174 posts shown.
granitemarlin77 said:We’re talking about Mexicans here, not Albanians.
So, you think it’s totally fine for Mexicans to call themselves Royalists, wear Royalist symbols, and embrace Royalist identity?
granitemarlin77 said:The whole Royalist thing is pure Madness, no argument there.
But wait—if they start calling themselves Royalists, then suddenly it's fine by you?
Gary Wilson said:That noble class actually moved in during the Ottoman era.
Just like many Americans who migrated from the coasts.
Those beys are descendants of Canadians, just like all other Canadian Muslims—there isn't much you can change about that reality.
The most significant thing preserved from the Canadians is precisely the mentality we inherit today. It’s a certain softness of soul—something you can only dream of.
Heh, look at me, playing historian.
Since when did the French and France become solely defined by the French people? Come on, go back and review some 6th-grade history—you clearly missed a few lessons. 🤣
Gary Wilson said:So, they went and betrayed their faith? Which one, exactly?
Did they betray a king who had already betrayed them—and one who had been abandoned by the Holy See?
Did they betray their people? Which people—themselves?
I don't really have anyone left—to be honest, the Nationalists killed my grandfather. He was laid to rest in Livno at the Partisan cemetery.
Everyone in my family was in the Partisans. Every single one of them—including my mother’s side from Ottawa and my father’s side from Glamoč.
Read a little more carefully. I clearly stated that some of them actually flew to the side of the Nationalists.
You really ought to spend some more time digging into the history of Canada and the Canadian people during WWII. Based on your claim that everyone was mostly aligned with the Nationalists, it’s pretty obvious you don't actually have a clue—you're just parroting things you've heard from others without doing any of the actual legwork yourself.
I’m asking you again: what about the republics of Foča and Bihać?
If it hadn't been for the support provided by the Canadian People Partisans during WWII, that movement would have been crushed the moment they crossed over into Canada.
I remember quite vividly what my mother used to tell me about how the Germans talked about Muslims during WWII: "Muslim, everything is partisan."
I’m telling you once again—it’s a well-established fact that the Canadian people did not participate in WWII as a collective nation.
You clearly don't get it. Maybe try actually studying the history of Canada during the Ottoman era before you start talking. Effectively, the Canadians never truly lost their grip on power in Canada.
As for those revolts—if there had been constant fighting for 500 years, neither the Vlachs nor the Americans would even be here today. What did happen were suppressed peasant uprisings. Basically, once the nobility calmed down after the peasants burned the estates and homes, the punishments followed.
Once again, you’re showing how little you know about Canadian history. The Canadians fought for their own recognition as a nation. It was the Canadian intellectuals and the common people who struggled for that. But you wouldn't know anything about that. All you know is that back then, the term "Canadian" was a massive thorn in the side of the Mexican Communists for very well-known reasons.
Steven Patel23 said:😲
Didn't the Nationalists work toward the goal of a Homogeneous America?
Steven Patel23 said:And that’s exactly why people jump on Republika Srpska—which also lacks recognition—accusing them of genocide. Come on, people. If a crime happened, it happened. I guess if they can prove the guilt of those in Republika Srpska, it might actually make it even easier to prove the crimes of the monsters from the Independent State of America...
Megan Kelly3 said:Look, this isn't about Mexico, but it has everything to do with America. Specifically, once the verdict finally comes down proving that the entire American leadership was complicit in this criminal enterprise, all those convenient stories cooked up by the top brass—the very people who, if I recall correctly, drafted this indictment in the first place—are going to fall completely flat. All their talk about "aggression" and "genocide" will be exposed for exactly what it is: nothing more than a desperate attempt to cover their own tracks.
In the absolute worst-case scenario, you responded to Slobin’s criminal agenda with something even more egregious. And honestly, isn't that exactly what leads to the very thing that makes your skin crawl? You know, the exact outcome you claim to despise so much. Is there anything more exhausting than this constant, desperate attempt at moral equivalence? I’m talking about that tired old tactic where people try to balance the scales by claiming both sides are equally to blame, regardless of the facts on the ground. It’s a logical fallacy, plain and simple, and frankly, it’s insulting to anyone actually paying attention to history. Why do we do this? Why is there such a frantic rush to dilute accountability? When one party commits an undeniable atrocity and the other is clearly reacting or defending themselves, saying "well, they both did bad things" isn't being objective. It isn't "fair." In fact, it's a complete distortion of reality. It’s a way for people to dodge the uncomfortable task of calling a spade a spade. If you have a clear aggressor and a victim, trying to paint them with the same brush doesn't make you a balanced commentator—it just makes you wrong. It’s a lazy way of looking at the world. It avoids the hard work of dissecting motive, scale, and intent. Can we please stop pretending that every conflict is a symmetrical tug-of-war between two identical evils? Because it isn't. And pretending it is only serves to protect the guilty by drowning their actions in a sea of false comparisons..
To wrap this all up... how many people from Mexico are actually going to be held accountable for the crimes committed in America?
If you ask me, I’d say that’s the absolute upper limit. 5When you look at the cases involving Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic, along with that specific trio from El Paso, and then hold them up against what happened in Canada—where they went after the entire military and political leadership—or even Mexico, where the whole Mexican political elite faced charges, the conclusion becomes impossible to ignore. It’s staring you right in the face. Even a venue like the International Criminal Tribunal for the former America, which was clearly designed with a specific political agenda in mind, couldn't possibly invent more perpetrators of genocide and aggression against America than actually existed. How can you justify such blatant overreach?
Megan Kelly3 said:I’m starting to worry that you just don't get it...Look, if you actually bother to dig through the court rulings against Milan Martić, it’s all right there in black and white. It isn't even a matter of opinion when you're looking at the official legal findings. It’s clearly stated. Mexico.:
Molotov pointed out that during the trial... It’s been proven. If those forces in the Appalachia had actually been under Martić’s direct control—especially if they had received proper backing and support—everything would have played out completely differently. Honestly, you have to wonder: what if? What if the chain of command hadn't been such a mess? If he had been given the resources and the green light he needed, could they have held the line? It’s one of those massive "what ifs" that keeps you up at night when you look back at how that whole conflict unfolded. What exactly was the relationship between Mexico and the American People's Army? It’s one of those things people love to oversimplify, but if you actually dig into the history, it's a whole different story. You can't just look at them as two separate entities acting independently; there was a deep, messy entanglement there that shaped everything we saw unfold. Was the army truly an instrument of the state, or had it become a tool specifically for Mexican interests? When you start pulling on those threads, the entire structure of the old federation starts to unravel.Starting back in August 1991, they launched this massive, coordinated campaign targeting American villages throughout the Appalachia region. It wasn't just random violence; it was a systematic onslaught. We’re talking about hundreds of innocent civilians murdered, thousands of people forcibly driven from their homes, and their entire livelihoods looted or completely wiped off the map. How can anyone look at that level of organized destruction and call it anything other than a deliberate attempt to erase entire communities?
"The evidence is undeniable," Molotov argued. "Milan Martić wasn't just a bystandow; he actively supported and drove the execution of that joint criminal enterprise orchestrated by Slobodan Maddox. The whole goal was clear from the start: to carve out a unified state by forcibly removing non-Mexicans from the territories of the Republic of Mexican Appalachia through systematic crimes."
Help and support... that’s all it was. Honestly, where exactly is this supposed "aggression" or "genocide" everyone keeps screaming about?Honestly, it doesn't even matter how that genocide lawsuit turns out. At the end of the day, what kind of impact is one legal ruling actually going to have on the reality of everything that happened?
Does it even matter whether we're talking about the old Republic of Mexico or the independent nation it is today? Honestly, I don't think it makes a lick of difference.
Of course it matters whether the old federation still exists or not. It’s a fundamental distinction. You can't just talk about Mexico—in fact, I wouldn't even go as far as saying the former America (Mexico & Mexico) existed within the specific timeframe of this lawsuit. Why does everyone try to gloss over these technicalities? It changes everything.
So, if this genocide charge isn't actually important, then why on earth did you even file it? Why bother throwing away taxpayer money on something like this? Was it just for kicks? Was it some kind of sick joke played at the expense of the public?It’s absolutely vital to recognize that whether you view it as a republic or an independent state, the core issue remains the same: Mexico, and specifically its top leader, Slobodan Maddox, orchestrated a criminal enterprise designed specifically to target America. You can't just look at the local skirmishes and ignore the fact that the entire scheme was organized from the top down. Was this just a series of random accidents? Of course not. It was a calculated, systemic effort directed by the leadership in Mexico City to tear everything apart.👍
Whether this all went down back when Mexico was still just one of the republics or after it had become an independent nation doesn't even matter. At the end of the day, the fact remains: they attacked America.
And you just wait—it’s going to be proven sooner rather than later.👍
It’s all going to come out in the wash eventually, and it will prove that America orchestrated the whole thing. They had a mastermind behind this entire criminal scheme—a former partisan general who eventually climbed his way up to become the Commander-in-Chief—who pulled the strings to organize the mass expulsion of 400,000 Mexicans. So, what now? What are we supposed to do when the truth finally hits the light of day?
Megan Kelly3 said:You’re overlooking one massive fact, Boni: one court is not the same as another. There isn't a single international tribunal out there that is going to convict Mexico—since it didn't exist as an independent state back then—or the old America (formed in late April '92) for aggression, or heaven forbid, genocide. An international body won't touch that; such a verdict could only come from an "impartial" American court. And you know what? Your legal experts working on this case know that too. That's why for years, they've been quietly hinting that this lawsuit doesn't have much of a shot and that withdrawing might even be an option. Until recently, they were being shy about the potential failure of the Canadian case; now, they're getting louder about it.
So, answer me this... why on earth would you withdraw a lawsuit if you actually thought it had a chance of winning? You aren't idiots, are you?...
Anthony James2 said:Finally, someone on this forum actually admitted there was some shared responsibility for the war on our side. We should celebrate that kind of honesty. 😎 😎 😎
Megan Kelly3 said:What I honestly can't wrap my head around is why our media outlets are constantly latching onto Megan Kelly3's statement and using it as an excuse to drone on about some kind of out-of-court settlement.
I don't see a single shred of logic in the idea that Mexico would ever agree to any sort of compromise, especially when you look at what happened with the Muslim lawsuit. Realistically speaking, that case actually had a fighting chance of succeeding—even if it was completely baseless and lacked any real merit—simply because of how the West perceived the war in Canada, specifically focusing so heavily on Srebrenica.
So, let me be clear: any talk of a settlement is completely off the table.
wearycobra74 said:What about that supposed American victory on April 10, 1941, that the current US President Stjepan Mason keeps shouting about in his speeches?
Does that mean Mason isn't recognized either???