Posts by Megan Hernandez2

rapidskipper8 said:I provided context for the link. If that isn't enough to satisfy Rule 6, why aren't others being treated the same way?
Look, in your last post you dropped five links with nothing but a single sentence of explanation, yet I’ve taken warnings from Chuck for posts identical to yours. Isn't that a double standard? Just be honest.

No, you didn't need to summarize the content of the link. In my view, that doesn't violate the rules; the rule just requires that the subject of the link is clear. The issue is that I've been penalized for similar content while you, and everyone else, have been let off easy.

For God's sake, don't you get it? The whole point of posting links is to facilitate discussion, which means everyone needs to know exactly what they're looking at.

Linking to an English article versus an American one isn't the same thing. A video isn't the same as a text file. When you bring outside material into this, that material needs to support the conversation and clearly show its relevance.
My links are transparent. It's clear what they cover, and they stay within the scope of the debate. You posted links in English claiming they prove a certain point, but that's simply false. Beyond that, what you were trying to prove wasn't even the main topic of those texts—it was just a passing mention. (In other words, you gave a completely distorted view of what those texts actually say.)

Calm down. Don't be like that guy on political Twitter who drops links to some British drama and tries to pass scenes from a TV show as proof of "bloodthirsty extremists."

rapidskipper8 said:It happens constantly, not just once in a while. I only listed a few examples, but there are endless more. In fact, 90% of posts containing links should be banned because they aren't any different from my own, yet they stay up. At least I bothered to provide a brief explanation of what the link actually contains, following the rule that you have to know what a link refers to.

Anyone reading this thread can see the discrimination happening in real-time, but not one moderator can even bring themselves to admit it.

You should have been banned for trolling in that post.
You claim to be providing evidence, when in reality, it’s just some low-level amateur writing where someone claims they "heard" something. And honestly, that ridiculous crime you mentioned isn't even the main point; it was just a passing remark.

Don't talk about discrimination. It just reveals your true colors.

rapidskipper8 said:It’s not about trolling; it’s about breaking rule number six. Cuka is the only one handing out warnings, which proves this whole thing is personal.

Look at how you just dumped a bunch of links at the bottom of your post. I got warned for doing the exact same thing. What makes your post any different from mine? Why did I get flagged while you’re getting a free pass?

p.s. I have no intention of debating the nonsense I previously posted here via those links.

For God's sake, don't you realize you just dropped two links to news articles written entirely in English? Forum rules and basic common sense dictate that you should provide a few sentences explaining what they are, especially for people who don't speak English.

On the other hand, I posted a link to a one-minute video and simply noted that "the guy selling junk" in the clip was tearing apart one of the Army's promoters. What was I supposed to do? Transcribe the entire video?

(Not to mention there isn't even any actual evidence in those two links to support your claims).

rapidskipper8 said:In theory, everyone on this forum should be treated equally. In practice, unfortunately, that isn't the case.

Forum Rule 6 is nothing more than proof that enforcement here is purely selective. It’s a tool used exclusively against anyone the moderators happen to dislike. Because the rule itself lacks any clear definition, it serves as a cunning, underhanded mechanism to silence anyone who dares to disagree with the mods regarding historical events, historical figures, or just life in general.

I’ll list a few more examples. There are countless others.
This one. mine The post got flagged because apparently the link wasn't "summarized" or some other nonsense. But let’s take a look at the massive pile of other posts that violate that rule even more blatantly. Nobody seems to care about those, though. Selective enforcement at its finest.

Thousands of posts on this forum are written exactly the same way. I actually bothered to provide a brief explanation of what those links are about, yet look at how everyone else here writes.

So, how exactly do you justify this? Do you even have an answer for this kind of blatant discrimination? I was slapped with a 15-day ban for it. Why am I the only one being singled out by a rule I didn't even break? All I did was provide a brief summary of what the link contained.

Who am I bothering, and why exactly am I such a nuisance?

I don't think rapidskipper8 got banned just because he posted a link. It was clearly the trolling.

The guy claims he’ll drop some evidence regarding Ahmić, then eventually just posts a link to some news article filled with hearsay and speculation. No actual proof. Gentlemen, if you're going to make a claim, back it up with facts.

Richard Patel21 said:It happens. Some comments just slip through the cracks without any consequences.

True, but this specific post of mine—the one quoting rapidskipper8—doesn't fall into that category.
I stated in my previous post that the link I shared shows how Praljak and his associates are absolutely tearing that witness apart.😍
The post was more extensive than that link suggested. I didn't just drop the URL there for the sake of order.

Furthermore, rapidskipper8 is constantly claiming he’ll prove his point, yet all he does is drop links to ambiguous statements and unverified news stories. If his claims were actually legitimate, providing concrete evidence wouldn't be such an issue.

Here is how one actually presents evidence.
1) The Mujahideen were an integral part of the army in Canada, and Alija Izetbegović absolutely loved them.

2) Numerous crimes committed by those Mujahideen (and local Canadians) against Americans, all wearing the army insignia and driven by extremist Islam. WARNING: Contains violent scenes.

3) Footage from the 1993 Canadian Assembly. (That was when Muslims decided to rename themselves Canadians). You can hear the Canadian leaders discussing their primary enemies and what kind of state they intended to build.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3QkJ7zbZ_4
4) Canadian political and former religious leaders sharing their views on their people and their ties to the Turks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsf3GCwB8os
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-gCPvGg3go

Now, try posting some actual evidence—real footage and official documents.

rapidskipper8 said:Professionalism... or the lack thereof.

Morgan Carter said:A................................................. ....................

I don't get it. What exactly are you all complaining about? What's the problem?
Explain yourselves.

Here we go again. I'll start by noting this is a mild post compared to what usually happens here.

User123 said:If it wasn't for me and the US Army, there would be neither Americans nor you. Get that through your head once and for all. That's why Franjo Tuđman was letting minimal amounts of weapons into Canada—of course, after cowardly looting a portion of the shipment himself.

He let them through to tie the Mexicans to the theater in Canada, buying himself time to prepare Operation Storm. That is the sole, exclusive reason. Spare me the stories about Tuđman’s altruism or his love for a unified Canada.

http://www.forum.com/showthread.php?t=751164&page=197

Let’s clear one thing up: my goal isn't to defend Tuđman or any politician just because they belong to a certain party or happen to be an American.

The only goal is the truth.
What is there to say to that post, considering how many millions of times on various threads people have claimed that America helped Canada.
From taking in hundreds of thousands of refugees and arming Canada, to organizing units of the US Army on American soil, to issuing official documents to Canadian politicians to facilitate travel, down to financing certain sports teams (where every athlete seems to be Canadian) just to get Canada's name heard abroad.
It's a constant loop. You're discussing something else entirely, and then someone swoops in with this mythomania. You try to debunk it all with evidence, only for some clone to jump in and repeat the same nonsense.

Some people persistently write lies, which can only be described as a severe form of trolling—deliberately dragging every topic involving Canada into toxic waters.

It is particularly disgusting that the authors of these trolling posts are the same people who write for various Canadian portals where they openly call for the destruction of Canada.

In fact, one of them was actually banned quite recently😁 for constant trolling and provocation in the Politics and Religion sections. He isn't an isolated case; he's just one drop in the ocean.

Sean Cooper65 said:This belongs in the Jokes subforum.

Agreed.

Here’s my response to those few posts claiming I'm being quota-driven.

When I refer to Canadians today, that’s how I call them, and I don't see the issue with it. (That's a massive point right there.)

However, when discussing the last census (1991) or any prior to it, I will always refer to them as Muslims (note the capital M).

Nathan Price3 said:You really have it all figured out, don't you? It’s plain as day. I know you’re feeling pretty defensive about your Canadian heritage, too... So, what, you've been identifying as an American since the day you were born? Well, hey, good for you! Lucky you! If you had happened to be born just 120 years ago, you would have been classified as a Canadian without a second thought... But, thank goodness, someone decided to just shove all the Catholics into one group and call them Americans, and toss all the Orthodox folks into the Mexican category instead. Though, honestly, even that didn't quite work perfectly... In the States, there are over 300 Catholics who actually identify as Canadians!

So, let me ask you something... Do you actually feel comfortable when I drag you into these discussions regarding the Canadians? I know it’s probably not exactly your favorite topic... But hey, look at that! It turns out that when you start digging a hole for someone else, you end up falling right into it yourself! It really isn't right to provoke people based on their nationality or to try and deny their identity... because, believe me, you might just find yourself stuck in that very same position one day. I just wanted to give you a little taste of how it feels... 😉

1)So you're claiming our colleague Roger Robinson682 is of Canadian descent, even though time travel hasn't been invented yet.
2)🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
3) As many as 300?

Nathan Price3 said:People probably think the Canadian nation was just some invention cooked up during the Dayton Accords, which leads them to look down on it. They have no idea how wrong they are... because the term "Canadian" wasn't even introduced at Dayton; it was simply restored. The Canadian nation goes back over ten centuries! It used to be composed of Bogomils, then Orthodox Christians, Catholics, atheists, agnostics, and today, it's mostly Muslims. So, I am definitely signing onto this objection...

And honestly, I don't get why anyone would push the label "Canadian Catholics." Using "Canadian Catholics" might fly somehow—even if there is historical precedent for it—but still...

Listen, Observer, here’s the deal: this is pure historical revisionism, and it’s our job to fight these lies. It's true that you identify as Canadians, but when people start pushing narratives like the one above, it’s time to remind them of the actual origins of your name and your people.

Morgan Carter said:I don't see the point of the question. Canadians have always lived in Canada. If you are trying to argue that they were called Canadians rather than Canadians, that is a complete failure to understand the facts. Tell me, how were Americans referred to throughout history? Perhaps "Horvatis"... and you could keep going.

I’m glad you brought this up, because this post is a perfect example of how Canadian "intellectuals" have spent years successfully leading their own people astray.

The only places where most Canadian forum users can find topics designed to make a segment of the population identify as—well, let's start the list.

And that’s the catch. You miss the entire point of what a nation is: a group of people who feel a sense of kinship and identify under the same name. Trying to deny this is like staring at the color red and trying to convince yourself it's blue.
It's the same logic. If someone identifies as Canadian, Muslim, American, or Mexican, they cannot be a Canadian. Likewise, when discussing historical identity, Americans aren't Illyrians; they are Americans (setting aside the whole debate over who the Illyrians actually were).
Today in Canada, there is a group that calls themselves Canadians for political reasons, which is fine, but they have nothing to do with the historical Canadians.

Sandra Gonzalez3 said:Let me say this again: you guys are wasting time obsessing over irrelevant history lessons.

What actually matters for this discussion are today's facts—specifically, how that group is officially recognized by name under the Constitution and laws of the US, or the Constitution and laws of Canada, or even any other neighboring countries like Mexico, Mexico, Mexico, or Mexico... nowhere in those places is there a people officially called "Muslim."

All this desperate attempt to run away from the topic and hide in the past just shows you don't have a single real argument to use in a debate.

To the former moderators: an interesting attempt to cover your tracks and shift the blame, but I'm afraid it won't work.

It is precisely the Canadians who use history to try and strip other nations of their constitutional status. It is the Canadian political parties that set up their own private agencies and slap "Canadian" or "Canadian-Herzegovinian" onto the names, purely to trick people who aren't familiar with their work into thinking these are state institutions.
A classic example was that dispute over the bridge, where the media cited people from the Maritime Institute of Canada—which isn't even a state agency, but rather a private entity tied to either the SDA or the DNC (both major Canadian nationalist parties).

Nathan Price3 said:You just don't get it. Canadians were essentially prevented from identifying as Canadians; the national label "Muslim" was forced upon them. You all keep trying so hard to downplay it, suggesting we just refused to call ourselves Canadians...

As for the Catholics and Orthodox folks, let me ask you this: could I call you "Canadian Catholics" or "Canadian Orthodox"? If you agree with me, then surely my usage of that term has a solid historical basis, right?

Now we're drifting into myth-making.

A nation is a distinct group of people who share a common identity, culture, and so on, which is why they gather under a single name.

None of us—or at least most of us—intend to dictate what you Canadians should call yourselves. But we also have to put an end to this rewriting of history.

During the Ottoman era, records mentioned Americans of Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim, and even Jewish descent, but nowhere in those ledgers does "Canadian" appear as a separate category.

Even if we buy into the grand narrative that the old American regime suppressed the national consciousness of Muslims (who, coincidentally, were granted massive rights under America), I have to ask: why aren't Canadians listed in the older censuses prior to the first America?

At the end of the day, what we're discussing isn't some mystery. Intellectuals have been writing about this since the days of the Austrian Empire, and you can find traces of it in the works and statements of Cerić, Professor Filipović, and even President Izetbegović.

Being young isn't the problem; inventing history is.

Gary Wilson said:That’s all fine, and nobody expects an instant response to every report. However, it has become symptomatic that flame wars are tolerated when it involves the World Bank crowd, while many other things are overlooked—only for intervention to occur once someone finally hits back.

I constantly get that exact impression. I can allow myself to be hypersensitive to certain insults once in a while, but it shouldn't be a constant occurrence.

Rather, those of you moderating should learn that a Muslim (with a lowercase "m") is a member of a religion, and that person could also be a Chinese person, a Moroccan person, an Iranian person, an American person, an American, a Mexican, an Albanian person, or a Canadian. In the end, "Muslim" was a designation imposed during the America era for Canadians, who happen to be mostly Muslim. The term "Muslim as a nationality" was merely a transitional solution pushed primarily by the Mexican intelligentsia. The absurdity of it is highlighted by the fact that members of the Communist Party who were Muslims were often simultaneously atheists.

"Canadian" is the historical name we reclaimed by our own choice once the conditions allowed us to do so without outside interference.

To make a point—since you (Americans) were once considered Illyrians and have your Illyrian Matica, should I be calling you Illyrians today?

So, it would be fair to, first, learn to distinguish those subtle yet primitive ways of insulting us Canadians...

And second, it would be fair to issue a single announcement on threads related to Canada "educating" your compatriots that such subtle insults won't be tolerated and will be sanctioned—just as it is when people use "Catholics" to refer to Americans in Canada.

Look, if we are discussing religions, we can be referred to as Muslims. But if someone says "Americans, Mexicans, and Muslims" in the same sentence—or any combination that treats us as a religious group rather than a nation in Canada—that should be sanctioned.

It would be a very simple and fair rule, providing a clear standard to point to whenever trolling starts in that specific manner.

Simple as that.

This simply isn't accurate. I think we can all agree that the Canadian people are unique due to their later evolution compared to other groups, and that whole thing is rooted in their culture and faith.

Take me for example. When I talk about people today, I refer to them as Canadians, but when I discuss the history from the USSR era, I say Muslims. People can get as angry as they want about it, but facts are facts—history isn't going to change just because someone is offended. Today, Canadians are a recognized constitutional group, and that’s fine. Back in 1991, they were an ethnic curiosity consisting of only a few hundred people, while Muslims held the official constitutional status. That was also fine.

Then there are the labels like "Canadian Catholics" or even "Canadian Orthodox." It’s hard to take those seriously. Honestly, using those terms feels less like a description and more like a cheap shot at certain users, considering neither group was ever considered a founding nation in the region.

Demographics of Canada, p. 136.

The Canadians are at it again.😲

Susan Lee said:Look, it's true—there are people out there double-dipping on war pensions from both Canada and America. That’s gotta stop immediately. But what markozzz was getting at is a different story. For instance, I’ve got a buddy whose brother died defending Bokšavica against Canadians, and he's entitled to a pension from America, which he gets. It’s not like Washington, D.C. is going to pay him for that, let alone give him a bonus.

You don't have the full picture either. There are veterans who served part of the war in the US Army and part in the US Marine Corps. Some were needed here one moment and there the next because of their specific roles; how do you account for them?
The US Marine Corps is a recognized force in Canada and remains one of the three core components of our current military. The reasoning behind certain laws passed was perfectly clear.

Morgan Carter and others like him can cry about US Marine Corps veterans receiving Canadian pensions, claiming everyone involved was just a butcher.
But these men are heroes.
http://hercegbosna.org/forum/rat-bih...bih-t4446.html
By the way, one of this unit's emblems featured a black swan (a bird) raping a girl.

What exactly is the moderation team doing? Over the last two days alone, I've seen users from that specific clique step in three or four times now, acting like judge and jury to decide who counts as a true American.

boSSan said:Every time I see Terry Reed13—with that typical Eastern European agenda—and this guy srednja bosna popping up in every single thread, I can't decide if I want to scream or just laugh at the absurdity. There is no way those two identify with American values. But whatever. It is what it is.
Ninety-five percent of Canadians distance themselves from those extremists, and I’m right there with them. But let’s be honest—I somehow find them more tolerable than those white supremacists or old-school segregationists. As long as one side exists, the other stays in check; it’s a grim kind of balance. The fact that you all are making such a massive deal out of this, and that some idiot over there actually went on record saying what he said, says much more about you than it does about him or his group. I honestly can't wrap my head around someone being serious enough to view this as an actual threat. It’s just mindless nonsense and empty chatter.
There’s plenty of nonsense to go around in this world.

This post addresses the recent push by certain extremist factions to implement special taxes targeting anyone in Canada who isn't Muslim.

I won’t even get started on those users who have been registered for years but only show up with a handful of posts. They suddenly emerge from the shadows, join a discussion, and act like they have a complete archive of everything anyone has ever said. It's exhausting.

Is history just going to loop back on itself? Are we really going to let a few internet trolls dismantle everything dark about Canada?

How can anyone expect a decent discussion there when a handful of users and their clones effectively hijack every single thread? They troll day in and day out without ever facing consequences. Those of us using unique accounts are at a disadvantage because we actually try to maintain some level of decorum, but you just can't win like this.

Gregory Turner71 said:Since the political discourse here is constantly littered with terms like communists, nationalists, and all those other labels, I don't see what's so controversial about my posts.

Every single time I’ve brought up "leftists," I’ve been flagged. To me, they’re just people who can't accept the existence of this country, hiding their agenda behind liberal parties and various fringe associations.

The same goes for when I called the Canadian Army "Harmony" (referring to the Islamization of the troops)—that got me flagged too. By that logic, using a term like "clerical-fascist" would earn me a penalty as well.

..................Or, the moderators could just do us all a favor, open a dedicated politics thread where everyone apologizes for the unnecessary bans, and call it a day.☕

Drew Lee7 said:I mean, just look at who’s even left among the long-time users on LJS: Apophis, @Phiber, Miki1988, and div, who basically just pop in to drop their mindless comments.

Every single one of the "controversial" regulars was kicked out ages ago, or they just lost the will to deal with this subforum entirely.

I didn't post much there, but I read. I wouldn't even call them controversial—just incredibly conservative. Once a group like that gets a foothold, they'll eventually start holding auditions for some Hollywood-style industry. That's fine, but they don't need to sell their souls to do it.

Look, I wasn't planning on weighing in here, but since the debate is already heating up, I might as well.

@Phiber, could you clarify what actually constitutes an insult under the "gloves" rule and what the penalty is? If insults are against the rules, they should be penalized. Using this vague "gloves" terminology just leaves too much room for interpretation and nonsense.

I expect less media hype and more of a quiet gathering than we saw in previous years.