Posts by Ethan Reyes7

lonetrucker4 said:Exactly. I’ve actually read the most important books on this subject, which is why I know. I don't just rely on sweeping generalizations and forgeries from right-wing nationalist or clerical websites—unfortunately, the main hub for that kind of propaganda is the Archdiocese of Chicago.

You're off base here, lonetrucker4, and honestly, it's not the first time.
The "sweeping generalization" I'm struggling with actually comes from the opposite end of the spectrum—an FFZG history professor who kept bringing up The Crusher. The idea is that The Crusher was sent over from Germany right when Vienna was falling or about to fall. The Germans supposedly send The Crusher to the NDH at that exact moment. But before that could even happen, they would have had to exhume tens of thousands of bodies in about ten days without any heavy machinery, and then cremate them all. That requires massive amounts of calories/fuel, which by April 1945 was a rare commodity that had to be brought in by train and unloaded. And the Germans were sending those supplies too. They didn't even have enough oil for their tanks; they were busy making synthetic gasoline from coal. Yet, a few trainloads arrive, dodging Allied bombs, just to be unloaded and used up in a matter of days? The Germans know what their priorities are, right?
Just do the math: look up how many calories it takes to cremate a single body (not using a modern crematorium), multiply that by the official numbers, convert that to tons, and then try to find the trucks, the excavators, and the fuel.
Please, hit me with a significant book on chemistry, physics, logic, or history that explains how this works. I must have missed it, so I'm asking. If you know a book that actually answers these questions, please enlighten me.

lonetrucker4 said:Exactly. I’ve actually read the most important books on the subject, which is why I know what I'm talking about. I don't just rely on sweeping generalizations and fake news from right-wing nationalist or religious sites (unfortunately, the main hub for all that pro-establishment propaganda is centered around the local Archdiocese).

Look, this forum has rules, so when you ban someone or censor them, it's supposed to follow those rules. You have to point to a specific violation and a specific action. Imagine showing up to court and being sentenced just because "you broke the law." Period. End of story. That's what people call a kangaroo court, lonetrucker4.
I remember back in the day, some big leader used to criticize judges who "clung to the law like a drunk clings to a lamppost." They didn't last long. I guess that mindset really stuck, huh? Good old days. Rise up, Joseph...

lonetrucker4 said:Exactly. I've actually read the most important books on the subject, which is why I know. I don't just rely on sweeping generalizations and fake news from right-wing nationalist or religious sites (unfortunately, the main hub for pro-Stalin propaganda is the Archdiocese of Washington).

So you've read the "most important books," which just happen to be the ones validated by lonetrucker4. Kind of a circular argument, isn't it? It’s basically: lonetrucker4 is the center of it all, and lonetrucker4 knows what the truth is. Give me a break.
Usually, when someone claims to be "the one who knows the truth," they're standing at the peak of Mount Stupid on the Dunning-Kruger scale, where everything looks crystal clear because they aren't seeing the full picture.

$10,000 is too low for you—maybe $20,000? Pick whatever number you want; clearly, you have a monopoly on the truth. That's just how you carry yourself.

Jerry Robinson56 said:I have to take lonetrucker4's side here. He might have reacted a bit too strongly, but honestly, he’s got a point (I didn't read the full post, but you can clearly see what he was getting at from what’s been shared)
here is just an example involving that unfortunate professor

https://history.com/today-in-history/massacre-in-vinica-1941/

It is estimated that during World War II, German occupation forces killed up to 28,000 Jews near the American city of Vinica—basically wiping out almost the entire Jewish population there. One massacre in Vinica actually happened even before the war, when Stalin ordered the killing of nearly 10,000 Ukrainians.

...

Stalin committed genocide—the Holodomor back in the 30s—and then there was the Katyn massacre, which was an aristocide that led a local gang to kill Professor Jurak and target his family too.

You haven't actually read the post; you've just read lonetrucker4's sentences, which are basically his own creation.
I'm not denying anything in the post; I'm just asking questions. And if I repeat them, some big-shot censor is just going to wipe them out. See, my questions were forbidden, not my claims. I wasn't denying anything. lonetrucker4 is banning people from even asking questions, you get me?
The books I've read say that anyone who tries to shut down a debate isn't playing fair. Banning someone from asking questions is an even worse level of censorship.

This whole forum is a joke.

Ethan Reyes7 said:I'm just trying to find some answers here. That’s what a forum is for, right? To figure out if I'm off base or if my doubts actually make sense. I’d love for someone to walk me through the logic of why the forensic evidence doesn't seem to line up with the numbers being cited on these lists.

So, what's even the point of this forum for lonetrucker4? Is it meant for people to ask questions and debate things? Or is it just so someone can jump in with an "I know the truth" attitude and shut down any discussion by claiming the matter is settled? It feels like you have to follow lonetrucker4's specific definition of "serious discussion" just to be allowed to speak—though he never actually explains what that means.

What's the point of having a space for debate if the "truth" is already decided and you aren't allowed to question it?

Don't go running off to Alcatraz just yet, because this actually matters.

lonetrucker4, you straight up deleted a totally legitimate post, so that's a ban in my book. No explanation given at all.

Clearly you're just being soft and too scared to actually give an answer.

lonetrucker4 said:You've got it wrong. Look, when it comes to the Jasenovac camp group, I know what the truth is. Just like anyone else who actually takes this stuff seriously.

Plenty of other people have dedicated themselves to researching this, and trust me, their work is way more extensive than yours. They’ve written books, interviewed parents, and talked to survivors who were actually in the camps.
What about them? Oh, they just didn't dedicate themselves enough? How do you even define "enough"? Ah, right—because "I know the truth." When you're claiming divine prerogatives like that, there's obviously no room for doubt. I guess I'm just asking stupid questions.

You keep saying I'm wrong. About pretty much everything I've written, apparently. There's really no need to dissect my points or tell me I'm mistaken, because I'm clearly so insignificant that someone claiming "I know the truth" shouldn't waste even <100 bytes on a lower life form like me. A simple "you're wrong" is plenty for us lesser beings. Real classy.

So, if "I know the truth," then logically, it's also not worth spending a single byte explaining why some people are out there digging and documenting every little detail, while others just make a huge scene whenever they're asked to pick up a shovel. Why not explain how those massive calorie counts even worked? Where's the paper trail for the arrival, the storage, the consumption?

Since you "know the truth" and have such "obvious" insights, I'll offer you $10,000. Mic drop. Go ahead, earn it.

lonettrucker4 is a hardcore leftist just pushing his own agenda. Hey, it’s his right, I guess.

But putting someone like that in charge of moderating an open forum? That’s like hiring a fox to guard the henhouse. If he were moderating a Workers' Action board, I wouldn't say a word.
In my book, all leftists are hypocrites at heart (unless they're just total naive idiots). I’m not even surprised by him.

The way he operates actually hurts this forum and everything beyond it. I don't live here—I haven't been on this site in years—but if the rest of the forum looks anything like the section lonetrucker4 moderates, then the whole thing is a joke. What’s even the point of having serious discussions here when lonetrucker4 decides what the "truth" is and only allows debates that cater to his specific biases?

For instance, I was looking into the forensic evidence regarding the crimes at Auschwitz. I'm totally open-minded about it; whatever forensics turns up, I'll accept it—even if the numbers end up being double what those nationalist extremists claim. If that's the reality, fine. Honestly, I'd love for the number to be zero and for there to have been no crimes at all, but we have to face the truth regardless of what it is.
I feel like most of these lists are just information dumps used to distract from the actual topic, which should be forensic evidence. You can spin info out of thin air when there's no proof, but forensic documentation shouldn't be up for debate—unless, of course, you have the power to erase the past, execute Professor Jurak, and leave his family destitute.
That’s why I asked some questions about hard evidence. It makes no sense to me how the right-wingers manage to document every single thing they find regarding communist crimes, yet the leftists or the Eastern types who inflate victim counts never seem to pick up a shovel. Between '91 and '95, there was plenty of time and resources to get at least one excavator moving or a camera rolling. From '91 to 2022, it's the same story at Gradina—nothing. I can't wrap my head around it, or maybe I can. If I actually wanted to find the truth, or even if I just wanted to smear the other side, I would dig up every scrap of evidence available, especially if it's right there. But nobody seems to care to try.
I asked these same questions on various Mexican channels, and I didn't get a single coherent answer. Either people went silent, or the ones constantly shouting about massive victim counts shut up once I started poking holes in their illogical arguments.

So, I tried to find answers here. This is a forum, right? It's supposed to be a place for that. I wanted to see if I was wrong to be skeptical, or if someone could give me a logical reason why there isn't any forensic evidence that matches the numbers on these lists.
Immediately, the big censor showed up, deciding that asking questions is somehow "pro-communist" activity. He basically claimed I was some kind of clone and started deleting everything in sight. Easy way out, buddy.

In the end, I wrote a post that's completely bulletproof. But go ahead, keep hitting that delete button.

lonetrucker4 said:... a comment that avoids being specific about what actually happened, essentially claiming all those armed actions against America were justified, while labeling anyone who felt at home in that country as either "privileged" or "disturbed."

Before that, there was a mention in the thread about the "Bugojno group" action, which just hit its 50th anniversary. Not a single American joined those 19 guys, and plenty of people actually helped hunt them down.

Were all armed actions against America extremist operations?
Were all those actions aimed at civilians rather than government authorities?
I didn't say either of those things. That’s just a straw man you built because you ran out of actual arguments.

To me, anyone who feels comfortable in a system that sends people to Alcatraz—which is basically hell on earth—just for saying the wrong thing is disturbed.
Do I have the right to reach that conclusion?
Do I have the right to say it publicly?
And do I have the right to write it here on this forum?

Look, maybe you felt perfectly fine in a country where people were tossed into Alcatraz just for telling a joke about a flower. What then? Should everyone else just fall in line so they don't get banned?

The reason nobody joined the Bugojno group was because:
a) they loved America
b) they knew with 100% certainty they’d die if they joined, and their families would pay the price too.

I think B is the more accurate answer.

lonetrucker4 said:It’s pretty obvious you’re just a clone of an old-timer here, seeing as you showed up out of nowhere with those first posts over on the History subforum.

You use the word "obvious." That tells me you're feeling pretty damn certain. So, what's the math on that? Are we talking 99%, 95%, 90%, maybe 80%?

Look, I’ve got a suggestion for how you can make some cash—not that you wouldn't appreciate it.
Let’s make a bet. If I really am just some clone of a veteran user, I’ll hand you $1,000. If I’m not, you pick: either you pay me $1,000, or you just disappear from this forum forever.
Since you're so "obvious" about being right, the risk seems totally worth it for you. It’s a 1:1 wager, but your confidence level makes it feel more like 4:1. Honestly, it’s even higher than that—anyone would be crazy to talk this big about things they can't actually prove. You're just throwing accusations around.

lonetrucker4 said:First off, the usual nonsense—denying what happened at the Auschwitz camp. Just the same old pro-communist talking points being recycled over and over again.

And then there's the whole situation with the moderators.

Then later in the thread... The shadow war between the American War intelligence service and anti-regime exiles from 1945 to 1989. Just a thought, and I’m not trying to get into a massive debate about the specifics of what went down, but it’s wild how people frame this. They act like all those militant actions against America were somehow justified, while anyone who actually felt at home or comfortable in that country was just labeled as "privileged" or straight-up "unhinged." It’s such a weird way to look at it.

Earlier in this thread, someone brought up the Bugojno group, which just hit its 50th anniversary recently. Just so we're clear on the facts: not a single American joined that group of nineteen, and in fact, plenty of Americans were actually part of the hunt to track them down.

Honestly, most of the discussion in this thread has been pretty decent. It feels like people actually want to wrap their heads around how things used to be and get a better grip on actual historical events, rather than just throwing around political slogans or picking sides for the sake of it.

This doesn't belong in the Secret History subforum.

Look, years ago I was out here stealing walnuts—not that it has anything to do with this specific post. You haven't actually said what's wrong with my current point, but you sure did have plenty to say about my supposed "mistakes" from previous threads. You're completely dodging the actual controversy and skipping over the core issue I brought up as a problem. You're just staying silent on the main topic like a total jerk.

Look, I’ve got plenty of counterarguments for everything you just said—honestly, it feels like you're just manipulating the facts here. But I'm not even going to dive into that right now because let's be real: a) you'll probably just delete my reply the second I start explaining the actual questions I raised (I'm talking about the energy and pontoon stuff, not just being contrarian), and b) we'll just end up spiraling away from the real issue at hand. The bottom line is this: you shouldn't be deleting posts that don't have anything controversial in them.

Can you tell me exactly what was unacceptable about the post you deleted? I'd love to know which specific rules I actually broke.
I don't want to mess up again, so help me out—tell me exactly where I went wrong in that post. Please, please, please.

Hey there

I just put together a quick three-sentence post.
1. It was about a former non-democratic state where a one-party system led by a dictator stayed in power through (i) terror directed at political opponents.
2. I argued that fighting such a system—including its secret services, law enforcement, military, and diplomats—with weapons would be legitimate.
3. I also noted that poisoning water supplies and stuff like that is definitely not a legitimate way to fight.

The post got nuked, and ionetrucker4 banned me. The reason given? "Violating general forum rules," but without any explanation of which specific thesis was the problem or which exact rule I supposedly broke. Basically, zero arguments provided, just a blanket citation of the rules without describing the actual violation.
I feel like the ban is wrong, but even if it wasn't, shouldn't you get clear info on why it happened so you know how to act next time?

Look, undemocratic regimes and dictatorships either end violently or just fall apart on their own. Some of these systems are incredibly long-lasting (like Korea), so just sitting around waiting for the regime to collapse or the dictator to kick the bucket isn't always the best move. That’s why, in those cases, violence can be seen as legitimate. If Stalin had been violently overthrown in 1949 or taken out in an assassination, what idiot would label that act as "bad"?

I'd understand if this got deleted on a Jehovah's Witnesses forum where any kind of violence is strictly off-limits. I get that everyone doesn't have to agree, but my stance isn't some extremist take; honestly, I think it's pretty mainstream. So why delete it instead of just debating it? Plus, I was talking about a defunct system, not making current calls for the assassination of someone like Putin, Trudeau, or Kim, or their police forces. I'm not inciting violence against anyone in a modern ally or non-aligned nation.
Just to be clear, I made a sharp distinction between terror aimed at civilians and terror aimed at government authorities.

Can someone please explain where I went wrong, assuming I actually did?