovenians,
were turned their eyes to the attack,
was the European economic group.
It was not a military mechanism.
NATO sent a military force in Slovenia.
We were such a minority,
because they were in white clothes.
Later on, on Croatian sublitudes.
In that, it was in the past,
that the mechanisms were created.
The mechanisms of regional organizations were formed
for the establishment of the UN Security Council.
From then on, we came to Bosnia.
We got 390 of them in the market,
in Sarajevo.
In the summer of 1994,
they came to,
they said,
a more complicated picture,
given how many soldiers
that came from Bosnia,
from Pertimacabo,
they killed one or two,
who were Serbs,
they wantedMarky for the communications,
交 Type1 for the support,
both of them were almost by the support
of Boschians and Greek Muslims.
They recognized their pueda,
sees that we are all people
looking for telemarketing,
for ourmare customs,
through the Ver осnega socialist world,
against the Vegetarian revolution,
かな, in Bosnia and Herzegovina
we could not benefit from civil오� hash sh Vedic sh Skrebachkova.
In July 1995, it became clear that the OZM was not able to be used in such conditions.
And for NATO, who intervened without friendly people, intervened in Bosnia and bombed the Serbian state.
For such a short time, we have never asked ourselves if there were any children.
Because of that, he was on the side of Chepkeyshev.
Because he was appointed to leave those who killed him.
Yes, then, in the summer of 1999, there was a situation in Kosovo where Kosovo was not so different.
NATO's intervention in Kosovo is still visible for some who have intervened because there is no direct,
pre-emptive act in the war on the Serbian people who would have allowed such an intervention,
which is logical.
NATO could not have done that.
Three times.
Then our state was a member of the war on the world.
And then, in the name of our state, there was a sponsored resolution,
through which the Serbian equalization of Kosovo was tried.
The equalization of the Serbian state of Kosovo.
But three attempts by the resolution would have been made to protect the civil rights of Kosovo.
In the end, they did it because in the war on the world,
Serbia had its own sponsor in the new Russia.
Because in my opinion, the war on the world as a mechanism for such a short time,
for various interests of other members, is useless.
But do you think NATO, through some media organization, has to be supported?
For us as a state, we demand that we follow,
and in the context of this mandate, we follow,
the participation in the international community in a way that we respect the responsibility
of the people of the world.
Do you think that the Soviet Union should not participate in this?
The Soviet Union was trying to do this.
The Soviet Union was extremely involved.
It was at the beginning of the process.
It was a non-standard member from 1890 to 1990,
a non-standard member of the war on the world,
who was completely involved in the war on the world.
It was an organization that would be able to absurdly
destroy the Albanian civil rights of Kosovo.
But in the 1990s, the Soviet Union allowed NATO,
and in the 1990s, the Soviet Union allowed NATO to fly.
It was a non-standard member of the war on the world,
who was completely involved in the war on the world.
The Soviet Union was a member of the war on the world,
who was a sponsor of three resolutions,
who failed for the sake of Russia.
There was a state that had to be at the last stage.
The war on the world was not possible.
This should be given to the Soviet Union.
The state that was at the beginning of the process,
which was involved in all the powers,
had to be ready to do anything,
that there was one state of interest,
that the Soviet Union would set up thousands of people,
and not chase them away.
In short, the Soviet Union chased people out of Kosovo.
Well, no, it's just that the Soviet Union...
In short, the Soviet Union forced NATO to transition to DNK,
to go into Essex intervention in Kosovo.
We had to do some counselling,
they refused to cut through to effective
Good.
And that's a reason why they didn't have a mandate.
Good.
At the moment of Slovenia, God forbid, a person would come to Austria.
Slovenia was, in the summer of 1999, a independent state,
which had its own values.
Like Austria?
Austria is a neutral state.
Yes.
It is a neutral state.
Austria is a state of law.
But it's good, isn't it?
It is a state of law.
It is a neutral state,
on the part of different states,
and over them is a successor to the Soviet Union in Russia.
A state that is neutral in such a way,
and that builds its opposition to the international relations,
in such a way as Austria,
and that builds its independence,
in the theme of guaranteeing Russia's neutrality.
Do you think that it is a different state?
Do you think that the regional opposition
with its way of surrounding the international community
in the summer of 1960s,
in the 5th century?
It is a very specific answer from you,
and it is a necessity, because the international law is clear,
but it is possible that it is one of the reasons why it is so important.
The international law should be respected.
We do not have to keep it as a source of money,
in terms of the situation on the field.
It is the international law,
but it is also passed on.
What are we going to do today?
In terms of the value of the world,
which does not have to be paid,
which does not have to be abolished,
it is written in the international law.
The international law is a suitable act
of the state of the member states.
It is not an international law.
The international law is a convention,
a document, a resolution,
and a suitable act of the state
for the use of various international relations.
If the parliament, as a member of that group,
is prepared,
it is necessary at some point,
that it came to the coalition of the parliament,
one of the governments,
which guarantees the international law,
that is to say, the government of sovereignty.
On the other hand,
when it comes to the new government,
which we respect in the state,
which we did not talk about in the summer of 1540,
and that is the right to respect the human rights.
When we think that we will adjust to the fact
that it was defined in the summer of 1540,
we will follow the act
that the international law has to be changed,
but in the end...
It is not retroactive,
it is not retroactive,
but an agreement,
an agreement,
with the state and the member states
of the international group,
who achieved the international agreement,
who signed the agreement.
That is the problem,
that the agreement was not there,
then Nikola could not be there.
And that the agreement could not have been signed,
then there would have been 2 million people from Gnanis,
from Kosovo.
From that agreement,
there must not be an Israeli-Palestinian,
and you are talking about the bombing of the Israeli side.
I do not agree.
What?
The bombing of the Israeli side,
the Israeli side,
against the humanitarian achievements
in Gaza?
I do not agree,
but I do not agree
with the state and the member states.
That is a hypothetical question,
because you do not have to agree.
What is the difference
between the members of the state
and the member states?
The members of the state
would have to agree
that they had an interest,
that they did not have an interest.
The members of the state
would have to agree
that they would not be able to find it.
But where does it come from?
The member states of NATO,
who are also members
of the international group
in the United Nations.
What is the difference
between the members of the state
and the member states?
The members of the state
could not agree.
For example,
the end of the human rights
in the 60 years
of the UN,
how could they not agree?
We did not agree
about the coming of the end.
We expected the next year
to be the end.
How long did you wait
for the UN in Kosovo
to come to the UN?
The UN was
the consequence of the UN.
The UN was the consequence
some torture and torture in the pre-war period.
Well, as you said, it is likely to be prepared in the year 1990,
for the establishment of Iran and NATO.
I do not think that Israel should be disciplined in the same way
that is disciplined by the Republic of Israel,
but it should be disciplined in a different way.
I think this is one of the reasons, but no.
It should be disciplined in an economic way.
That is one of the following reasons.
You think that the Slavs had to add the Uyghurs to the war in the pre-war period,
the Uyghurs had to add the Uyghurs to the war in the pre-war period,
if we do not have another war.
We have to say that the Uyghurs had to sacrifice their lives
for the sake of the war, not just economic and Uyghurs.
I would like to give an example of the fact that we did not forget
that the Uyghurs were the target of sanctions for the world war,
but in 1995 they were in Slovenia.
All the countries in the next few days in Slovenia were beautiful sanctions.
I have become a sports sanction.
I have become a sports sanction for the Uyghurs.
We were all under sanctions. Do you think that we are not like the independent states of Slovenia?
In 1995 or 1994, the Uyghurs deserved to be under sanctions from the United Nations?
We were independent states.
So the problems of those sanctions should be solved.
The majority of the state-owned companies were also under sanctions.
I think that Slovenia could not put its armed forces in a way that would be necessary
for a normal, modern state.
We were in our territorial defense until the year 550,
because we could not prepare for our troops.
There were not so many economic powers in place,
but we would like to prepare our troops
in a way that would be as modern as the new Uyghur organization,
because the other states were easy to rule in Eastern Europe.
We could not do that, because we were under sanctions.
And why do I tell you this?
The state-owned companies, who did not support us at all,
they were the ones who were fighting against the United Nations.
And with them was Israel.
As I mentioned, the state of Slovenia is part of its defense,
part of its knowledge, for example,
knowledge of the use of tank guns,
and it was not easy to get Israel.
Wait a minute, I will explain it to you.
What is the reason for this?
In the 1990s, Israel helped Slovenia.
I think that economic reasons for this help
were not for the communitars.
It was not for the museum.
It was for the western part of Israel.
Don't worry.
We have to make sure that Israel,
when it starts today, does not have the right to do it.
What is the reason for this?
What is the reason for this?
For example, NATO, who is being called in Afghanistan.
Wait a minute.
You went to the stereotype.
It is not my thing that NATO,
who is being called in Afghanistan,
say OZN,
who was called,
to solve the situation in Afghanistan.
What was the reason?
Because NATO was included inside the NASA.
We all know NATO was like that.
Why was it like that?
We are distance,
but after NATO started helping
the Afganist betrayal,
it seemed very conquerive.
Why did NATO know about this?
NATO was not a scale,
There is a large group of people who have a strange goal.
These are the countries.
The countries of the people.
And those countries of the people,
since they were so small as they are now,
are the countries of the people,
the international community.
The countries of the people of the people
have taken over the state of affairs.
The state of affairs is now being expanded
to one and forty countries.
And here I ask you,
do we understand that
no matter how many days have passed,
since we are members of NATO
and we have been changed,
we think that the whole world
will take over NATO itself.
We will not.
Afghanistan is today a regional problem.
Afghanistan is a problem of Pakistan.
And in all neighboring countries.
And without the help of all neighboring countries,
there is no stability
and we will not be able to resist.
Therefore, today there is one and forty countries
with their own forces.
It is the same Palestine.
It is the same Palestine
from which the government of Palestine
has taken over the state of affairs.
So, one and forty countries
of the western state have to take over
the state of affairs.
We all take over the western state.
And I think the previous days
there was a big
NATO conference
in Sharma and Sheik
where the European Union
and also the Arab countries
have taken over the state of affairs.
They have taken over the state of affairs
of the world, both the humanitarian and the other
with the help of the gas.
We are not allowed to say that.
We are not allowed to say that.
We are not allowed to say that.
We are allowed to say that.
We are allowed to say that.
You think that the problem
of the world is solved only by the army?
Yes, I will talk about that.
I will talk about that.
We must understand
that the army comes
by itself to the state of affairs
and that in other phases
in gas
there is no way
to help the army.
In gas
you have to help the economy.
And does the Slovenian
give any help?
The Slovenian gives help
especially in the humanitarian world.
The Slovenian gives help
in the sense
that it would, of course,
take over the state of affairs
with the help of the gas
as a whole area
where it would be possible
to invest.
We will be here
for humanitarian aid, donations
and political processes
to solve the situation
in a way that will give
enough stability and ease the investment.
Slovenia as a government
is very powerful.
Slovenia does not have to
show its power.
Slovenia as a government
is easy to see
that it is in the state of affairs
and that both institutions
take over
to donate and help people in gas.
We will help them
and we will also
come to the rehabilitation of Slovenia
What are your thoughts?
I am very happy
that I am here.
I am very happy
that I am here.
I am very happy
that I am here.
There are many things
that you have to do
but we do not have to
let
the system go.
There is no reason
to let the system go.
Both institutions were
consistent
and consistent in Afghanistan.
They were.
They were for that.
They also made a resolution
that we will take care of
and we will
be there.
Today I am here
to help all the
development agencies of the United Nations
and all the countries
that were important
with all the other institutions
with the same system
that is now in Afghanistan.
But the values of the United Nations
were consistent
and consistent
in the development of gas
and gasoline.
But they were consistent.
They were.
Yes.
They were.
The resolution is
to take care
of the development of gas
and gasoline
and gasoline.
Do you hear that?
Yes.
They were.
They were.
They were.
They were.
They were.
They were.
They were.
We have a more consistent policy and we have more consistent respect for the people's rights.
No, but if people hear that it is absolutely some kind of system, they will give it to us.
And we understand that I am telling you that the values of the society of the people are equally consistent.
Yes, yes, I know.
I am talking to my sister, she is asking me if it is a consistent policy.
First of all, I would like to tell you that you do not discuss NATO for a consistent reason.
You do not discuss the world of rights.
Ok, we will talk about the bomb of NATO, not the world of rights.
I mean...
It is clear that in the case of Marat, June 1999 against Zara, it is clear in the case of the resolution of the people's rights.
If NATO is on the line against the war against the war against the Zlocins, which is a self-recognizable, but it will be weakened.
If NATO is on the line against the war against the Zlocins, it is completely consistent.
Vander, is the war against the Zlocins consistent?
Is it consistent with the international organization, or consistent with the war against the Zlocins?
Who is in charge of the war against the Zlocins?
If it was a movie, who would have been in charge of the war against the Zlocins?
We will talk about NATO.
Ok, then we will not talk about NATO.
Ok, then we will talk about NATO.
But you do not know what you are talking about.
The NATO Secretary General must talk about NATO's war against the Zlocins.
Do you think that NATO Secretary General must?
NATO Secretary General, not because NATO's state members,
state members, have been assigned to a certain position.
Ok, then we will talk about NATO's war against the Zlocins,
whether the US army has completed the operation before NATO.
If there was a confrontation between the US army and the other army,
NATO would be able to defend the war against the Zlocins,
and then the war against the Zlocins would have to be stopped.
In Slovenia, in terms of civilization,
would the Balkans have to fight against the Zlocins?
Yes, the Balkans would have to fight against the Zlocins,
because they were attacked by the same forces that attacked Kosovo.
Kosovo was the one who suffered.
They were the forces that were being concentrated in Zoraj,
and they were on the side of the suffering of Kosovo.
Why would NATO be able to search for war crimes on the side of the same forces
that have actually prevented the humanitarian catastrophe,
and war crimes that have been done on the Albanian border?
Yes.
We can say that.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
I just want to say a few words,
that you have a lot of interest in the Zlocins.
Why do people do the work of the Zlocins?
No, no, no.
The Zlocins would have to shoot the war crimes,
but that would not be the case.
If you are interested, I would be interested in the Zlocins' further discussion,
about what they do,
and how they do the work of the Zlocins.
We have to finish the work of the Zlocins,
so that NATO will be able to search for war crimes here.
Yes, I agree.
I would like to say a few words about the Zlocins.
I agree with you,
that the Zlocins would have to be with their friends,
but they would not agree.
We have not finished the work of the Zlocins,
but I would like to say a few words.
