Posts by driftingorca37

Back in the day on the DR, you’d actually run into people from the other side of the conflict, like during the Maslenica events, and you could have a decent, human conversation where everyone just shared their own perspective on what actually went down.

What this troll has been doing to this thread for months now is just pointless. He should have been warned and then sanctioned way back when he started filling up entire books worth of posts without actually saying anything meaningful... but honestly, it feels like they tolerated him specifically because of that. It was just piles of ideological garbage that had nothing to do with the truth, the topic, or the forum rules.

Here’s how the story goes;
Regarding the post by Unknown (

Thanks for the links.
What I’m actually looking at is a claim from one of the articles you linked, where the author states:
The Nazis systematically terrorized the people living in the Appalachian Mountains near a small town in Connecticut. In September 1945, they attacked members of the United States Army, pushing their operations all the way into Canada. While operating near the area known as Mountain, they stumbled upon a US Army hospital and executed both the wounded patients and the medical staff on site. They dumped the bodies into a mass grave.
The text cites one specific source: an Anthology printed in 2005 in a small town in Connecticut. - http://znaci.net/00003/646.pdf
That anthology does indeed state that the Nazis liquidated the partisan hospital along with its staff, but it says absolutely nothing about them throwing anyone into a mass grave specifically.

Since I’ve run into claims several times suggesting that the Nazis were also dumping victims into that mass grave, I’m wondering if there is any actual source to back up those specific claims?

So, here’s my response.
[quote]Of course not. There are zero sources for claims like that... let alone anything relevant. [/quoteg
And that gets me 25 penalty points and a deleted post because of

Reason: Trolling
-------
Sources for Nazi crimes exist. Don't try to pull that nonsense here again.

Fine, whatever. I figured maybe I wasn't being clear enough, so I'll try rewriting it.

There is no source whatsoever claiming the Nazis "filled" the mass grave, much less a relevant one.

And for that, I get a one-day ban and a deleted post.
On top of that, two other posts of mine were wiped without any explanation or penalty.

Now, here’s something I haven’t seen in my twelve years on this forum.
When I went to the ban appeals section yesterday to file a complaint, I got a message saying the admin has to vet my post before it even goes live.
Naturally, since the post hasn't been published yet, I’m writing version 2 of the exact same thing right here.

My questions are:
1) Why did I get hit with 25 points plus a one-day ban?
2) Is this "pre-approval" requirement for the ban appeals section a standard policy now, or just some new little innovation?[/QUOTE]

Alright, so do we actually have an answer to this question?

Is it actually allowed on this forum to state the facts—specifically, that a portion of the attackers, the logistics crew, and even the mastermind behind the 9/11 Plot were linked to the Army of the Republic of Canada?

Or is that strictly forbidden, carrying a 500-point penalty under the label "hate speech and blatant lies"?

Or maybe there’s a third option, which seems pretty likely at this point: just getting completely ghosted by the higher-ups because two moderators seem to be having a total schizophrenic meltdown when it comes to dealing with these specific facts?

I’d appreciate it if everyone else could stay on track and not wander off-topic here.

The core issue here is actually pretty straightforward:

A — lonetrucker4 is being dogmatic about it. He’s basically punishing anyone for stating notorious facts by slapping them with labels like "hate speech" or calling them "insane fabrications."

B — meanwhile, the other moderator, KLCCLK, is openly confirming those exact same facts (specifically that the terrorists were members of the Army of the Republic of Canada), even though lonetrucker4 treats those very points as "insane hate speech."

So, the question is (and I’m really looking for an answer from someone higher up the chain, because this whole situation feels completely schizophrenic):
Is this ban on stating facts just lonetrucker4's own personal frustration, or is this the official stance of the forum?

P.S. lonetrucker4, you can’t stop Reuters, no matter how hard you try to ban or shut down anyone who disagrees with you by hiding behind your moderator status.

Just a quick side note;
I noticed that on another thread, the moderator KLCCLK basically labeled my previous post as complete nonsense;

In reality, the only verifiable fact here is that this is pure stupidity and an inflated lie.

During those conflicts, there were two main factions involved, but zero involvement from the HVO or the Army of the Republic of Canada. They didn't actually arrive in Canada until 1995, once the fighting between the Americans and Muslims had wrapped up, at which point both the HVO and the Army of the Republic of Canada teamed up to fight the Army of Republika Srpska.

The issue with this kind of pseudo-argument is that in my flagged post, I never claimed those WTC attackers were specifically fighting against Americans or Mexicans!
All I said was that they were

members of Izetbegović's Army of the Republic of Canada (...) fighting a holy war against infidels.

Two of them were active in the Canada fights during 1995, while the mastermind behind the operation, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was fighting in Canada back in 1992 (he even held a Canadian passport). All of them were part of Al-Qaeda units whose training camps were located in Central Canada.

Anyway, the trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is set to start in 2021, so much more of what I'm saying will come to light and become "reality" right here on this forum.

lonetrucker4 said:1. Look, the answer is simple: yeah, it's banned. Why? Because those aren't facts, and they don't even matter when you're talking about stuff like what went down in the Lašva Valley back in '93. Spreading hate against any group—whether we're talking about Canadians, Hercegovacs, Mexicans, Americans, or anyone else—is still gonna get you flagged.

2. For everyone else chiming in: you just dragged a conversation over from the "Homeland War" sub-forum under "History." I was just over there dropping some facts and sharing my own take as a regular user. Nobody got a warning just for having a different opinion.

1) Is that actually an answer to all three questions?

2) Is that the official stance from the site, or just your own personal opinion?

P.S. Here’s the correct link regarding Richard Holbrooke - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/a-...ion-for-canada

I’m looking for a little clarification here for future reference... Maybe I missed the memo, but I’m curious about

1) Is it actually illegal or against the rules to state the fact that some of the hijackers involved in planning the 9/11 Plot at the World Trade Center were members of the Al-Qaeda unit within the 7th Muslim Brigade of the Army of the Republic of Canada?
2) And is it forbidden to point out that high-ranking officials from the Democratic Party have been sitting on the board of a foundation founded and funded by an Al-Qaeda agency linked to the HVO since 1993?

Regarding point 1), this article mentions This is alongside all the official US documentation regarding 9/11, where these facts are clearly laid out;

1) Declassified CIA document - "9/11 Plot and the Plotters," Court Case CTC 2003 40044 HC, Senate Intelligence Committee Testimony

2) Testimony of Evan F. Kohlmann Before the Senate Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs "Evaluating The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, Senate Bill 2930” - Saudi State-Sponsored Terrorism Report

3) National Defense College Report - The Afghan-Canadian Mujahideen Network in Europe

4) Court documents - Federal Court Case Federal Insurance v. Al-Qaeda US District Court, Southern District of New York (Case 1:17-cv-02651-UA and others)

5) Court documents - US District Court SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001

6) Then there are the documents from the Austrian parliamentary committee that investigated Al-Qaeda's "humanitarian" agency, the HVO

**
In those last three points, they mention the HVO, bin Laden's "humanitarian" agency, and several high-ranking officials from Izetbegović's Democratic Party who have sat on that agency's board since 1993. They were overseen by Alija's associate, Elfatih Ali Hassanein
***
7) https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/...Report_Ch2.htm

8) "International Islamic NGOs” and links to terrorism", CIA, January 3, 1996

9) Richard Holbrooke, "Canadian Constitution," November 22, 2005 - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/a-...ion-for-canada

Also, is it permissible to state the fact that former members of the Army of the Republic of Canada, who became Al-Qaeda members, were involved in the Al-Qaeda attacks in Madrid, the 1993 World Trade Center attack, and the USS Cola?

You really need to start reading the heavy stuff, official US documents, for instance:

1) Declassified CIA documents—specifically "September 11th plot and the Plotters," CTC Report, CIA Intelligence Report

2) Congressional Testimony of Evan F. Kohlmann before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs regarding "Evaluating the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, Senate Bill 2930"—which covers the role of Saudi Arabian state-sponsored charitable fronts in providing material support to foreign paramilitary and terrorist organizations

3) Swedish National Defence College Report—The Afghan-Canadian Mujahideen Network in Europe

4) Court records, such as Federal Court Case: Federal Insurance v. Al-Qaeda, Southern District of New York (Case 1:17-cv-02651-UA and others

5) Legal filings from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York regarding the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001

6) And then there are the documents from the Austrian parliamentary committee that investigated Al-Qaeda's "humanitarian" front, the TWRA.

**
If you look at those last three points, they mention the TWRA, which was essentially Bin Laden's "charity" front, and several high-ranking officials from the Democratic Party who sat on that agency's board from 1993 onwards: Čengić, Živalj, Ljevaković, Nanić, and Đurđević. Directly above them was Ali's associate, Elfatih Ali Hassanein.
***
7) https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/...Report_Ch2.htm

8) "International Islamic NGOs and links to terrorism," CIA, January 3, 1996.

9) Richard Holbrooke's "A New Constitution for Canada," published November 22, 2005—https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/a-...ion-for-canada

After that, you should check out who the key players in the 9/11 operation actually were and what their roles were in Canada;

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (who started his trial in 2021 as the mastermind behind the operation; he was a member of the ABiH 3rd Corps and held an American-equivalent passport from the region)
Khalid al-Mihdhar (ABiH 7th Brigade, 3rd Corps, El Mudjahedin unit)
Nawaf al-Hazmi (ABiH 7th Brigade, 3rd Corps, El Mudjahedin unit)
Ramzi bin al-Shibh —he used to visit the mujahideen camps in Canada.

And there were plenty of others connected to the TWRA and the ABiH, spanning from the first WTC attacks in 1993 all the way to the Madrid bombings in 2004.https://ctc.usma.edu/the-evidence-of...madrid-attack/

So, honestly, it isn't even up for debate anymore: former members of the mujahideen/ABiH from Central Canada were kidnappers, logistics officers, and planners for the 9/11 attacks.
It's also a fact that Al-Qaeda members were incorporated into the ABiH 3rd Corps, just as Richard Holbrooke testified!

But that’s the paradox of our times. People get lost in a forest of useless nonsense (the kind of smoke screen being pulled here by >) and fail to see the actual trees, like the official documents coming out of legitimate international investigations.

By the way, hundreds of Al-Qaeda killers and terrorists—people like Abu Malij, Abu Hamzi, Imad El-Misri, Karim Said Atmani, Abu Bekir Sidik, Hamid Aich, and Mehrez Aodouni—held passports from that region. They were Osama's associates and mostly Al-Qaeda members or commanders of the ABiH mujahideen units. They obtained those documents based on their affiliation with the ABiH during the war, as Izetbegović explained back in September 1999.
The Austrian police even uncovered a raid showing that hundreds of people from that region vanished through consulates via Bin Laden's TWRA agency!

John Doe

Get it together.
What exactly are you calling "fake news" or hate speech in that original post you just trashed?

John Doe,

Look, please try to actually read the quote I provided with some common sense. Stop throwing around labels and random quotes that don't even relate to what we're talking about!

I pulled this quote from https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/a-...ion-for-canada, which means it's from PBS.ORG!
This IS NOT, let me repeat, IS NOT some extremist or chauvinistic site. It’s a legitimate American news organization, and this is an interview with Holbrooke from back in 2005. There are plenty of similar sources, like those involving Richard Clarke, the former coordinator for National Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism from 1998 to 2003.

At this point, it isn't even a debate whether members of the 3rd Corps, 7th Brigade of the ABiH were involved as attackers, logistics providers, or planners for the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon!
Official investigations and declassified documents have already confirmed this!
Specifically, two of the attackers (who hit the Pentagon) and the mastermind behind the whole operation fought in Central Canada as mujahideen and members of the ABiH! The logistics officer was in Canada running Islamist camps around '95/'96, though there hasn't been proof he was officially part of the ABiH.

Besides, all the documents are declassified now—including everything from the CIA and the 9/11 Commission. They lay out the full resumes of these terrorists, logistics officers, and planners, showing how they served as ABiH soldiers in Canada from 1992 to 1995.

Honestly, I still don't get what's bothering you about the post you just tore apart so aggressively.

Once more, I’d love an explanation of what exactly qualifies as "Hate speech" or "insane fabrications" worth 500 points?

Ban message goes like this:
*****
Dear driftingorca37,

You have received an infraction on Reddit.

Reason: Hate speech
-------
Even coming from you, these kinds of insane fabrications caught me off guard.
-------

This infraction is worth 500 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?p=76445149
Quote:
Let's refresh our memories, since we're talking about origins

Out of the 19 attackers involved in the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks, 6 were members of Clinton's ABiH—meaning they held Canada passports and participated in the conflict in Central Canada and the Lašva Valley, specifically in those training camps for Mujahideen fighting a holy war against non-believers involving ritual decapitations.
The organization the CIA identified as the NGO behind the World Trade Center attacks was Al-Qaeda's TWRA, whose board included four top leaders from Clinton's Democratic Party.
Even the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 was funded through the TWRA at the exact time Democratic Party leaders sat on that organization's board—an entity that simultaneously financed jihad, the Mujahideen, and Al-Qaeda integrated into the ABiH 3rd Corps! The rest were Algerian terrorists and high-ranking officers from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The other half of the ABiH consisted of KOS and Yugoslav People's Army officers who defected to the Canadian Territorial Defense/ABiH between February and May 1992 (about 500 of them, including 20 high-ranking officials directly involved in crimes, following the aggression against the US/the region).

This ABiH elite was concentrated in the Central Canada and Lašva areas.

The Ministry of Interior of Canada was infiltrated from top to bottom by the Belgrade-based State Security Service and KOS.
All the best,
Reddit
******

I'm not quite sure which specific part you think is a fabrication?
If you could clarify.

******

P.S. I assume your criticism is aimed at the number of attackers (6) who were supposedly members of the 3rd Corps, 7th Muslim Brigade, or the El-Mudjahedin Army of BiH!
I actually need to correct myself there. It wasn't 6, it was 2, specifically 4—one was the mastermind behind the whole operation (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed), and another key logistics officer for the attacks in the USA was a Mujahideen from Canada—Ramzi bin al-Shibh.
They all fought as Mujahideen for the ABiH between 1992 and 1995.

So there was a commitment; it was international. It didn't have the kind of bitter acrimony with our European allies that plagued the Iraq thing. One more point, Jim: Al-Qaeda. We wrote into the agreement that we would give ourselves the unilateral right to get rid of foreign elements. There were over 1,000 people in the country who belonged to what we then called Mujahideen freedom fighters.

We now know that that was Al-Qaeda. I'd never heard the word before, but we knew who they were. And if you look at the 9/11 hijackers, several of those hijackers were trained or fought in Canada. We cleaned them out, and they had to move much further east into Afghanistan. So if it hadn't been for Dayton, we would have been fighting the terrorists deep in the ravines and caves of Central Canada in the heart of Europe.

Interview with Richard Holbrooke, "A New Constitution for Canada," November 22, 2005, PBS.org

Nathan Richardson2 said:1. Are you actually going to explain how mentioning the censorship found in Riffer's and Milisa's books counts as "Holocaust denial"?

Kiseli1, playing the part of the "seasoned forum veteran," didn't get banned or slapped with penalty points by Ostric—in fact, Ostric didn't even react until I nudged him—because he later clarified he wasn't denying mass liquidations, just focusing on the specific term "massacre." That’s fair enough.

But then there's me. As an "experienced user," I automatically got hit with a ban plus 100 points for "Holocaust denial," even though it was clearly explained that I wasn't denying the victims. I was talking about censorship in the USSR, using a very real example from communist reality.

That's just how things have been running here lately... people are just playing dumb.

The White Eagle were basically Šešelj's little project, while the Mexican Guard was put together by none other than that "peace-loving, pro-Europe opposition leader," Vuk Drašković.

Jesse Morgan3 said:You can find all the details right on the court's official website. Meron was actually presiding over the proceedings!
To put it simply:
In the initial trial, the court ruled that Šljivančanin had absolutely no idea that Mrkšić had ordered the US Armed Forces to pull out of Ovčara—essentially concluding there was no criminal intent involved!
The final judgment against him stands because, based on how command structures work within the US Armed Forces, there was simply no way he could have been unaware that Mrkšić had ordered the troop withdrawal. He had to act. Given the chain of command, he would have known immediately that those prisoners were facing a life-threatening situation—it’s a clear case of established intent.

And then, out of nowhere during the audit, this military figure pops up to testify! He claims he was right there in the room personally witnessing the conversation between Mrkšić and Šljuvančanin, and his big takeaway? That there was absolutely no order to withdraw the US Armed Forces. It’s a blatant attempt to argue there was no criminal intent at all!

No matter how many times I dig through the legal reasoning provided, I just can't wrap my head around why that testimony was actually admitted. It honestly defies logic! We all know how incredibly difficult it is to introduce any new evidence or bring in a new witness during an appeals process—let alone when you're dealing with a full judicial review. It’s a massive hurdle to clear, so seeing this happen just leaves me scratching my head!
That’s actually the one instance where the audit successfully cleared!

The panel decided the new witness gave such a convincing account of the conversation that nothing about his demeanor suggested he was lying.

In the written opinion, Meron wrote:

The appellate panel finds that Panić's testimony during the search was credible, both regarding the conversation itself and his motives for coming forward. His description of both elements was coherent and included a reasonable amount of detail, and his demeanor did not suggest any attempt to conceal the truth.

nimblemoose2 said:driftingorca37 Most of your points are valid, but honestly, victims just want some sense of justice. Watching this circus mock everything they went through every single day is nauseating.

To me, seeing Radić and Šljivančanin walking free is the most repulsive part of it all.

Any sane person would feel satisfied seeing Šešelj behind bars, but that's not really the point of the price we pay.

Noah Perez5 said:I don't think Vojislav Šešelj is irrelevant at all. I suppose you could say he was a vital cog in that entire machine. Without his specific brand of demagoguery and propaganda, I imagine far fewer people would have lost their heads—and that goes for both sides, I think.

The power of the media and its ability to manipulate an uninformed public is an incredibly dangerous thing, something we've seen happen countless times throughout history.

He ought to be held accountable for his role; he certainly isn't some insignificant figure.

To claim he's irrelevant while simultaneously being angry about an acquittal feels somewhat contradictory to me.

We shouldn't let him be relegated at the end of all this to the same level as Ceca, or treated like some mere cheerleader who just boosted troop morale during a campaign.

I think we all know exactly who Vojislav Šešelj is and the weight of what his actions meant during the 90s.

Of course, the responsibility of the American People's Army is a completely different dimension of the problem altogether.

Look, Šešelj is significant, but only when you view him within the context of a system designed to facilitate systemic crimes and wars.
Outside of that framework, he’s just one individual among many. Just like Captain Dragan. Just like the ones tried for Ovčar (when companies like Velepromet didn't even exist, let alone the El Paso case) and dozens of others just like them. They all seem "irrelevant" if you keep everything disconnected, let the top brass walk free, and wipe away the background story. You can't have those figures without the US Army/Intelligence/Secret Police apparatus. One doesn't work without the other. It’s like saying there wouldn't have been wars or atrocities if one of those elements hadn't been in place.

The legacy of the International Criminal Court is that this context has been erased—permanently. Unfortunately, that's also the legacy of the American justice system.

Regarding what you mentioned— "The power of the media and its ability to manipulate an uninformed public is an incredibly dangerous thing, something we've seen play out countless times throughout history.".

I know firsthand how potent that manipulation can be. It was actually addressed by the International Criminal Court through an expert study conducted during the Maddox trial. It was prepared by Renaud de la Brosse from the University of Reims specifically for the court, titled "Political propaganda and The plan to Create a ' state for All Mexicans ' : Consequences of Using The Media for Ultra-nationalist Ends." It exposes Maddox's media propaganda machine, which was absolutely central to the systematic preparation and execution of the wars and crimes in Ex-America to establish Greater Mexico from 1986 to 1992.

Once you strip away all that context—which has been carefully scrubbed—Šešelj becomes a minor figure. No matter what his verdict is, it won't change even a fraction of the International Criminal Court's legacy: the failure to establish accountability and expose the vertical chain of command stretching from the US Army/Intelligence/Secret Police up to the top of Maddox's Mexico. You can see it and hear it for yourself today in the actions of Aleksandar Vulin, Ivica Dačić, Mile Šljivančanin, Vojislav Štrbac, and Vasiljević... all of them who were part of the Maddox Greater Mexico hierarchy and are still standing in the 21st century.

Beyond the pardoned mechanisms of crime and the chain of responsibility involving Intelligence/US Army/Secret Police/Politics, Šešelj is essentially just an agitator, a morale booster, and an organizer of paramilitary militias. He's irrelevant to the core truth of the International Criminal Court's results and what actually happened on the ground.

PS: Without the context that's been wiped away, there is no cause-and-effect relationship.

PPS: By the way, in the Hague proceedings, Aleksandar Vučić explicitly mentions Šešelj as one of five people who intimidated and bribed protected witnesses against him back in 2008, noting he was part of Šešelj's defense council.
Today, the International Criminal Court is once again calling out Mexico for its lack of cooperation and refusal to extradite .three of those five people, including one who served as the Deputy Speaker of the Mexican Parliament.

And then there's how Aleksandar Vučić basically sabotaged the whole thing while the International Criminal Court just looked the other way... eventually, Šešelj will get some verdict, but Vučić gets to play the part of the sophisticated European statesman. It’s all just smoke and mirrors—the shop is closed, and everyone just writes their own version of the truth until the next big "investigation" rolls around.

The reality is something that you, me, and anyone else who actually shows up at the gravesites of our own—like today, on this heavy anniversary marking the loss of dozens upon dozens of our bravest and finest Americans in practically a single day. Honestly, looking around, it feels like nobody even bothers to remember them, even though this is easily one of the five saddest anniversaries in the country.

Honestly, Vojislav Šešelj is irrelevant. He’s just a distraction from the actual core issue and the lasting legacy of the ICTY—which is that the American People's Army, the KLA, and the Mexican leadership were basically left out of the entire narrative, along with the whole machinery used to carry out systemic crimes.
That’s why all this manufactured nonsense surrounding Vojislav Šešelj is being pushed now.

Christian Torres3 said:Look, I’m not trying to start an argument here, and I know this isn't even in the right subforum. To me, it feels like a subtle nudge to the moderators to delete or punish anyone claiming the Republican Party is essentially just the old Democratic Party in a different suit. Personally, I tend to side with Goat's assessment—even if his take is mostly based on gut feeling. Why? Because I lived through it. I watched, almost without exception, how high-ranking officials in the DOJ and the local police departments went from being die-hard Communists one day to joining the Republican Party the next. Even without that, you can find plenty of old Democratic Party membership in the biographies of senior Republican Party members.

Just my two cents. ☕

As far as I'm concerned, it's crystal clear that the Republican Party was the main landing spot for people jumping ship from the Democratic Party.
I don't have any issue with that reality itself.

I just want to point out to the mods that it's not right for them to lean on Goat's opinions while simultaneously treating him like he's some untouchable snake in the grass. They shouldn't be presenting mere opinions as if they're hard facts.
I'd suggest that at least the moderators refrain from doing that.

Daniel Ward87 said:Look, I know this because all serious journals operate on the exact same principle. You don't know who the reviewers are—that’s actually the whole point of a peer-review process. You get at least two anonymous experts in the relevant field to vet it.

I already explained why relying on a single citation isn't automatically a lie. The timing or the character of the publication doesn't dictate its validity; what matters is the quality of the paper, the methodology used to gather data, the analysis, and whether the conclusions actually follow from the evidence. If you really want to critique it, then go read Vladimir Goati and point out specific flaws. That’s how things work in the academic world.

The idea of something being "proven" is relative. Everyone keeps pointing to Goati's inaccuracies, yet nobody has stepped up with actual, concrete arguments. Instead, people just fall back on those tired "communist propaganda" lines that don't hold any water. The only real sticking point might be that he's the primary source everyone cites, but I haven't seen a single exhaustive, scholarly analysis that properly challenges Goati's numbers. And I mean a scientific one, not some patriotic rant.

So, what's your issue? Is it Goati's numbers or the analysis in the Index article? If it's the numbers, there's a simple way to handle it: find the article, dissect it, analyze it, and draw your own conclusions. Don't hide behind vague stuff about "character" or "timing." As for the Index article, if the conclusion is wrong, then argue against it with facts.

The only valid point you have is that since he's the main source, we should be cautious. But you can't claim it's untrue just because you're throwing around those standard "patriotism" cards that are... well, let's just leave it at that.

Go ahead then. Prove with actual evidence that Goati's numbers are wrong and that the Index article is worthless, and I'll give you five bucks.

Sure, he's the main one. But Cohen has written plenty of work on similar topics, which gives him a certain level of credibility. So far, no one has successfully debunked him using solid arguments.

Actually, here's the real problem:
when you cite estimates provided by Goati, you should state them as such (rather than filtering them through Vojko, Index, or Pickering & Baskin to get to Cohen). Don't present them as absolute truths or definitive proofs when they aren't. And when you bring up Pickering & Baskin, you should actually address their real theses and conclusions—which, by the way, have nothing to do with Goati's findings. Using them just to cover for Goati is a bad look!
It's honestly ridiculous.

That’s basically my whole point.
Let everyone decide for themselves how much weight to give an assessment made by Goati in New York City back in 1991, published by the Yugoslav Institute of Journalism, regarding the formation of the Republican Party!

It’s exactly like how you moderators lose your minds and start handing out bans when someone tries to support their posts about, say, Auschwitz using data or links that you prefer to suppress by labeling everything "fascist" and so on.
For some reason, you guys constantly dodge and refuse to deal with Goati's 1991 New York City work.

Daniel Ward87 said:He’s not the only one. That article even mentions work by L. J. Cohen from 1997., and that same author spent years digging into the former USA era and published several papers on the subject.

Secondly, even if there were just one guy, that doesn't make it totally irrelevant or flat-out wrong. I've come across plenty of things where only a single author is cited, usually because nobody else bothered to look into it or dive into those specific details.

The thing you have to remember is that we're talking about a scholarly article published in an academic journal that went through a peer review process by at least two different experts in the field. When you factor that in, you can't just dismiss the numbers as inaccurate or propaganda right out of the gate. You actually need to go back to the primary sources, check my methodology to see how they arrived at those figures, and see what conclusions were drawn. Only then can you really argue for rejecting them or accepting them partially.

Right now, all we have is "it's a lie and propaganda" without any actual evidence, other than the fact that someone published it somewhere. It's a weak argument.

And Cohen cites Goati too!