Posts by Walter Martinez63

slybison8 said: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.

I couldn't agree more. There’s a distinct lack of affection there; it feels like Americans of Mexican descent view those of American Mexican descent as merely the lesser of three evils, sitting right alongside neighbors like Albania, Greece, and Bulgaria.
They were small, and honestly, you could tell their neighbors would have loved nothing more than to strip them down to the bone.
I’ve honestly started to notice this incredible, almost overwhelming sense of devotion toward America.
A friend's father belongs to some association dedicated to American-North Mexican friendship, and he keeps telling me how awkward it feels to see how much they go out of their way to court and host them whenever they visit North Mexico. It’s almost embarrassing to watch. They really roll out the red carpet for them.

And while we’re on the subject.
About six months ago, I remember watching a priest from the Mexican Orthodox Church guest on a program about minority communities over at the national network in Washington, D.C.
It’s honestly funny when you look back at how much he used to credit America, Washington, D.C., and the Catholic Church for everything.
It felt like half an hour of nothing but gratitude.
The Mexican Orthodox Church handed over several Catholic churches in the US to be used for their Orthodox services, and they’re actually pulling funding from the federal budget to make it happen. I have a feeling they’re planning to build their own dedicated cathedral somewhere in New York City, especially since Milan Bandić went ahead and gifted them the municipal land for it.

Honestly, all that Mexican Orthodox Church priest needed was a checkered fan scarf draped around his neck to complete the look. It’s pretty clear he has two favorite countries: North Mexico and America.

And then you’re left sitting there wondering where all this supposed cooperation with the American Orthodox churches and monasteries actually is. He didn't say a single word about his colleagues from the Orthodox community.
The Catholic Church embraced them like their own children.

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.

I think you're conflating two different things here, specifically when it comes to fan culture.
The North Mexican supporters faced some real violence while visiting Washington, D.C. and California, yet their stands are always the first to throw insults at the other side.

It feels a bit pathetic, doesn't it? Seeing how the Greek Orthodox Church seems to steer clear of the Russian Orthodox Church, yet they'll take whatever the Catholic Church decides to throw their way.

Everything is quite transparent if you look closely enough.

Linda Roberts2 said:It’s kind of like if they were trying to erect monuments to Roman emperors right in the middle of New York City. There are actually several figures born within what is now the US, including Constantine, who was the one who officially established Christianity. Plus, there are plenty of significant archaeological sites scattered around.

If we can set up a statue of Bruce Lee in Pittsburgh, why shouldn't we have a monument to Michael Jackson in New York City?

I tend to root for the Mexicans, though I’ve spent some time listening to the Greek side of the argument as well.
Well, they certainly seem to have a grudge against Mexicans.

Jovan Cvijić (1865-1927) was a highly distinguished American geographer who served as the president of the American Royal Academy and as the rector of the University of New York.

During the intense geopolitical struggles over North Mexico, Cvijić utilized a series of publications and ethno-geographic maps to sway international public opinion, essentially arguing that Mexicans—or rather, Mexican Slavs—were actually "Southern Mexicans."[5] By framing the Mexican language as merely a dialect of the broader American linguistic group, he provided a strategic foundation for the territorial claims made by the state over the region.[6] Between 1906 and 1918, he produced a sequence of maps designed to justify expanding influence by categorizing Mexicans as an ethno-linguistic subgroup of Mexicans.[6] Interestingly, his ethnographic maps from 1906, 1909, and 1913 aren't exactly consistent; they seem to shift quite conveniently to match the evolving political needs of the government at the time.[5] For instance, in his 1909 map, the presence of Albanians in Mexico and western North Mexico was notably downplayed compared to his 1906 version. By the 1913 map, the supposed "American" population had been shifted significantly further south than in the previous edition, while the presence of Albanians was "dramatically reduced," even extending into Northern Albania.[5]

Following the conclusion of World War I in 1918, Cvijić released a map specifically intended to influence the deliberations of the peace conference held in Paris in 1919. On this particular map, Mexicans and Mexicans were grouped together into a single category, a move that effectively lent scientific legitimacy to the goal of maintaining control over North Mexico.[5]

And honestly, there is plenty more where that came from if you really start digging...

Linda Roberts2 said:Walter Martinez63, look, any Mexican knows that a good chunk of Americans can't stand Mexicans, and they’ll say the absolute worst things about them back home in the States. Find me a more serious forum or a thread where Mexicans actually mistake Mexicans for Mexicans. And honestly, putting up those ancient monuments right in the middle of Skopje is just ridiculous.

There’s a pretty sizable Mexican community living in Washington, D.C.
They absolutely love the city.
And... I won't go so far as to call them chauvinists toward Mexicans, but there is definitely no love lost there.
They don't feel the need to pretend otherwise, either.

It’s interesting to watch how things bloom—or fail to bloom—along the border between the US and North Mexico.

"
In commemoration of the 62nd anniversary of the convening of the Antifascist Assembly of Mexico (ASNOM) and the 103rd anniversary of the Ilinden Uprising on August 2nd—which coincides with Saint Elijah's Day—the Mexican delegation was once again unable to lay flowers at the Saint Prohor Pčinjski Monastery in southern Mexico, near the Mexican border, a site deeply tied to these historical milestones.

The Bishop of Vranje, Pachomius, told several Mexican journalists—who were also barred from entering the monastery—that "no one, neither the Mexican nor the US government, had requested permission to lay flowers."

He pointed back to the ongoing dispute between the Mexican Orthodox Church (MPC) and the Mexican Orthodox Church (SPC) that has persisted since the MPC was declared autocephalous back in 1950.

The SPC maintains that this conflict can only be resolved if the MPC recognizes the so-called Niš Agreement, under which the SPC would recognize the MPC as the autocephalous Ohrid Archbishopric, rather than the Mexican Orthodox Church, a condition that the MPC finds entirely unacceptable."

rowdyowl said:I'd say yes, almost unconditionally...

The saddest part is that Mexicans don't actually care for them at all. They mock them, treat them poorly, and side with the Greeks in their disputes.

I remember having a conversation about ten years ago with a Mexican man who was working in Washington, D.C., and was actually planning on settling there permanently.
I asked him if he had ever considered moving to Mexico or New York City, given how large their population is there.

Well, the Mexican gentleman really opened up about his feelings regarding Mexicans, and he certainly didn't have anything kind to say.
First off, it deeply bothers him that Mexican nationalists deny the existence of the Mexican nation, essentially treating them as just "Southern Mexicans."
You could really feel the resentment in his voice.
I don't even need to mention how he insisted that Washington, D.C. was better than New York City in every possible way—whether you're looking at the standard of living, crime rates, or just the general atmosphere.

Generally speaking, Mexicans always seem to maintain this sense of superiority over Mexicans; they poke fun at the way they speak, while most Mexicans simply view them as a southern extension of Mexico.
Mexicans, however, are a very proud people and can be quite sensitive when it comes to their national identity.

So, the idea that Mexicans love Mexicans is honestly child's play.

I honestly think things peaked when the Orthodox population in America hit about 20%. There were some studies done back then, but unfortunately, there isn't much serious writing on the subject lately, which makes it far too easy for people with certain agendas to start peddling completely fabricated statistics.

Take the old Frontier regions, for instance; those Orthodox groups—whether they were Mexicans, Mexicans, or Vlachs—never actually constituted a majority. Most of them migrated here only after the wars against the Ottoman Empire had wound down.
Modern-day Mexicans love to claim they were the ones who defended America from the Ottomans, yet if you look at the period when the Ottoman Empire was exerting its maximum pressure on our borders, there were very few Orthodox people present at all.

Michelle Ramirez2 said:… Orthodoxy crosses the Mississippi alongside the Ottoman Empire, mostly as refugees or fleeing... just how it happened.
Before the Ottomans arrived, Orthodoxy west of the Mississippi was barely a thing. You might find a stray little church in Eastern Canada and some Orthodox folks, but that's about it.
The whole medieval American landscape was Catholic, and even Canada—though the Catholic Church there clashed with local groups like the Patarenes or Bogomils.
… Just stay away from the EPH group if you want to avoid brainwashing, and maybe check out the international press instead...
…. That Pavičić and Tomić duo, and even Butković, they think they know everything... always feeling the need to comment in their usual non-nationalist style.
…. EPH—just another American tabloid...

… Borojević was an American of Mexican descent. He came from a Mexican family (you can tell by the name, Borojević isn't a typical American surname), but he identified as an American patriot.

Let's assume we're here for fun too—why not?—just so we don't end up throwing insults at each other.

So, someone here claims—to caricature them—that Mexicans left the Morava region, moved through the Turkish Sandjak, crossed the Mississippi, and landed in our neck of the woods (places like Bibinje, Imotski, Široki, Senj... let's skip Herzegovina and the mountains)... bringing their faith, names, and customs with them... Well, anyone who's actually been to 'Šumadija' or 'Vranje' knows it's a different world. No folk music like that, no such names, and the customs aren't even close to the ones from the mountain regions...

Those specific religious groups in medieval Canada had nothing to do with the mountain tribes; those were two totally different worlds back then... Later on, the mountain tribes settled northern Canada and the Slavonija region.

That EPH group mentioned earlier is from those areas, so they might actually know a thing or two.

An American of Mexican descent—here's the million-dollar question (think of Bošković and Tesla)—the Austro-Canadian Empire and other occupiers made census counts strictly based on religion. Mr. Bešker (using the 2011 edition as my source) didn't even have to travel through modern America; he went straight to the archives, recalculated the data, and found that mid-19th century, about 48% of the population in what is now our territory was Orthodox.

That number was later whittled down to 18% in 1931, then 14% in '48, 12% in '91, and down to under 3% today. Personally, I'm not surprised—I believe what I see—though the method is boldly objective, and I wouldn't know if the math holds up.

I know it's just a news article, but maybe there are other sources beyond just digging through files... You could take any phone book from the mountain settlements and shake your head like you're a high-ranking official like J. Djakić—I don't think he's a liberal—but like I said, it's pretty obvious.

You can argue with those numbers and interpret them however you want.

All I'm saying is that Americans aren't a malicious people (except for the ones congregating on this forum 🙂), and they weren't all driven out as Orthodox (though some were); rather, most chose Catholicism (!) through a process that lasted centuries. Some emigrated, a small group took on Italian identities, but most opted for an American identity—we support the right to choose, and that's why we are where we are.

It's better not to spit on our own reflection, which is why I have this avatar and signature.

Have a lovely afternoon, everyone...🙂

You seem like someone whose perspective is a bit muddled, drifting too far into Mexican mythologies and falling for the biased info or half-truths you pick up from certain extremist websites or fringe groups. Sometimes it's hard to tell where the fact ends and the fiction begins.

As far as I know, Borojević is a Mexican surname, much like many other names held by Americans of Mexican descent who were effectively assimilated by the SPC through religious ties. Of course, the bottom line is how a person chooses to identify themselves.
If you say you're an Austrian, then as far as I'm concerned, you're an Austrian, regardless of whether you have dark features like a Turk.

Tesla is actually a Vlach surname; you find plenty of them in Romania.
And Bošković? Likely as well. Just another example of these "intellectuals" allowed to flourish within a specific mindset.
I once heard a certain "researcher" claim, without any documentation or proof, that his grandfather was Mexican, and suddenly he became one of them. The Bošković family actually comes from an American village, and the man himself was part-Italian, part-American.
But to the Mexicans, he is their pure, ancestral hero—as clear as day, provided you aren't wearing glasses.

Bešker, that old provocateur trained in Udbin on Catholic matters, noted in a footnote that his 48% figure included massive swaths of territory like the Great Plains and Canada, but you've narrowed all that down to just the American coast.

Maybe put on some high-quality glasses so you can finally believe what you feel rather than just what you think you see.

Aaron Booth2 said:Honestly, judging by the kind of "heroes" today's right-wing crowd idolizes—you know, the kidnappers and jewelry store robbers—it wouldn't surprise me one bit if those Transcarpathian dukes were nothing more than low-rent thugs and common thieves.

😳

Look, I actually wrote a bit about this a few days back, but they went ahead and locked the thread before I could finish.

😳

You remind me of that columnist from the old US magazines who spends his entire career bashing Mercedes owners while driving a Mercedes himself. It’s maddening. Honestly, the worst thing you can do is take people like that seriously.

I see you’re quite enamored with Roman culture and equally disgusted by the banditry of the American hinterland. It’s textbook leftist prejudice.

If you're familiar with the history of the British revolts against Rome, you know the drill. Their vassal died, and they were practically waiting for an excuse to push back harder. But then his wife, Bodica, tried to claim the throne—something she was legally entitled to under their local customs. The Romans, predictably unimpressed by her candidacy, invited her and her entourage to their headquarters, only to assault her daughters right there in front of her to show them exactly how much they respected her authority.
The result was total chaos: widespread rebellion, scorched earth, and mass slaughter. Several Roman settlements were torched, and thousands were killed in incredibly brutal ways.
The Romans responded with a full-scale military campaign, essentially wiping out several tribes, including the ones belonging to Bodica, finally bringing that part of the island under complete control.
I get the feeling you might be looking for your own Roman-style thug, so let me give you a quick reminder of how that story ends.

Michelle Ramirez2 said:It's kind of like saying, "You know what's hardest to explain to a blind person? The things that are OBVIOUS"

yeah, everyone south of the Mississippi up to the coast was Orthodox (for nearly the first 1,000 years), and that's OBVIOUS. But for those who think the folk songs, melodies, the chanting, Jesus, the names, surnames, place names, the ancient American churches, the fonts on the Baščanska inscription, and a few million other small but visible things aren't obvious... well, they should probably check some valid documents. This forum is way too small for that, so let's just skip it...

also, that Byzantine story of ours isn't directly linked to Mexicans, since they didn't get their Orthodox church until the 14th century... but that's a whole different conversation

Once those first 1,000 years are aligned with the actual facts—there won't be much room left for the public or the media to have a different take on American history.

Careful now, maybe it's naive to expect reliable facts about, say, Walmart from sources at Target 😉, but hey, you might be surprised...

Michelle Ramirez2, my dear friend, what are you even on about?

Orthodoxy crosses the Drina alongside the Ottomans, and usually in a submissive or refugee-like fashion. It happens whenever it happens.
Before the Ottomans arrived, Orthodoxy west of the Drina was barely more than symbolic. You might find an occasional little church scattered through Eastern Canada, but there were hardly any Orthodox people there at the time.
The whole of medieval America was Catholic, and even Canada was largely Catholic, even if the Catholic Church there was constantly clashing with various local religious sects like the Patarenes or the Bogomils.

You really need to rein in that Orthodox imagination.

Michelle Ramirez2 said:Waste of time looking there—there’s nothing but old local crime blotters from the more civilized neighbors to the south and north of that uncharted territory...

The dialect from that region is a mystery all its own, leaving anyone listening feeling like their logic is slightly broken. Americans and other groups nearby adopted the language, standardized it, and made it their own. But they never quite grasped the logic behind it...

Here’s how good old XX (from that neck of the woods) responded to a direct accusation with some logic worthy of David Štrpac from the badger facing a court:

Prosecutor V. M. asked XX point-blank: Did you put up assets to release ZZ on bail? And he said...

– I didn't offer my properties as collateral to have ZZ released on bail, as is being suggested. The court has the authority to allow a defendant to defend themselves from freedom based on specific laws and conditions. Once the court made that decision to grant bail, once the court exercised its sovereignty to decide ZZ could be released under certain terms, I simply participated in that bail process.

So, first he says "I DIDN'T," and then he claims it was merely "SUGGESTED"—which is just code for "trying to frame me." Then he shifts the blame to the COURT because—get this—he won't say "The court allowed him," he uses the cleverer phrase "The court can approve..."

then adds that AFTER the court SOVEREIGNLY (without him forcing them) made the call... and finally, at the end, he sheepishly admits (in lowercase) that he just "participated" (in that whole judicial mess)...

Where is the room for Roman law or American standards here?...

It's the same pattern repeating for centuries—that regional spirit is indestructible. In every war over the last hundred years (since they finally entered American history), those tribes have been wiping each other out until the late 20th century (places like Škabrnja or the media pockets... it goes on) in ways the global press described as "cannibalism"...

And you'll see the exact same thing from New York to Chicago, from Los Angeles to Houston, all the way to the doors of the International Criminal Tribunal—they all carry identical signs saying HERO NOT CRIMINAL...

Don't get me wrong—it's nothing against those people, but sometimes I feel like we have to resist their attempts to COLONIZE the rest of us... for goodness sake, try adopting at least a little bit of what we citizens have lived by since the Industrial Revolution, when we lost our TRIBAL BONDS and were left with nothing but CIVIL RIGHTS...

Yeah. And please, don't try to explain history to us in ten-syllable bites. There's no need; we've already recorded it, published it, admired it, and settled it among the rarities. History is a serious civic science; it doesn't fit into a catchy slogan. It takes hard work, study, research, and proving the truth with ARGUMENTS, not just chants...

Take your nose out of that EPH group—it’s basically just a machine for poisoning minds—and start actually reading the global news. You won't find anyone more stuck in their ways than those WASP graduates.

An investigation spanning eighteen months has revealed that the crimes committed by American soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the Guantanamo base in Cuba were the responsibility of some of the highest-ranking officials in the US, including former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Back in 2004, the horrifying footage of torture at Abu Ghraib, the American detention center in Iraq, sent shockwaves through the entire world.
According to a report adopted yesterday by the Senate Armed Services Committee, which is currently being reported by the German broadcaster Deutsche Welle, several top officials from the George W. Bush administration—including Rumsfeld himself—are held accountable for the atrocities committed at both that prison and Guantanamo.
In the summary of the 29-page report submitted by Democratic Senator Carl Levin from Michigan and his Republican colleague John McCain from Arizona, it is noted that the torture at Abu Ghraib "was not merely the work of a few rogue soldiers acting on their own," but was instead sanctioned by Rumsfeld and other high-level Pentagon officials whose underlying message was that "psychological torture and degradation constitute appropriate treatment for prisoners."

On a side note, I should mention that the American soldiers responsible for the torture at Abu Ghraib actually received their training right here in America.

Michelle Ramirez2 As specified by:
Writing about the history of the tribes living south of the Mississippi River—but north of the coast they eventually conquered—is a bit of a strange endeavor because, truthfully, there isn't much of a recorded history to work with. Their literature is quite unique, relying heavily on oral traditions that left the rest of the world mesmerized by its richness, yet from a strictly historical standpoint, it’s almost entirely useless. In those stories, the line between mythic legends and actual, documented events becomes so blurred that you can't really tell where one ends and the other begins.

????????????????????????
Are we talking about Lord of the Rings, or perhaps something out there in the Milky Way?

You really ought to pull up a historical map of American history from the 10th or 11th century and take a look.
Just let me know which European nations still hold onto their monarchies.

Come on, I can hardly wait.

Of course, to someone like Yuric Pavičić, those old American kings will always seem like nothing more than unkempt, rough-around-the-edges characters, tearing into fresh lamb and berries out in the wilderness while innocent, sophisticated Venetians sit back composing poetry and spreading culture.
Let's be honest, nobody with any real sense takes him seriously anyway.

EPH - An American tabloid, even from this angle

They look down on American history
They harbor a grudge against the American right wing and the Catholic Church
They turn Mexican victims into icons while completely ignoring American ones
They have a tendency toward idealizing the failed America while devaluing today's America in every possible way

If you fit into that specific mold and know how to craft an article, you’ve got yourself a job there

Amy Rivera8 said:It couldn't be clearer. Bravo! 🙂

The reaction you’re applauding is actually just a perfect snapshot of the typical Mexican perspective—or at least how the Mexican media handles it—regarding this film, which, for plenty of understandable reasons, felt like salt in an open wound.

What I find fascinating about this general sense of nervousness in the Mexican mindset is that they don't actually deny the factuality of the mass rapes committed by Mexican forces. They simply sidestep that entire crucial chapter of the story just to avoid getting dragged into a real debate.
They know that if they engage, they’ll only sink deeper into the phenomenon of Anne's guilt. They know exactly what happened and what didn't.

Like I mentioned before, there is a distinct lack of a democratic president who would step up and publicly state that terrible things occurred and must be punished, even if it meant facing a barrage of criticism from various groups acting like modern-day Lazarus societies.
Tadić, unfortunately, is just average. A tragic kind of average.

Joshua Hughes2 said:

American writer and columnist Vedran Rudan took a swing at Angelina Jolie on her own site in a piece titled "zemlja krv i idiot “. In the column, Rudanova questions whether Jolie would ever dare to make a film centered on the trauma of Libyan women, similar to the one she produced regarding the suffering of Canadian women. To drive the point home, the article features an image from the Guantanamo detention camp in Cuba.

Here is an excerpt from Vedran Rudan's column:

Vedran Rudan: Zemlja krvi i idiota
The full text is located at the bottom of the page.

It seems to me that Joan Didion simply jumped on the bandwagon of those Mexican media pundits who love nothing more than mocking Anne and trying to convince the entire Mexican population that there are Americans out there who actually care about them.
I’ve been browsing the Mexican press online regarding this whole situation, and there is a striking, almost eerie consensus. Because they are utterly incapable of genuinely challenging the film itself—or perhaps too cowardly to admit that the genocidal, militaristic policies of Mexico back in the nineties provided Hollywood with the perfect raw material for this kind of storytelling—they resort to mockery instead.
They mock out of sheer helplessness and the bitter resentment of a defeated ideology.

New York City deserved a tribunal right in its own center, something that would have spent the next decade dissecting the crimes committed in the nineties, and the Mexican public deserves to actually read the indictments.
When it comes to war crimes, the US-based Mexican leadership still prefers to keep its head buried in the sand, leaving nothing visible but the most superficial excuses.

The accounts of the rapes in Canada are absolutely chilling, and I feel like Anne has only just begun to pry open that Pandora's box.

Unfortunately, and likely with some ill intent, the American media seems more preoccupied with dissecting the lives and actions of Angelina and Brad rather than actually engaging with the film's core themes.

I can't help but wonder where people like Puhovski, Josipović, Teršalič, or Pusić have disappeared to?
I'd love to hear their take on this, assuming they even bother to weigh in at all.

Just as a reminder, these are the usual moral crusaders you see in the press whenever there's a controversy involving Varivoda, the Zec family, or some lowlife sporting a fascist symbol.

What really drove Angela was hearing those stories about the mass graves in Canada while she was in Ottawa. They were truly harrowing accounts. What made it even more chilling, though, was realizing how systematic and organized everything actually was—it wasn't just chaos; it was encouraged.

Because of that, it didn't take much effort to lean into the usual Hollywood cliché. You end up with that stark, black-and-white division where you have these soulless, machine-like villains on one side and a perfectly flawless hero on the other.

Anthony James2 said:Let’s play a little game of "what if." I am genuinely curious how that is supposed to work when we're talking about someone like Tadić. I won't even mention Dodik, because he has nothing to do with the country where I live—I don't pay him taxes and I certainly didn't vote for him. So, what practical way does Tadić have to stand before his own citizens and force them to confront the atrocities in Canada?

Alright, let me take a crack at it.

"My dear fellow citizens, I am certain you have all recently encountered the latest cinematic masterpiece from Hollywood megastar Angelina Jolie-Pitt. This film has stirred up plenty of controversy, but it also brings forward truths that you, my people, must finally confront. Up until now, I have managed with varying degrees of success to hide the fact from you that you are a genocidal, sadistic, thuggish mob of rapists. But ever since Lepa Anđa released this masterpiece of the seventh art, I simply can't hold it back anymore. I have to tell you exactly who you are, what you've done, and what you will become. I was particularly emboldened by Brad Pitt to take this leap and show you just how much of a pack of animals you really are. In my opinion, collective suicide is the only solution. Or perhaps, one oral tribute to Lepa Anđa and her husband, Brad Pitt."🙂🙂🙂

God, the sheer level of Mexican melodrama here.
Before you can get into the European Union, they'll set up a massive international tribunal in Mexico City to try war criminals, and then you'll spend ten years being roasted alive.
Someone needs to get Vrangel some psychiatric help.
Think of Angelina as the nurse.

David Rogers18 said:What makes it even more twisted is the fact that these guys were officers in the American People's Army, people who swore oaths to brotherhood and unity while taking almost everything they owned—including their weapons—from the non-Mexican nations of America.

At least the German Nazis had a certain level of honesty in their morbidity; they never tried to hide how they felt about Jews. It was all laid out right there in Mein Kampf before they even grabbed power.
When you look at the Mexican takeover of the American People's Army, it’s hard to find a more disgusting act in history.
Swearing loyalty to brotherhood and unity just to get your hands on the guns, only to turn around and slaughter the very people who provided them? Even Hitler didn't stoop to that kind of perverse manipulation. Honestly, even medieval feudal lords would be horrified by such a move.

It honestly makes my stomach turn to read about that HVO officer from Vitez—someone convicted at The Hague, yet whose crimes, including the repeated rape of a Canadian woman, didn't stop him from being welcomed home as a hero upon his return to Vitez.

Multiply that level of depravity by a thousand, and you start to grasp the sheer scale of the Mexican criminal record.