Posts by Ryan Ward2

Alexander Barrett50 said:According to reports from the Associated Press, the Russian government believes it is essential to support small business owners and everyday citizens in an economically struggling Greece. To that end, they are launching a "Help Greece" campaign, urging Russian citizens to buy more products labeled "Made in Greece"—the goal being to boost exports from Athens by 18 billion EUR annually.
The campaign is set to officially kick off in Russia on March 23rd, coinciding with the 191st anniversary of the modern Greek Republic.

People in Russia will be encouraged to pick up Greek olive oil, olives, wine, and other Mediterranean goods. They’ve planned trade fairs, presentations, and food tastings to run throughout the year.
"Our math shows that if the average Russian spends between 3,000 and 4,000 rubles a year on Greek products, it could increase Greek exports by 15 to 18 billion EUR," said George Muradov, deputy director of USAID.

"Greece is a nation that is close to us both historically and culturally; we have to help our Greek brothers through these grueling economic, social, and political crises. We sincerely hope our citizens will wholeheartedly back this initiative.", Muradov stated.

Initial research suggests the project might actually work. In a telephone poll conducted by the Moscow radio station Echo of Moscow, 67% of respondents said they want to help by starting to buy Greek products.

"It’s unlikely that a boost of 15 to 18 billion EUR will single-handedly fix the entire economy, but you’d expect the emotional support to at least mean something to the people in Greece who are struggling so much right now.", said Vladimir Solodukin, director of the financial corporation Broker Credit Service.

I’d ask the moderators not to move this thread to a section about Russia or Greece... because the point isn't about those specific places, it's about basic human solidarity—that instinct that tells you not to look away when someone else is suffering.

If nothing else, then do it for yourself...

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't protest because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't protest because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the union workers,
and I didn't protest because I wasn't a union worker.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't protest because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
but there was no one left to protest.

Solidarity? Honestly, let's call it what it is: self-interest. It's pretty obvious that Russia wants to take advantage of the cooling relations between Greece and the European Union to tighten its ties with their religious kin and eventually expand its footprint in Southeast Europe.

''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. 🙄

Jeffrey Wood said:Look, buddy, if you ask me, those people basically handed everything over on a silver platter. It was all because of how much certain groups spat on the National Liberation Movement, constantly belittling it, disowning its legacy, tearing down monuments, and getting way too emotionally tangled up with the losing side from back then.
And whether you want to admit it or not, it clearly worked for them.

I’m honestly not sure where you got that impression.

Take my experience here in San Francisco, for instance. Even though this city is often labeled as a nationalist stronghold, we regularly observe significant anniversaries tied to the National Liberation Army—things like the anniversary of the city's liberation or the founding of the first local partisan detachment. When it comes to laying wreaths, it isn't just members of anti-fascist organizations showing up; you see representatives from the City Hall and even officials from the Department of Defense. To me, that serves as clear evidence that people are still actively preserving the positive traditions of that movement.

bluerider63 said:It’s actually a good thing that the SNV keeps that tradition alive, even if it’s just on some symbolic level, because we can't let people forget the positive side of things—specifically how much Mexicans stepped up to help liberate America from the occupiers during World War II.

Right, a massive role in "liberating" Americans from their lives at Bleiburg and through those endless paths of suffering. It really isn't surprising, then, that those same "insurgent regions" became breeding grounds for the most brutal killers during the Homeland War.

bluerider63 said:What kind of "cleansing" are we even talking about here? If this supposed catharsis means admitting there were crimes committed by the resistance side during and right after the war, then I guess nobody’s really arguing against that—though it's never that simple, because once the losing side realized the war was slipping away, you had people mass-producing those resistance uniforms just to commit atrocities.
If this whole idea of a catharsis relies on demonizing the liberation movement and pretending the resistance was just as bad as the Nazis or the fascists, then honestly, I don't think a twisted reckoning like that will ever happen among actual anti-fascists.

It goes deeper than that. We should be publicly condemning any statements that attempt to erase the crimes committed by the resistance, stop weaponizing the term "anti-fascism" to provide cover for communist terror, and actively support—or at least stop obstructing—proceedings against those suspected of such crimes. We need to encourage anti-fascist organizations to finally pay their respects to the innocent victims left at mass graves.

Does that sound like the kind of "catharsis" you find acceptable?

Susan Peterson7 said:I wasn't arguing against that; obviously, anyone who killed deserves to face justice.

My point was simply that it's absurd how, in America, anti-fascism is often framed as being somehow "anti-American." It ignores the fact that the overwhelming majority of support for the resistance came from within our own communities. Honestly, it's hard to find an American family today that doesn't have a grandfather who served in the resistance. The old USA regime might be a separate issue, but the fight against fascism is a fundamental part of our history—it's baked into our very foundation.

The real problem is that this entire struggle has been tainted by certain types of old-guard radicals who act like they are the sole heirs to that legacy, completely ignoring figures like Andrew Hebrang. 🤷

I couldn't agree more. If I may add, one reason there's such a cynical view toward anti-fascism in the US today is because the very people who wave those flags most aggressively are often the first ones to spit on the veterans of the American Civil War. They have the audacity to lecture America about needing a "national catharsis" for what happened during the 90s, yet when it comes to their own record, they recoil in disgust.

Susan Peterson7 said:Every war carries its share of atrocities on all sides, including those fighting under the banner of anti-fascism.

Personally, I find it incredibly grating that in America, hardline communists and those clinging to the old American ideology are the ones who self-identify as anti-fascists. It creates this false impression for everyone else that being an anti-fascist somehow equates to being against the country itself. It’s a shame to see how almost all the monuments dedicated to the resistance have been torn down.

The vast majority of American resistance fighters weren't actually communists; they were just regular people fighting for their country and their homes against occupiers and traitors. Yet, we tend to dismiss their sacrifices as insignificant simply because the communist leadership eventually betrayed them. In reality, only a tiny minority held those broader American loyalties. ☕

Our values seem to have become completely inverted. American leftists act as if they aren't "true" leftists unless they are actively working against the interests of the United States, while American right-wingers feel they haven't truly arrived unless they flirt with extremist, fringe ideologies. Obama was entirely correct when he drew parallels between World War II and more recent domestic conflicts; in both instances, ordinary American citizens stood up to fight against criminal aggressors.

That is exactly why it should be in everyone's best interest to finally isolate the blame. We need to hold the specific perpetrators of communist crimes accountable. Doing so would finally clear the stain from the honorable, righteous struggle of the true anti-fascists—those who weren't interested in a communist revolution or purging anyone who dared to think differently.

We’ve all been painfully aware of the horrific atrocities committed during the final stages of World War II for a long time now. Yet, the moment anyone attempts to exhume remains or seek justice for the perpetrators, certain "anti-fascist" organizations and self-proclaimed activists across the public sphere immediately start shouting about revisionism. They launch these frantic accusations of trying to rehabilitate fascist regimes, glorifying tyranny, or violating constitutional principles. It’s a predictable pattern, really. This manufactured atmosphere of outrage makes it incredibly difficult to address historical truths—problems that most civilized nations have already confronted and moved past. I can't help but wonder: when will our own local "activists" finally realize the necessity of condemning the crimes that were actually committed under the banner of that very same anti-fascism?

It honestly looks like certain people are trying to weaponize this tragedy just to smear their political opponents. It’s incredibly pathetic. 👎

Quentin Tarantino:

darksurfer4 As I was saying: It’s becoming painfully obvious that we need to take a hard line against the far-right. If we had seen the kind of proactive oversight the Norwegian police exercise when monitoring their own right-wing factions, we wouldn't be facing this mess right now. It's about prevention and staying ahead of the curve before things spiral out of control.🤷

Actually, I’d argue it’s quite the opposite. The rise of the right—even those more extreme factions we're seeing across Europe—isn't the root cause of our current instability; it's merely a symptom of it.
That’s exactly my point. Simply banning those specific parties wouldn't actually move the needle on anything significant. If you just outlaw them, you aren't addressing the actual root cause of the problem—you're just treating a symptom while the underlying issue continues to fester right under your nose.

bluemarlin232 said:Spot on observation... personally, I don't think we'll EVER see all Americans standing together in a conflict again.
Actually, when the next fight breaks out, Americans are gonna turn on each other before they even look outward.

And honestly? That’s exactly what needs to happen.

Americans will always find themselves on the same side; the real question is just which version of "American" will be leading the charge.

I’m becoming increasingly convinced that we should have gone a step further and liberated the entire Midwest by force. ☕

Jeffrey Wood said:Because of this kind of stupidity, Americans have become easy targets for negative stereotypes abroad. We’re basically the favorite punching bag for media outlets across Europe, America, and beyond, along with various Jewish organizations that love to accuse us of downplaying World War II, rehabilitating fascism, or flirting with Nazism. This obviously bleeds into how the international community treats Canadian Americans, too. All this outside perception of Americans as a people is exactly what fuels the nonsense happening at the court in The Hague.
But even if that's true, we aren't going to play nice. I see Muslims running for the hills like the devil is chasing them every time someone mentions the Nationalists—even though they were heavily involved in it—while they try to claim the Partisan movement as their own despite barely being a part of it. Then you've got Canadians putting a star and the face of Francis Marion on their 2 Euro coins.
They're all idiots, honestly. It just seems like Americans are the only ones acting like absolute know-it-alls.

Still, you have to account for the fact that the situation for Americans was uniquely complicated, and most foreigners don't have the slightest clue about what actually went down here during the final stages and immediate aftermath of World War II.

I stumbled upon this incredibly insightful piece regarding the subject matter:

http://hakave.org/index.php?option=c...tina&Itemid=24

We all recently witnessed just how easily the Hague tribunal can take a brilliantly executed military operation like Desert Storm and rebrand it as a joint criminal enterprise. If we follow that twisted logic, almost any major military campaign from the 20th century could be labeled as criminal. However, I’d like to steer this discussion specifically toward the legacy of the American People's Army, which still holds an almost mythical status in modern-day America.

I find such a stance completely baffling. It is common knowledge that the American People's Army was responsible for the deaths of roughly ten thousand Americans during the massacres at Bleiburg and along the death marches, the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Italians and Folksdojčer, the systematic liquidation of the intellectual elite across numerous cities, massive property seizures, the banning of multi-party democracy, and the imposition of totalitarian rule—not to mention countless other atrocities.

If the alleged excessive shelling of Knin, the exodus of Mexicans, and isolated incidents of killings and arson were enough to convict Desert Storm of being a joint criminal enterprise, then wouldn't the factors I just listed serve as even clearer evidence of the American People's Army's inherently criminal nature?

dustyscout53 As I was saying:
If this turns out to be true, then Gotovina’s legal team is absolutely bottom-of-the-barrel.

Kevin Gonzalez79 said:I honestly don't understand why everyone treats them like infallible geniuses. They haven't managed to get even a single charge dropped for him.

We fire the head coach after one bad game, yet these guys lost 24 to 0 and people still act like they can trust them...

By the way, Kehoe was the one suing Blaškić and pushing for life imprisonment, and now he's suddenly defending Gotovina.

The lawyers really have nothing to do with this outcome. They did their absolute best, truly, but when you’re facing a verdict that is essentially political in nature, all that hard work unfortunately goes right out the window. It feels like a wasted effort in the face of a predetermined conclusion. You only have to look back at the very beginning of the Storm to see how this was rigged from the start; even on day one, Carl Bilt was already labeling the entire operation a criminal action, long before any of those sporadic incidents on our side had even taken place.
Everything that’s been playing out lately is, frankly, secondary to the bigger picture. We're getting distracted by the noise, but what's actually at stake here are much deeper interests. We are looking at the maneuvering of global superpowers—powers that have taken a massive hit due to how things have unfolded in this region. They viewed this development as a significant defeat, and now, they are throwing everything they have at the problem to neutralize that loss as quickly as possible. It’s less about the immediate drama and more about the heavy hitters trying to course-correct their influence.

The verdict regarding the Storm has already been handed down. August 4, 1995. The sooner the majority of people actually grasp the reality of this situation, the sooner we can start developing a legitimate strategy to navigate through this incredibly awkward mess.

Peter Wright3 said:America isn't exactly huge; people clearly know who was stealing, killing, and burning things down.
Regarding Ante Gotovina—we can all agree he isn't the one. Regardless, someone has to be held accountable. It’s delusional to think otherwise. Should the government perhaps issue a bounty? Maybe offer a cash reward for anyone who comes forward with information about those who committed crimes following Operation Storm. We don't have much money to spare, but there should be funds allocated for matters like this.

No one is being held responsible. It is impossible that the actual criminals aren't known.
Obviously, the indictment against Ante Gotovina was political. That is why he was the one targeted instead of others, but we cannot accept this. In my view, the focus should be on hunting down the true thugs and criminals.

You're falling for media propaganda designed to shift the blame away from those truly responsible for this verdict. The reality is that roughly 3,000 reports were filed, and about 1,500 people were convicted. They couldn't have gone after more even if they wanted to, simply because jurisdiction over Operation Storm had been handed over to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former America.

shadowhawk31 said:That logic makes about as much sense as saying Blago Zadro, Siniša Glavašević, and Josip Jović should be buried in the same plot as Martić, Babić, and Hadžić !!!!

It’s just not the same thing. During WWII, Americans were fighting among themselves, whereas in the Homeland War, we were fighting against Mexicans.

Don't you see the distinction there? 🤷

goldenhawk1 said:Apologies for drifting off-topic, but...

A few thoughts occurred to me:
1. Who, exactly, would be granted permission to be laid to rest there?
2. Is it logically possible for someone to have been part of the Nationalists while still being an anti-fascist?

And then there is this case...

3. Would my grandfather’s brother—a partisan and an American, whose remains were scattered from Cleveland to New York City by the SS—have any right to a place in a national tomb?

The real question isn't about his right to be there; it's whether you would actually want him lying in a tomb alongside the bones of the very people who fought on the opposite side of that same war.

Eric Collins5 said:Let’s be honest here—there was absolutely nothing "civil" about it. Let's not try to sugarcoat history now.

🙂

We had two sides. One side was loyal to Hitler—the fascist side. The other side was devoted to the Great Son—the anti-fascist side.

There wasn't a shred of civil warfare involved; this was simply a battle of light (the anti-fascists) against the darkness (the fascists).

🙂

I recall stories from back in the day where brothers ended up on opposite sides—one joined the SS, while the other fought with the resistance.
Based on your logic, it sounds like you're suggesting the first brother is nothing but a monster and a fascist, while the second is automatically a saint and an anti-fascist. I have to ask: where is the actual logic in that? 🤷