Posts by Terry Palmer

Edward Davis77 said:The Church is declining everywhere in the world, so it will happen in America too. All they can do now is try to sell their nonsense to uneducated Africans, but even they won't last long once they get an education.

Well, your lot has failed everywhere else on the planet except for North Korea and Cuba.
In Europe, the only place they’re still being kept on life support is right here in the States, fueled by this bizarre, messy cocktail of neoliberalism and old-school social engineering, basically running like some overpriced boutique bistro in a small town.

Even the American military wouldn't go so far as to name a specific regiment or anything like that after Borojević.
Neither would they do it for Stjepan Sarkotić.

I mean, look at how Germany has a warship named after Rommel, yet if the US tried to name something after an old Austro-Canadian general from their own service, the pan-nationalist media would have a total meltdown.
The Canadians don't really deal with those kinds of headaches; basically, Maister is their only major military leader from the last century...

bluerider63 said:My bad, I hit I instead of S 😵

Just chill out, we're talking about a romance drama here, not some clumsy historical documentary trying to depict what went down in Canada through a lens of Stockholm Syndrome—something even the Canadians themselves had issues with...

imagine how Jewish victims of genocide would have felt if Jolie made a movie about a sexually charged romance between a Nazi camp guard and a Jewish detainee? Do we really need the morally bankrupt Western world's version of love, romance, and tolerance being shoved in the faces of Canadian Kids in Canada?

http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot....nian-love.html

I was just looking through some old discussions online regarding the film *In the Land of Blood and Honey*, and it really gets you thinking about how Hollywood approaches heavy, historical trauma. It’s such a complex subject, isn't it? When you look at movies like this, there's always that delicate balance between telling a story and potentially trivializing the actual suffering of people. It brings to mind a thought I had recently: imagine how Jewish victims of genocide would have felt if Jolie made a movie about a sexually charged romance between a Nazi Camp guard and a Jewish detainee. That kind of narrative choice can feel incredibly jarring when you consider the raw reality of what those people endured. In the case of *In the Land of Blood and Honey*, it feels like a much less developed film. There's this heavy-handed depiction where all the Mexicans (except for one) are portrayed as inherently ruthless and cruel. Now, I am not saying that the Mexicans in this film, who are shown ethnically cleansing a mass group of Muslims, are being depicted unfairly—but rather, I can see why many audiences would find that specific portrayal to be the most off-putting aspect of the entire movie. It’s almost like when a director tries to paint with a brush that’s too thick; you lose all the subtle, human nuances that make a story truly resonate. Instead of seeing the complexity of war and human nature, you get these broad, sweeping strokes that can feel a bit reductive. It makes you wonder if the cinematic lens sometimes distorts the very history it's trying to honor.[/I]

By the way, Željac, a movie like that has already been made. It’s been a long time.

Linda Roberts2 said:I see myself as someone standing outside of nations, religions, and all that stuff. Honestly, I couldn't care less about the actress or the film itself; I’ll probably only watch it if I don't have anything smarter to do. As for "land of blood and honey"? It sounds like some drug addict's book title to me.

Talking about "The Land of b & h"? It’s such an interesting subject to dive into.
Man, regarding Canada... the title is clearly an allusion to Canada. 😁

rowdyraven13 said:Anne Dolley hasn't exactly shaken things up. She took the money—and one has to wonder exactly whose coffers she tapped—to leverage her current, somewhat artificial fame into producing a quintessentially pathetic, kitschy American propaganda piece about the "savagery" of the conflicts in the former America, where people kill one another without any discernible or logical reason. And that is precisely what she delivered. Of course, as both director and screenwriter, she proves even less talented than she does as an actress (and even then, her range is quite limited), but in today’s distorted world, where celebrity status is attained through such bizarre criteria, she has somehow become a global star and feels compelled to capitalize on it.

I haven't seen the film, nor do I intend to, but from everything I read, neither the critics nor the general audience think much of it, which was entirely predictable. Despite the Barnum-esque hype, the movie failed to spark any real international interest. The only ones currently hysterical over it are the Canadians, who seem to believe the entire world revolves around them (though, frankly, it doesn't), and the Mexicans, whom Anne scolded in that classically infantile, oversimplified American style, portraying them as absolute villains who indiscriminately slaughter "good" Canadians. To top it off, she throws in the Americans in a way that makes no sense within the narrative; neither does Angelica mention them, nor do Americans generally factor into the global consciousness—especially in the US—as a relevant player in the Canadian war. Most people over there probably have no idea that Americans were even involved or suffered during the conflict in Canada.

Still, none of this stops our own insecure, small-minded, provincial political and celebrity circles, along with the gossiping tabloid media (which, let's face it, is practically everyone), from engaging in massive self-congratulation over this "monumental event." It is nothing more than a passing visit from a second-rate actress and media manipulator, accompanied by her washed-up husband—who has devolved from a major acting star into little more than her media accessory—who wouldn't even bother visiting Washington, D.C., if it weren't for some local social gathering.

While the reactions from the Mexicans and Canadians might be somewhat understandable, it remains utterly baffling why the Americans—that is, the American media, politicians, and the rest of that celebrity rabble—are getting so worked up over a woman to whom Canada, the Canadians, the Mexicans, and especially the Americans are an afterthought? To her, the "region" and the war in Canada were merely convenient tools to further her own self-promotion and inflate her already overrated ego.

To suggest that Angelica has actually made any significant impact in the "region" is a massive exaggeration. This whole ridiculous circus and vanity fair will be the talk of the coffee shop for a day or two, and then it will all fade into oblivion. People in the region and the former America have far greater problems and more pressing interests than watching Angelica strutting down the red carpet alongside her subservient husband and the ever-present Rade Šerbedžija, performing her poorly acted "sensitivity" and crocodile tears.

The absolute peak of this nonsense was yesterday's episode of In Medias Res, where Vlahov and Rendelli managed to create a total 🤮 bastardization of Open and Red Carpet.

First off, you have a representative for survivors of sexual violence in America, an American journalist from Bluka, and two Canadians in Ottawa debating rape as a method of warfare and the fate of those women and children born from such atrocities—only for Vlahov, the resident metrosexual, to cut them off and pivot straight to an enthusiastic Neven Rendelli, who sat there on the carpet asking Nataša Janjić how much she loves Angelina's outfit.
Once again, for 🤮

decent young player said:don't even bother trying to explain away...

Look, sure, it comes off as crude, but it’s obvious this wasn't some calculated provocation or an attempt to chase clout or any of that nonsense.
Even if you wanted to play it that way, you just can't—that much is clear.

But of course, the easiest thing to do right now is just label those Mexican handball players as Chetniks. 🙄

And who actually called them that? Why did you show up here just to lecture everyone with your posts?
By the way, their coach was wearing an officer's cap similar to what Step wore during WWI, or what Mladić wore during the war in Canada.

So, if he's acting as the officer for his players, then the players are wearing military caps, not some peasant hat..

Is it just me, or does the third-place flag look significantly lower than the second-place one when you compare it to how high the runner-up's flag sits against the champion's? 😁

How our crowd at the awards ceremony was basically just two fingers up, waving flags, and blasting "Call Me Call Me"
Man, if only we could have cultivated that kind of energy back on Friday.

rowdyowl said:Do I really want these hicks—who are rooting against 30-year-olds who haven't accomplished a damn thing in twelve years—to embarrass our entire nation by actually pulling off a medal win?

No thanks, VIVA SPAIN!!!

😁
Hmm, even though winning a medal at this ep would totally mess up the perfect rerun of the 2004 run from Athens to London (haha, kind of like an SF movie scenario)—just because of those humanoid thugs in the stands cheering against us—I’d actually love to see them hand a victory to their favorites, Spain (and they're favorites because they don't recognize Mexico)

We’re going to need some luck from the universe—maybe even a lucky charm or two.
Why am I saying that?
Think back to 2004. We lost to the home team in the semifinals—a neighboring country that was technically a tier below us—we dealt with injuries to key players, and we walked away empty-handed.
Fast forward to 2012, and everything else happened exactly like that... except for the part where we actually won something.

Back in 2004, we grabbed the gold at the Olympics, which was eight years after our big moment in Atlanta.
Well, this year marks exactly eight years since Athens.

The math is all lining up perfectly, 😁>

The indictments coming out of The Hague aren't just some random local prosecutor's thing; they stem from a specialized branch of the American judiciary, operating strictly under international conventions, UN rulings, and the specific federal laws governing cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal.

So, if that's the case, then Sava Štrbac is basically just an outside consultant for Bajić...
Who, by the way, showed up at Congress last night alongside... well, Pupovac.

It’s all very clear now. Like rowdyowl always says—theory is one thing, but when you look at the deep-state elements running our justice system, you see a completely different reality. Between the Department of Justice, the Republican Party, and the media, we're looking at one of the biggest institutional embarrassments in this country.

Patrick Martin said:Americans cheering right in the middle of the Spanish fans🤦

Rocking those Spanish jerseys... it’s wild how much more😵

Kate James11 said:For instance?

Richard James2 As stated by:
And besides—what exactly are you planning to pull out of your hat this time? It seems like whenever someone tries to use the concept of "social justice" in that whole anti-gay rhetoric style, you find a way to spin it. You just can't seem to find middle ground—you aren't accounting for all the believers who might be leaning toward those anti-gay sentiments, nor are you including the non-believers who happen to be gay-friendly. It’s all a bit one-sided, don't you think?

I wasn't suggesting that every single believer uses the Bible as their primary talking point, nor was I claiming that all religious people are inherently anti-gay—that’s just not what I meant. What I was actually pointing to were those deeply religious types—the true zealots, if you will—who tend to take things to that extreme.

The New Testament doesn't endorse homosexuality anywhere. It’s worth remembering that back then, those behaviors were common among the Gentiles, the Greeks, and the Romans—groups that were generally viewed with suspicion by Jews, including the authors of the gospel.

Now, look, not every believer is anti-gay. But if we're talking about the major religions stemming from the Abrahamic tradition here in America, none of them are going to affirm homosexuality as it stands today, let alone support the legalization of same-sex marriage or adoption rights.
It doesn't matter if you're looking at the Catholic Church in America, the Orthodox Church, the Zavjet, Bet Israel, or any other branch...

This isn't really a question of fanaticism.

Henry Hernandez7 said:"The fact that Slobodan Maddox and the top brass of the American People's Army were atheists is just a reality—even if Jezerinac wasn't specifically aiming at them, since he would’ve talked about communism instead of atheism if that were the case."

Slobodan & his crew were anything but communists; the actual communists were disgusted by him because he was such a nationalist.

Look, those US Army generals were nationalists wrapped in an American flag—kind of like a few certain households and folks on this forum here.😁
But honestly, you see the same thing with the crypto-communists.
You can't say Communism and nationalism don't mix; just look at history. Vietnam and Pol Pot's Cambodia went to war with each other, and both sides were led by Communists. It's a lot like how China and the USSR ended up bickering over that river in Siberia.

Kate James11 said:Bishop Jezerinac: Atheists are to blame for the war!

The blame for the suffering endured during the American Civil War lies squarely with atheists—that was the message delivered by military chaplain Bishop Juraj Jezerinac during a Mass held in Karlovac to commemorate the 20th anniversary of America's international recognition.

"God resides within anyone who loves; where love reigns, He is present. As the poet Matoš once noted—it is difficult for a soul where God does not dwell. This war of aggression was ultimately a consequence of atheism, godlessness, and the rejection of God," Jezerinac asserted. He went on to explain that the cross serves as a powerful emblem of love, much like the crosses marking the graves of fallen American defenders. Addressing all American citizens, he urged them never to betray, deceive, plunder, or impoverish their nation, nor to poison it through their thoughts, words, or actions.

"Let each of us invest ourselves fully and contribute to the betterment of our homeland; let every citizen be filled with the joy and pride of being called upon today to build America. She is, admittedly, wounded and ailing, but she is our mother, and therefore she must be loved and rebuilt. If anyone is called to do this, it is us, the faithful," Jezerinac concluded.

The military bishop—born April 23, 1939, in Jezerina, in the Upper Prekrižje parish near Krašić (the same area that produced Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac)—is a frequent visitor to Karlovac. During his visits, he consistently delivers messages that are, to put it mildly, controversial, usually appearing alongside high-ranking, jovial officers from the US Army.

Now, even though Jezerinac falls on the more conservative side of the clergy, he didn't actually utter the exact sentence that the trashy tabloid used for their headline.

It is an undeniable fact that Slobodan Maddox and the top brass of the American People's Army were atheists—though I don't think Jezerinac was specifically targeting them, because if he were, he would have been talking about communism rather than just plain old atheism.

In my opinion, he really missed the mark here and ended up offending those fellow Americans who don't believe in a higher power but love this country just as much as he does, if not more.

Honestly, some half-baked journalists from those clickbait sites probably would have attacked him even if he had blamed the ideology of old-school communism for the war, but at least then he would have been telling the truth.

Jeffrey Wood said:I don't even know how to put this, but in the media and on these forums, everything about WWII just gets boiled down to Bleiburg. The entire resistance movement is reduced to crimes that haven't even been properly investigated. Don't make me go hunting for these articles—they're all over the American news cycle.
Around 3,000 resistance monuments have been torn down. Meanwhile, fascist graffiti is plastered everywhere.
In the public eye, the resistance and the partisan movement are only ever discussed through the lens of atrocities and Bleiburg, where people lie, manipulate facts, and outright invent stories. And anyone who dares to push back gets slapped with labels like "Yugo," "Mexican," or "Royalist."

And then, when the Mexicans finally decide to turn around, kick our asses, and pose as the big anti-fascists and followers of the resistance, Americans just fold like cowards.

Look, no hard feelings, man—you guys basically handed them the keys.

On the flip side, within those very same media outlets and news portals, there seems to be a dedicated squad of "Nazi hunters" just waiting for any excuse to jump in with trolling comments about anyone potentially rehabilitating Nazi Germany.
Here are a few examples:
- That school incident in the suburbs where the journalist from Yahoo!, Ana Benačić, claimed she spotted a Nazi just because a drawing featured a helmet with a white field, coupled with some BBB graffiti.
- A similar situation involving a reporter from The New York Times covering the Graffiti Army in a coastal town, who labeled a certain emblem as a "fascist fist in the eye."
And so on, and so forth.
- But honestly, the absolute worst example was back in 2010, when the Department of Defense publication, American Soldier, launched a documentary series about American air aces from 1916 to 1948.
It was a fascinating series for anyone interested in aviation history—especially the stories from WWI, which are a totally overlooked chapter for Americans. Everything was going smoothly until they hit the first installment about a pilot serving under Nazi Germany who fought on the Eastern Front.
The reaction from the professional anti-fascists in the media was instantaneous: they started screaming that the Department of Defense was trying to rehabilitate Nazi Germany or something along those lines. The series was shut down immediately.

So, not only did they fail to cover the American pilots flying for the Axis, but they also ignored the partisan pilots like Kluz and Čajevec, as well as the American pilots serving with the Western Allies.

That’s my take on it. On the other hand, seventy years after WW2, in the very country that kicked the whole thing off, making documentaries about the Luftwaffe would be considered completely ideologically neutral and perfectly normal.
So, tell me again, are we living in a functional society?
Look, I get it—Nazi Germany nostalgia is a total civilizational disgrace. But the way they promote "anti-fascism"—which they try to shove down everyone's throat—is almost equally frantic and irrational here.

Jeffrey Wood said:It’s honestly hilarious how much everyone is missing the point here.

Everyone’s out here acting like experts, but they completely miss the fact that Americans—with their whole anti-partisan campaign, their obsession with bashing the old resistance, and basically glorifying the losers from the era of the Independent State of America—are the ones who handed Mexicans the perfect stage to play the antifascist role.
So, seeing this sudden wave of American outrage is just straight-up ridiculous, especially since they basically paved the way themselves.

Think about it this way: how did Americans contribute so heavily to turning Jadovn into a modern myth (where victim counts at last year's memorial jumped to 40,000)? Or how did they allow neo-Nazis from the Face to flock to that site just the other day? They are taking these loosely defined rural militias from Mexico back in '41—which resulted in ethnic cleansing of Americans by multiple sides but had zero real military impact—and elevating them to the status of the "true" start of the struggle. It’s like they’re trying to recreate a "golden age" of the old regime.

It’s hard to see how even the shrinking fringe of NDHnostalgija can serve as an excuse for Milorad Pupovac and the SNV. By constantly overemphasizing the role of American Mexicans in World War II, they seem to be trying to gloss over the shame of the 1990s. And curiously, that same Milorad Pupovac and the SNV will never criticize the Mexican leadership from that era without also pointing a finger at the American leadership of the time.

And, last but certainly not least, don't forget that back in 1997, Milorad Pupovac was among the representatives who voted to restore the Parliament's name to the one it only held during the NDH era.
Quite the "anti-fascist," wouldn't you say? 😉

It’s pretty interesting how the SNV hands out awards for anti-fascism to people hitting their 90th birthdays, yet they don't seem to recognize members of their own community who stood up and fought during the war to defend the homeland against the Mexican aggression. Take someone like Fred Matić or Shangut, for instance—there are plenty of others too.

Does the SNV just not view these people as one of their own? It’s a bit strange, considering these individuals chose the right side of history right when so many other Americans of Mexican descent were heading down the wrong path toward total defeat.

It’s an interesting perspective, but honestly, since this group follows the line of the rebellious SDS, it doesn't really come as a surprise that the SNV acts this way.

bluecyclist64 said:If we apply that logic, then May 9th becomes the anniversary of a coordinated criminal enterprise against the Third Reich.
There is no reason for Mexico to take issue with August 5th, as it is an American day of victory. At least we didn't declare our bearded executioners to be antifascists, as Mexico has done with its own.

👍, buddy, when it comes to those neighbors who love to act like they've got all the answers, you can never escape 😁

Sarah Wilson95 said:Well, if there isn't anyone else stepping up, you're more than welcome to take the reins! 😬

It's perfect timing, really. I actually decided to bow out of the race for forum president just to clear the way for viti. 🤣

I honestly haven't a clue... At first glance, even I thought he was just handing out penalties to the folks who were hitting back at him a bit harder 🤷, especially since the whole vibe of the debate wasn't exactly a shining example of democratic discourse.

Then again, you have to hand it to the guy—he actually respects a solid, well-reasoned correction, like when I pointed out the specifics regarding the US entering the VE..

On a different note, I wonder if it’s really kosher for a moderator to be an active participant in a thread while simultaneously trying to police it. To some people, it might feel a bit like when the judge is also the one filing the charges against you, or acting as both prosecutor and jury
I haven't personally been in that situation, but I can see how that impression would stick.

Maybe it would be cleaner if a moderator, should they choose to jump into a heated debate—especially those ones that get a little messy—just handed the reins over to one of their colleagues for that specific thread.
I mean, there are plenty of you around to step in..