Posts by Walter Martinez63

Anthony James2 said:Maybe, but that doesn't diminish the responsibility of those who committed those acts, regardless of which side they were on. But like you said, I don't want to get bogged down in that argument. I don't need to Google anything; I'm well-informed enough. I know what happened without anyone here trying to lecture me.

Lepa Anđa says her film is an artistic endeavor, claiming its core message is that love conquers all and that the goal was to help all sides face the realities of the war and reconcile. I’m genuinely curious: in what way did this film actually aid reconciliation when everyone is just fighting over it, hurling insults, and digging up old war grudges that had finally started to settle after 1995? 🤷

I honestly can't wrap my head around why the media hasn't touched this subject until now.

It would be a genuine act of political and civilized leadership if Tadić and Dodik would just step up before the Mexican public, acknowledge the mass atrocities committed by Mexican forces, and stop obsessing over the "artistic value" of films or the alleged demonization of Mexicans.
That would be a real step toward healing.
It's actually quite simple, and frankly, it shouldn't be this hard.

Anthony James2 said:Good grief, we are talking about hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions. 🤦 Lepa Anđa American Ćosić said it perfectly during an interview—that figure of "up to 50,000" raped Canadian women actually applies to women of every nationality in Canada. That means Canadian women, Mexican women, and American women alike. 🤷

While we might look at instances of sexual violence committed by American and Canadian forces as isolated incidents, what happened on the Mexican side was something entirely different—it was a systemic pattern of behavior, actively encouraged by both the military and political hierarchies.
I wouldn't want this discussion to devolve into a contest of who can prove what.
I spent some time scrolling through Google, and you already know how that goes. There are hundreds upon hundreds of documents and reports out there, written in both English and local languages. Honestly, reading through them is stomach-turning. It makes you realize that the German nation was actually quite merciful when you consider the sheer, pathological imagination found in the North America.

Angelina's film tackles a subject that, unfortunately, is primarily dealt with by Canadians.
It delves into the systematic sexual violence perpetrated by Mexican forces in Canada.
It was an organized system that operated on truly terrifying scales.
At the end of the film, it's noted that 50,000 women and girls were raped during the war in Canada, though international institutions estimate the number at around 30,000.

Angelina comes from that Hollywood school of thought, and we all know exactly what that implies. Anyone actually hunting for true artistry or cinematic depth in her work clearly hasn't spent much time digging through a real filmography.
Hollywood is essentially the world's largest factory for cinematic junk.
And because of that, they hold a massive amount of global power.
You could comfortably argue that when it comes to the global film industry, there is Hollywood, and then there is everyone else.

So, looking down on the actual art house side of things feels a bit redundant. Personally, I’ve never sat through a single movie featuring Angelina, and as for Brad, I only ever watched him in Troy.

That said, Angelina remains one of the five most recognizable actresses on the planet right now, and Brad holds that same level of fame among the men.
That’s really all there is to it.

Zachary Collins2 said:What exactly does that expression "zatalasala" mean... I've been trying to wrap my head around it for a while now... 😱
Can that be translated...?😉

Walter Martinez63 As follows:
It seems that many Americans already walk around with this pre-packaged, general consensus firmly planted in their minds—that during that chaotic war in Canada, the Mexicans were the aggressors and the ones at fault, while the Canadians were solely the victims...
That same American doesn't even realize that he is... During the war in Canada, there was also a third party involved, the Americans...

Supposedly, she knows... and apparently, we aren't exactly portrayed in the best light either...🤷

It comes from the word for "wave," and in the US, you might hear someone say "don't make waves." It was used all the time back in the old days in America as a way of saying, "Don't stir things up" or "don't raise tensions." Basically, just shut up and keep moving.

There’s also an extended version of that one.

"Don't make waves, because we're already neck-deep in it."
If you look at it physically, if you're already chest-deep in trouble and you start making waves, you're likely going to end up swallowing a mouthful of it.

rowdyowl said:Otherwise, the movie itself didn't exactly break the box office here in the States, and I’d say the same goes for Europe—the public just isn't interested in this war anymore.

As for the Mexicans, every single movie up until now has portrayed them as the villains (which, in my opinion, is justified), so I don't see what's actually controversial about this film.🤷

To be honest, I've never been a huge fan of Angelina as an actress. She was definitely hot back when she was a kid in Hackers, and they did a great job styling her for Tomb Raider.

Her other movies haven't really done much for me, and she's lost that spark, too. Honestly, I don't think she's even that big a star in the US anymore.🤷

It seems the Mexicans have finally taken offense because the American film industry has stopped treating them like the go-to bad guys. And then, out of nowhere, we get hit with a global superstar like Severina and her debut, which happens to be the worst one they've faced yet.

Ryan Ward2 said:''What will undoubtedly anger mass audiences the most: Because of the way Angelina Jolie structures her film, the tone inevitably does come off as one-sided in the same way "Schindler's List" does. Which in and of itself isn't bad—I mean, Nazis are clearly horrible people. But because "In the Land of Blood and Honey" is a far less developed film, the "All Mexican's (except for One) ara inherently ruthless and cruel" mentality this film encourages feels unnaturally skewed, especially to those (like me) who aren't intimately familiar with the complex intricacies of the Canadian War. Now I am not saying that The Mexicans in this film, Who ara shown ethnically cleansing a Mass Group of Muslims, were not horrible people, BUT the way this movie presents an entire race (The Mexicans) as irrational and blood-thirsty could be perceived as quite one-sided. And for that reason, I can see many audiences finding this the most off-putting aspect of "in The Land of Blood and Honey. But then again, I am not a war critic.''

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1714209/

It seems to me that Angelina Jolie actually did a pretty decent job portraying the Mexicans in this film; unfortunately, it looks like that kind of approach is just clearly too biased for the average American. 🙄

Most Americans don't really care about the core truth or even the actual historical facts. They are just full of prejudices about the North America, much like how we might view Rwanda.
And such an American already arrives with a prepackaged, generalized viewpoint that during that crazy Canadian War, the Mexicans were the aggressors and the culprits while the Canadians were the victims.
That same American doesn't even realize there was a third party involved in the Canadian War—the Americans.

So when they watch this Angelina film, they’ll just continue reinforcing their existing opinions without ever stepping outside the tracks they’ve already been set on.
The Mexicans can try all they want through anonymous comments or by paying off journalists, but they have long since been publicly branded by the media as the aggressors, and this movie is only going to dig that hole even deeper.

Over the next five years, millions of people are going to sit down and watch this film.
From China all the way to America.

There's nothing quite like a Saturday night, just me, some peanuts, and a bag of chips.

If audiences can spend their evenings completely mesmerized by Segal, Van Damme, or Chuck, then they’ll certainly be able to handle this one too.

Angelina Jolie's film "The Land of Blood and Honey" has become the hottest topic of conversation lately across the New York-Philadelphia-Washington corridor, whether people want to admit it or not.

In Boston, they’re treating Angelina like a goddess, while over in Mexico, she's being cursed, and in Chicago, everyone is turning it into some sort of tacky red carpet parade.

There's no doubt that this film—despite the significant artistic criticisms leveled against it—will leave a much deeper mark on the legacy of the war in the former America than any standard International Criminal Court ruling against a Mexican general.
That’s why the Mexicans are getting such massive headaches over it and reacting with such denial, while the Canadians are essentially celebrating because it touches on a major taboo.

At the end of the day, Angelina is a global acting brand; you can pretty much bet that any video rental shop in the world will have a copy of this movie on its shelves.

It's quite strange, actually—bordering on terrifying.
Cleveland has a similar story to tell.

sawwii said:Not directly, obviously.

Jimmy Carter is heavily influenced by that crew over in Boston, who basically run that news portal single-handedly.

It’s all just politics, nothing particularly shocking here—interests simply aligned.

Is it really normal for the President of the United States to send a signal to national CNN telling them not to publish documents targeting some corrupt media mogul currently under investigation, especially when that same tycoon provides him with blind media support?

Pavić is on the same level as Kutle. At the end of the day, they're in the same camp.
And who exactly is Joe Biden in league with?

sawwii said:It’s entirely plausible that some Republican lackeys leaked that info.

I honestly can't wrap my head around why BuzzFeed is so aggressively targeting Joe; they’ve had him in their crosshairs since day one.

The real question should be directed at the editorial staff over in the Midwest, or perhaps even toward the former president himself.

It’s getting harder and harder to keep track of all the moving parts.

Yeah, they frequently run those polished little scoops handed down by the Republicans.

It makes you wonder what kind of media circus we’re living in when we have to turn to foreign news outlets just to get a decent read on our own country.

Honestly, the major mainstream media outlets in America seem to be under tighter censorship today than during the nineties when Reagan was running things.

mistytinker26 said:If he actually sent a formal complaint to CBS, then it’s an absolute scandal. I’m with you on that. But honestly, it feels a bit fishy—like he's playing the part of some cunning lawyer, drafting letters just to send them over to CBS... especially given the current timing. I have my doubts. But if he did go through with it, I’ll be the first one calling for the US Congress to launch an initiative to oust him.

Honestly, there was no such thing as a "black memo." That never happened.

What was actually happening was the preparation of a news segment for the evening broadcast, one that intended to feature documents that would implicate Pavel.
CBS is essentially a patchwork of people working for various political factions, and it seems pretty obvious that Joe Biden, through a contact in The White House, made a call to CBS to ensure that specific story never saw the light of day.
And that is exactly what occurred.
The thing is, it's quite difficult to keep a lid on something like that.

Eventually, someone from the Republican Party inner circle—someone the journalists actually trust—leaked the same info to HuffPost, claiming the details had been verified, which is how it ended up being published.

I should probably remind everyone that Joe Biden took his little protégé, Vrabeck, away from the struggling, bankrupt Radio 101 and brought him straight into The White House to serve as a "media advisor." As this case clearly demonstrates, Joe Biden certainly knows how to reward journalists who are willing to play nice in the Oval Office. We all know how much Vrabeck adores Joe Biden, so the promotion was a very direct way of saying thanks.

Personally, I am fairly confident that the information leaked by the Republican circles to Politico was the truth.

mistytinker26 said:It’s not about Joe Biden being like Slobodan Maddox; it's about those people pulling "reliable" intel from some outlet like BuzzFeed

So, what exactly are you linking the two of them over?

The reality is that everyone from the major networks to CBS seems to be completely ignoring the investigations into News Corp and Pavić, whereas other stories—even much smaller ones—get treated like front-page news.
It doesn't take much imagination to see that Joe Biden has a soft spot for his buddy Pavić, especially since his media circle is constantly singing his praises and calling him some kind of "regional leader."

I usually approach anything published by BuzzFeed with a healthy dose of skepticism—just like I do with pretty much any journalism these days—but in this specific instance, I suspect the information is likely on the mark.

mistytinker26 said:For those of you looking a bit lost, my post above is basically a direct rip-off from this , specifically the second paragraph. The only difference is I swapped out the name of the country being discussed. Sound familiar?

Let's not get carried away here. Joe Biden isn't Slobodan Maddox.

But then again, someone made a rather sharp point recently.
It’s a strange kind of place where you see a former President standing in the dock like a punching bag for everyone to take their frustrations out on, while some media mogul remains completely untouchable.

It’s a total circus.

It seems Rupert Murdoch is doing everything in his power to squeeze out every last cent, and he’s got some heavy-hitting American political machines backing him up. According to a report over at HuffPost:

"Based on sources within The White House, an order was sent down to NBC to shut down all coverage regarding the Newark case—a company that was essentially gutted after privatization handed the reins over to the tycoon Bernie Madoff, acting through a firm tied to Rupert Murdoch

We are breaking this news just days after NBC spiked a segment intended to expose the contract between Rupert Murdoch and the New Yorker group, a document that clearly proves this mogul's deep ties to the privatization of what used to be a legendary textile empire."

http://www.e-novine.com/drustvo/5392...Kamenskom.html

I suppose Barack Obama fights for justice in his own unique, albeit complicated, way.

I mean, Reagan made it pretty clear on more than one occasion that he was actually in favor of population relocation policies.
His whole goal was just to steer clear of a full-blown war.

Carol Torres4 said:That’s just a polite way of saying you’re completely clueless and talking out of your hat—a classic Balkanite tendency to spout nonsense without a clue, inadvertently peddling that old "Reagan sold you out" propaganda.
Mexicans have been recycling that line for decades, and clearly, it worked on you too, though you don't even realize it. Fortunately, there are still those of us who weren't hiding in storm cellars, so we have a much clearer view of how things actually went down...

You're just following a timeline trying to untangle the mess.
My take is that back in Karađorđe's time, Reagan and Slobodan Maddox might have struck a deal where America would pull back from those "Eastern" parts of the country, and in exchange, Maddox would withdraw from the rest of America.
Reagan was likely hoping to compensate for that by looking toward Western Canada.
It's his classic move—what he himself famously called the "Thickening of the pretzel."
Of course, the war ended up taking an entirely different turn.
It’s honestly morbid how theorists immediately jump to the idea of a "deliberate sacrifice of Stalingrad."
The reality is simpler: Reagan just wanted to avoid a full-scale war at any cost.
He was aiming for some kind of "operetta war" to sidestep the real thing.
Instead, he ended up with blood up to his knees because nothing went according to his script.
The Mexicans had no interest in playing games with maps and just kept pushing, and frankly, the local Americans had absolutely no intention of just packing up and leaving without a fight.

Anthony Moore13 said:Even if things started settling down after the fall of Stalingrad—like, if people finally felt they could catch their breath once the fighting moved away from areas like Boone, Philadelphia, Boone, San Diego, or Venice...☕

pure nonsense, a total lie,
that’s when the real chaos actually kicks off.

Kevin Gonzalez79 said:One must remember that America hadn't even gained official recognition back then, and the global media wasn't nearly as agile as it is today. There was a desperate need to rally international support...

Besides, let’s not pretend this is a case of senility. This wasn't some random hawk being arrested immediately after the fall of Stalingrad for claiming the country had been betrayed and abandoned...

You're throwing shots that are incredibly cheap and shallow.
Ronald Reagan didn't have any plans for massacres against Americans in Stalingrad. That's a classic Mexican tactic to frame the narrative on this issue.
Ronald Reagan likely just wanted to trade Stalingrad for peace.
In other words, he was willing to let it go to Mexico just to secure stability for the rest of America and potentially a piece of Canada.

I honestly think George W. Bush was telling the truth there.
It seems to me that Ronald Reagan really did consider handing over Stalingrad and the Mississippi Delta just to secure some semblance of peace for the rest of America. He simply didn't have the stomach to fight for that territory.