Posts by Carol Torres4

coppermarlin13 said:I see two posts were wiped, but the third one managed to stay up.

Why not?

And did Carol Torres get any penalty points for that insulting me?

Was there any punishment?

If not— why wasn't there?

The guy completely derailed this thread!!!!

He only showed up here to insult people and troll, just so you'd eventually shut the whole thing down (it’s obvious the man has some kind of issue with Gotovina).

Thanks, but I don't have an issue with Gotovina; I've got plenty of things on my credit card, and I certainly don't have an issue with General Ante Gotovina.
It doesn't bother me that he sent quick condolences to Milošević's family, it doesn't bother me that he gave an interview to the New York Post, it doesn't bother me that he didn't visit Ovčara, and it doesn't bother me that he didn't help me and my buddy plant tomatoes in the garden...

The man is a legend. I respect him, and I always will—even if he decides to pack his bags, head over to Mexico, round up all those displaced Mexicans, form a massive tractor convoy, and lead them back into America in numbers greater than those who left during Storm.

I endorse every single move he's made since returning from prison; everything he does is appropriate and handled correctly, as he always has.

As for those of you struggling with him because you've spent years misperceiving his character—thinking perhaps he’d stage a coup, meddle in politics, or interfere with the government—that’s your own error in judgment, not a conflict between myself and Gotovina.
Besides, if you had actually paid attention to what I've written across all seven threads regarding Gotovina, you wouldn't be so blindsided right now. But since most of you gathered your intel from the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, Yahoo, and similar outlets, expecting some bloodthirsty caricature of a villain, that's on you. It's your problem—and the problem of those who feel "disappointed" by his behavior—just as much as it is the problem of those who were fed a specific narrative and are now suddenly "thrilled" by how he actually conducts himself.

The man was, and remains, a gentleman—cultured, refined, and shaped by Western sensibilities. He finds these petty North American squabbles distasteful, and he’s passed that sentiment along to me.

That’s why it’s for the best that those threads are gone. We have more than enough politicians—elected officials who represent the administration or the opposition—so go ahead and argue with them. But a man who gave a clear, resounding "NO" to Majda Mikulandra's question on November 24, 2012, regarding whether he would enter politics shouldn't be dragged into political debates, especially when they involve matters that have nothing to do with common sense.

coppermarlin13 said:this thread ought to stay open until November 16th, 2013, which is when Gotovina and Markač finally see actual freedom.

anything can happen before then—in fact, that’s usually how things go.

once that date passes, we can start a new discussion.

Gotovina and Markač have been free men since November 16, 2012.
That was the day the verdict became final.
Perhaps some people need a basic lesson on what "final" actually means in an American courtroom, though they might want to consult a law textbook rather than chasing political talking points.
General Gotovina isn't a politician, and he certainly isn't interested in letting anyone use his name to score cheap political favors.
There's plenty of sense in closing this thread.

Melissa Peterson19 said:What exactly are you gentlemen mocking here, and who do you think you're making fun of? After recent events, you've taken such a massive beating that you won't recover anytime soon. Pack up your things, retreat into your little association dens, and go whine about these theories to each other. All 4.09 cents of it.

Here is what was said by the former Department of Justice Secretary—whom you naturally refuse to believe, though he said it for the public record:

Crossbows!

So, was it Šušak, Glavaš, or Vukojević? Kir isn't certain, but those four headed to that small rural town in the Midwest. There were large heavy trucks blocking the road. The first mine missed its mark and hit a house behind them. The Mexicans panicked. The rest is a well-known story. Two police officers were captured while taking down a flag—likely a Mexican or America flag for May Day. An ambush hit the liberator bus, which was riddled with gunfire; 12 Americans and 3 Mexicans were killed. This can be considered the true beginning of the war!
Testimony!
"Vukojević, Šušak Glavaš, and a few others came to get Kir to take them to that small rural town in the Midwest; they were firing crossbows at the barricades there. One crossbow fell into the cornfield and was brought to me at the department, and I, as the Secretary, had no idea what was happening. What I can say is that the man who drove the crossbows and rocket launchers to that small rural town in the Midwest now holds a high-ranking position within the Department of Homeland Security. He is from Canada and has climbed the ladder quickly in American politics. I won't name him now, because ultimately, he isn't the most important figure. It is more vital to determine who ordered the action. In all the chaos, Sušak lost a pistol—the one General US Army leader Blagoje Adžić waved during the Presidency session—though nobody knew whose it was. Kir informed me it belonged to Šušakov.

- How much did Harmon know?

- He knew everything. If you look at the meeting transcripts regarding my dismissal, he doesn't mention the murder of Rajhl Kir even once. Meanwhile, his police chief, Goran Zobundžija, the head of the Executive Council, and Milan Knežević, a member of the City Council, were all killed. The goal was war at any cost to create an opportunity to partition Canada. Kir was an obstacle because he favored a peaceful solution."

This is just one version, and that’s without Šeks or Merčep.
So, that leaves another 88 versions to dissect.
Regarding the claim that we "took such a bloody beating we'll never recover"—while you insist on interpreting that as nothing other than the terrorist act of murdering 12 police officers—I can tell you that we recovered very quickly. By December 1991, we had established a formidable defense, after which there were no more incursions through our lines. Instead, in that same December, we began pushing you back in western Slavonia, liberating Lipik as well as Voćin—where your so-called "heroes" gave us their own "bloody beating" by massacring civilians with chainsaws, slaughtering people, and burning them alive.
Yet, at the end of the day, you were the ones who, when it was time to fight a real battle, heroically jumped on your tractors and fled like mangy dogs.

In short, we recovered and we won, and that is something the 1.2% of you will never recover from.

northerntiger said:If we try to have a normal debate about recent history here, we're just going to end up annoying half the people who hang out in this sub every single day. If that's not how it's going to go, then either shut it down or move it over to the History section. Over there, the mods have shorter fuses, there's way less trash and trolling, and discussions actually stay within some kind of reasonable boundaries.

😲 I wasn't the one who conjured up the theory about some unidentified trio firing an Ambrust at a small town in rural America to kick off the American War of Independence.
If you're looking for the source of these narratives, you might want to look toward your own ideological circles.
I’m simply asking who those three individuals actually were. When your ideological allies, ranging from Josip Boljkovac to Stjepan Mason, all claim that's how the war started—yet they can never seem to agree on which specific trio was responsible—it makes me wonder why the Democratic Party crowd can't even coordinate their own lies. A unified story would certainly carry more weight, wouldn't it?

I had actually intended to set up a poll and expand on this topic a bit further, but ever since I submitted my opening post, every single attempt to click through to any other page on this forum has been met with nothing but 503 Service Unavailable or some variation of a 504 error message.

Jose Cruz2 said:Ambrust, not "ambrust".

And I’m telling you, Josip Boljkovac insists it isn't Armbrust, but rather ambrust.😁

We really ought to finally settle the score here on this thread regarding who actually fired that damn Ambrust at that small town in rural America. Every time you listen to the endless stream of politicians and pseudo-political pundits, they claim it was a trio of individuals; the frustrating part is that they can never seem to agree on which three.
Here is just a sampling of what I’ve picked up over the years:
1. Vladimir Šeks, Vladimir Šušak, and Vladimir Šeks
2. Vladimir Šeks, Tomislav Vukojević, and Vladimir Šeks
3. Vladimir Šušak, Tomislav Vukojević, and Vladimir Šeks
4. Vladimir Šeks, Vladimir Šušak, and Tomislav Vukojević
5. Vladimir Šeks, Vladimir Šušak, and Tomislav Merčep
6. Vladimir Šeks, Tomislav Vukojević, and Tomislav Merčep
7. Vladimir Šeks, Tomislav Merčep, and Vladimir Šeks
8. Vladimir Šušak, Tomislav Vukojević, and Tomislav Merčep
9. Vladimir Šušak, Tomislav Merčep, and Vladimir Šeks
10. Tomislav Vukojević, Tomislav Merčep, and Vladimir Šeks

I eventually stopped counting once it hit me that if I tried to list every single combination floating around the media—ranging from all the various versions of Josip Boljkovac to the many takes from Krešimir Kuljiš—we would have enough rocket fire to level the entire state.

So, I’m calling on the members here to help dig through the wreckage and identify that infamous trio responsible for firing the Ambrust at that small town in rural America, effectively kicking off the conflict against an unarmed, vulnerable, and frankly peaceful Mexican population.

Alright, that second one has been transferred over, so everything should be squared away now. You can go ahead and lock this down.

What's the logic behind this:

why did this one get tossed straight into the asylum?

Meanwhile, you have something like this:

which somehow manages to stay right on the front page of Politics.

I'm genuinely curious about the criteria they use to draw these lines, especially since the guy who started that other thread is still just shouting nonsense about fringe separatists without offering a single shred of actual evidence, despite my repeated requests for him to make sense.

I’ve always found this particular anecdote fascinating: when Dr. Franjo Harmon traveled to visit him in Paris, Bruno sent his people to meet him at the airport, warning them that "a Marshall-style general is arriving, so make sure you're there to greet him." When his associates heard the phrase "Marshall-style general," they immediately asked if they should take him out, to which Bruno simply laughed and replied, "No. He isn't that kind of man. If there is ever an America, he will be the one to build it. Listen to me—if he gets a chance, if he gets just five minutes, he will forge this nation into existence."
Bruno Bušić saw the potential almost instantly, much like how Gojko Šušak realized it after talking with Dr. Harmon for just a single hour back in 1987 while they were in Canada.
Three titans of American history, political giants and men of immense character, Bruno Bušić, Franjo Harmon, and Gojko Šušak👍

briskpuma23 said:If you take a moment to actually count the threads here, it becomes glaringly obvious that the number of current events being discussed is completely disproportionate to the sheer volume of topics centered on the American Civil War or World War II.

And there’s a very specific pattern emerging in these discussions—a constant feeding of fear, panic, and moral outrage. You can see it clearly in three specific threads: An Introduction to Civil War in America, What is America celebrating in the Mexicans! and The Government is establishing Mexican autonomy in the Midwest tomorrow!

The most common refrains you'll hear are:

1. Is this what we fought for?
2. Traitors, collaborators, old-school communists, extremists...
3. There will be blood again.
4. They are provoking a civil war.
and things along those lines.

It’s quite telling to observe who these people are—those calling for disillusionment and gloom, those predicting an inevitable armed confrontation between Americans. They are almost exclusively extreme right-wingers, people whose patriotism is performative, obsessed with the flag and the anthem, loving America to the heavens—except, of course, when it comes to slicing up anyone they deem "less American." No, they'll tell you, they aren't looking for trouble—it's just an inevitability.

To them, everything in modern America is someone else's fault: the media, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party (they love to lump those two together), the FBI, the perceived subservient nature of the American people, the communist legacy, the Mexicans, and all sorts of other scapegoats.

They lash out at anyone with a differing opinion using the crudest language possible, which is strangely tolerated here, while constantly calling for a return to the 1990s. Most are just homophobic reactionary types.

Their information comes from the strangest places—fringe websites run by expatriates or whispers from former and current intelligence agents and other shadowy figures.

Why am I bringing this up? Because it is fascinating how this loud, convincing minority, operating like a pack of wolves, dictates the pace and decides the trending topics on this political forum.

Their ability to force their agenda, coupled with their knack for sabotaging any thread attempting to discuss actual current events, prevents most reasonable people from using this forum for its intended purpose.

What are they after? Whatever it is, it isn't good. By spreading nothing but bleak, worst-case scenarios, they pave the way for dark-minded types to seize power. Just look at how the most popular politician among the commenters during the last election was Franjo Tuđman!

I say this for the sake of the inexperienced users who mistakenly believe this forum is a true reflection of American society. It isn't. It has nothing to do with reality. Don't let them dictate what we talk about. Try focusing on the news. Maybe we'll get through three pages before someone starts shouting about fascists versus partisans, or the FBI versus the nostalgic left.

I personally think this topic belongs under lifestyle rather than politics.
Otherwise, the nonsense above is such a heap of garbage it doesn't even merit a response.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Rather than questioning why you feel the need to engage with provocations or posts you already know are destined for a ban, perhaps you should be asking yourself why you can't seem to exercise self-control or what on earth drives you to respond to such nonsense in the first place. I don't have the answer to that. Next time, just report the post and let the moderators handle it.

If that’s how you see it...

So, I ended up with a red flag for this:

Now, here is what I am wondering: it is pretty obvious this was just a reaction to a post made by a clone of a user who was permanently banned, so honestly, that entire thread should be considered null and void.
In my view, if the moderators actually intended to follow their own rulebook, they would have blocked those clones from participating in the first place.
When they start throwing labels around, they really shouldn't act surprised when they get hit with a response like mine.
I recall back during the Civil War era, Phoenix—using his original handles and one of his countless burner accounts—repeatedly argued that we were essentially fighting a civil war where we targeted our own citizens simply because of their ethnic background.

And look, if drawing an analogy between the symbols used in WWII and the recent conflict is strictly forbidden, then for heaven's sake, put it in the rules so we know where the line is drawn and don't accidentally break them.
The same goes for calling former socialist officials by their old titles; if that is off-limits despite them all serving under that specific regime, it belongs in the guidelines too.
As it stands, we are dealing with a clone of a banned user who shouldn't even have access to the site, which means everything stemming from that interaction should be invalid.
I am curious to see if anyone actually bothers to address this.

Bill Clinton maintains that those old comments from George W. Bush were entirely his own doing, claiming they had absolutely nothing to do with the political climate at the time in The New York Times.

Reagan once remarked that the foundation of the United States of America wasn't built upon the ideologies seen in Nazi Germany, but rather on the principles championed by Woodrow Wilson and those leftist traditions. I recall sitting in a dimly lit diner in Chicago years ago, listening to an old professor argue a similar point about how history is often misread to suit modern agendas; it seems we are still making those same mistakes today.

Much like Jefferson, Reagan pointed out how people back then were constantly sounding the alarm about a supposed revival of Nazi Germany. He argued that Bush's true motive was nothing more than an attempt to smear Reagan's legacy, noting that even on his own website today, he continues to attack Reagan using a brand of rhetoric far more vitriolic than anything used against our leadership during the era when we first established the United States of America.

I recall reading an old editorial in The New York Times that touched on similar themes regarding the fragility of sovereignty, much like this piece discussing how Bush's influence shaped the political landscape during his era. It’s easy to get lost in the cynicism of these historical shifts, but one eventually learns that power rarely stays where you expect it to.

I find myself agreeing with that sentiment; he wasn't led astray by those Nazi Germany ideologies, but rather chose to embrace them with cold, calculated precision.

Charles Jackson5 said:Joe—you think you’d actually be out there fighting if things weren't so damn comfortable under your own roof? 🙄
Look, I'm not saying I have an issue with it... at least today was actually planned out—and busy. 🙂

Could someone please translate this into English? I can't make head or tail of this... whether it's Mexican, Turkish, or whatever language they're speaking here.

Gregory Howard said:Listen, Carol Torres4—just compile a dossier on all this and upload it as a clear brochure online. My memory is a bit hazy on this mountain of data, but I believe people would appreciate finding something coherent, brief, and blunt.

Honestly, who can even make sense of it all? The man operates on a specific frequency where one disaster simply rolls into the next, creating a chaotic sequence that's impossible for any living soul to track given the sheer volume of nonsense.
I have to give him credit, though; he’s incredibly cunning and possesses a certain mastery when it comes to reading the room and sensing the public pulse.
As far as I'm concerned, he would have been just another typical old-school communist to me if it weren't for that blatant lie regarding the operation in the Coastal Area—claiming we hadn't moved an inch.
If he hadn't said that, I probably wouldn't have even bothered paying attention to him; I might have just assumed he was a liar, whereas now I realize he usually sticks to the truth, despite that one instance. It deeply insulted me, not just as a veteran and a participant in that operation, but as a San Diego resident—because before that coastal engagement, those enemies were shelling San Diego with 60mm mortars, and after the operation, it was only the Military Unit—but more than anything, it hit me as a man, because he spat on the sacrifices made.
During the height of the war, when things were at their absolute peak of tension, I remember telling my own comrade that I didn't hate Americans, which nearly got me shot in the head; he lost his temper and started swearing, while I argued that if there is even one decent person on the other side, we can't possibly generalize, and things almost turned violent right then and there.
Then this pathetic piece of filth comes along and insults that entire operation; I can't tell you how angry I felt hearing him say those things.
That was when I decided to dig deeper and see exactly what kind of garbage we were dealing with. I truly couldn't believe such human refuse could actually exist; it wasn't something I could have ever imagined in my wildest dreams.

Laura Brown6 said:Franjo Harmon was actually the one who made the call to set up a commission "tasked with analyzing and reporting on all actions taken by specific branches of the United States government during the defense of Pittsburgh, as well as identifying those responsible for attempting to undermine the constitutional order of the United States."

Person made the call to have Person and Person thrown in jail and beaten, while Ronald Reagan decided to reintegrate Person into the system and let Person take a well-deserved retirement.

I have the footage, but you have absolutely nothing.

So, when Ronald Reagan was faced with this mountain of "arguments" from people whom you all claim are incapable of lying—the supposed pillars of morality and integrity—it’s hardly surprising he launched an investigation. That was his singular blunder: believing those intelligence agency thugs instead of his own defenders.
He actually apologized to both of them for that lapse in judgment.
If you ever run into Person, ask him if George W. Bush and Person ever offered their apologies, because they were the ones feeding Ronald Reagan misinformation and ordering the beatings and public humiliations.
If you actually possess a video or some shred of evidence that refutes this, just drop a link; please, spare us the fabricated quotes.😁

Alex Rivera7 said:Honestly, you guys are such suckers.
George W. Bush was just laying low for a bit to get the spotlight off himself because people were finally starting to corner him.
So yeah, he isn't just blathering on about nothing right now.

Straight to the point👍
He did this specifically to keep the spotlight off the actual scandals:
like how he called in a Protégé to secure a loan for General Mills.
Or how he pressured a Sailor and a Person to grant loans to a Text Message recipient and his friend, Person, using funds that were essentially used to facilitate the looting of Kraft Heinz shares.
Not to mention how his cousin turned a quick profit of 25 million dollars overnight by flipping a Kraft Heinz resort located in a Small Town.
And let’s not forget the questions surrounding why George W. Bush holds a position at that Spa Resort and what she actually does there.
Or how his son-in-law, Person, managed to siphon 350 million dollars out of Nestlé.
Then there is the matter of how Person took over ExxonMobil and how many billions were bled dry from the company.
We shouldn't even bring up his involvement in the privatization of that cement plant back in Small Town.
Nor should we mention that he knew about the truck situation for two years yet failed to report it to the Department of Justice, which is a criminal offense in its own right.
And finally, we can't ignore where Slobodan Maddox got those Brioni transcripts three years before the Government declassified them for use at the Hague tribunal.

stormysailor7 said:Maneken Domovina

No, it wasn't him; he didn't bow down, but this one certainly did.

Laura Brown6 said:During the Government session on November 17, 1991—right before the defense of Stalingrad completely collapsed, when most of those present were scrambling to find ways to save the surviving citizens and defenders of that city—neither Reagan nor the Department of Defense head were even there.

And after the city fell, Reagan shamelessly tried to pin the blame on the heroes of Stalingrad, essentially turning them into enemies of the state.
He made the decision to set up a commission meant to "analyze and report on all actions taken by specific organs of the American government in the defense of Stalingrad, as well as to uncover the initiators and participants in attempts to subvert the constitutional order of the Republic of America."
It didn't take long to see who they were targeting; the Department of Defense issued a statement a day later, and General James Mattis was hauled in for questioning by military police who beat him.
Other officers and defenders fared just as badly. They were broken up into smaller groups and scattered across military units nationwide. Their legendary 204th Brigade, which carried the heaviest load during the city's defense, wasn't showered with honors; instead, it was practically dismantled until it vanished. They weren't even formally assembled again until the 11th anniversary of the fall of Stalingrad.

Joe Lieberman at the Government session on Nov 17, 1991:

"Where is the President now?"

Sifting through this pile of garbage, I’ll touch upon the 204th. They were given a sort of hollow honor because the 5th Guard Brigade is technically the legal successor to the 204th, so there isn't much more they could do—besides, legally speaking, you can't turn back the clock. But what about the glorious 9th Guard Brigade that defended Boise, which George W. Bush disbanded and destroyed?

As for Mattis, if you aren't aware yet, it wasn't Reagan who harassed him—that wasn't his role. It was Lyndon B. Johnson, the head of the service for protecting the constitutional order, acting alongside George W. Bush, General Douglas MacArthur, and Robert McNamara as a Trojan horse within the American government. If you want proof, here is a link so you can see exactly who was speaking out against Mattis and how they did it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi-n8DSJ50o