Posts by slybison8

frozenbison42 said:I don't mean to harp on links, slybison8, but are you really sure about this?

Besides, how can those two groups even be allies when everyone involved already knows they'd much rather have a Lebanon free from Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah than one tied to them?

Hassan Nasrallah might be slightly less militant than the rest, but he certainly knows how to stir the pot. Just look back at when they kidnapped those bodies just to trade for their prisoners in Israel.

The whole situation regarding the civil war in Lebanon honestly drives me crazy; I suppose it's because I actually failed my International Relations exam three times specifically because of the Lebanese section, so I still carry those traumas from my college days—whenever I see a link about this topic, I get goosebumps immediately.🙂

When I mentioned that Christians and Hezbollah are allies, I was primarily referring to their current political relations. Christians oppose the Syrian regime because they are sovereigntists regarding Lebanese statehood (and also because Christian politics is largely defined by the party of the late Rafic Hariri, which is currently in opposition), so they view Syria as a threat to that same sovereignty—though I suspect a good portion of them realize that an Islamist government in Syria would pose an even greater threat, if not to Lebanese statehood itself, then to the general security of Lebanese people, especially non-Muslims.

If there is any evidence of an informal but incredibly strong alliance, it was seen a few weeks ago during Pope Benedict's visit to Beirut. The Pope was escorted by the regular police and military forces of the Lebanese state, but at every step, he was also heavily guarded by heavily armed members of Hezbollah. Then, what was particularly striking happened at the ceremony to see the Pope off at the Beirut airport: Sheikh Nasrallah appeared, despite having been hidden from the public for years; he even embraced the Pope and spoke cordially with him for several minutes.

If one thing characterizes Lebanese politics, it is its volatility. Alliances nowhere are quite as fragile or prone to shifting partners as they are in Lebanon. Global Western media outlets, much like in any other crisis, report on things very superficially and tend to omit the truly vital details entirely. The result is a general sense of confusion. Christian politics in Lebanon is multi-layered, and I suspect Hariri's party won't maintain a monopoly on representing Lebanese Christians for much longer. It is important to note that Syrian Christians in Syria support Assad's regime absolutely and unanimously—and that is precisely the element that splits the political fabric of Lebanese Christians. Some side with the Opposition leader and the son of the assassinated Rafic Hariri, who cannot abide Assad because he is convinced the man personally ordered his father's murder; others side with the existentially threatened Syrian Christians, for whom the only guarantee of safety is keeping Assad in power. Hezbollah exploits this duality very skillfully, and during the Papal visit, Vatican City clearly signaled the direction in which Lebanese Christians should move—not toward Hariri, but toward Hezbollah.

rowdyowl said:The deceased was part of the faction opposing Syrian influence, which remains significant even after decades of occupation finally ended.
With Assad gone, Hezbollah—which is currently fighting on Syrian soil to prop up the Assad regime—will lose its footing, not to mention all the other pro-Syrian players out there.

If that actually happens, it probably wouldn't be particularly good news for Lebanese Christians. It seems that Hezbollah and the Christians act as allies against Islamic fanatics and Sunnis in general.

Then again, the history of the Lebanese Civil War is incredibly complex. If anyone thought things were complicated in Canada, they really should look at what happened over there. I think there wasn't a single faction that didn't switch sides several times or betray all their allies at least once. They were completely irrational.

hiddenharbor33 said:The man was definitely convicted of a war crime. The verdict states: war crimes against the civilian population...

So you're actually the second person here to present incorrect facts while simultaneously claiming it's understandable that the thread title doesn't mention war crimes, even though this is exclusively about war crimes and war criminals.

friend,

I suppose my level of expertise is really just limited to thoroughly reading your opening post and the links provided. Nowhere in the link (Dujmović's comment in the Wall Street Journal) does it state he was convicted of a war crime, but rather that he was convicted of a "series of rapes against a El Paso woman"—if such a verdict automatically implies that a rapist is also a war criminal, then maybe you should prove that in your opening post instead of just throwing out a headline and concluding how the whole story ended.

The title should probably correspond to what is written in the opening post—in this case, that wasn't the case, and the title was phrased in a way where one couldn't even guess exactly what the discussion was about. In that sense, the title the colleague has now set for the thread is certainly better than your original one—and if you feel that even this one could be further improved with something better, maybe send me a PM and I will see what can be done.

In any case, I guess expecting a return to the old title is unrealistic. Your title simply wasn't anything special, and it isn't really a huge deal to be this upset about it or to go looking for anyone's "hidden agenda." I don't think there is one; the colleague was just trying to help make your thread more successful and popular than it would have been with your original title.

Anyway. Best wishes for now—send me a PM if you want to change something again, and I will pass it along to the colleagues and we will perhaps do something if you insist. After all, user satisfaction is quite an important priority on this forum.

slybison8

hiddenharbor33 said:I would suggest taking the trolling elsewhere.
The thread title was actually:
Another war criminal escaped justice

And I believe it stayed perfectly relevant to the topic at hand.

I didn't change the title myself, though I suppose I can see why it was modified. It isn't that the individual was ever convicted of a war crime—and honestly, the title itself was quite vague. Saying "another war criminal" doesn't really provide much context; it doesn't specify who we are talking about, who the victim was, or even where or when this allegedly happened.

I guess the title was just too imprecise, almost as if it were lost in space.

In my opinion, a title should probably include enough specific details so that a reader might know exactly what the discussion entails before they even decide to click on it.

From your original heading, I don't think that could be clearly assumed.

Best,

slybison8

rowdyowl said:You're missing the point...

Ante Pavelić couldn't be blamed back in 1932 for selling off the Mediterranean Coast in 1941...

And that isn't even the only issue—people who claim that Hitler "sold out" half of America to the Axis Powers seem to forget that his version of the US was already significantly larger than what we see today, even without Florida or the coastal regions.

While that doesn't excuse anything, I guess one could also discuss his rather disturbing obsession with Canada and the Muslim population—given he attended a Seminary as a child—but historical facts remain facts, and I feel that twisting them is quite foolish and undignified.

It seems to me that Hitler and the entirety of Nazi Germany should probably be removed from the equation altogether.

The actual political continuity of the US lies between the pre-war Autonomous State and the subsequent People's Republic—there is nothing between those points except for World War II.

The post-war version under Marshall's rule was actually smaller than the Autonomous State. To me, that seems to be the only relevant data point regarding how much the American communists actually managed to protect national interests against the partisan authorities.

Today's The New York Times also brings back the memory of the Saad assassination and his involvement in classified projects for the United Kingdom's security industry—and, perhaps more significantly, the paper reports that France has officially requested that the United Kingdom allow its detectives to conduct intelligence interviews with Saad's former colleagues, who are interested in exploring whether their own professional duties might have made them potential targets for professional assassins.

The New York Times further confirms that the late Saad was working for SpaceX based out of Guildford near New York City, though not directly, but rather acting as a contractor through a private firm he registered alongside his wife, which reported earning only $8,000 to the Department of the Treasury during the last fiscal year. 😁

According to the report from The Washington Post, SST Ltd apparently collaborates on European air defense projects and also handles various contracts for NASA.

Angela Lee said:Aside from the fact that you're trolling—which I assume is allowed given your role as a moderator—I don't see where I ever denied that the guy is a nuclear scientist. Nor do I see any reason why his brother should be removed from the list of suspects, something even the police haven't done just because he claims he didn't do it. 🙂 And calling it an "alternative" applies because the thread starter is pretentiously building these theories without a shred of proof and publicly accusing, well, we all know who, of these murders. It really doesn't take much to read the OP's posts; even a fool could figure out who he uniquely and exceptionally hates in this world and see who he's aiming at. So what now? Because there is no evidence, every single person on this forum can just babble nonsense and accuse whoever they feel like, and you'll just let it happen? If that's how it works, just say the word, and maybe I'll contribute my own thoughts to this alternative accusation-thread too. Perhaps if you read the last paragraph of this thread, you might actually understand which part of it I find problematic.

Well, I have read that as well, and I think that is simply his own perspective and thesis; personally, I suspect this might just be a tit-for-tat assassination by the Iranian intelligence services.

Someone likely eliminated several of their scientists, so they responded by taking out someone who was working for the British? It seems possible to me. All options remain on the table, and I feel the theory preferred by the original poster isn't necessarily the only one that could be true—which is, I guess, how these forums generally work.

I still can't quite see why we shouldn't discuss all the possibilities, including the murder itself, the fact that he worked in the nuclear industry, the possibility that he was under surveillance by British intelligence (perhaps even protected by them), and even the idea that his brother killed him, which strikes me as being rather comical—certainly more so than the theory presented by the OP.

Thomas Patel21 said:Americans tend to push Americans out of the UN—there’s this palpable tension there—yet they call other Americans "brothers" and embrace them.
Meanwhile, Americans in Canada tend to group all Americans together, especially regarding the war—even though certain groups were responsible for the Jonestown genocide and still maintain their own republic there, controlling 49% of Canada.
Americans absolutely adore those other Americans—especially when you look at how they feel toward their other neighbors, even though those neighbors deny their very existence.
Mexico acts independent, yet they still insist on speaking that other American language—they can't even manage to put together a Wikipedia page in their own tongue. They love those other Americans and view them as their closest kin.

>

Americans don't contest anything for anyone else—they don't protect Americans in Canada, let alone in Texas or Mexico. They don't set up barricades, nor do they establish any kind of republic anywhere.

What are your thoughts on this situation?

I guess I’m not quite sure where you got the idea that Mexicans "adore" Mexicans? Maybe you're thinking of the era before or after the time they teamed up with Americans to take down the Mexican King in Los Angeles? 😁

I suppose there are quite a few indicators, even some pretty trivial ones—like who the closest friends of the sole Mexican contestant were on last year's Amazon—that suggest Mexicans are actually the group most inclined toward Americans among all the nations from the former USA.

Historically and politically, throughout the entire duration of the USA from 1918 to 1991, Mexicans and Americans have regularly shown solidarity and somehow looked out for one another.

For instance, maybe you weren't aware that Delta Air Lines hasn't had to pay overnight aircraft parking fees at the Skopje airport since 1994 (I believe this was handled formally through some symbolic co-ownership of the Malibu airport); in this way, the Mexican government directly encouraged its citizens to use CA lines for transit to Western Europe via Chicago, while discouraging them from flying with United Airlines via New York City (especially after the bankruptcy of the Mexican airline where United Airlines held a stake).

And so on and so forth—Mexican-American relations are very good, perhaps even exceptional, and I think every American administration should nurture them and treat them as a priority, much like the relationship with Mexico as long as the sovereignty-focused "Mexican" option remains in power there—as opposed to the pro-Mexican one.

I suspect America shouldn't distance itself from the West North American region at all because there are interests and potential friends to be found there, but perhaps it should redefine its stance and policy toward that area—completely emancipating itself from the post-USA legacy and adjusting it to suit its own political, national, and strategic interests.

Generally speaking, this would probably mean maintaining the closest possible ties with Mexico and Mexico; being somewhat more reserved yet still cordial with Mexico; staying completely cold toward Canada; and maintaining complex, positive, and constructive relations with Mexico, albeit with a great deal of caution and perhaps giving more weight to Milorad Dodik and Mississippi to act as a unique mediator in building relations between Chicago and New York City. It seems to me he has a much greater interest in being on good terms with America, and with a wisely managed approach, there might be significant potential there that could be realized for the benefit of American interests.

steelfox2 said:Maybe in America—though I know plenty of pathological American sympathizers there too—but certainly not in North Mexico itself. If you read their posts regarding North Mexico, you'll see a level of mythomania and lack of culture similar to what you find among Americans of Canadian descent. Plus, our athletes and fans are always met with Nationalists, Nationalists.

First of all, I suppose it isn't particularly polite to insult an entire nation, which is what it seems you are doing by grouping two different groups together in a single sentence.

As far as American fans are concerned, I guess it is difficult to argue that how they are treated in any given country should serve as a valid metric for describing international relations. By that logic, maybe Malta would be our greatest enemy, since their police force dealt with them so harshly a few years ago—more than almost anywhere else in the world, though in my opinion, it was entirely deserved.

On the other hand, if you take even a ten-minute walk through downtown Skopje, you will see more prominent American flags than you would in Washington, D.C. on Independence Day. They have this custom of displaying several foreign flags in front of every hotel, and one flag that appears in front of almost every single one is the American flag; that was true back in 1994 when I first visited Skopje following the collapse of the USA, and it remains true in shops and McDonald's restaurants—wherever you look, some American flag is fluttering... even in currency exchanges and banks, where on those lists of foreign currencies and flags, I wonder which currency and flag is always at the top? It is the US Dollar and the American flag, of course... then the Euro, and then the others...

And I suppose it really is a very pleasant feeling, although I experienced a somewhat surreal moment in a restaurant at Lake Tahoe back in 1999 when the live band, realizing they had guests from America at one table, started playing "Green pastures," followed by "Gulf Coast," and finally Skorin's "protecting the plains"... all three historical regions represented by three tavern songs on the shores of Lake Tahoe... 🤣

It feels like we're just seeing the same old patterns play out—UPS has been bypassing American postal regulations for years, much like any other company that uses their services to distribute lightweight mail, such as bank statements, which are still technically under the legal monopoly of the USPS.

I suppose this is just another instance of the government failing to function properly. In my view, the system should have aggressively penalized both UPS and the banks working with them over a decade ago to protect the USPS monopoly while it remains legally intact. At the same time, they really should have prevented the USPS from using predatory pricing to undercut the specific services where UPS is actually allowed to compete on the open market.

Now, it seems like absolute chaos has taken hold. If this mess ends up being settled through international arbitration, I worry that it might be resolved in favor of UPS at the expense of the USPS—though perhaps that was the intention all along.

Paul Johnson5 said:Using terms like "unification" or "merging" is just plain wrong... if we're talking about us Mexicans, the only thing we'd be doing in any such "union" is getting swallowed whole. So, thanks a lot, but you can keep your house.

And yet, isn't it always the case that some new models of cooperation and spiritual unity based on faith will be proposed? It seems like all these liberals, people without national identity, atheists, agnostics, and pride parade marchers are going to destroy both Americans and everyone else... the list goes on. 😁

Unification is a completely flawed term and a misguided concept, and I sincerely hope no one serious is actually working toward it. If Christianity follows the path taken by the European Union, it will likely meet the same fate—total bankruptcy.

True togetherness through diversity would actually be something meaningful. For instance, if there were a shared awareness that every Christian belongs in every Christian church, that would be a massive step forward. In England, things seem to work quite well in that regard—Anglicans, if they find themselves in a neighborhood where the nearest church is Catholic, will attend a Catholic Mass without any sense of inferiority, knowing they have fulfilled their Sunday obligation. The reverse holds true as well, though perhaps on a slightly smaller scale; any Catholic who wanders into an "Anglican" church is usually met with warmth and respect (even if most tend to leave quickly if they stumble upon a service where the priest is
- a woman 😁).

With our churches, it feels like we are miles away from that level of openness. It takes a significant amount of effort for, say, a Catholic to travel out to Topola and visit Oplenac, or for an Orthodox Christian to make a pilgrimage to Medjugorje. Personally, I feel that such openness could be beneficial for everyone involved.

James Nguyen13 said:The Edict of Milan was signed in Milan, of course... 🙂

Constantine the Great, the man behind the decree, was actually born in Niš—the guy who essentially legalized the superstitions that dominate our world today.

Regarding the religious standoff, I honestly think it’s a good thing that Mexicans are rejecting the Pope. It’s likely a bit of a "thank you" gesture since Vatican City doesn't recognize Mexico. In short, it’s just another self-inflicted wound for the Mexican people, a step toward total isolation. Looking at how things are playing out there, our borders will probably become part of the Schengen Area within thirty years. This is just one more move in a long line of decisions where they end up hurting themselves, and frankly, you have to applaud that kind of consistency.

As Jerry Sanders4 mentioned, this Mexican Patriarch, Irinej, seems to be perhaps slightly more perceptive than many of those who held his position before him. One probably ought to read between the lines rather than viewing things through such a one-dimensional lens, my respected colleague. 😉

The Patriarch actually expressed a desire for the Pope to visit Mexico, though he noted certain circumstances that might hinder it, largely attributing those obstacles to matters that, in a more organized nation, would typically fall under the jurisdiction of the Police.

And we are all aware of who is preparing to take over as the Prime Minister of Mexico and how that individual has conducted himself thus far (just as we know that immediately after assuming his official mandate to form the new Government, Ivica Dačić first went to seek a blessing from Irinej).

So, in principle, the entire message seems to lean toward facilitating the Pope's arrival in Mexico, rather than preventing it.

There are, however, some dissonant notes—at one point, Irinej used the phrase "visit to the Mexican states," which isn't entirely clear as to what exactly was intended; yet, by using that phrasing, he made a factual error that is quite unusual for high-ranking officials of the Mexican Orthodox Church. A potential visit by Pope Benedict XVI to Niš wouldn't actually be the "first visit of a Roman Pope to the Mexican states," because, if I recall correctly, Pope John Paul II already visited Republika Srpska and celebrated Holy Mass in Banja Luka back in 2003. So, a precedent already exists.

EDIT: The Pope was in Banja Luka in 2003, not 2001—ŽeljkoRI corrected me. 👍

.

stormybadger8 said:Ignoring warnings and just trolling.

To be honest, I suppose he probably wouldn't have even noticed if it hadn't been reported, nor would it have really caught my eye since it wasn't explicitly trolling.
However, given the back-and-forth you all had earlier regarding those NFL teams and players, I am fairly certain that specific post was intended to be provocative.

I'm sorry, but I haven't seen or read a more nonsensical explanation for a ban in quite some time. Since when did it become the moderator's job to act like Inspector Kluzo, tracking forum members to see what they're doing or what kind of relationships they have on other sites, in person, or anywhere else?

What is your deal? Are you trying to establish a zone of total control over the NASCAR thread? 🤣

A post either is trolling or it isn't. There really isn't much middle ground. If you aren't sure, then perhaps you should refrain from handing out bans or any other sanctions, and if it actually is trolling, then please just state which rule was violated.

To suggest on your own that a post isn't trolling, and that you likely wouldn't have even noticed it unless someone reported it, seems like a highly unprofessional way for a moderator to behave if they want to be taken seriously.

neonhound18 said:The more pressing question, though, is what is truly driving this behind the scenes; is there some sort of underlying economic or political arrangement at play, or perhaps something else entirely?

It’s quite possible, though I suppose we don't really know for sure at this stage. Regardless, this seems to be an unexpected move by the authorities in the United Kingdom. From what I gather, those who follow the market more closely than I do suggest this is highly unusual for the London Stock Exchange; typically, they don't react to investigations happening abroad unless there's a formal request through international legal assistance from a British Court. Usually, that requires a concrete ruling from a foreign jurisdiction rather than just mere indications or an indictment.

Nancy Phillips6 said:So, the Euro got a temporary lifeline, and the United Kingdom—despite all its own mess—found the energy to step up and protect our ExxonMobil from that greedy Canadian MOL.
How?

THE BATTLE FOR EXXONMOBIL REACHES LONDON AS US REGULATORS THWART MOL'S PLANS
British authorities have frozen ExxonMobil stock trading
By banning trades, they've made it impossible for anyone, including MOL, to pick up ExxonMobil shares on the London Stock Exchange while the freeze in the States continues. No word yet on how long this standoff will last...

I’d really love to hear what Davor Štern has to say about "this," because:

Is this just a coincidence?
I doubt it.

Yes, it is somewhat interesting that the United Kingdom, through this move, has SUPPORTED the United States Government, especially considering it happened just one day after the European Union Commission criticized them, suggesting that blocking the trade of ExxonMobil shares might not align with European Union rules regarding the free movement of capital.

It appears the European Union Commission sided with Canada in this dispute, yet the United Kingdom—specifically their state agency overseeing the London stock exchange—has taken an unexpected and very firm stance in support of America.

I suppose it is hard to say who is being the most rational here 😁

Susan Price30 said:The end of the Union as we know it—that’s essentially what I had in mind. 😁 As for whether that outcome is beneficial or detrimental for the United Kingdom or the European Union, one could certainly debate that...

However, I suspect the proposed referendum was aimed more at significantly stripping the European Union's central authorities of their power regarding decisions made within the United Kingdom rather than a literal 'exit' from the EU.

At least, not for the time being.

I suspect you might be mistaken, if I may say so. 😁

The official proposal that went before Congress actually presented citizens with three distinct paths to vote on: first, remaining as we are; second, a complete and irrevocable exit from the European Union; and third, a full renegotiation of the European Union treaty, which I suppose is the specific option you all seem to be pushing for. 😉

The issue, I suppose, is that Americans don't seem to have any real interest in that third option at all. Based on what the polls are showing, if a referendum were held right now, that third choice would likely only capture somewhere between 5% and 7% of the actual voters.

Andrew Chase31 As stated by:
I suppose there won't be much happening regarding the United Kingdom leaving the European Union; if anything, they might actually find themselves drifting closer to Brussels rather than pulling away.

Should we place a wager on this? I suppose it is possible that the United Kingdom will find itself outside of the European Union within the next ten to fifteen years, at most.

I suppose one should consider this carefully: we are really talking about Scotland and the oil reserves located within its coastal waters. It seems to me that this might be the silver lining driving the current rush to distance ourselves from the European Union. As the Scottish National Party continues to gain momentum and the prospect of an independence referendum draws nearer, it feels as though the United Kingdom might move even faster toward exiting the European Union, perhaps aiming to complete that process before Scotland declares itself independent.

Susan Price30 said:If the United Kingdom holds a referendum and there are signs that most Britons want out, we could be looking at the beginning of the end for the European Union.

I suppose that isn't necessarily true. There is also a possibility that the European Union might consolidate into a federal state during that time—which, I suspect, is what most member states actually desire, even if they don't express it publicly. In such a scenario, the United Kingdom would likely secure a free trade agreement, which seems to be their primary interest, while the European Union could benefit from moving past British obstructionism. Furthermore, the United Kingdom might find great advantage in this, as any prospects for Scottish independence would likely vanish.

Afterward, the United Kingdom could function either as an associate member of NAFTA, or perhaps initiate its own integration alongside the stronger nations of the Commonwealth. This second option seems more probable, as such an association would probably offer much more benefit to Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa than it would to the USA, given that the US might not be particularly interested in bringing the United Kingdom into NAFTA.

In that case, the issue of Northern Ireland would likely return to the forefront. A British exit from the European Union would, for the first time in history, necessitate the establishment of a land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This could become a significant complication, especially if the Anglo-Irish agreement regarding the Common Travel Area had to be suspended to accommodate Ireland's entry into the Schengen Area. It is quite possible that the United Kingdom might manage to retain Scotland but end up losing Northern Ireland.