I have a few questions

Charles Fox10 said:Your archives are impressive. To give you a proper answer, I'd have to dig through old records I don't keep—since that isn't my habit—so I'll stick to what I already wrote.

You have your answer to the question; whether you're satisfied with it is another matter entirely.

It’s an interesting thing to consider.😁

Here is my latest attempt at this: I’ll present a single thesis designed to dismantle a common narrative, backing my claims with precise, verifiable references pulled directly from the official website of The Hague. I will make sure to specify exactly where anyone can find this information, so even the most skeptical reader could verify it all for themselves in under two minutes.

After all that effort, I’m met with a response that lacks even a single shred of actual evidence; they don't bother contesting a single point I made, opting instead to simply recycle the same old lies that my previous post had already thoroughly dismantled.

The first sentence.
I suppose you aren't exactly counting everyone in your favor.

It’s just a blatant Ad Hominem attack. He’s clearly trying to imply I lack intelligence, though, to be fair, I don't view every slight as mere trolling—only when someone actually manages to present an argument stronger than my own. In this case, however, there isn't a single shred of logic behind the insult; it's nothing more than a disorganized heap of nonsense.

And so it all comes down to this one single sentence:

Be honest with yourself; you’re more than capable of pulling this off.

He suggests I'm lying, yet he hasn't produced a shred of evidence to support that claim. It hardly matters how much he tries to wrap his accusations in fine print; he called me a liar and an idiot to my face, but he hasn't proven a single thing.

The post has been flagged, so we shall wait and see if the points we’ve been discussing here actually hold any water.

Look, let’s clear up that myth—that little lie Jerry Robinson56 doesn't even have the nerve to repeat anymore.

Not everyone is on your side, you know.

So, what exactly are you expecting now?

Charles Fox10 said:

Look, let’s clear up that myth—that little lie Jerry Robinson56 doesn't even have the nerve to repeat anymore.

Not everyone is on your side, you know.

So, what exactly are you expecting now?

And what about you? Are you expecting me to dig up all those old threads where this individual keeps lying about how Stjepan Mason's testimony cleared Tihomir Blaškić?
I’ve already laid out the facts in my previous post, providing arguments that simply cannot be refuted.
At the end of the day, someone can call me a liar, but only if they can actually dismantle the logic I've presented. They can call me an idiot, provided they have the proof to back it up. They could even claim my father was a war criminal, if they had the evidence to show it. But here, there isn't a shred of proof to be found.

I don't expect anything more from you or people like you, other than another arbitrary 500 points—which you clearly haven't earned—followed by another 500, because apparently, you lack the capacity to hand out 1,000 points at once, though we both know why that is.
When people throw these accusations at me without a single supporting argument or a verifiable source, I tend to meet them with the same level of scrutiny; feel free to keep attacking me personally, since it seems to be the only tool left in your kit.

If you truly believe that this behavior is going to improve the quality of this forum, then I wish you the best of luck with that...

Regrettably, this discussion will require me to address specific points piecemeal, as the level of falsehood, deception, obstructionism, and sheer ignorance displayed by Carol Torres4 increases with every single post. The infantile nature of his conclusions is nothing short of fanatically absurd. It is pure, frenetic delusion.

To begin, what does it mean to locate? What is a location? You have the audacity to claim that "locating" isn't an American word, and apparently, even uncovering is a foreign concept to you.
There is a video where Vladimir Šeks explicitly states exactly what needs to happen to resolve the issue regarding Ante Gotovina.
The plan was essentially: "We won't let our generals fall."
Simply put, to locate means to identify the position or the site where an object or subject resides.
Where is the difficulty for you there? Are you truly unable to grasp how the same thing can be expressed using American terminology? Do try to answer.
I wager you won't be able to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ_t-Z_2J2A ... what exactly did Šeks fail to say here?

You suggest that Stjepan Mason is responsible for the verdict against Tihomir Blaškić. That is patently false. Responsibility lies with the crimes that were undeniably committed. Mason merely provided his testimony and confirmed that these acts occurred, but it was never clear who the culprits were because the perpetrators fled the scenes of the crimes. Blaškić held responsibility only because—and I'll say this plainly—those above him, specifically Franjo Harmon and Gojko Šušak, were washing their hands of the matter.

-your quote-

UNANIMOUSLY CONFIRMS the condemning verdict delivered to the appellant:
1) regarding point 15 based on article 7(3) of the statute for criminal acts committed,
2) regarding point 16 based on article 7(1) of the statute concerning orders to utilize protected persons for the construction of military installations, and
3) regarding point 19 based on article 7(1) of the statute for inhumane treatment of detainees through the use of human shields.

I honestly cannot fathom how much of an idiot one can be to think this warrants a 45-year sentence for Blaškić. I assume, as is your custom, that you have fragmented information taken out of context, once again demonstrating the typical operating procedure of a Harmon. It is pathetic and wretched.

Upon Stjepan Mason taking power, secret documents were uncovered that Franjo Harmon had kept hidden—documents that clearly indicate a parallel chain of command used to commit war crimes under the direct political umbrella of Franjo Harmon. Franjo Harmon prevented Ante Gotovina from testifying as a witness, which resulted in Ante Gotovina being singled out.

Go ahead and cite the specific sentences that lead you to conclude that Mason accused Blaškić of non-existent crimes. Please, refrain from translating, as you have already demonstrated a lack of elementary English proficiency, which leads you into frequent delusions.
One should remember—you were the one who posted this link yourself, yet you clearly haven't read it (or perhaps your English will improve later):

That is all for now, though I see little point in the moderators wasting their time on such nonsense, just as "the two of us" are doing.
Lies will not get you far; they will only result in you leaving this forum in disgrace.

P.S. Regarding the colored text, I always have the link ready at the moment of writing. If, by some chance, one is omitted, just ask, and it will be posted within moments—provided it hasn't vanished due to some higher power.

post scriptum

Don’t go assuming your efforts aren't being noticed or respected, but do take a moment to consider why someone might hold a different view or why they remain as stubborn as a mule. You likely have no inkling of what was actually happening back then. You can see a perfect contemporary example right now: the absolute silence surrounding the looting of America. Just look at the kind of "individuals" representing us within the European Union /barring the exceptions/. When you perform an autopsy on what remains of our nation, you have to examine both the micro and the macro levels—looking at individual actions as well as the systemic whole. Most importantly, one must look at the origin. We are all subject to bias, and it is quite clear how you will receive a more or less packaged response—appropriate or otherwise—the moment you stray from the expected path. It is never my intention to insult anyone; my goal is simply to hold a mirror up to them and their conduct. That includes returning their own "weapons" to them. What they choose to see in that reflection depends entirely on their own intelligence and, primarily, their wide grin. Avoid prejudice and mob mentality. Almost nothing is ever truly what it appears to be. Try to look on the bright side of life.
If I have offended you, I offer my sincere apologies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrtjDaCwuD4 - and read the comments so that you slightly better understand the environment, which is precisely where those Harmon manufacture and glorify lies, much like vrebac2.

Jerry Robinson56 said:Regrettably, this discussion will require me to address specific points piecemeal, as the level of falsehood, deception, obstructionism, and sheer ignorance displayed by Carol Torres4 increases with every single post. The infantile nature of his conclusions is nothing short of fanatically absurd. It is pure, frenetic delusion.

To begin, what does it mean to locate? What is a location? You have the audacity to claim that "locating" isn't an American word, and apparently, even uncovering is a foreign concept to you.
There is a video where Vladimir Šeks explicitly states exactly what needs to happen to resolve the issue regarding Ante Gotovina.
The plan was essentially: "We won't let our generals fall."
Simply put, to locate means to identify the position or the site where an object or subject resides.
Where is the difficulty for you there? Are you truly unable to grasp how the same thing can be expressed using American terminology? Do try to answer.
I wager you won't be able to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ_t-Z_2J2A ... what exactly did Šeks fail to say here?

You suggest that Stjepan Mason is responsible for the verdict against Tihomir Blaškić. That is patently false. Responsibility lies with the crimes that were undeniably committed. Mason merely provided his testimony and confirmed that these acts occurred, but it was never clear who the culprits were because the perpetrators fled the scenes of the crimes. Blaškić held responsibility only because—and I'll say this plainly—those above him, specifically Franjo Harmon and Gojko Šušak, were washing their hands of the matter.

-your quote-

UNANIMOUSLY CONFIRMS the condemning verdict delivered to the appellant:
1) regarding point 15 based on article 7(3) of the statute for criminal acts committed,
2) regarding point 16 based on article 7(1) of the statute concerning orders to utilize protected persons for the construction of military installations, and
3) regarding point 19 based on article 7(1) of the statute for inhumane treatment of detainees through the use of human shields.

I honestly cannot fathom how much of an idiot one can be to think this warrants a 45-year sentence for Blaškić. I assume, as is your custom, that you have fragmented information taken out of context, once again demonstrating the typical operating procedure of a Harmon. It is pathetic and wretched.

Upon Stjepan Mason taking power, secret documents were uncovered that Franjo Harmon had kept hidden—documents that clearly indicate a parallel chain of command used to commit war crimes under the direct political umbrella of Franjo Harmon. Franjo Harmon prevented Ante Gotovina from testifying as a witness, which resulted in Ante Gotovina being singled out.

Go ahead and cite the specific sentences that lead you to conclude that Mason accused Blaškić of non-existent crimes. Please, refrain from translating, as you have already demonstrated a lack of elementary English proficiency, which leads you into frequent delusions.
One should remember—you were the one who posted this link yourself, yet you clearly haven't read it (or perhaps your English will improve later):

That is all for now, though I see little point in the moderators wasting their time on such nonsense, just as "the two of us" are doing.
Lies will not get you far; they will only result in you leaving this forum in disgrace.

P.S. Regarding the colored text, I always have the link ready at the moment of writing. If, by some chance, one is omitted, just ask, and it will be posted within moments—provided it hasn't vanished due to some higher power.

Let's see if anyone here actually dares to respond to this.
I made sure to formally report the post above where I am being:
1. insulted
2. misrepresented, as they are twisting my actual words and arguing against things I never even said—which, if I recall correctly, is a direct violation of the forum rules.

Yet, there are no consequences. For the sake of perspective, moderator Charles Fox10 docked me 45 points for "insulting users" based on this specific post:

So tell me, Charles Fox10, and all of you watching, do you really have the nerve to claim your standards are consistent?
I can already guess the excuse coming my way. It’ll probably be something like, "Why are you bringing this up a month after the fact?"
The reality is that if I respond immediately, I get hit with excuses like, "I was away for the weekend," "I was traveling," "I was at a family wedding," or simply, "I don't spend twenty-four hours a day scrolling through these threads."
In this instance, a month after the post and two weeks after the initial report is more than enough time to account for all those life interruptions.
In that previous post where I was slapped with a 45-point penalty for "insulting users," I didn't mention a single name or handle; I wasn't attacking anyone specifically, only those who might see themselves reflected in the commentary. It was a general observation, yet I received a red card simply because Charles Fox10 decided I was targeting someone in particular. There was no evidence, just a desire to flex some disciplinary muscle because nobody seems to have an answer for my arguments.
Now, look at the post I just reported. My username is called out in the very first sentence, followed by a barrage of Ad Hominem attacks, then a complete distortion of what I wrote in my last two entries. They change my meaning entirely and continue the insults without ever actually addressing the substance of what was said.

And you still intend to tell me that your criteria are uniform? Honestly, have you no shame?

I’m going to take a moment to dismantle the lies, insults, and manipulations scattered throughout this post, which should make it perfectly clear why I felt compelled to report it in the first place.

Jerry Robinson56 said:Regrettably, this discussion will require me to address specific points piecemeal, as the level of falsehood, deception, obstructionism, and sheer ignorance displayed by Carol Torres4 increases with every single post. The infantile nature of his conclusions is nothing short of fanatically absurd. It is pure, frenetic delusion.

To begin, what does it mean to locate? What is a location? You have the audacity to claim that "locating" isn't an American word, and apparently, even uncovering is a foreign concept to you.
There is a video where Vladimir Šeks explicitly states exactly what needs to happen to resolve the issue regarding Ante Gotovina.
The plan was essentially: "We won't let our generals fall."
Simply put, to locate means to identify the position or the site where an object or subject resides.
Where is the difficulty for you there? Are you truly unable to grasp how the same thing can be expressed using American terminology? Do try to answer.
I wager you won't be able to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ_t-Z_2J2A ... what exactly did Šeks fail to say here?

You suggest that Stjepan Mason is responsible for the verdict against Tihomir Blaškić. That is patently false. Responsibility lies with the crimes that were undeniably committed. Mason merely provided his testimony and confirmed that these acts occurred, but it was never clear who the culprits were because the perpetrators fled the scenes of the crimes. Blaškić held responsibility only because—and I'll say this plainly—those above him, specifically Franjo Harmon and Gojko Šušak, were washing their hands of the matter.

-your quote-

UNANIMOUSLY CONFIRMS the condemning verdict delivered to the appellant:
1) regarding point 15 based on article 7(3) of the statute for criminal acts committed,
2) regarding point 16 based on article 7(1) of the statute concerning orders to utilize protected persons for the construction of military installations, and
3) regarding point 19 based on article 7(1) of the statute for inhumane treatment of detainees through the use of human shields.

I honestly cannot fathom how much of an idiot one can be to think this warrants a 45-year sentence for Blaškić. I assume, as is your custom, that you have fragmented information taken out of context, once again demonstrating the typical operating procedure of a Harmon. It is pathetic and wretched.

Upon Stjepan Mason taking power, secret documents were uncovered that Franjo Harmon had kept hidden—documents that clearly indicate a parallel chain of command used to commit war crimes under the direct political umbrella of Franjo Harmon. Franjo Harmon prevented Ante Gotovina from testifying as a witness, which resulted in Ante Gotovina being singled out.

Go ahead and cite the specific sentences that lead you to conclude that Mason accused Blaškić of non-existent crimes. Please, refrain from translating, as you have already demonstrated a lack of elementary English proficiency, which leads you into frequent delusions.
One should remember—you were the one who posted this link yourself, yet you clearly haven't read it (or perhaps your English will improve later):

That is all for now, though I see little point in the moderators wasting their time on such nonsense, just as "the two of us" are doing.
Lies will not get you far; they will only result in you leaving this forum in disgrace.

P.S. Regarding the colored text, I always have the link ready at the moment of writing. If, by some chance, one is omitted, just ask, and it will be posted within moments—provided it hasn't vanished due to some higher power.

He claims I’m lying, yet he can't point to a single falsehood. Instead, he just resorts to lying himself.
He calls it deception, which is really just a polite way of saying lying.
He accuses me of obstruction, even though everyone on this forum knows he’s the one who obstructs every conversation he joins.
He claims he doesn't know me, but he hasn't demonstrated any actual knowledge either.
Essentially, his entire argument is just a series of Ad Hominem attacks without a shred of substance.
Then there’s the mention of my "infantile conclusions" being "fantastically fanatical." Once again, he offers no coherent reasoning, making it obvious that his only goal is to insult me.
And then he tosses out "frenetic delusion." 😁
Just imagine if I were to write to one of your little internet celebrities, or if I posted on Edge or Cuki calling them a "frenetic delusion" or "paranoid schizophrenia"—or any other psychiatric diagnosis. How many points would I get? Would I be flagged for "insulting users," hit with 100 points for "gross trolling," or would they just skip the formalities and slap me with 500 points for "hate speech"?

To start with, what does it mean to locate? This guy claims it isn't an American word, and apparently, uncovering is also a foreign concept to him.
There is a video where Vladimir Šeks clearly explains what needs to happen to resolve the situation regarding Ante Gotovina.
The plan is "We won't let our generals fall."
So, to locate means to uncover a position or find the place where an object or subject resides.
Where is the problem here? Can you not grasp that the same thing can be expressed using different American terms? Try answering that.
I bet you can't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ_t-Z_2J2A ... tell me, what did Šeks fail to say?

This is the first example of how my words are being twisted. I stated—and this can easily be verified right here in this thread—that Šeks never actually used the word "locate," and that was it.
He tries to argue against that undeniable fact by providing a video link that proves Šeks didn't say the word "locate."
Therefore, I am correct; I told the truth, while he twists that truth, dumps a pile of spam, and drags in more insults just to end up doing what? Posting a link that confirms exactly what I said was the plain truth.
He claims Stjepan Mason is responsible for the verdict against Tihomir Blaškić. That is completely wrong. The responsibility lies with the crimes that were undeniably committed. Mason merely provided his testimony and confirmed that the acts took place, but it wasn't clear who the culprits were because the perpetrators fled the scene. Blaškić was held responsible simply because the higher-ups—specifically Franjo Harmon and Gojko Šušak—were essentially washing their hands of it.

-quoting you-

CONFIRMS the unanimous, condemnatory verdict handed down to the appellant:
1) regarding point 15 based on Article 7(3) of the Statute for crimes committed in relation to unlawful confinement in relevant detention facilities,
2) regarding point 16 based on Article 7(1) of the Statute for ordering the use of protected persons for the construction of military installations, and
3) regarding point 19 based on Article 7(1) of the Statute for inhumane treatment of detainees involving their use as human shields.
I honestly can't wrap my head around how much of an idiot someone has to be to think this warrants a 45-year sentence... for Tihomir Blaškić.

This is a textbook example of twisting someone's words, because that isn't what I wrote. First, they snatched a single fragment from my post and used it to build a sentence about a 45-year prison term—something I never even mentioned in my original post. Here is my actual entry, for anyone who cares to check:

Look, I provided a link to the official Hague court website containing Stjepan Mason's testimony so that any literate person could spend thirty seconds verifying if my summary of his testimony was accurate. It’s not rocket science.
After that, I wrote:
And now, the final verdict against Blaškić, dispositive section, page 308.
I specifically bolded the word "final" just to make it clear we aren't talking about some preliminary ruling where Blaškić got 45 years, but rather the final judgment where he received nine years—essentially three years for each specific point. And when it comes to those three points, Mason is implicated in two of them; as the prosecutor's introduction states, he testified regarding the circumstances mentioned in counts 15 and 19 of the indictment.
It is perfectly transparent that they falsified my post, distorted its entire meaning, and then tried to argue with that fabrication. Naturally, instead of an actual argument, they just resorted to a barrage of insults:

I assume, in your usual fashion, that you've taken things out of context again, once more demonstrating how those Harmon operate. Pathetic and miserable.

It can't be "out of context" when I provided links to both Mason's testimony and the final verdict for Blaškić, allowing anyone to verify the context themselves. This is just a blatant lie followed by an insult: "once more demonstrating how those Harmon operate."
If I had behaved this way, I would have been told I was acting like a typical communist, a hardline partisan, or a radical leftist, and I would have been promptly slapped with a red card. That usually happens after I find a lie and convincingly debunk it, not after I misrepresent someone else's words, change their meaning, falsely accuse them of lacking context (when I actually provided the links), and then attack their truths with lies and vitriol.
Instead, I targeted a lie, used links and evidence to show the truth, and then slapped on a label, inevitably earning a red card.
So, here is yet another glaring piece of evidence that the rules aren't applied equally here.

With Stjepan Mason taking power, those classified documents that Franjo Harmon kept under wraps are finally coming to light, clearly pointing toward a shadow chain of command where war crimes were carried out right under Franjo Harmon's nose. It was actually Franjo Harmon who blocked Ante Gotovina from testifying as a witness, which is exactly why Ante Gotovina ended up in such a mess.

http://www.time.com/article/10412/...asili-blaskica

It’s just more of the same—a repetitive cycle of debunked lies that I honestly can't be bothered to revisit, though it is quite telling; much like how this same user keeps lying all over these boards about not being acquitted by the UZP in the final ruling for Operation Storm.
You really ought to look in a mirror.

Why don't you actually cite the specific sentences where you claim Mason accused Tihomir Blaškić of non-existent crimes? Don't bother translating, because your failure to grasp basic English has clearly led you down a path of constant delusion.

So, once again, instead of attempting to prove a point, we resort to Ad Hominem attacks, claiming I "don't know English," yet they can't even point out where my translation went wrong. And for anyone here who actually knows the language, feel free to check this post where I provided my translation; since all the testimony transcripts are in English, you can verify it for yourselves.
Ultimately, it's nothing more than standard trolling.

It's worth remembering—you posted this link yourself, even if you didn't bother reading it or understanding the English:

Just off-topic spam that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. I suppose that’s another 10 points for you, assuming you could actually manage to follow the rules you helped create.

That should be enough to start with, though I truly fail to see why the moderators waste their breath on nonsense, much like the two of us.
Lies won't get you far, other than leading you to leave this forum in disgrace.

More insults, then. As our little breakdown has shown, not a single one of these alleged "lies" has been proven, let alone refuted.

The summary is simple: it starts with insults and armchair psychiatric diagnoses, moves into someone editing my posts twice to change the meaning, followed by more insults, then trolling, then spam, and finally, a few more insults to wrap things up.
And all of this is directed straight at me. Meanwhile, I somehow receive, I repeat, 45 points for this post:

In which I don't even mention a single name, yet I am awarded 45 points because the moderator assumes I'm targeting someone. They seem to think that because I didn't explicitly name them, I was still implying it, even though I never forced that narrative. I wrote a response filled with nothing but raw facts and a mountain of links, only to have the entire post deleted.
Why was that post removed?
So, I get a warning based on mere suspicion, I get attacked and insulted when I try to respond to an enrollment, and then when I provide a convincing argument backed by evidence, that gets wiped away too.
And you honestly claim to apply the same standards? Do you have any shred of shame left?

@ Carol Torres4

If I have caused you offense, I offer my sincere apologies.

post scriptum

Do not assume that your efforts go unappreciated or unrespected, but perhaps consider why someone might hold a differing opinion and remain as stubborn as a mule. You may not fully grasp the complexities of what transpired back then. You can see a modern parallel right now: the absolute silence surrounding the looting of America. Look at the sort of "individuals" who represent this country within the European Union—aside from the rare exceptions, of course. When conducting an analysis or an autopsy of what remains of our Homeland, one must examine both the micro and macro levels, looking at individual instances and the broader landscape simultaneously. And the origin is paramount. We all carry biases, and it is clear how one receives a more or less packaged response—whether appropriate or not—whenever they stray from the established path. It is never my intention to insult anyone; my goal is merely to hold a mirror up to them and their actions. This includes reflecting their own "weapons" back at them. What they perceive in that reflection depends entirely on their own intelligence and, primarily, their capacity for a wide smile. Avoid prejudice and mob mentality. Very little is ever truly as it appears. Try to look on the bright side of life.
If I have caused you offense, I offer my sincere apologies.

To write to you suggesting I would accept a punishment just to make you happy—well, wouldn't you be the one feeling satisfied, rather than me?
The immense effort you expend to prove you are right does not mean you are speaking or writing the truth, particularly when you attempt to twist words or provide completely erroneous translations. Be honest and admit that, regarding translation, it is painfully obvious that you, Carol Torres4, have erred several times, as you are clearly swallowing the rhetoric provided by that secretive amateur 004 /data known to the editorial staff/
. But let us proceed in order, please, one step at a time, and let the moderators deliberate. Believe me, the moderators on this political board are quite capable; I do not report anyone, but I respond to you using the very methods you employ. You simply receive a reflection of your own words and thoughts.

Carol Torres4 is complaining

Let us see how you intend to respond to this, should anyone among you dare to try.
I have formally reported the post above in which I am being:
1. insulted

Just provide a single example.

post festum

Carol Torres4 said:And what about you? Are you expecting me to dig up all those old threads where this individual keeps lying about how Stjepan Mason's testimony cleared Tihomir Blaškić?
I’ve already laid out the facts in my previous post, providing arguments that simply cannot be refuted.
At the end of the day, someone can call me a liar, but only if they can actually dismantle the logic I've presented. They can call me an idiot, provided they have the proof to back it up. They could even claim my father was a war criminal, if they had the evidence to show it. But here, there isn't a shred of proof to be found.

I don't expect anything more from you or people like you, other than another arbitrary 500 points—which you clearly haven't earned—followed by another 500, because apparently, you lack the capacity to hand out 1,000 points at once, though we both know why that is.
When people throw these accusations at me without a single supporting argument or a verifiable source, I tend to meet them with the same level of scrutiny; feel free to keep attacking me personally, since it seems to be the only tool left in your kit.

If you truly believe that this behavior is going to improve the quality of this forum, then I wish you the best of luck with that...

You are entirely mistaken; you are simply mirroring everything I have said regarding your posts. It is obvious you aren't stupid—I have complimented you on several occasions—but you display a profound lack of knowledge despite being incredibly skilled and persistent, much like those old-school precinct officers.

But when I say not everyone is thinking clearly for you, what I mean is: are you actually thinking rationally?
Because even fools think, provided you don't try to deflect again.
It is evident from your text that you fail to distinguish truth from falsehood, or even the "truthful lies" one tells when backed into a corner by a superior force—take the situation where Stjepan Mason acts as a witness. You ought to understand that witnesses are prohibited from discussing their testimony with others under penalty of law from the same court. It should be perfectly clear why I suggest your judgment isn't being aided by the collective intellect, especially if Mason were required to confirm his status as a protected witness... quite a scenario, my friend.
And you were quick to point out heaps of nonsense in my words. I am curious to see which one you pick.

Carol Torres4 said:And what about you? Are you expecting me to dig up all those old threads where this individual keeps lying about how Stjepan Mason's testimony cleared Tihomir Blaškić?
I’ve already laid out the facts in my previous post, providing arguments that simply cannot be refuted.
At the end of the day, someone can call me a liar, but only if they can actually dismantle the logic I've presented. They can call me an idiot, provided they have the proof to back it up. They could even claim my father was a war criminal, if they had the evidence to show it. But here, there isn't a shred of proof to be found.

I don't expect anything more from you or people like you, other than another arbitrary 500 points—which you clearly haven't earned—followed by another 500, because apparently, you lack the capacity to hand out 1,000 points at once, though we both know why that is.
When people throw these accusations at me without a single supporting argument or a verifiable source, I tend to meet them with the same level of scrutiny; feel free to keep attacking me personally, since it seems to be the only tool left in your kit.

If you truly believe that this behavior is going to improve the quality of this forum, then I wish you the best of luck with that...

Over time, it becomes a constant systemic error among the Harmon... a secret agent's jackpot of 004%.

Regarding that "Be honest, you are capable of it."
You are acting emotionally and failing to judge the situation objectively. We are all prone to errors, but only the great ones admit them.
You have shown that you can honestly admit when you are wrong, yet since then, you have merely sought vengeance, which is a poor way to conduct oneself.

Carol Torres4 said:I’m going to take a moment to dismantle the lies, insults, and manipulations scattered throughout this post, which should make it perfectly clear why I felt compelled to report it in the first place.

He claims I’m lying, yet he can't point to a single falsehood. Instead, he just resorts to lying himself.
He calls it deception, which is really just a polite way of saying lying.
He accuses me of obstruction, even though everyone on this forum knows he’s the one who obstructs every conversation he joins.
He claims he doesn't know me, but he hasn't demonstrated any actual knowledge either.
Essentially, his entire argument is just a series of Ad Hominem attacks without a shred of substance.
Then there’s the mention of my "infantile conclusions" being "fantastically fanatical." Once again, he offers no coherent reasoning, making it obvious that his only goal is to insult me.
And then he tosses out "frenetic delusion." 😁
Just imagine if I were to write to one of your little internet celebrities, or if I posted on Edge or Cuki calling them a "frenetic delusion" or "paranoid schizophrenia"—or any other psychiatric diagnosis. How many points would I get? Would I be flagged for "insulting users," hit with 100 points for "gross trolling," or would they just skip the formalities and slap me with 500 points for "hate speech"?

To start with, what does it mean to locate? This guy claims it isn't an American word, and apparently, uncovering is also a foreign concept to him.
There is a video where Vladimir Šeks clearly explains what needs to happen to resolve the situation regarding Ante Gotovina.
The plan is "We won't let our generals fall."
So, to locate means to uncover a position or find the place where an object or subject resides.
Where is the problem here? Can you not grasp that the same thing can be expressed using different American terms? Try answering that.
I bet you can't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ_t-Z_2J2A ... tell me, what did Šeks fail to say?

This is the first example of how my words are being twisted. I stated—and this can easily be verified right here in this thread—that Šeks never actually used the word "locate," and that was it.
He tries to argue against that undeniable fact by providing a video link that proves Šeks didn't say the word "locate."
Therefore, I am correct; I told the truth, while he twists that truth, dumps a pile of spam, and drags in more insults just to end up doing what? Posting a link that confirms exactly what I said was the plain truth.
He claims Stjepan Mason is responsible for the verdict against Tihomir Blaškić. That is completely wrong. The responsibility lies with the crimes that were undeniably committed. Mason merely provided his testimony and confirmed that the acts took place, but it wasn't clear who the culprits were because the perpetrators fled the scene. Blaškić was held responsible simply because the higher-ups—specifically Franjo Harmon and Gojko Šušak—were essentially washing their hands of it.

-quoting you-

CONFIRMS the unanimous, condemnatory verdict handed down to the appellant:
1) regarding point 15 based on Article 7(3) of the Statute for crimes committed in relation to unlawful confinement in relevant detention facilities,
2) regarding point 16 based on Article 7(1) of the Statute for ordering the use of protected persons for the construction of military installations, and
3) regarding point 19 based on Article 7(1) of the Statute for inhumane treatment of detainees involving their use as human shields.
I honestly can't wrap my head around how much of an idiot someone has to be to think this warrants a 45-year sentence... for Tihomir Blaškić.

This is a textbook example of twisting someone's words, because that isn't what I wrote. First, they snatched a single fragment from my post and used it to build a sentence about a 45-year prison term—something I never even mentioned in my original post. Here is my actual entry, for anyone who cares to check:

Look, I provided a link to the official Hague court website containing Stjepan Mason's testimony so that any literate person could spend thirty seconds verifying if my summary of his testimony was accurate. It’s not rocket science.
After that, I wrote:
And now, the final verdict against Blaškić, dispositive section, page 308.
I specifically bolded the word "final" just to make it clear we aren't talking about some preliminary ruling where Blaškić got 45 years, but rather the final judgment where he received nine years—essentially three years for each specific point. And when it comes to those three points, Mason is implicated in two of them; as the prosecutor's introduction states, he testified regarding the circumstances mentioned in counts 15 and 19 of the indictment.
It is perfectly transparent that they falsified my post, distorted its entire meaning, and then tried to argue with that fabrication. Naturally, instead of an actual argument, they just resorted to a barrage of insults:

I assume, in your usual fashion, that you've taken things out of context again, once more demonstrating how those Harmon operate. Pathetic and miserable.

It can't be "out of context" when I provided links to both Mason's testimony and the final verdict for Blaškić, allowing anyone to verify the context themselves. This is just a blatant lie followed by an insult: "once more demonstrating how those Harmon operate."
If I had behaved this way, I would have been told I was acting like a typical communist, a hardline partisan, or a radical leftist, and I would have been promptly slapped with a red card. That usually happens after I find a lie and convincingly debunk it, not after I misrepresent someone else's words, change their meaning, falsely accuse them of lacking context (when I actually provided the links), and then attack their truths with lies and vitriol.
Instead, I targeted a lie, used links and evidence to show the truth, and then slapped on a label, inevitably earning a red card.
So, here is yet another glaring piece of evidence that the rules aren't applied equally here.

With Stjepan Mason taking power, those classified documents that Franjo Harmon kept under wraps are finally coming to light, clearly pointing toward a shadow chain of command where war crimes were carried out right under Franjo Harmon's nose. It was actually Franjo Harmon who blocked Ante Gotovina from testifying as a witness, which is exactly why Ante Gotovina ended up in such a mess.

http://www.time.com/article/10412/...asili-blaskica

It’s just more of the same—a repetitive cycle of debunked lies that I honestly can't be bothered to revisit, though it is quite telling; much like how this same user keeps lying all over these boards about not being acquitted by the UZP in the final ruling for Operation Storm.
You really ought to look in a mirror.

Why don't you actually cite the specific sentences where you claim Mason accused Tihomir Blaškić of non-existent crimes? Don't bother translating, because your failure to grasp basic English has clearly led you down a path of constant delusion.

So, once again, instead of attempting to prove a point, we resort to Ad Hominem attacks, claiming I "don't know English," yet they can't even point out where my translation went wrong. And for anyone here who actually knows the language, feel free to check this post where I provided my translation; since all the testimony transcripts are in English, you can verify it for yourselves.
Ultimately, it's nothing more than standard trolling.

It's worth remembering—you posted this link yourself, even if you didn't bother reading it or understanding the English:

Just off-topic spam that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. I suppose that’s another 10 points for you, assuming you could actually manage to follow the rules you helped create.

That should be enough to start with, though I truly fail to see why the moderators waste their breath on nonsense, much like the two of us.
Lies won't get you far, other than leading you to leave this forum in disgrace.

More insults, then. As our little breakdown has shown, not a single one of these alleged "lies" has been proven, let alone refuted.

The summary is simple: it starts with insults and armchair psychiatric diagnoses, moves into someone editing my posts twice to change the meaning, followed by more insults, then trolling, then spam, and finally, a few more insults to wrap things up.
And all of this is directed straight at me. Meanwhile, I somehow receive, I repeat, 45 points for this post:

In which I don't even mention a single name, yet I am awarded 45 points because the moderator assumes I'm targeting someone. They seem to think that because I didn't explicitly name them, I was still implying it, even though I never forced that narrative. I wrote a response filled with nothing but raw facts and a mountain of links, only to have the entire post deleted.
Why was that post removed?
So, I get a warning based on mere suspicion, I get attacked and insulted when I try to respond to an enrollment, and then when I provide a convincing argument backed by evidence, that gets wiped away too.
And you honestly claim to apply the same standards? Do you have any shred of shame left?

Do you even have a shred of decency?

Go ahead, show me where you've ever left a post of, say, 100 words where 90% of it consisted of heavy-duty insults without being provoked...

Stuff like calling people Royalists, scumbags, sons of bitches, and so on...

And now you have the audacity to hide behind your screen and call me out for being insulting?

I’d say it's a disgrace, if shame were something this place could actually recognize...

Carol Torres4 said:I’m going to take a moment to dismantle the lies, insults, and manipulations scattered throughout this post, which should make it perfectly clear why I felt compelled to report it in the first place.

He claims I’m lying, yet he can't point to a single falsehood. Instead, he just resorts to lying himself.
He calls it deception, which is really just a polite way of saying lying.
He accuses me of obstruction, even though everyone on this forum knows he’s the one who obstructs every conversation he joins.
He claims he doesn't know me, but he hasn't demonstrated any actual knowledge either.
Essentially, his entire argument is just a series of Ad Hominem attacks without a shred of substance.
Then there’s the mention of my "infantile conclusions" being "fantastically fanatical." Once again, he offers no coherent reasoning, making it obvious that his only goal is to insult me.
And then he tosses out "frenetic delusion." 😁
Just imagine if I were to write to one of your little internet celebrities, or if I posted on Edge or Cuki calling them a "frenetic delusion" or "paranoid schizophrenia"—or any other psychiatric diagnosis. How many points would I get? Would I be flagged for "insulting users," hit with 100 points for "gross trolling," or would they just skip the formalities and slap me with 500 points for "hate speech"?

To start with, what does it mean to locate? This guy claims it isn't an American word, and apparently, uncovering is also a foreign concept to him.
There is a video where Vladimir Šeks clearly explains what needs to happen to resolve the situation regarding Ante Gotovina.
The plan is "We won't let our generals fall."
So, to locate means to uncover a position or find the place where an object or subject resides.
Where is the problem here? Can you not grasp that the same thing can be expressed using different American terms? Try answering that.
I bet you can't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ_t-Z_2J2A ... tell me, what did Šeks fail to say?

This is the first example of how my words are being twisted. I stated—and this can easily be verified right here in this thread—that Šeks never actually used the word "locate," and that was it.
He tries to argue against that undeniable fact by providing a video link that proves Šeks didn't say the word "locate."
Therefore, I am correct; I told the truth, while he twists that truth, dumps a pile of spam, and drags in more insults just to end up doing what? Posting a link that confirms exactly what I said was the plain truth.
He claims Stjepan Mason is responsible for the verdict against Tihomir Blaškić. That is completely wrong. The responsibility lies with the crimes that were undeniably committed. Mason merely provided his testimony and confirmed that the acts took place, but it wasn't clear who the culprits were because the perpetrators fled the scene. Blaškić was held responsible simply because the higher-ups—specifically Franjo Harmon and Gojko Šušak—were essentially washing their hands of it.

-quoting you-

CONFIRMS the unanimous, condemnatory verdict handed down to the appellant:
1) regarding point 15 based on Article 7(3) of the Statute for crimes committed in relation to unlawful confinement in relevant detention facilities,
2) regarding point 16 based on Article 7(1) of the Statute for ordering the use of protected persons for the construction of military installations, and
3) regarding point 19 based on Article 7(1) of the Statute for inhumane treatment of detainees involving their use as human shields.
I honestly can't wrap my head around how much of an idiot someone has to be to think this warrants a 45-year sentence... for Tihomir Blaškić.

This is a textbook example of twisting someone's words, because that isn't what I wrote. First, they snatched a single fragment from my post and used it to build a sentence about a 45-year prison term—something I never even mentioned in my original post. Here is my actual entry, for anyone who cares to check:

Look, I provided a link to the official Hague court website containing Stjepan Mason's testimony so that any literate person could spend thirty seconds verifying if my summary of his testimony was accurate. It’s not rocket science.
After that, I wrote:
And now, the final verdict against Blaškić, dispositive section, page 308.
I specifically bolded the word "final" just to make it clear we aren't talking about some preliminary ruling where Blaškić got 45 years, but rather the final judgment where he received nine years—essentially three years for each specific point. And when it comes to those three points, Mason is implicated in two of them; as the prosecutor's introduction states, he testified regarding the circumstances mentioned in counts 15 and 19 of the indictment.
It is perfectly transparent that they falsified my post, distorted its entire meaning, and then tried to argue with that fabrication. Naturally, instead of an actual argument, they just resorted to a barrage of insults:

I assume, in your usual fashion, that you've taken things out of context again, once more demonstrating how those Harmon operate. Pathetic and miserable.

It can't be "out of context" when I provided links to both Mason's testimony and the final verdict for Blaškić, allowing anyone to verify the context themselves. This is just a blatant lie followed by an insult: "once more demonstrating how those Harmon operate."
If I had behaved this way, I would have been told I was acting like a typical communist, a hardline partisan, or a radical leftist, and I would have been promptly slapped with a red card. That usually happens after I find a lie and convincingly debunk it, not after I misrepresent someone else's words, change their meaning, falsely accuse them of lacking context (when I actually provided the links), and then attack their truths with lies and vitriol.
Instead, I targeted a lie, used links and evidence to show the truth, and then slapped on a label, inevitably earning a red card.
So, here is yet another glaring piece of evidence that the rules aren't applied equally here.

With Stjepan Mason taking power, those classified documents that Franjo Harmon kept under wraps are finally coming to light, clearly pointing toward a shadow chain of command where war crimes were carried out right under Franjo Harmon's nose. It was actually Franjo Harmon who blocked Ante Gotovina from testifying as a witness, which is exactly why Ante Gotovina ended up in such a mess.

http://www.time.com/article/10412/...asili-blaskica

It’s just more of the same—a repetitive cycle of debunked lies that I honestly can't be bothered to revisit, though it is quite telling; much like how this same user keeps lying all over these boards about not being acquitted by the UZP in the final ruling for Operation Storm.
You really ought to look in a mirror.

Why don't you actually cite the specific sentences where you claim Mason accused Tihomir Blaškić of non-existent crimes? Don't bother translating, because your failure to grasp basic English has clearly led you down a path of constant delusion.

So, once again, instead of attempting to prove a point, we resort to Ad Hominem attacks, claiming I "don't know English," yet they can't even point out where my translation went wrong. And for anyone here who actually knows the language, feel free to check this post where I provided my translation; since all the testimony transcripts are in English, you can verify it for yourselves.
Ultimately, it's nothing more than standard trolling.

It's worth remembering—you posted this link yourself, even if you didn't bother reading it or understanding the English:

Just off-topic spam that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. I suppose that’s another 10 points for you, assuming you could actually manage to follow the rules you helped create.

That should be enough to start with, though I truly fail to see why the moderators waste their breath on nonsense, much like the two of us.
Lies won't get you far, other than leading you to leave this forum in disgrace.

More insults, then. As our little breakdown has shown, not a single one of these alleged "lies" has been proven, let alone refuted.

The summary is simple: it starts with insults and armchair psychiatric diagnoses, moves into someone editing my posts twice to change the meaning, followed by more insults, then trolling, then spam, and finally, a few more insults to wrap things up.
And all of this is directed straight at me. Meanwhile, I somehow receive, I repeat, 45 points for this post:

In which I don't even mention a single name, yet I am awarded 45 points because the moderator assumes I'm targeting someone. They seem to think that because I didn't explicitly name them, I was still implying it, even though I never forced that narrative. I wrote a response filled with nothing but raw facts and a mountain of links, only to have the entire post deleted.
Why was that post removed?
So, I get a warning based on mere suspicion, I get attacked and insulted when I try to respond to an enrollment, and then when I provide a convincing argument backed by evidence, that gets wiped away too.
And you honestly claim to apply the same standards? Do you have any shred of shame left?

It is quite interesting how you mention stepping away during a funeral when one wasn't even on duty...
And let’s be clear, William Perry wasn't "just" on duty for a year and a half....
You know, anyone could have made it to a funeral if someone was willing to cut a check for $250,000... it's a simple matter of economics.

This is what happens when someone willfully disseminates unverified falsehoods, only for the Harmon to start making a fuss about the scale of it all...

We could pivot to more recent events, but I prefer that you focus on one specific point at a time; otherwise, you will learn nothing but resentment.
As for the accusation of obstruction... I believe co-conspirators should choose their own path; they don't necessarily have to agree with my assertions, even if there is a high probability we will eventually converge.
However, to recognize that convergence, one requires both sufficient intellect and basic integrity.

It’s been sixteen days since October 22nd, and here we are on November 7th, yet not a single moderator or administrator has seen fit to address my questions—though, truthfully, I suspect they haven't responded because there simply aren't any answers to give.
This silence serves as the ultimate indictment of your character and the sheer inconsistency of your moderation standards.
I encourage anyone to step in and read this thread, as it provides a perfect, unvarnished reflection of exactly who you are and how this place truly operates.

Adam Collins4 said:Do you even have a shred of decency?

Go ahead, show me where you've ever left a post of, say, 100 words where 90% of it consisted of heavy-duty insults without being provoked...

Stuff like calling people Royalists, scumbags, sons of bitches, and so on...

And now you have the audacity to hide behind your screen and call me out for being insulting?

I’d say it's a disgrace, if shame were something this place could actually recognize...

And why are you coming after me again? It was supposedly because of you that I got that red card in the first place; I asked the moderator why he flagged me, and he told me it was because you complained, claiming you saw yourself in that post.
Look, if you managed to take my words personally, that's your psychological baggage to deal with, not mine, considering I wasn't targeting you specifically, but rather this guy here.

Since you’re the one who decided to start talking trash, I felt compelled to answer, especially since I've seen you defending types who back Veselin Šljivančanin and those specific verdicts, or posting about the victims in El Paso, only to have that same moderator scrub the posts.
Frankly, it makes no difference to me whether it's MC Ozy, MC Auclife, MC Fuck, or some other variation—are you all just different aliases for the same person or a group of people? It doesn't matter.
The core issue remains unchanged; everything stated there is 100% accurate, as painful as the truth may be. The difference is that people like you will never face reality because you're too blinded by the fanaticism used to defend your party's crimes, while simultaneously blowing every incident from the other side out of proportion.
No political party is paying me to hang around this forum twenty-four hours a day like you lot; I don't need this place, nor am I dependent on it.
I remember telling you once that I was leaving this forum, and suddenly everyone started acting like children—calling me a coward, saying I was running away (of course, they only said that after I had already walked out, and naturally, without any official sanction).

Honestly, you should probably see a doctor and seek some help, because you seem genuinely unwell. I have no interest in wrestling with the mentally ill.
Beyond that, you're irrelevant to me; I don't read your stuff, and you can ask the moderators themselves how long I've actually kept you on my ignore list just so I don't have to endure your senseless nonsense that lacks even a hint of common sense.

Jerry Robinson56 said:@ Carol Torres4

If I have caused you offense, I offer my sincere apologies.

post scriptum

Do not assume that your efforts go unappreciated or unrespected, but perhaps consider why someone might hold a differing opinion and remain as stubborn as a mule. You may not fully grasp the complexities of what transpired back then. You can see a modern parallel right now: the absolute silence surrounding the looting of America. Look at the sort of "individuals" who represent this country within the European Union—aside from the rare exceptions, of course. When conducting an analysis or an autopsy of what remains of our Homeland, one must examine both the micro and macro levels, looking at individual instances and the broader landscape simultaneously. And the origin is paramount. We all carry biases, and it is clear how one receives a more or less packaged response—whether appropriate or not—whenever they stray from the established path. It is never my intention to insult anyone; my goal is merely to hold a mirror up to them and their actions. This includes reflecting their own "weapons" back at them. What they perceive in that reflection depends entirely on their own intelligence and, primarily, their capacity for a wide smile. Avoid prejudice and mob mentality. Very little is ever truly as it appears. Try to look on the bright side of life.
If I have caused you offense, I offer my sincere apologies.

To write to you suggesting I would accept a punishment just to make you happy—well, wouldn't you be the one feeling satisfied, rather than me?
The immense effort you expend to prove you are right does not mean you are speaking or writing the truth, particularly when you attempt to twist words or provide completely erroneous translations. Be honest and admit that, regarding translation, it is painfully obvious that you, Carol Torres4, have erred several times, as you are clearly swallowing the rhetoric provided by that secretive amateur 004 /data known to the editorial staff/
. But let us proceed in order, please, one step at a time, and let the moderators deliberate. Believe me, the moderators on this political board are quite capable; I do not report anyone, but I respond to you using the very methods you employ. You simply receive a reflection of your own words and thoughts.

Carol Torres4 is complaining

Let us see how you intend to respond to this, should anyone among you dare to try.
I have formally reported the post above in which I am being:
1. insulted

Just provide a single example.

You should probably seek medical advice too. You really ought to visit your primary care physician, who can refer you to a specialist to figure out what's actually going on with you.
Because there is clearly an issue here, both with you and with the moderators who allow you to keep posting.
Not all moderators are as incompetent as those on the politics board, though; I noticed you were kicked off the science forum immediately. Clearly, that place is moderated by someone intelligent—someone who uses their brain for more than just a haircut, someone who doesn't bow to ideological standards and actually has some dignity, so they wouldn't tolerate your nonsense, your whining, your insults, your Ad Hominem attacks, and so on.

And by the way, don't bring my mother into this. That's cheap, man. I didn't even finish my thought, because a person needs a little motivation. But your mother certainly isn't that.

Now, go ahead and count down how quickly they'll decrypt this post, then the previous one, then the one before that—all because the criteria aren't applied equally.

Look, Carol Torres4, there’s honestly no point in you whining about the moderator criteria here. There isn't an ounce of objectivity to be found—it’s pure ideology from start to finish. One day they'll hand you 500 points just for showing up, and the next, they'll be breathing down someone else's neck demanding a three-day ban. That's just how the game is played on this site. It's their forum, so they make the rules—both the ones written in black and white and the ones they just pull out of thin air whenever they feel like it.

Carol Torres4 said:You should probably seek medical advice too. You really ought to visit your primary care physician, who can refer you to a specialist to figure out what's actually going on with you.
Because there is clearly an issue here, both with you and with the moderators who allow you to keep posting.
Not all moderators are as incompetent as those on the politics board, though; I noticed you were kicked off the science forum immediately. Clearly, that place is moderated by someone intelligent—someone who uses their brain for more than just a haircut, someone who doesn't bow to ideological standards and actually has some dignity, so they wouldn't tolerate your nonsense, your whining, your insults, your Ad Hominem attacks, and so on.

And by the way, don't bring my mother into this. That's cheap, man. I didn't even finish my thought, because a person needs a little motivation. But your mother certainly isn't that.

Now, go ahead and count down how quickly they'll decrypt this post, then the previous one, then the one before that—all because the criteria aren't applied equally.

🤣 It is quite evident that you are incapable of... answering even the most basic inquiries.
As for the highlighted part: "The further south you go, the sadder it gets." You're Zadar, he's Split... 🙂/it's already been established./
If the administration actually allows it, we can have a real debate—just you and me—and you'll see exactly who ends up looking like the amateur. Have no doubt about it 😍.
The actions taken by this frogger are purely political and serve as a precedent for this supposedly "tolerant" forum. Pure Harmon behavior, and I intend to prove it.
What's happening in that other section is a disgrace, but it isn't the topic at hand here.
Regards. Stick to the topics.

Carol Torres4 said:And why are you coming after me again? It was supposedly because of you that I got that red card in the first place; I asked the moderator why he flagged me, and he told me it was because you complained, claiming you saw yourself in that post.
Look, if you managed to take my words personally, that's your psychological baggage to deal with, not mine, considering I wasn't targeting you specifically, but rather this guy here.

Since you’re the one who decided to start talking trash, I felt compelled to answer, especially since I've seen you defending types who back Veselin Šljivančanin and those specific verdicts, or posting about the victims in El Paso, only to have that same moderator scrub the posts.
Frankly, it makes no difference to me whether it's MC Ozy, MC Auclife, MC Fuck, or some other variation—are you all just different aliases for the same person or a group of people? It doesn't matter.
The core issue remains unchanged; everything stated there is 100% accurate, as painful as the truth may be. The difference is that people like you will never face reality because you're too blinded by the fanaticism used to defend your party's crimes, while simultaneously blowing every incident from the other side out of proportion.
No political party is paying me to hang around this forum twenty-four hours a day like you lot; I don't need this place, nor am I dependent on it.
I remember telling you once that I was leaving this forum, and suddenly everyone started acting like children—calling me a coward, saying I was running away (of course, they only said that after I had already walked out, and naturally, without any official sanction).

Honestly, you should probably see a doctor and seek some help, because you seem genuinely unwell. I have no interest in wrestling with the mentally ill.
Beyond that, you're irrelevant to me; I don't read your stuff, and you can ask the moderators themselves how long I've actually kept you on my ignore list just so I don't have to endure your senseless nonsense that lacks even a hint of common sense.

Just another pile of lies without a single shred of evidence...

And seriously, the best part is claiming I defend Ivo Sanders... that's such a ridiculous stretch I can't even wrap my head around it...

Anyone following politics knows exactly where I stand regarding that guy and his crooked, now defunct, organization...

Unlike certain people, I never defended him... nor did I swear allegiance to the party bosses like you do...

Last time I checked my bank statements, I'm essentially paying myself through the various jobs I've done involving business in Switzerland, Germany, and France...

And finally...

It's hilarious watching people talk about mental health when they can't post a single thing without throwing out heavy insults... it really says a lot about your state of mind...

Listen, buddy, I think it's high time you take your amateur diagnoses and insults to a legitimate institution—or better yet, say them to my face...

Because I don't bother reading the vitriol and insults you leave behind, and as long as you keep doing it constantly without facing any consequences, hiding behind a screen name, anyone is entitled to call you a coward and a quitter...

Oh, and who are you kidding? I have you on ignore, yet somehow, miraculously, you still manage to reply to my posts...🤣

Jesse Ortiz71 said:Look, Carol Torres4, there’s honestly no point in you whining about the moderator criteria here. There isn't an ounce of objectivity to be found—it’s pure ideology from start to finish. One day they'll hand you 500 points just for showing up, and the next, they'll be breathing down someone else's neck demanding a three-day ban. That's just how the game is played on this site. It's their forum, so they make the rules—both the ones written in black and white and the ones they just pull out of thin air whenever they feel like it.

The mods are totally fair, and I actually respect what they do.

I think my last two posts have made everything perfectly clear. I simply gave them the same level of disrespect they showed me; they hand out warnings to me, yet they remain untouched.
It’s hard to find a more undeniable proof than that, or any better evidence that I am telling nothing but the truth.
When he calls me an idiot, it isn't a violation, but when I call him a moron—which is effectively the same thing—suddenly it’s a punishable offense.
One only needs to look at who is attacking me to see how obvious this bias is.
America will endure long after people like this are gone; they can project all their resentment onto me because I refuse to validate the lies regarding Operation Storm, or the endless stream of anti-American rhetoric they churn out daily. Their hostility is merely a symptom of their own impotence, as no one on this forum has ever been able to come close to countering my arguments.

The moderators haven't weighed in yet, though they usually show up just to penalize me for the exact same things their pro-anti-American counterparts get a pass for. Honestly, what more proof could anyone need of the situation here?

And you, MC, you seem quite comfortable defending Veselin Šljivančanin, much like you defended Ivo Sanders—whom I have never once praised, unlike you, who put him on a pedestal during his testimony before the Congressional committee regarding ExxonMobil.
So, my position remains unchanged.

Links: Your defense of Veselin Šljivančanin, the man responsible for the atrocities at Ovčar:

And then, on the final page, the moment both you and Marko Milanović lose all credibility:

Excerpted:

The two of you—you and Marko Milanović—were caught red-handed lying in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable: specifically, reducing the sentence of a criminal responsible for transporting the wounded to their execution. If you look closer at the thread, you'll see you even backed Marko Milanović’s claim that El Paso wasn't shelled nearly as heavily as Knin, even going so far as to say you felt sorry about it while maintaining it was the "truth." But that isn't the truth; it's just your interpretation of reality, which suffered a total collapse back on November 16, 2012. That day, it became painfully clear that I was speaking facts while you were all peddling falsehoods. Now, all you have left is to hate me, and I view your threats with the same indifference I held for the threats sent by a certain Goran Jagodić (assuming it wasn't you).

http://www.youtube.com/user/marasovac/discussion

Of course, an ignore list only works if someone is actually a registered member; if they aren't, you can still see the garbage they spew, but explaining that kind of logic to semi-literate people is a waste of my time.

I accept these two warnings quite willingly, having intentionally responded in the same tone used against me. After numerous warnings and following all the proper reporting procedures, there is no doubt that I am the target here, simply because I have exposed every single anti-American lie that has surfaced over the last fifteen years.

😁

Jesse Ortiz71 said:Look, Carol Torres4, there’s honestly no point in you whining about the moderator criteria here. There isn't an ounce of objectivity to be found—it’s pure ideology from start to finish. One day they'll hand you 500 points just for showing up, and the next, they'll be breathing down someone else's neck demanding a three-day ban. That's just how the game is played on this site. It's their forum, so they make the rules—both the ones written in black and white and the ones they just pull out of thin air whenever they feel like it.

Do you honestly think I’m unaware of how this works? It’s all laid out plain as day now: Jerry Robinson can call me an idiot with zero consequences, but the moment I call him a moron, I’m looking at a strike. He gets to toss around amateur psychiatric diagnoses like "frenetic delusions" without blinking, yet when I attempt to diagnose him and his equally disturbed companion, we get hit with a ban.
It’s a predictable cycle; if someone like Zvone Bušić or Ivan Milas posts in American, they can act out without any sanctions, but if some typical leftist trash like Goran Šprem passes away, any negative comment results in an immediate ban.
And so it goes, on and on, until everything is documented, tallied, and filed away.