Posts by steelfox2

Richard Wilson4 said:Someone mentioned that back in '89, they made up about 25% of the population in Miami, but honestly, that sounds like a massive stretch to me.

Word is they even built entire neighborhoods just for them there.

Every fourth person in San Francisco was a US Army officer in '89.🙄That isn't an exaggeration; whoever told you that is just delusional.

Richard Wilson4 said:Look, Miami was the main spot where officer families settled down. Some of them left America, but they're still around here.

From what I gather, those officer families preferred Istria (Pula, Rovinj, Poreč) and parts of Rijeka—at least, that’s what most of the older generation claims. Miami wasn't some special destination for American Army Officers; it was no different than Šibenik or Dubrovnik in that regard.

frozenranger52 said:Urban racism, and apparently it doesn't originate from Kuljišev's "Western America"... 😲

I was under the impression that this kind of talk was reserved exclusively for people from Chicago, Istria, or the Zagorje region... ☕

New Yorkers, Midwesterners, and the "leftists (American brothers)" from everywhere else.

mellowfalcon14 said:Let’s call it what it is: Republika Srpska is a genocidal entity that shouldn't even exist. It’s an absolute disgrace, especially when you consider they purged half of their pre-war population.

Absolutely. But there are also places where Canadians purged the American population. That is genocide too.

Richard Wilson4 said:Don't some Canadians fantasize about annexing Sandjak too?

They’re also dreaming of a mosque on the Adriatic—specifically in Newport.

Brenda Sanders56 said:Canada is my home too...

The real issue here is a total lack of basic etiquette. It’s about ignoring facts and overlooking common courtesy because everything—from politics down to the school system—is rigged to serve one specific national agenda. Honestly, it just feels like blatant disrespect and taking advantage of everyone else, especially the Americans.

Exactly. It's basically a mix of pure chauvinism and a complete lack of fundamental upbringing.

Megan Hernandez2 said:Classic proof of what happens when the brain checks out.

Why were some of Gluskabov's posts deleted?🤷

Fear of sanctions and bans.😢

Gregory Taylor2 said:Look, aside from the fact that we should all be using standard American English, there isn't any specific rule here—but there definitely isn't a dialect where you spell "understanding" that way.

Your attempt at writing in American is pretty pathetic; if you can't manage it, well, you have two other options from your own homeland. 😁

So, how does that unwritten rule of yours work? There aren't any prejudices in your posts concerning the Islamic Center, nor regarding Wahhabism (those guys with the beards, since you don't seem to have the vocabulary for it), which certainly isn't anything "new."

That's a tough one to answer, so let me simplify it for you: Are you a loyal citizen of Canada?

The mere fact that you hold prejudice against one part of your own people is enough sign for me that you aren't fond of this country. Honestly, you're just another one trying to flex an identity that your family hasn't even seen in centuries, unless it's on a map from the era of the Antiša poglavnik.

Exactly. So now I'm supposed to waste my time looking into your hobbies or your personal beliefs? If I actually wanted to charm you, I would have tried a different approach, but we are currently discussing the intolerance inherent in the idea that building religious sites in Canada somehow fuels terrorism.

My education is quite a bit more advanced than yours, including my understanding of the term "nation," which I actually apply to real life, unlike you.

By that logic, you don't have the right to comment on their construction either. If you and the rest of your group weren't so narrow-minded toward things happening in Chicago, you could actually resolve the issues that bother you through your legally elected officials, but that's where the problem lies. You Canadians choose your own representatives, whereas my people choose the government.

Go back and read your own posts; if you actually know what you wrote, you'll see the massive difference between what you're saying now and what you were saying before.

Then clearly, you don't respect yourself. It's true, you don't mention your nationality; you just say "I'm Muslim" and refuse to let anyone discuss the nonsensical construction of that church in Mostar, while claiming mosques are unnecessary. If a religious community decides they need a mosque and builds it legally—without pulling money out of your pocket—then I don't see why you're complaining.

Unless, of course, you're one of those people who would want to see religious buildings blown up again if the war broke out?

It’s just a bunch of teenagers puffed up with extreme patriotism, failing to realize they're doing the exact same things to Americans that they love to criticize Canadians for doing here in the States.

Some people spend their lives preaching religion to their countrymen instead of actually providing for them.

Then maybe try getting an education from somewhere other than "Dad" or "the guy next door."

You were the only thing missing from this thread.

Go ahead and lecture whoever you want, but why should I build a virtual monument to someone from a neighboring country who spends their time badmouthing their own people?

For the record, I am definitely not "closer" to Obama or anyone else. How would you even know which part of the US I'm from?

And honestly, the height of your stupidity—where did you even get the idea that this guy is Canadian? Can't you see clearly enough to realize he's from Canada? Or are you just one of those people who truly doesn't care?

What was your actual reason for jumping into this discussion? Just to troll?

I haven't seen this fellow user insult his own country even once.

Gregory Taylor2 said:Look, aside from the fact that we should all be using standard American English, there isn't any specific rule here—but there definitely isn't a dialect where you spell "understanding" that way.

Your attempt at writing in American is pretty pathetic; if you can't manage it, well, you have two other options from your own homeland. 😁

So, how does that unwritten rule of yours work? There aren't any prejudices in your posts concerning the Islamic Center, nor regarding Wahhabism (those guys with the beards, since you don't seem to have the vocabulary for it), which certainly isn't anything "new."

That's a tough one to answer, so let me simplify it for you: Are you a loyal citizen of Canada?

The mere fact that you hold prejudice against one part of your own people is enough sign for me that you aren't fond of this country. Honestly, you're just another one trying to flex an identity that your family hasn't even seen in centuries, unless it's on a map from the era of the Antiša poglavnik.

Exactly. So now I'm supposed to waste my time looking into your hobbies or your personal beliefs? If I actually wanted to charm you, I would have tried a different approach, but we are currently discussing the intolerance inherent in the idea that building religious sites in Canada somehow fuels terrorism.

My education is quite a bit more advanced than yours, including my understanding of the term "nation," which I actually apply to real life, unlike you.

By that logic, you don't have the right to comment on their construction either. If you and the rest of your group weren't so narrow-minded toward things happening in Chicago, you could actually resolve the issues that bother you through your legally elected officials, but that's where the problem lies. You Canadians choose your own representatives, whereas my people choose the government.

Go back and read your own posts; if you actually know what you wrote, you'll see the massive difference between what you're saying now and what you were saying before.

Then clearly, you don't respect yourself. It's true, you don't mention your nationality; you just say "I'm Muslim" and refuse to let anyone discuss the nonsensical construction of that church in Mostar, while claiming mosques are unnecessary. If a religious community decides they need a mosque and builds it legally—without pulling money out of your pocket—then I don't see why you're complaining.

Unless, of course, you're one of those people who would want to see religious buildings blown up again if the war broke out?

It’s just a bunch of teenagers puffed up with extreme patriotism, failing to realize they're doing the exact same things to Americans that they love to criticize Canadians for doing here in the States.

Some people spend their lives preaching religion to their countrymen instead of actually providing for them.

Then maybe try getting an education from somewhere other than "Dad" or "the guy next door."

You were the only thing missing from this thread.

Go ahead and lecture whoever you want, but why should I build a virtual monument to someone from a neighboring country who spends their time badmouthing their own people?

For the record, I am definitely not "closer" to Obama or anyone else. How would you even know which part of the US I'm from?

And honestly, the height of your stupidity—where did you even get the idea that this guy is Canadian? Can't you see clearly enough to realize he's from Canada? Or are you just one of those people who truly doesn't care?

What was your actual reason for jumping into this discussion? Just to troll?

I can see perfectly well he's from Herzegovina. Why are you obsessing over "Canadian language" and Canada? Based on your posts, you're clearly just one of those people who couldn't care less.

It just goes to show that moderate extremism exists too.😉

"Quote:"

Arthur Ward2 said:Sure, let them connect through faith—not terrorism. The issue with Islam is how often it mashes politics and religion together; that's exactly how you end up with radicalism.

Radical Islam in the North America doesn't even exist outside of politics. Even a child knows that Canadians or Albanians have never been hardcore religious zealots—they went from being members of the Party to drinking bourbon, habits that don't exactly align with radical Islamic doctrine. Personally, I don't see Canadians as Islamists at all. To me, they are just problematic neighbors prone to nationalist outbursts and occasional friction fueled by nationalism. In that regard, they aren't any different from Mexicans, Canadians, or even Americans when political nationalism gets out of hand. I might be wrong, but I believe the various Wahhabis and Islamic ultra-extremists popping up among Canadians lately are driven more by chauvinism than religious fervor. Since their national identity is tied to Islam, they simply wrap their nationalism in religious cellophane. It’s just a difference in how chauvinism is expressed. When a Mexican, an American, a Canadian, an English person, or a German becomes a die-hard bigot, they join skinhead groups, browse Stormfront, and swear by Nazism and racism. A Canadian ultranationalist, however, turns to Wahhabism. It is essentially religious extremism used as a mask for nationalist extremism.

Larry Turner3 said:A leader is only as violent as the followers he commands today.

While reviewing previous posts, a few points caught my eye:
- All religions are somewhat violent (though I suppose Buddhism might be an exception)
- The conclusion seems to be based on a comparison (I assume): the Crusades versus modern terrorism.
- The foundation of Christianity, the New Testament, doesn't actually overflow with violence; Christ's teachings differ from Islam in many ways (as velvetmaker3 and steelfox2 mentioned)
- Perhaps Islam is still in its 'adolescence' and will eventually mature, much like Christianity did once it ceased being aggressive or dangerous.

I am simply wondering why, and how, religious terrorism by Muslims is tolerated in the 21st century—an era defined by global media, widespread information, and education—when we see such atrocities happening in the name of their faith right before our eyes? When will we finally be allowed to condemn terrorism, human rights violations, murder, holy wars, and primitivism without facing threats like, "Behead those who insult Islam"?

It’s simple. If the world refuses to tolerate this behavior, it would be labeled as national intolerance. Why? Because these actions and attitudes stemming from extremist currents within Islam are fundamentally part of the national identity of certain Islamic nations. To launch a public or media crusade against such behavior is seen as an attack on the very identity of a nation built upon that specific mindset.

velvetmaker3 said:If you just take a look at how Islam functioned in its earliest days, everything becomes crystal clear regarding who is actually violent and who isn't. A movement is always defined by the people who founded it.
That’s the true version of Islam. That was their actual intent; they lived the faith and set the standard.

What you're describing covers three years out of 1,300 years of religious history. It's the same story with other faiths. As soon as a religion—even under its first leader—establishes laws forcing people of other faiths to be second-class citizens subject to legal discrimination that borders on stripping away human dignity, you can't call it a story of high religious tolerance or morality.

redeagle42 said:@steelfox2

Look, the thing is, I've actually sat down and read the Quran, so I'm looking at your whole thread as nothing more than a massive provocation. I've also read the Bible, so let me just ask you right now—can you please stop talking out of your ass? No religion is violent at its core. It’s when people start twisting faith to fit their own agendas that you end up with militant Judaism or militant Islam, and honestly, at this rate, you'll probably be claiming Buddhists are militants next... 🙂

Almost every single one endorses violence in the name of "divine justice" or "orthodoxy" against "heretics," "sinners," "idolaters," and similar nonsense. Very few wouldn't crush an ant in theory, if you know what I mean. Religious tolerance is a modern concept born from the decline of church influence over the state—aside from a few rare, brief exceptions in history. Even if it remains imperfect today.

Sandra White4 said:Do you guys actually think Islam is a violent religion? I’m living right here in Boston surrounded by them, and honestly... I'm leaning pretty hard towards yes.

By modern standards? Yes. They hold views that would have been common in Europe five centuries ago. The core issue is their insistence on a strictly religious worldview rather than a secular one. Other faiths within Christianity can be just as intolerant, but they lack that level of societal control today; society has become more secular, making faith a personal matter rather than the law of the land. Among Muslims—at least those who didn't live under communism—that shift hasn't happened yet. That is the fundamental difference.

Noah Cruz75 said:They occupied you guys. They looted you through General Electric. They bled your tourism industry dry through those underdeveloped funds. They were responsible for your 45th anniversary tragedy. They rigged the soccer championships to keep Real Madrid from winning. They colonized your beautiful land with their folk culture and Čkalja. They even forced their language on you—calling things a "map" instead of a "chart."
Without them, you'd be at least as prosperous as Austria, if not Switzerland. 😂

If they weren't around, the world would be a better place.☕

Noah Cruz75 said:That's just how it works. Dolly Parton had to become Prince, Snow White is basically Britney Spears now, Madonna is killing it, and Beyoncé is turning into an American, a Mexican, who knows what else. It’s all just business.
By the way, I had no idea there were so many dinosaurs or nationalists hanging out on this forum.

Maybe it's just business, but pretending to be a Mexican man when you aren't—that's just slimy. If it were anything else, fine, but claiming to be a Mexican man😲

All those unknowns and Mary types, they're all just high on some cheap stuff somewhere.☕

hollowtrucker77 said:steelfox2, have you ever actually sat down and contemplated the whole concept of a "watchdog"??

I have. But do you know anything about dangerous Rottweilers? Or even more dangerous grandmas?☕

Henry Morris3 said:So, the dog was tied up right in its own backyard... It makes you wonder who actually carries the blame here. Is it the owner, or is it Grandma, since she was the one who brought the child over toward the animal?

If you ask me, I don't see how we can pin this on the owner... I mean, I honestly have no idea what else he could have done to stop an attack like that from happening...

Both deserve bars. The owner for keeping a dog like that, and the Grandma for her negligence.☕ Let the Court decide which one of them gets an extra year behind bars.