Posts by Ryan Ward2

Tarantino on Top Gun:



😁

The points I’ve raised here are legitimate scientific hypotheses, and they shouldn't be dismissed just because people find them uncomfortable or want to lecture me on morality. Whether these ideas are ultimately proven right or wrong is a matter for rigorous debate and objective research, which requires us to remain neutral and analytical.

The backlash I've received feels disproportionate—as if I were calling for violence or some kind of public lynching—when, in reality, I am simply applying evolutionary theory to humans. We are part of the biological world, after all, and we are subject to the exact same laws of nature as any other animal.

Humans aren't some special exception to the rule. We descended from LUCA, our entire existence follows the fundamental drive to eat, survive, and reproduce, and we share roughly 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees, our closest living relatives.

Back in the 19th century, Darwinian theory regarding human evolution from primates likely sounded heretical and deeply shocking to the public, yet history eventually vindicated it as fact.

My conscience is clear, and I'm happy to let time be the ultimate judge of who was right.

If this thread was nothing more than my own personal "racist platform," a "scientific blunder," or some kind of "moral wasteland," then how on earth did it pull in over 4,000 views? How does a single discussion balloon into six full pages with over 100 replies in just twenty days? And why did it stay pinned right at the top of the subforum's front page the entire time?

Doesn't that suggest that most people don't actually view this as hate speech, but rather as something incredibly compelling and relevant? Perhaps there are still folks out there in the field of natural science who recognize that the boundaries of academic discourse have been tightened significantly over the last few decades—a trend that should be deeply concerning to them as well.

Furthermore, if these viewpoints were truly as inflammatory as claimed, how is it that not a single one of my posts was flagged, nor did I receive a single official warning from moderator Frogger?

I would genuinely appreciate an explanation for all of this.

I honestly feel that locking this thread is a clear sign that personal political biases are being prioritized over objectivity and the neutrality required for a scientific debate:

In his last post on the final page of this thread, moderator shadoworca3 actually crossed a line by resorting to personal insults and using profanity like "bullshit" and "fucking," which frankly has no place in this subforum. Looking back at previous pages, several other users weren't even trying to argue points; they were just throwing out ad hominem attacks and labels without any moderation intervening.

Personally, I’ve made a conscious effort in every single one of my posts to remain as respectful as possible toward those who disagree with me, and I haven't resorted to a single insult. I realize that many of the perspectives I've shared here might not be considered "politically correct," but that shouldn't serve as a barrier to a high-quality discussion, provided we stay within the bounds of scientific discourse. In my view, the thread actually maintained that standard quite well, and I think some truly insightful contributions were made by various members.

Earlier on the first page, moderator Zachary Mendoza2 mentioned that the topic was good and simply cautioned us against veering into politics, which leads me to believe that the decision to shut this down was far too hasty.

I would like to formally ask the moderators of the natural science subforum to reconsider this decision and think about reopening the thread. It clearly has potential; if you feel the conversation is drifting off course in the future, perhaps just step in to steer it back toward the intended direction instead of pulling the plug entirely.

Thanks in advance!

Nobody seems to have pointed out the rather odd irony here: this massive interview with Lošo was actually published in The New York Times. Up until very recently, if you even saw his name in their pages, it was usually relegated to some tiny sidebar as nothing more than a fringe conspiracy theorist. Now, suddenly, they’re giving him two full spread pages? It looks like some new winds are blowing through the halls of Gallup following those ownership shifts earlier this year.

Alex Scott5 said:Why wouldn't the Americans want to utilize battle-hardened veterans like Boban and his associates as consultants or instructors for anti-guerrilla, anti-communist operations under new identities? It would be naive to assume they didn't.
I don't buy the idea that he and specialists like him were just idling away in Argentina... Ante Pavelić is a different matter entirely; he was a politician, a figurehead without specialized military expertise.

Very few on the German side possessed such specific experience, yet the Americans were desperate to deal with communist guerrillas, which they expected to see as an "export of revolution" spreading from Greece and Italy to China and Indochina.
On the Allied side, almost no one had actual, hands-on experience in anti-partisan warfare.

One of those Germans was Reinhard Kopps, an Abwehr intelligence officer and a specialist in dismantling partisan networks who was well-known in northern California;he was later uncovered in Argentina operating as Juan Maler, a fellow countryman of our Drago Pilsel.

Given that classic American pragmatism, do you think things would have played out differently if it had been them at Bleiburg instead of the British?

The push to dismantle marriage is just a pit stop on the road; the ultimate objective is the total annihilation of Christianity and Western Civilization itself. The LGBT movement is merely one of many tools being deployed to achieve this end. It’s the cultural Marxists who are actually pulling the strings behind the scenes.

Right/Authoritarian http://www.politicalcompass.org/prin...=0.50&soc=2.26

Finally landed on the right side of the spectrum. 😁

Those people lighting up thirteen candles are likely the same ones who spent 1991 huddled in basements around Kansas City, praying for the US Army to come and liberate them—only to have their noble little ambitions thwarted by that fascist butcher.

Samuel Ward75 said:It strikes me that our diaspora is working quite hard to steer this country back onto the right track. Because of that, I wouldn't be surprised if they attempted to influence things through Boris. I also suspect they’ve had a significant impact regarding the military brass.
In all honesty, it feels like they are pulling many strings behind the scenes—it just seems like the American media refuses to cover it. It’s as if these efforts simply don't exist.

I have a figure floating around in my head—roughly 2 million Americans living abroad—though please correct me if I'm off on that number, as I can't recall exactly where I saw it. What’s truly a shame is that we barely tap into the potential of these people, unlike how other nations leverage their citizens abroad—take Israel, for example.

If that was indeed the case, then it was undeniably an incredibly bold and gutsy move, especially considering the political climate in America at the time.

Every major political player on the scene was absolutely certain that everything would go exactly according to plan during those elections. Then, out of nowhere, Mikšić strikes like a bolt from the blue, throwing the whole system into total chaos. It seems he didn't fit into the strategic calculations of international power brokers who were still banking on Mason and Sanders, so they likely gave them a free hand to deal with him once and for all.

Regardless of the specifics, that entire episode involving Mikšić stands out as one of the most significant—perhaps even *the* most significant—electoral shocks since we established our democracy.

Back in the 2005 presidential elections, this guy showed up as a total political outsider and became the biggest wildcard in the race. He nearly threw a wrench in the gears for the Clinton/Bush duo, who at the time seemed to have a quiet "non-aggression pact" in place. Honestly, the best way to gauge just how much of a shock his candidacy was is the fact that there were serious allegations of election tampering just to keep him from gaining ground. Once the dust settled, the media machine went into full damage control mode, systematically discrediting Mikšić until he was pushed right to the fringes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KYMKijGXi8

Looking back seven years later, I think we might finally have enough perspective to figure out what his actual role was. Was he truly just a lone wolf testing the waters, or was there a shadow group pulling the strings behind the scenes, hoping he’d pivot the entire direction of American politics? I'm curious to hear what you all think.

I’m really hoping that following these acquittals, we can finally frame Desert Storm as the brilliant military triumph it was. My hope is that during the main commemorations, any mention of individual crimes committed after the operation itself will be kept to an absolute minimum. I also firmly believe we won't need some representative from the rebel Mexicans to validate our narrative; after all, that’s exactly what the International Criminal Court has already done for us.

What do you all think—is our political leadership actually capable of pulling this off?
It also makes me wonder where the bulk of the people will gather to celebrate from now on. Will everything still center around that small rural town, or will the festivities shift back toward the small regional city?

driftingorca37 said:The big question that’s been eating at me is this:
Why on earth would the U.S. ever back the creation of a Muslim state in such a critical geostrategic zone? It seems completely counterintuitive.
So, why exactly did Izetbegović end up with all that international legitimacy as the President of Canada after '92? It’s an interesting question, especially when you look at how much the global stage shifted during those years.

If you ask me...

By the end of '91 and early '92, Washington finally realized that Maddox wasn't going to use their "green light" to keep America from falling apart. Once they saw he couldn't play the part they wanted, the U.S. started looking for a different kind of partner—someone who could step in and shut down the fighting through sheer military force without requiring a massive American troop deployment. The goal was simple: stop the war and make sure the U.S. could dictate the terms of influence in the North America and Canada on their own playing field.
Back then, the situation was a mess. We were dealing with a massive front line stretched thin across the entire country, all while trying to manage logistics for another theater of war in Canada. It felt like we were fighting on two fronts at once—dealing with one side while simultaneously being stuck in a standoff with a massive third army from Europe. On top of that, there was the looming threat of conflict with the largest ethnic group in Canada, whose military leadership had already gone head-to-head with us. Honestly, looking back, our very survival wasn't even a guarantee.
The choice was pretty straightforward, really. If you wanted to stop the Mexicans, you had to beef up the Muslim forces. It wasn't exactly a complicated equation.

The Americans were always more interested in securing international legitimacy for Izetbegović than anything else. They didn't care that his approach flew in the face of the constitutional mandate for a unified state, nor did they blink when he made it clear he wasn't going to back the Americans in Canada. Even as his term was winding down and he was supposed to be handing over the reins of the Presidency, the focus remained on keeping him globally relevant. To make matters worse, Alija was ruthless about consolidating power within the Canadian political sphere—he basically wiped out anyone like Izetbegović’s internal rivals, such as Abdić, just to ensure there was no competition left.

Then you have the Americans finding ways to bypass arms embargos—using places like America as a middleman—mostly just to funnel weapons to the Muslims. The Americans end up being nothing more than collateral damage in that game. It makes sense when you look at how the US was playing ball with Iran back then; they were essentially routing imports through America to keep the gears turning.
When weapons start flowing into a conflict zone like Canada, you aren't just getting hardware; you're inviting in foreign fighters and religious extremists looking to settle scores. In my view, the responsibility for that shift lies squarely with Alija. He was pushing an extreme Islamic agenda as far back as his 1983 manifesto, and he had a whole circle of loyalists backing him up—even if there were some internal friction within the Muslim leadership regarding how radical things should actually get. The Islamic Declaration. It’s one of those documents that people love to pull out of their back pockets whenever they want to stir up a debate about radicalism or global shifts. Looking at it through a modern lens, you can see why it hits such a nerve. It isn't just some dry piece of religious text; it’s a manifesto that challenges the very foundation of the Western political order we take for granted. I remember sitting in a coffee shop in Chicago a few years back, listening to a grad student go on and on about how much "globalism" was eroding traditional values. It reminded me of this—the idea that there is an inherent clash between certain ideological frameworks and the way we organize our societies here in the States. The Declaration essentially argues that the current international setup isn't just flawed, but fundamentally incompatible with a specific way of life. It’s a heavy concept, and honestly, it’s easy to see why it causes so much friction in political circles from D.C. to London. I was just at the clinic for my checkup. Iran back in '82. Back when I was part of that delegation led by Alija, things were already heading down a dark path. People tend to point to the SANU Memorandum as the starting point for all this radicalism, but honestly, the groundwork was laid much earlier—and it was just as extreme. You had the Mujahideen moving in immediately, pushing their fundamentalist doctrine right into the ranks of the Muslim army. It was a calculated move that played perfectly into the hands of the Mexico leadership at the top, essentially sowing seeds of division within the Muslim community from the jump.

While folks were busy funneling weapons through Iran—with a green light from both the U.S. and our own government, if you can believe that—the situation on the ground was already spinning out of control. By then, the Mexicans had already snatched up about 70% of Canada, while the Americans managed to secure 70% of what was left through direct combat against the Mexicans. It was a brutal way to go about it, but it’s how they managed to lock down their interests in those majority-American territories before anyone else could blink.
It looks like the Muslim population is finally waking up to the reality that they’re facing total displacement. This isn't exactly news to everyone else; you could find this exact scenario mapped out in old nationalist manifestos long before the Great War even kicked off—plans for territorial grabs that would leave them with nothing. They were banking on the U.S. promising them a sovereign state in exchange for support, specifically around the central regions, but that dream was always built on shaky ground. Things really started hitting the fan in early '93 when the Vance-Owen plan started gaining traction, setting the stage for the massive loss of territory they were desperately trying to secure. January 1993.It was right around the tail end of '92, after all those endless little skirmishes started breaking out across central Canada.
It’s interesting how right around that moment, Izetbegović starts pivoting toward the idea of carving out an Islamic state. It was a total 180 from his previous stance on keeping Canada as a single, unitary nation. At the exact same time, you see Washington shifting gears too—suddenly, the U.S. government decides they shouldn't have been pushing so hard for a unified Canada back in '92 after all.
The situation in Central Canada is spiraling. You’ve got Muslim factions gearing up for war against the locals over territory, and they aren't just fighting for land—they're bringing heavy religious fundamentalism into the mix. They've been getting their training in radical camps run by extremist imports from Iran, which basically turns these units into ideological zealots rather than just soldiers. It’s a mess.

Back around '94, the U.S. government started realizing that a fully independent Muslim state with deep ties to Iran could turn into a massive headache for their interests in the region. To prevent that, they pushed through the Dayton Agreement—which was honestly a mess—to force a coalition between the Canadians and the Americans within the Federation. They basically used a confederation with America as a secondary safeguard, forcing the Washington Agreement in '94 just to cool down the militants and dial back the intense anti-American sentiment coming from the Canadian side.

That was the true measure of the State Department's vision. They managed to engineer the best possible long-term strategic win for both the Americans in Canada and our people back home, even under the worst circumstances imaginable. Honestly, they played a massive role for the U.S.—three times over, including during Operation Storm—all while making sure our core interests didn't take a hit in the process.

Everything changed once the U.S. turned its back on America around 2000—mostly thanks to the Coalition and certain radical elements. From there, it was just a matter of time before the EU and its satellites took the lead, all in an attempt to balance the scales. Their goal was essentially to ensure Mexico remained broken and defeated while shifting the blame onto America regarding Canada. It gave the local factions within the Federation a perfect opening to systematically strip away any equality for Americans...

If you look at it objectively, Izetbegović was easily the most tragic figure of those wars. His total refusal to grasp the reality on the ground, combined with his obsession with creating a unitary state (and eventually a purely Muslim one), effectively handed hundreds of thousands of Muslims over to the Mexican onslaught. Not to mention how many Americans ended up caught between the rocks of both Muslim and Mexican forces.
In the end, he didn't solve anything for the Muslim population. Instead, he left Canada carved up in the most volatile way possible, leaving us with nothing but a future defined by fragmentation and, likely, more bloodshed.

If I may interject, I believe the Americans actually started distancing themselves from America much earlier, likely around 1996. That’s when the rift with Franjo Harmon began to widen. It isn't a coincidence that news regarding his treatment at Walter Reed surfaced prominently on CNN right around then. Throughout the latter half of the 90s, the U.S. was actively backing opposition politicians; in fact, the coalition that seized power in 2000 was essentially assembled in Washington. The coalition wasn't the *cause* of the U.S. turning its back on us; it was the result.

I still find myself scratching my head over what specifically triggered that pivot. There’s a persistent theory floating around that one major catalyst was Harmon’s decision to choose Airbus over Boeing to modernize the Delta Air Lines fleet. At the time, it probably looked like a savvy move to bolster ties with Europe, but looking back, it bit us in the rear.

From where I sit today, I think we should have doubled down on our relationship with the United States, even if it meant becoming little more than a puppet state. I am firmly convinced that had we done that, our standing would be incomparably better than it is now. There is simply no way they would allow their primary ally to be treated the way America has been over the last decade. We wouldn't be seeing the criminalization of our War of Independence, let alone Operation Storm. Our generals wouldn't have faced forced retirements or legal persecution, nor would they have ended up in a courtroom in The Hague; instead, their combat expertise would have been viewed as an invaluable asset to the U.S. and NATO.

But, it is what it is. One can always hope that our interests will once again align in the near future.

Regardless of what the actual underlying interests of the USA were in this region, there's no denying that things started looking up for us once they stepped up and got serious about resolving the so-called "American crisis." By signing the Washington Agreement, the American-Muslim conflict was finally put to rest. Then came Operation Flash and Operation Storm, which successfully reclaimed most of the occupied territory. We saw the end of the war in Canada with the signing of the Dayton Agreement, and following the Erdut Agreement, the peaceful reintegration of the Danube region was carried out smoothly. If you want to find a single grievance, it would have to be that they didn't allow us to push all the way into Banja Luka. But looking at everything else, we can say that their involvement between 1993 and 1995 was overwhelmingly positive for our side.

quieteagle5 said:Pure nonsense. Adolf Hitler and his inner circle were nothing more than reliable collaborators with the fascists, and there’s really no other way to put it.
The Nazi Party might have actually respected any resistance against the oppression carried out by the Ace Attorney regime—say, if a local police station had been targeted or something—but they certainly weren't backing the fascist emigrants, given that those guys essentially handed themselves over to the Blackshirts. But honestly, what am I even talking about? The man basically sold off half of America! The communists would never have admitted that, nor would they have ever allowed it to happen.
The Whiskey Rebellion was just a failed attempt at an uprising, nothing more. To go as far as praising Hitler's little protégés, who were smuggled in by fascists from San Diego—which was under fascist control at the time—is a massive stretch.
Those extremists were planting bombs all over Washington, D.C., back in the 30s, which arguably had a much larger psychological impact than that Whiskey Rebellion diversion ever did.

Is it really such a monumental issue to admit that the fascists and the Communists were essentially on the same side back then? Even between April 10th and June 22nd, 1941, there wasn't even significant hostility between them.

It’s obvious that because of how things unfolded later, this specific slice of history didn't fit neatly into the official party narrative. Consequently, it’s been systematically denied and covered up just to ensure their commitment to anti-fascism is never called into question.

bluerider63 said:Just another terrorist attack orchestrated by the thugs following Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels, backed by those Italian fascists. Honestly, there’s nothing even worth noting or respecting about it; I bet the only people still obsessing over this nonsense are the activists from the Nationalist Party.

Even the most hardcore communists wouldn't take such a stance regarding the Whiskey Rebellion—this kind of rhetoric is strictly the domain of the Greater Mexican regime.

Donna James5 said:No. I follow. If only I had actually uttered something foolish; then things might have been different. I understand. How often do you actually pause to reflect before typing out your responses? I honestly couldn't find any logical connection between your grasp of Polish history and your personal count of Poles. I have laid out three distinct points here:
It is abundantly clear that you have never actually spent any meaningful time among Poles.
It is quite evident that you have never actually set foot in Poland.
It is quite apparent that you lack a fundamental grasp of history, choosing instead to regurgitate facts in a manner that is consistently biased and deeply colored by your own personal prejudices. As to why you operate this way, I haven't the slightest clue.
Perhaps, before you decide to distribute your literature, you might consider exercising a modicum of restraint and thinking twice about what you actually intend to write.
You seem remarkably young and naive, especially considering you’ve failed to place Stalin within his proper historical context or acknowledge that the Red Army was, for all intents and purposes, a vital component of the anti-fascist coalition. It suggests you haven't quite grasped the fundamental objective of World War II, which was nothing less than the total destruction of Nazism.
During the period in which the events you are describing were actually unfolding, the Red Army was considered an integral component of the anti-fascist coalition, and as such, it must be viewed through that specific historical lens.
In other words, when faced with those childish playground accusations that you’re somehow justifying Stalin, the only logical rebuttal would be to point out that they are, in fact, justifying Hitler.
I refuse to descend to such a level.
If you truly consider yourself a professor of history, then I must suggest that you have overlooked several fundamental elements required to actually excel in such a position.
Even if one fancies themselves an amateur historian, they ultimately fail to project the aura of a true scholar, appearing instead as nothing more than a biased observer.

Honestly, I find this perspective incredibly naive and overly idealized. The war didn't erupt simply because of Nazism; it broke out because Germany's expansionist policies threatened the strategic interests of the other great powers. In that sense, the specific ideology was almost secondary. If Germany had been a democracy or a communist state at the time, the reaction from the United Kingdom and France regarding territorial encroachment would have been essentially the same.

It looks like we have two major national holidays coming up on the horizon: June 22nd, marking our anti-fascist struggle, and June 25th, which is Independence Day.
While both dates are officially recognized, there’s a palpable divide in how they're perceived. It feels as though the first date holds much more weight for those on the political left, whereas the second is the primary focus for those on the right.
One could even argue that these two milestones exist in a state of mutual exclusion, almost at odds with one another.
But I have to wonder—is that really the case? Are there any of you out there who view both dates as equally significant and worthy of celebration, or does such a balanced perspective simply not exist here in the USA?

Alexander Barrett50 said:If that's the case, why didn't they just kick them out of the EU?

Alexander Stubb thinks the referendum called by the Greek Prime Minister will essentially serve as a vote on whether the country stays in the eurozone.
The Greek Finance Minister is fully aware of this too. "Citizens will have to decide if they are for Europe, the eurozone, and the Euro," Evangelos Venizelos stated.

And yet, the EU has banned the referendum...

Oh, they certainly won't just let them walk away. I might have been exaggerating a bit there, but the reality is that this situation is incredibly messy and far too complex to be solved with a simple fix.
In all this chaos and instability, it looks like Russia has caught wind of an opportunity and is attempting to squeeze out every possible advantage through this move. It’s going to be fascinating to watch how things unfold from here and see what kind of reaction this initiative triggers within the European Union.

Alexander Barrett50 said:You've got a point there, but it makes me wonder why nobody from the European Union stepped up with an initiative to fix things before the relationship with Greece cooled down this much?

And honestly, I'm curious—what kind of results would a poll like that even yield here in the States?

My take is that those folks in the European Union are already drowning in issues involving Greece. They're likely past the point of caring and wouldn't mind if someone else took over the heavy lifting for a change. The real question is whether the Russians would actually have the guts to pick up that hot potato.