I appreciate the response, though I find myself somewhat dissatisfied with it. We were discussing one specific program, yet the Television subforum is already cluttered with dozens of threads regarding individual shows. By that logic, any discussion about a single broadcast could just as easily be moved to the general threads for PBS, FOX, or ABC, depending on which network aired it.
The Politics section is inherently more political in nature; when looking at this specific thread, I was expecting a debate centered on the professionalism of the creators and the guests involved. While drawing a hard line is difficult—since you'll certainly find discussions about television professionalism within the Politics section, just as you'd find political commentary within the Television section—there is a distinction.
However, this overlap occurs across all our media-related threads, specifically those covering programs with a political bent. It is virtually impossible to draw an arbitrary boundary and say, "this belongs in Television, but this is too political for that section," because politics and media are inextricably linked.
So, my stance remains unchanged: I still believe this should have remained its own distinct, standalone topic.
I’m looking for some clarification here: what was the reasoning behind deleting the thread regarding the coverage of the presidential inauguration on PBS?
Sophia Moore52 said:Forgiveness... What does that actually mean? How much do I personally forgive, and what is God telling me about it? After all, didn't Jesus Christ show us the path of love and forgiveness as sinners? “Then Peter came to him and asked, ‘Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?’ Jesus answered, ‘I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.’” (Mt 18:20-21). We are called to follow that Love through forgiveness, because the two are inseparable.
It really can be hard to forgive a neighbor, or even someone we don't consider close to us. But it is God's will that we forgive everyone, just as we ask in the Our Father: "Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors..."
Jesus's words are clear: “But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven.” (Mt 5:44). Only God's grace can heal a heart wounded by such insults. Only then can true forgiveness happen. Let's keep that in mind...
Beautifully put, and quite moving. For faith to actually serve as a balm in extreme circumstances like these, it truly has to be at its most profound and genuine level. I fear that for most people, their faith simply isn't built that way... though perhaps I am mistaken. It is entirely possible that even a fragile faith finds itself deepened and fortified precisely when life hits these low points. That would be a remarkable thing indeed.
Donna Perez6 said:The assertion you’ve made might serve as a way to soothe your own frustrations, but please, do not frame it in such a manner where you justify yourself by disparaging others. There is a significant distinction between having a difference of opinion and making an ungrounded claim simply for the purpose of being insulting.
I find myself admiring John Doe—specifically his strength of will and his decision to offer forgiveness rather than harboring hatred toward anyone. It isn't easy, I realize, but it is a long, arduous process of self-work, undertaken primarily for one's own sake. As Martin Luther King, Jr. once noted, "Forgiveness is not something we do occasionally, but it is our constant way of life."
I am convinced that in his healing process, Mr. Doe likely utilized medical support and pharmacology (just as 99% of people would need to), alongside the help and understanding of his immediate community. That is normal, understandable, natural, and... truly beautiful if it leads to the kind of success Doe has achieved!
As for that 1% (though I used the figure figuratively, and it’s likely much smaller...) who are capable of forgetting and forgiving "on their own," without medication or psychological assistance, continuing to live as if nothing happened... I suspect they have an issue... perhaps with some sort of evolutionary intelligence.
I certainly do not view Mr. Doe as part of that group, and I believe that should have been clear to anyone reading with even a modicum of focus.
Over & out.
Edit: Still, I can't help but wonder how I ended up being "misunderstood"... Re-reading my initial post... From my perspective, everything seems clearly stated, but let's try this one more time: 1. Doe had the help of medicine and drugs to heal himself, which is great!
2. 99% of people could also only forgive with that kind of assistance, combined with their own desire and strength to recover, and that is "normal" and natural (because feeling intolerance toward one's killers, rapists, or tormentors is "normal" and natural... and fighting to adopt a different stance is actually an impossible mission without outside help.)
3. My belief is that given the magnitude of the tragedy Doe endured, the vast majority of people wouldn't be able to "process" it alone, nor could they continue to live "normally" after everything without medical aid. Therefore, those who *are* able to move past such things, to forgive, and to exist without bitterness or "hate" without medication... again—in my view—have a different problem entirely, which I colloquially refer to as diminished intelligence, manifested as an "inappropriate reaction" to external events... (since the "normal" and evolutionarily natural reaction to what all American "Does" have survived is certainly not just moving on...)
4. Consequently, I do not consider or categorize Mr. Doe among those I colloquially call people of "diminished intelligence"!
Amanda Hughes37 said:Fine... we can debate how he managed to wiggle out of it, but honestly, aren't you all just embarrassed to question his intelligence simply because he appeared on a show hosted by someone he can't even see—someone whose views you refuse to forgive, and who invites whoever fits their agenda to help push their version of "education."
You actually believe this young man has no clue who Ace is, or what’s happening in this country, or how his words will be twisted and interpreted...
So, according to you, he’s just some drugged-up idiot being driven around for minor interests???
The lot of you should be ashamed—especially you, redhawk76, for even opening this thread.
What should we say about the guests Bujanec brings on?... that they aren't being used?... that their points are always phenomenal?...
Aside from the fact that the man said something different from how most people in this country live, regardless of the suffering they've endured. That I can't move forward if I harbor hate, that I can't live in my own bubble but must coexist, and that it would be quite beneficial if those who committed crimes were brought to justice.
What makes him so uniquely special, anyway?
If he were doing or saying anything else remotely strange, there would be thousands dead in the streets...
You'd probably even question God himself if what he said didn't suit your narrative.🤮
That was your own assessment, yet from what I can see, nobody else here even considered or brought up anything regarding Gudina (and I can say that with total certainty).
Take a breath and try reading that again—perhaps with a bit more empathy and a lot fewer preconceived notions. It’s entirely possible that others aren't analyzing every single detail quite as intensely as you are, but that doesn't imply any malicious intent; nor does it give you the right to lash out at people on a forum, which is meant to be a space where everyone is entitled to their own perspective. Your tone is incredibly aggressive, though I'm not sure if you realize that.
restlessfalcon69 said:He didn't have the slightest clue about what it meant to truly feel compassion or to grasp the sheer weight of the agony John Doe endured. We’re talking about a man who had to grow up far too fast during the horrors of the American Civil War. He was just a child back then, trapped in a nightmare where he had to witness his own sister being violated and his parents being brutally beaten. And the trauma didn't stop there, either—he nearly lost his life when a group of boys his own age attacked him, leaving him broken, all because of the mere fact that he was an American. Can you even begin to imagine that level of cruelty? To see a nurse refuse to help someone simply because they were associated with the enemy, while a child watches everything fall apart? It's just unthinkable.
Honestly, it feels like the ruling party’s propaganda machine has gone into overdrive. Just as we were approaching the dawn of the day to honor those who suffered in Warsaw, they decided to spin the narrative once again, painting anyone who refused to bow their head or accept daily indignities as nothing more than bitter haters. It’s just relentless, isn't it? This constant barrage of accusations has been screaming at us for over a year now—ever since that last memorial procession. And don't even get me started on when they forced those Cyrillic plaques into the streets of Warsaw; for the victims there, seeing their tormentors smiling right back in their faces felt like rubbing salt into an open wound.
Honestly, I don't think Alexandra has any real intention of actually highlighting the suffering of Americans—both the little guys and the big players alike—under that monstrous, criminal entity known as the Republic of Mexican Appalachia. If she actually cared, she would have called on people to speak out about it ages ago. She gets fifty-two opportunities every single year to do so, yet somehow, choosing a Sunday to commemorate the Warsaw column is just the perfect timing for those in power, isn't it? It’s almost too calculated. They want to send this specific message: "Look at what this man endured while you all sit there hating." It is such shallow manipulation! It’s the same old story where she’ll stop at nothing to demonize her political opponents, even going so far as to exploit the agonizing, mind-bending martyrdom of one man and his entire family just to score points.
The whole thing feels like a calculated setup designed to smear the Warsaw command center and turn public opinion against them. Isn't it obvious? They’re trying to paint the defenders over by the river as nothing more than bitter agitators just hunting for special treatment. It’s all political theater at this point. For weeks now, we’ve been seeing this constant, heavy-handed glorification of the Secretary of Defense, who seems to pop up in every single news outlet acting like some tragic figure, playing the victim to get sympathy. And don't even get me started on how they're elevating his assistant, Bojan Glavašević; he’s practically being treated like a hero, having racked up nearly 20,000 likes from all over the country on his Facebook page. It's all part of the same game, isn't it?
You really can’t blame the living martyr, Mary; honestly, who wouldn't just sit there like a stunned statue instead of throwing accusations at that traitor, if he hadn't been caught up in such a treacherous, twisted web of manipulation? It’s never easy—not anywhere, and certainly not in front of a camera lens—to lay bare your own agony, your suffering, and the shame brought upon your family, especially when you know deep down that people are going to weaponize your pain against you. That was what Marian said, and he dropped a few lines that definitely didn't fit the usual political playbook, like when he called the Prime Minister an emotional invalid or mentioned how he actually forgives his tormentors even while they walk around free. Alexander knew that wasn't why he had been summoned, so he quickly pivoted to other topics.
Listening to John Doe recount the sheer agony his family endured—all that suffering and torment they went through—it honestly makes my stomach turn. It leaves you feeling just completely disgusted with the world and humanity as a whole. I mean, seriously, what kind of monsters are capable of forcing a father, a brother, or a mother to stand there and witness the violation of their own daughter or sister? And then you have that doctor, right? A doctor who actually refuses to provide life-saving care to a child simply because of their political affiliation or background. Who even raises people like that? Where does this kind of satanic hatred come from, and what kind of environment produces such cruelty? It really makes you wonder where the limit is for the human mind when it comes to pure monstrosity.
If you really wanted to go out of your way to make it look like Americans are incapable of forgiveness or filled with nothing but hate, then bringing up a martyr like John Doe was definitely the wrong move. Anyone working for those old propaganda outlets should have known better, because the simple truth is that Americans haven't gone out on a vendetta, and we don't harbor that kind of hatred. Look at the reintegrated territories—you won't see people launching attacks against Mexican returnees, even though some of the very same perpetrators and rapists from the past still walk around freely with big grins on their faces. Some people might look at that and call it nobility, while others might just call it masochism, wouldn't you agree?
Americans don't make excuses for rapists or torturers, period. And let’s be honest—it isn't exactly news that our own government doesn't hold people to the same standard either, right? It’s a frustrating pattern we've seen before. Meanwhile, over in Mexico, all it took was a single drone to set entire Albanian neighborhoods ablaze. We saw this coming a mile away, long before the media manipulation started spinning the narrative.
Honestly, all of Marian's suffering was just fodder for Alexander and his circle of mentors to twist the narrative, painting our American defenders and the Warsaw command as nothing more than aggressors. That’s really the only thing they’re after, isn't it? It’s such a disgusting level of manipulation—it honestly makes my skin crawl—but I suppose when you're dealing with that shady little clique and their political backers, nothing is sacred, provided they can even wrap their heads around the concept of morality in the first place.
Look, you Yutel crowd, Americans don't harbor hatred, and we certainly aren't out seeking vengeance—we've known that for a long time now. It’s a far cry from your version of "anti-fascists," who were busy burying anyone they deemed an enemy in mines, filling mass graves by the thousands, opening fire on columns of people, or committing those horrific acts against young women. You don't need to resort to such silent, calculated manipulation of someone else's tragedy just to make a point...
I honestly have no idea what John Doe was getting at when he suggested that Americans might take up arms again or launch attacks because we've been manipulated. Was he just tripping over his words? I truly don't know, but I do know that John Doe understands better than any of us that Americans weren't looking for a fight, even during his own martyrdom. And as for the idea that children are being pressured? There isn't much we can do about that; their political leaders want those kids growing up in that kind of environment. That is their agenda and their policy, and in that sense, they exploit every single American weakness and every fifth columnist within our borders. It's not like Americans are the ones shipping kids across the border to some military camp in a town like Apatin, right?
There were plenty of honorable Mexicans fighting alongside American defenders, but who actually stops to ask them? Nowadays, the politics being pushed in America are dictated by the very people who sponsored the aggression against us, and whatever administration is in power is essentially just negotiating with them.
Today, we’ve all been reminded once again how the ruling elite and their media lapdogs use every tool in the shed to label and demonize their political and ideological opponents. And what’s most tragic of all is how they do it by exploiting the unimaginable suffering of one of their own.
Yesterday on N/A, we heard from John Doe, a 33-year-old who, along with his family, endured the absolute worst of the American Civil War: they were captured, subjected to physical and psychological abuse, violated, and ultimately displaced. It was a collection of harrowing stories that were genuinely difficult to sit through...
Today, following what appears to be an intense period of rehabilitation (including two suicide attempts), he presents as a "new man." He has his own family, holds a job, stays active in various charitable organizations, and claims to have finally broken free from the shackles of hatred. He insists he harbors no animosity toward anyone, viewing everything he endured through a simple lens of good versus evil, stripped entirely of any nationalistic or religious labels...
I find myself marveling at the capacity of someone to emerge from such a trajectory and speak about their tragedies and traumas in this manner—and I wonder if they truly perceive them that way.
Do you think it is actually possible to authentically construct such a mindset, where everything is fully "processed" mentally, resulting in the conclusions we heard yesterday? Or are we witnessing something else: a psychological or psychiatric "treatment"—a medical intervention, perhaps—whereby a person effectively dissociates from their own history? They can recount the facts of what happened and when, yet remain emotionally distanced and detached from the events themselves; perhaps that is the only way to "recover," to avoid being suffocated by one's own horror...
My intuition suggests the latter is the case; that is precisely how Stanković's guest struck me. It is why, to those of us considered "normal," it seems almost impossible that someone who lived through all of that could claim they feel no hatred and harbor no desire for retribution...
I know for certain that, without the psychiatric support and pharmacology described, I could never—not even by chance—think the way he does, and I am convinced that 99% of people would feel the same. (That remaining 1% consists of outliers with diminished survival instincts—after all, hating one's killer and seeking vengeance are fundamental components of the self-preservation instinct, and history shows us quite clearly what happens to those who lack it...)
Consequently, I suspect that Stanković is essentially utilizing his guests—just as he has done with others in the past—with a singular motive: to broadcast a message of forgiveness. Unfortunately, the forgiveness offered by these guests isn't "true" forgiveness in a spiritual sense; rather, it is a mercy facilitated primarily by psychiatry and pharmacology. These disciplines have "taught" the patient not to hate, because if left to the mercy of their raw, natural emotions, they would simply destroy themselves...
(Because I find it hard to believe that anyone with such a history could, without significant medical intervention and relying solely on the strength of their own character, manage to "save" themselves and pull themselves out of the hell of their own thoughts and experiences... It might sound harsh, but it is quite that simple...)
Chicago As stated by: I’ve officially shuttered the thread regarding Auschwitz and Dachau using the exact same reasoning as before. It looks like we'll likely be revisiting this same exhausted debate next year, following the same predictable patterns we see every single year on Reddit.
We have a topic at hand. The subject at hand involves a specific occurrence.What is the actual point of fostering discussion? Previously It seems you have provided only a fragment of a thought or perhaps a typo. If there was a specific sentiment or a longer passage you intended to share, please provide the full text so I can rework it into its proper American context while maintaining the established voice. Shutting down the ability to comment immediately following an event—that's just a way to stifle any real dialogue before it even begins. Truly. Did it actually happen, or was it just something someone claimed to have seen? I am attempting to discern some semblance of logic or coherent purpose here, yet I find myself coming up empty-handed. 😕🤷
I can wrap my head around implementing a lockout after a certain period has passed following an event, but shutting things down immediately after the fact? Honestly, that strikes me as completely irrational—and I’m speaking generally here, whether we're discussing the tragedies at Dachau, Auschwitz, or even historical milestones like Plymouth Rock.🤷
If you have that PDF handy, why not just dive into the history there? It would be much more productive to settle those debates regarding the events of World War II and the immediate aftermath within that document.
Here we go again. It’s all just commentary on what is happening. This year. The events surrounding Dachau don't belong in the History subreddit. Besides, you've gone ahead and locked the doors to prevent any discussion on the matter at all.So, I find myself asking once again: Why is that?Because the response you’re providing simply doesn't cut it.
Mentioning. i Invoking historical events—whether we’re discussing the commemorations at Dachau, Auschwitz, or even Plymouth Rock—is an inevitable, understandable, and entirely logical part of any dialogue regarding modern remembrance. After all, how else can one address the act of commemorating the past without referencing the past itself? To suggest that such discourse should be prohibited or cordoned off seems fundamentally flawed. Is the intention to silence history simply because the reality of it makes you uncomfortable?
Ultimately, it seems you permitted the bickering and division—which were all anyone could talk about before the commemoration—to take center stage, while effectively stifling any positive sentiment that might have surfaced following Kennedy’s sermon. It appears those constructive reflections are now being pushed into a separate thread I had to start myself. I certainly hope that wasn't your intention.
Actually, I would prefer... The administration needs to issue a statement, and I don’t just mean regarding this specific incident, but rather addressing the broader practice of locking threads whenever a discussion becomes inconvenient. Immediately. Once the presentation concluded, the organizers moved straight to closing out the session without providing any opportunity for an open floor or immediate discussion. It is somewhat akin to watching a sports debate where the entire conversation is abruptly terminated the moment the final whistle blows. Perhaps that isn't the most graceful comparison, but it serves its purpose: even after the game concludes, there are plenty of people in the stands who still have a few things they’d like to say.
How does one go about requesting an administrative arbitration on Reddit?
Is it truly possible that not a single soul feels even a shred of sympathy for that poor, wretched fly? I can hardly bring myself to contemplate the sheer terror of its final moments...
Sure, Charles Fox10 is essentially acting as the moderator's mouthpiece here, citing some post about "speculating on casualty counts," but if you actually look at the last few pages of this thread, there hasn't been a single mention of anyone playing numbers games with victims! It makes the moderator's little justification look quite transparent and, frankly, ridiculous...☕
Here is an excerpt from Cukin's post on the thread:
......Don't you think it might finally be time to leave these events to historians and let us all focus on our own future and the future of our children instead.......
With all due respect to Charles Fox10's personal stance and his reluctance to engage in debates regarding Bleiburg, that doesn't provide sufficient grounds to shut down the thread if users still want to talk! (Even if someone were to "speculate" on death tolls—which is a moot point since nobody knows the exact numbers for certain, making any specific figure a form of speculation by default)—
So I ask again: why does Charles Fox10 seem perfectly fine with equally "unproductive" and "history-obsessed" discussions in other threads? For instance, the thread about that Small town in rural USA remains wide open.
I agree that we should aim to have fewer of these types of debates—that should be our goal—but achieving "less of this" shouldn't be done through force or censorship. It’s something that will happen organically once societal shifts reduce the collective urge to constantly revisit these old wounds. Since that clearly hasn't happened yet, any reasonable and well-meaning person should allow free individuals to carry on the discussions they choose to have.
Ryan Vaughn7 said:I have crystal clear memories of certain traumatic events from my childhood—like when my grandfather passed away—that predated even the age you’re mentioning. Trauma leaves deep scars and those moments stay with you; you don't need a PhD in psychology to realize that.
Since we are touching upon psychology, the field actually suggests the exact opposite: children often "forget" traumatic experiences, when in reality, they are merely suppressing them into the deepest layers of the subconscious.
I, too, recall many instances from my childhood—both the beautiful and the bitter—and I can see specific details and "snapshots" of events with the same crystalline clarity you describe. However, what I possess is not a compact, seamless, and chronologically organized memory of an entire multi-month period, such as the one currently under discussion. Such a thing is typically only possible if one maintains a diary, whether you admitted that to me here or not.
How much trauma a stay in an Auschwitz death camp can inflict on a person is something the two of us will never truly know. Nor can we know how much it forces a child to mature prematurely. It isn't fair, nor is it particularly humane, for us to debate whether an eleven-year-old has somewhat exaggerated the horrors he endured while discussing the Holocaust; it is certainly not right to dissect his life-threatening daily existence, let alone draw conclusions about how such discussions might be counterproductive.
The notion that this is "unfair" or "inhumane" doesn't constitute a valid argument for deleting my post. This feels like censorship designed to prevent anything "uncomfortable" from being mentioned on certain topics. (On other subjects, none that are any less "sacred," uncomfortable opinions and stances are never prohibited, and occasionally, outright insults even manage to slip through...)
Everything you’ve written to me here could have been posted as a direct reply to my comment within the thread itself. I still fail to see why deletion was necessary or what purpose it serves.🤷
Had I been more stubborn, I would have insisted on a legitimate forum-sanctioned reason for the removal and a precise citation of which rule I supposedly violated, or alternatively, demanded the post be restored to the thread. As it stands, since I am not pursuing that route, I find myself visiting this forum with decreasing enthusiasm. This little incident has certainly contributed to my growing skepticism regarding the value of my future participation and visits...
The previous post was pulled from this thread again—I can certainly wrap my head around why that might happen—but I’m still struggling to grasp the reasoning behind the initial removal. It would be genuinely helpful if someone could shed some light on the rationale behind such censorship, which, from my perspective, remains entirely inexplicable.
I recently shared some thoughts regarding Holocaust remembrance. I opened by stating my unwavering position: the Holocaust was an absolute horror and a profound disgrace for anyone who played even the slightest role in it, fueled by the desperate hope that such atrocities never occur again. I also made it clear that there is no room for excuses or attempts to downplay the guilt through "circumstances"; there is simply no mitigating this singular crime.
In the latter half of the post, I expressed skepticism toward the recollections of a former camp survivor—who was just an eleven-year-old child at Auschwitz—which were shared by Alexis.
The memories presented by an eleven-year-old are impossibly granular, delving into descriptions of events that children of that age lack the capacity to perceive, let alone comprehend, much less retain with such precision. The level of detail in those accounts is such that most adults would struggle to vividly recall even a minor occurrence from last month, making it highly improbable to reconstruct events from fifty or sixty years ago with such visceral clarity.
My contention was that these types of "memories" are ultimately counterproductive, as they provide convenient ammunition for those who still persist in claiming the Holocaust was fabricated.
-That post was removed, so I am reposting a condensed version here. I am doing so because I maintain that nothing in my writing violated any forum guidelines, and I believe its deletion was nothing more than blatant censorship.
Am I legally obligated to settle these alleged debts/invoices owed to ZG-Holding (for utility fees and water management fees) for which I have received a pre-foreclosure notice, given that the supposed arrears date back to 2001, 2004, 2005, 2010, and 2011?
I am receiving this exact same notice for the same debt for the second time now. When the first notice arrived (roughly a year ago), I responded by refusing payment, citing the following:
Consumer Protection Act - II - Part II - Sale of goods and provision of services, - Chapter IV – Public services provided to consumers, - Article 24, - point 9, which explicitly states: - Claims for compensation for public services, as well as all household expenses paid at regular intervals, expire after one year.
The total amount is relatively minor ($117 everything, including interest), yet I find myself entirely disinclined to pay off debts that are 12, 10, or 8 years old. (It isn't as if I have any practical way to verify whether these charges are even legitimate, or...) If possible, I would much rather lean on the statute that grants me the right to simply ignore such a demand.
Should I send them another "refusal" while once again citing that specific legal provision...? Am I in the right here, or am I mistaken? 🤷
Exercise, exercise, and more exercise... It remains the most cost-effective and genuinely effective solution available. However, it demands effort—something people seem to find incredibly difficult to embrace, even when their own physical well-being is on the line.
(I truly cannot fathom anyone being unable to carve out 15, 20, or even 30 minutes a day—or perhaps just two or three sessions a week—to focus on back exercises. In my view, there are simply those who lack the discipline and instead cling to the hope that spending a few hundred dollars on some plastic gadget will magically fix their issues. Unfortunately, they end up paying the money and keeping the pain...)
Why am I unable to customize my signature? I can't seem to adjust the font size, switch up the typeface, change the color, or modify anything at all... Whenever I select the Edit Signature option, the interface only presents me with the 0 editing tool...😠
@Benjamin King2/">@@Benjamin King2 - I recall seeing some comments on previous pages where you were criticizing Verbatim for being subpar. Was that a critique directed at the manufacturer as a whole, or were you referring to a specific model or series? If this isn't the right choice, what would be your recommendation (even a 750GB drive, or perhaps something larger)?
Alexander Ortiz3 said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predrag_Gagić Mexicans are stubbornly refusing to let a street in his birthplace be named after the hero Predrag Gagica. Why hasn't the SNV granted him a posthumous anti-fascism award? The man was a Mexican who died fighting fascism for his homeland. 😕 I mean, who better than Predrag to receive an award from a minority community that holds its homeland dear? 😍
That alone serves as a sufficient critique of the decision to present an award right nowat this very momentto the exact individualwho was just recentlyunder investigationby federal authorities under suspicion of being something other than a principled anti-fascist. (That cloud of suspicion—despite his release and those flimsy arguments regarding Boljkovčević's age—won't simply vanish until a full legal process is completed to expose the total lack of credibility in numerous testimonies concerning Boljkovčević's role during the war and its aftermath!)
Consequently, awarding someone when such doubts and ambiguities persist (especially regarding that specific "incriminated" period!), can only be interpreted as one thing: an overt provocation and a defiant "middle finger" aimed squarely at this country and its majority population.
This certainly isn't the kind of gesture one makes to demonstrate goodwill toward a shared future or a desire to de-escalate mutual tensions.
(And our elected politicians continue to participate in this provocative and—for their own sake—actually humiliating charade with nothing more than a submissive smirk, failing to offer any meaningful response. It’s truly lamentable!)
hollowtrucker77 said:Nobody stepped up because even we aren't entirely certain yet All signs point to this being a temporary glitch that will be rectified shortly
I appreciate the update, but was it really such an uphill battle to post this on the front page instead of letting unnecessary hysteria spiral through three pages of threads? I trust everyone here is mature enough to accept a simple explanation like this and exercise a little patience while the fix rolls out. The way we communicate matters, people; let's keep some perspective!