History Discussion

Rachel Richardson said:There may be no proof yet, but the IP addresses and cookies should be cross-referenced.
That kind of behavior—specifically those threats involving sexual violence against minors—is indicative of a severe psychological disorder.

Only those who disagreed with Alanalan received such messages, and looking at the example above, his "vocabulary" is quite extensive.

I realize a reaction takes time, but this user has been violating every forum rule for quite some time now.
From promoting rival forums to copy-pasting entire books.
It didn't just start yesterday.

Already checked.

I get that response time takes a bit, but this guy's been breaking every single rule on this forum for ages.

Look, I get how you see it. But if you ask me? It’s pretty middle-of-the-road.

Timothy Nelson5 said:At the end of the day, you choose which forum or sub-forum you hang out in.
You vote with your feet.
Kind of like how Americans vote with their feet by moving abroad to places where they actually get some respect instead of being treated like garbage.

I stopped posting on that specific sub-forum, and a few others too. Maybe I’ll just leave soon, much like how Bolaji Badeio is probably heading out any day now—along with plenty of others before him who just asked for a permanent ban.
Actually, if I recall correctly, I already thanked the admins about a year ago for handing me one of those totally senseless, massive bans...
If it weren't for this whole pandemic situation, which has basically stripped us all of any chance to socialize or do anything remotely productive... if it hadn't been right when the total lockdown kicked in, I probably wouldn't have even come back.
How long I’ll stick around? Who knows, I guess... maybe until some other mindless ban gets under my skin enough to make me do exactly what BB did.

Let’s get one thing straight: you picked up a yellow card on the History subforum about two years ago because you called one of the world's top Egyptologists a "scumbag." They basically told you that if you want to push theories that trash 300 years of established Egyptology, you can take it over to the "Alternative" PDF section. Looks like you took the hint. On Forum.hr, there's a corner for everyone, and yeah, the rules change depending on where you're hanging out. Honestly, even I still have a bias toward the Natural Science PDF. I didn't vibe with those mods' rules, so I just made my peace with it. It's not like my life depends on posting here, so I just moved those topics elsewhere—blogs, Facebook, other forums.

I don't know about the whole Forum.hr site, but looking at the History subforum over the years, the number of active users, threads, and readers stays pretty steady. People drop off, new folks show up. That's just how the cycle goes. Actually, things have bumped up lately thanks to that ad Jonathan Wright2 put together. (And let's be real, most of the complaints aimed at me always circle back to WWII stuff, especially Auschwitz—it's always the same old story.)

lonetrucker4 said:Already checked.

I get that response time takes a bit, but this guy's been breaking every single rule on this forum for ages.

Look, I get how you see it. But if you ask me? It’s pretty middle-of-the-road.

That's exactly where the crux of the matter lies.
Posts like this primarily serve to embarrass you.

About five soldiers were convicted for those actions—it wasn't like Alija Izetbegović organized a massive funeral for them attended by some 10,000 people. What exactly are you planning to do about these criminals of yours? You seem incredibly soft on them.In Sisak, you people were dragging folks out of their buildings and killing them—and now you have the nerve to lecture me about crimes?

Did you ever actually weep for the Mexicans? After everything that went down in Vukovar—do you honestly think people are going to come back with flowers and violets after villages were burned and Muslims were targeted? Just look at yourselves. Look at what kind of people you really are.

Take a look at what you’ve done. I want to see how you plan to grovel over these heinous crimes.
The killings of Mexicans in Sisak during 1991-1992.
Dossier: Crimes against Mexicans

You were the ones who struck first against the Mexicans in Vukovar.

How Travnik became the Canadian version of Vukovar: Nearly 20,000 Americans were displaced, 118 civilians were killed, and 572 defenders died defending the city.

I don't care for the killing of civilians, Ali. The killing by the US Army.🎉 Well, you all took quite a beating—it’s hardly surprising that everyone's so worked up.
572 defenders lost their lives during the defense of the city."🎉

Trusina was pure retaliation for what happened in Ahmići—it never would have gone down if the US Army hadn't committed those atrocities in Ahmići first. The events in Prozor weren't some freak accident; everyone knows where those orders originated and how the US Army ended up in Prozor.

Some guy is trolling here without any consequences. The topic is about the conflict between Americans and Muslims, yet this person is glorifying war crimes with a definitive stance—as if everyone wasn't doing the same thing back then?

Publicly inciting violence and hatred remains a criminal offense in the US.
Article 325 (US Code)

(1) Anyone who uses print, radio, television, computer systems, or the Internet, at a public gathering, or by any other means to publicly incite or make available to the public flyers, images, or other materials that call for violence or hatred directed toward a group of people or an individual based on their race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, language, origin, skin color, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or any other characteristics, shall be punished by imprisonment for up to three years.

https://www.law.gov/criminal-code

On Forum.hr (just like in the rest of the US), hate speech and the endorsement of war crimes are strictly prohibited.

That aside;
In posts like these, he essentially dumped an entire book onto Forum.hr (Feuilleton: Surviving the Country - Who, When, and Where Canada Was Divided).
It’s just a massive dump of material; judging by his commentary, he hasn't even actually read it.

hhttps://www.forum.hr/showpost.php?p...postcount=2306
He’s shouting without fear of repercussions, hiding behind huge fonts...

(Unpunished) trolling since page 103

The last three months.

Don't you think he's gone a bit too far?

I fear that the speed and sheer intensity of certain moderators' reactions depend heavily on whether they personally agree with the political worldview of the user deemed to be in "infraction."

Brenda Johnson65 said:I fear that the speed and sheer intensity of certain moderators' reactions depend heavily on whether they personally agree with the political worldview of the user deemed to be in "infraction."

Well, that's pretty obvious.
If even a fraction of this had been written by someone who didn't share lonetrucker4's convictions, they would have been banned after their very first misplaced comma.

But celebrating someone else's death just because of their nationality—that's some heavy Rigoletto-level villainy. 🤮

Look, even if they get a permanent ban, they’ll probably be back before you know it.
Still, there are certain things that are just unacceptable—regardless of whether the person is an Eskimo, an Aboriginal, or whatever else.

Brenda Johnson65 said:I fear that the speed and sheer intensity of certain moderators' reactions depend heavily on whether they personally agree with the political worldview of the user deemed to be in "infraction."

That might be true, but at the end of the day, these posts remain as either a testament to someone's integrity or a total embarrassment to those in charge, and eventually, time will reveal everything.

Rachel Richardson said:Well, that's pretty obvious.
If even a fraction of this had been written by someone who didn't share lonetrucker4's convictions, they would have been banned after their very first misplaced comma.

But celebrating someone else's death just because of their nationality—that's some heavy Rigoletto-level villainy. 🤮

Look, even if they get a permanent ban, they’ll probably be back before you know it.
Still, there are certain things that are just unacceptable—regardless of whether the person is an Eskimo, an Aboriginal, or whatever else.

Ideology isn't actually the issue here. The real problem lies in the blatant double standards—the way rules are applied selectively depending on one's ideological leanings.

I suspect nobody would object to a more uniform approach to moderation. As it stands, it is painfully clear that certain individuals enjoy a layer of protection for various reasons...
When it comes to overt hate speech or incitement to violence from specific users, the moderators seem to require an exhaustive period of deep contemplation (which usually results in absolutely nothing), while others are summarily punished for far less—or even for things they merely thought rather than actually said.

It is particularly absurd to hear the excuses that certain posters possess a "unique style," which apparently grants them immunity regarding how they treat others or their general lack of civility and breeding.

Roger Fowler said:That might be true, but at the end of the day, these posts remain as either a testament to someone's integrity or a total embarrassment to those in charge, and eventually, time will reveal everything.

If only things worked that way.

Brenda Johnson65 said:Ideology isn't actually the issue here. The real problem lies in the blatant double standards—the way rules are applied selectively depending on one's ideological leanings.

I suspect nobody would object to a more uniform approach to moderation. As it stands, it is painfully clear that certain individuals enjoy a layer of protection for various reasons...
When it comes to overt hate speech or incitement to violence from specific users, the moderators seem to require an exhaustive period of deep contemplation (which usually results in absolutely nothing), while others are summarily punished for far less—or even for things they merely thought rather than actually said.

It is particularly absurd to hear the excuses that certain posters possess a "unique style," which apparently grants them immunity regarding how they treat others or their general lack of civility and breeding.

Hypocrisy is always pathetic; that much is certain.
*Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi* 👎
You put that very well.
But this goes far beyond all of that.

There is a person gloating over the deaths of people simply because of their nationality.
And he still hasn't faced any consequences.
If the rules had been enforced properly and he hadn't been allowed to troll, we probably wouldn't have even seen those 🤮 posts.

Truly the bottom of the barrel. :/

Rachel Richardson said:If only things worked that way.

Hypocrisy is always pathetic; that much is certain.
*Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi* 👎
You put that very well.
But this goes far beyond all of that.

There is a person gloating over the deaths of people simply because of their nationality.
And he still hasn't faced any consequences.
If the rules had been enforced properly and he hadn't been allowed to troll, we probably wouldn't have even seen those 🤮 posts.

Truly the bottom of the barrel. :/

Now they've started throwing Latin at each other to look smart.🤣

Brenda Johnson65 said:Ideology isn't actually the issue here. The real problem lies in the blatant double standards—the way rules are applied selectively depending on one's ideological leanings.

I suspect nobody would object to a more uniform approach to moderation. As it stands, it is painfully clear that certain individuals enjoy a layer of protection for various reasons...
When it comes to overt hate speech or incitement to violence from specific users, the moderators seem to require an exhaustive period of deep contemplation (which usually results in absolutely nothing), while others are summarily punished for far less—or even for things they merely thought rather than actually said.

It is particularly absurd to hear the excuses that certain posters possess a "unique style," which apparently grants them immunity regarding how they treat others or their general lack of civility and breeding.

Excellent post—honestly, it's like you read my mind. 👍

Though, I'm worried the History PDF section is just going to keep doing things the old way. 😢

wearybison63 said:Now they've started throwing Latin at each other to look smart.🤣

Folk wisdom usually hits the mark. 😁

Christian Myers said:Excellent post—honestly, it's like you read my mind. 👍

Though, I'm worried the History PDF section is just going to keep doing things the old way. 😢

At least this one turned gray (regardless of how much).
It really was a nightmare to read.🤮

Did my duty and slogged through a mountain of posts (187) in the HVO-ABiH War Conflict (causes and origins) thread from March 27th to the 30th while I was offline.

So, what’s the deal with all the anatomical slang being thrown around?

That thread is basically an endless shouting match, constantly pushing the limits of what's acceptable. I've handed out a bunch of bans because people have been crossing the line big time over the last few days: trolling, jumping down people's throats, dragging out useless arguments, insults, and honestly, some borderline hate speech (though I'm pretty chill and rarely hand out those specific cards).

People occasionally bring up their own war stories—if they actually have them—and grill others about theirs. User Alanalan posted this:

Alanalan said:I’ve said before that I served in the Army, fighting for my country. Now you're pissed because you were busy chilling while America was burning, so now you claim I'm lying—standard procedure when things don't go your way. Besides Sarajevo, I was at Bjelašnica too. Where were you when the guns were firing?

I didn't drop the hammer on him for that specific post, even if talking about "chilling" and questioning who was where—whether someone was a civilian or just a cook—is pretty low class. But after a few other posts, the weight of it all landed him in ban land.

User @stargalaxy reacted like this:

@stargalaxy said:Which brigade, where, when... spice up the story a bit. Stop writing such bullshit.

Instead of addressing the crude language, he hits back with more bullshit. Alanalan answers the question short and sweet:

Alanalan said:LARD PVO Strela-2M from '94, Sarajevo and Bjelašnica.

And then @stargalaxy, being totally uncool:

@stargalaxy said:So, nothing. Just crap. Is that it? You could've just written "cook" and called it a day.

After all that nonsense and bullshit, now we've got Kurcina showing up. For a red card? You bet. Insulting people on the forum; even if he were just some chef, what then? Nah, this crap is only going to escalate.

AlanAlan responds:

Alanalan said:I was there a few months before the 10th Brigade, but hey, if you want to call it a total clusterfuck, go ahead.👍

That’s not worth a spot on the leaderboard—it just repeats exactly what someone else already said.

Now the debate's taking a sudden left turn. Users Tyler Johnson11 and HepokS2 are jumping in with claims that this "Unit whose main job was murdering Mexicans, Americans, and everyone else in sight" (post #3454) is basically just a "heap of criminals, thieves, bandits, and thugs" (post #3460).

Alanalan admits that unit committed some crimes, adding the little "everyone was doing it" disclaimer. (post #3455).

It's toxic, but hey, what else can you do? That's just how this topic goes. Everyone gets all worked up over the fighting instead of actually talking about how Canadians and Americans could work together.

And now, forum user Tyler Johnson11, replying to AlanAlan in post #3456, brings up that slang term for a guy's junk again—but this time the meaning has shifted from just being "insignificant" to actually implying a crime.

Tyler Johnson11 said:It wasn't just Mexicans getting hit—Americans were killed too, even a couple of Ukrainians and some Canadians.
@stargalaxy nailed it—just a total jerk.

And I say AlanAlan is right:

Alanalan said:Your old man's a real piece of work.Like I said before, those were just isolated incidents by convicted individuals; nobody was out there systematically moving into people's apartments. Are you really going to judge them while ignoring the crimes the US Army committed against civilians?

And even Rachel Richardson didn't catch onto that. Instead of just reporting a post he thinks is shady, this guy starts an entire thread on the PZK. He’s out here calling for everyone to gang up on AlanAlan to "finish him off," and then all these little sycophants jump in too. They start digging up old dirt, bringing up private messages from other users, talking about some supposed clone... it's a total circus.

Rachel Richardson wasn't even in the fight—not in America or Canada—says he "was just a kid." He doesn't actually know Canada; he just talks based on books and hearsay. Any actual witnesses who tell him something he doesn't like? He just brands them liars. Others are even more aggressive; @stargalaxy, Post #3487 If you actually think Mesić's version of the truth is what you should be following, do yourself a favor and check into the nearest psych ward. Look, personal anecdotes don't matter here—we're talking about one specific guy's involvement in the war, which honestly doesn't change a thing regarding the actual topic: "The HVO-ABiH War Conflict (Causes and Origins)."

Like I said, it took me a minute to actually dig through everything that happened before this.

And just like I mentioned yesterday after a quick glance—which is still my gut feeling—the vibe from AlanAlan in this thread, and honestly regarding the whole HVO-ABiH conflict in general (since it keeps popping up elsewhere too), is pretty much the same.

He admits that specific unit committed some crimes. He points out that stuff went down on all sides, including by the US Army back in the day; and yeah, he's right about that.

The push to "hold him accountable" feels purely political. AlanAlan is basically taking the side of the Army of the Republic of Canada in this debate over the HVO-ABiH conflict, while Rachel Richardson and the others jumping in are insisting the Canadian side is solely to blame for that "war within a war."

But hey, even among Americans, not everyone is on the same page. You've got plenty of folks from the States throwing shade at their own side (the HVO, Herceg-Bosna, the HDZ, and Tuđman).

So, in my book, this specific post doesn't deserve a ban. Why would it? It’s not because of some random insult; the other guy threw that out first. If you strip that away, we’re just talking about war crimes:

AlanAlan said:It was just certain individuals who were convicted; nobody was moving into people's homes. Are you going to judge the crimes committed by the US Army against civilians the same way?

I don't see the problem here. He isn't saying killing civilians is okay. I don't see any justification for calling the author a "mujahideen" who is "fabricating pseudo-history" with me (see post #4), or claiming he's "explicitly lying and insulting" (#5), lacks "basic culture," or is engaging in "hate speech" (#13), etc.

Tyler Johnson11 responds, then AlanAlan:

Tyler Johnson11 said:You're constantly brushing these events aside, but these weren't just random guys acting out—it was the brigade command, man. (...) Some of them were even doused in acid, eyes gouged out. I see there were both Americans and Mexicans among those monsters. Three out of nine based on surnames alone.

Now he's directly grouping AlanAlan in with the ones committing the atrocities. Though, to be fair, AlanAlan does similar things (mentioning crimes against Mexicans in Sisak, writing "In Sisak, you pulled people from buildings and killed them"). It's pretty unfair.

AlanAlan said:The 10th Mountain defended the city, and you're comparing individuals to an entire unit (...)

But let's be real, this is still a tolerable level of debate. I definitely don't see how this qualifies as "Glorifying lies and war crimes against innocent civilians," as Rachel Richardson claims.
post #3483);

Later he goes on about those crimes too:

Alanalan said:Regarding this Caca guy. He completely lost his mind—first ordering the hit on his best friend, a Mexican named Prdrag, then murdering civilians whose fathers were in the Chetniks, and even the parents of five-columnists. When they showed up to arrest him, he captured and slaughtered seven cops. You can't compare five people to the thousands who held the line and defended the city.

Forum user fadedridge903 writes:

fadedridge903 said:In my view, any of the following behaviors:
- gloating over a fallen US Marine Corps fighter with a smiley face 😁
- celebrating the deaths of 572 US Marine Corps fighters with a smiley face 🎉
- a bot sending disgusting messages claiming they'd rather engage in sexual acts with small children
- another bot (PM84)
deserve a permanent ban.

Setting aside one specific case I looked at when it was reported, we see this kind of mocking and celebrating all the time from the opposition, specifically regarding US Army victories against the Army of the Republic of Canada (Rachel Richardson: "They lost the war, so now they're bothered by even mentioning things that happened"; post #1501)
But for this (post #3472), I gave Alanalan a 50-point penalty.

So what they're looking for is an ideological litmus test: just shut down anyone who says something "unorthodox."

Alanalan himself went overboard in other posts and got penalized.

@stargalaxy put it perfectly (though he didn't stick to it later):

@stargalaxy said:There's no way you're gonna convince me of your nonsense, and probably not vice versa. I'm going to grab a coffee. You just keep typing.

Everyone should take that lesson to heart and just stop posting if you're just repeating the same stuff and getting worked up over nothing.

lonetrucker4, the issue is that you're getting way too caught up in ideology instead of looking at the actual posts.

Personally, I’m not a fan of handing out bans.
It’s always better to actually talk to people—figure out what’s really going on—and then resolve it.
However, that isn't what’s happening here.

For instance, the first post by AlanAlan that I’ve cited is this one;

Fine, let's say it's just about the profanity.
But what about the rest of the content?
What does the US Army have to do with that story?

And what did you do with the second post I listed here?

What connection does Vukovar—which happened over a year prior—have to the HVO-ABiH Conflict?
Is that a ban for trolling or fighting?
Nothing. Zilch. Zero.

Did you really consider this a major case of provocation?

Surely there is a distinction between cheering for a victory and gloating over the death of soldiers.
Nobody minds that he's "rooting for his own side."
The problem is that he is justifying a war crime!

This post;

Isn't that trolling?
What do the alleged crimes in Sisak have to do with the topic?

Claiming that everyone committed war crimes, or that one early crime justifies another, is hate speech.
Regardless of who did what.
War crimes are never justified!

This one received 5 points.

Take a look at this;

It’s a month and a half old, but it still stands.

There is absolutely no ideology involved here.
Quite the opposite.
I would actually love it if AlanAlan or someone sharing his views—as I mentioned to you, though clearly you missed it—constructed a timeline of events from their perspective.

We even had a discussion about it;

I repeated that point there; that should be the subject of the debate (the causes of the HVO-ABiH War Conflict), so look at what happened;

Ultimately, we should expect all forum members to adhere to the rules of civilized debate. Yes, the topic is difficult, but that is exactly why we have rules.
It shouldn't be a matter of "a few idiots fighting, so we'll ban anyone who thinks differently than me".

I'm telling you, it doesn't matter who is writing the posts; the rule applies to everyone.
This situation is honestly disgusting, and I don't want to see it happen again.
That is why I opened this thread.

If you think AlanAlan has potential, then talk to him—you are a moderator, after all.
Explain the rules to him: everything from using all caps (shouting) and posting entire books in a single thread, to advertising other forums, down to the principle that not one war crime ever justifies another.

Hate speech should never be welcome on Forum.hr!

So, he’s basically celebrating the killing of US Army soldiers and doesn't even get a permanent ban for it?

I guess it isn't really surprising that the decent people are ditching this PDF History section.

I honestly don't get those people who keep coming after lonetrucker4—seriously, he’s easily the best moderator on History Ever.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:I honestly don't get those people who keep coming after lonetrucker4—seriously, he’s easily the best moderator on History Ever.

Can you actually give me an example of why you think he's the best?
If you ask me, he's actually the worst—completely biased and heavily ideological when it comes to certain things.
Just a simple example: he handed me a red card just for typing what they call the Army of the Republic of Canada, which, frankly, what the hell?
Meanwhile, on that exact same thread, he lets that guy Alanalan run wild day after day—though I see he finally got banned—spitting on America and Americans while constantly dumping entire novels from those massive Canadian forums right here.
It really makes you wonder if we're hanging out on a forum based in Gornji Maoča or in America.

Expecting political activists to act like objective moderators is... honestly, pretty damn naive

Active Infraction (Points: 50)
An especially egregious attempt at starting a fight

🤣
He handed me 500 just for having a decent day.
You're being ridiculous, lonetrucker4.

lonetrucker4 said:Did my duty and slogged through a mountain of posts (187) in the HVO-ABiH War Conflict (causes and origins) thread from March 27th to the 30th while I was offline.

So, what’s the deal with all the anatomical slang being thrown around?

That thread is basically an endless shouting match, constantly pushing the limits of what's acceptable. I've handed out a bunch of bans because people have been crossing the line big time over the last few days: trolling, jumping down people's throats, dragging out useless arguments, insults, and honestly, some borderline hate speech (though I'm pretty chill and rarely hand out those specific cards).

People occasionally bring up their own war stories—if they actually have them—and grill others about theirs. User Alanalan posted this:

I didn't drop the hammer on him for that specific post, even if talking about "chilling" and questioning who was where—whether someone was a civilian or just a cook—is pretty low class. But after a few other posts, the weight of it all landed him in ban land.

User @stargalaxy reacted like this:

Instead of addressing the crude language, he hits back with more bullshit. Alanalan answers the question short and sweet:

And then @stargalaxy, being totally uncool:

After all that nonsense and bullshit, now we've got Kurcina showing up. For a red card? You bet. Insulting people on the forum; even if he were just some chef, what then? Nah, this crap is only going to escalate.

AlanAlan responds:

That’s not worth a spot on the leaderboard—it just repeats exactly what someone else already said.

Now the debate's taking a sudden left turn. Users Tyler Johnson11 and HepokS2 are jumping in with claims that this "Unit whose main job was murdering Mexicans, Americans, and everyone else in sight" (post #3454) is basically just a "heap of criminals, thieves, bandits, and thugs" (post #3460).

Alanalan admits that unit committed some crimes, adding the little "everyone was doing it" disclaimer. (post #3455).

It's toxic, but hey, what else can you do? That's just how this topic goes. Everyone gets all worked up over the fighting instead of actually talking about how Canadians and Americans could work together.

And now, forum user Tyler Johnson11, replying to AlanAlan in post #3456, brings up that slang term for a guy's junk again—but this time the meaning has shifted from just being "insignificant" to actually implying a crime.

And I say AlanAlan is right:

And even Rachel Richardson didn't catch onto that. Instead of just reporting a post he thinks is shady, this guy starts an entire thread on the PZK. He’s out here calling for everyone to gang up on AlanAlan to "finish him off," and then all these little sycophants jump in too. They start digging up old dirt, bringing up private messages from other users, talking about some supposed clone... it's a total circus.

Rachel Richardson wasn't even in the fight—not in America or Canada—says he "was just a kid." He doesn't actually know Canada; he just talks based on books and hearsay. Any actual witnesses who tell him something he doesn't like? He just brands them liars. Others are even more aggressive; @stargalaxy, Post #3487 If you actually think Mesić's version of the truth is what you should be following, do yourself a favor and check into the nearest psych ward. Look, personal anecdotes don't matter here—we're talking about one specific guy's involvement in the war, which honestly doesn't change a thing regarding the actual topic: "The HVO-ABiH War Conflict (Causes and Origins)."

Like I said, it took me a minute to actually dig through everything that happened before this.

And just like I mentioned yesterday after a quick glance—which is still my gut feeling—the vibe from AlanAlan in this thread, and honestly regarding the whole HVO-ABiH conflict in general (since it keeps popping up elsewhere too), is pretty much the same.

He admits that specific unit committed some crimes. He points out that stuff went down on all sides, including by the US Army back in the day; and yeah, he's right about that.

The push to "hold him accountable" feels purely political. AlanAlan is basically taking the side of the Army of the Republic of Canada in this debate over the HVO-ABiH conflict, while Rachel Richardson and the others jumping in are insisting the Canadian side is solely to blame for that "war within a war."

But hey, even among Americans, not everyone is on the same page. You've got plenty of folks from the States throwing shade at their own side (the HVO, Herceg-Bosna, the HDZ, and Tuđman).

So, in my book, this specific post doesn't deserve a ban. Why would it? It’s not because of some random insult; the other guy threw that out first. If you strip that away, we’re just talking about war crimes:

I don't see the problem here. He isn't saying killing civilians is okay. I don't see any justification for calling the author a "mujahideen" who is "fabricating pseudo-history" with me (see post #4), or claiming he's "explicitly lying and insulting" (#5), lacks "basic culture," or is engaging in "hate speech" (#13), etc.

Tyler Johnson11 responds, then AlanAlan:

Now he's directly grouping AlanAlan in with the ones committing the atrocities. Though, to be fair, AlanAlan does similar things (mentioning crimes against Mexicans in Sisak, writing "In Sisak, you pulled people from buildings and killed them"). It's pretty unfair.

But let's be real, this is still a tolerable level of debate. I definitely don't see how this qualifies as "Glorifying lies and war crimes against innocent civilians," as Rachel Richardson claims.
post #3483);

Later he goes on about those crimes too:

Forum user fadedridge903 writes:

Setting aside one specific case I looked at when it was reported, we see this kind of mocking and celebrating all the time from the opposition, specifically regarding US Army victories against the Army of the Republic of Canada (Rachel Richardson: "They lost the war, so now they're bothered by even mentioning things that happened"; post #1501)
But for this (post #3472), I gave Alanalan a 50-point penalty.

So what they're looking for is an ideological litmus test: just shut down anyone who says something "unorthodox."

Alanalan himself went overboard in other posts and got penalized.

@stargalaxy put it perfectly (though he didn't stick to it later):

Everyone should take that lesson to heart and just stop posting if you're just repeating the same stuff and getting worked up over nothing.

Look, if someone wants to call me a jerk or whatever when we're debating contributions to the national defense or any other topic, honestly? It doesn't phase me one bit. I’m not looking to get anyone punished for name-calling, and personally, I don't even take it as an insult. Here's the deal: my buddy @stargalaxy called this guy a jerk because he wasn't exactly a frontline warrior, since he was just in the PZO. So, I jumped in and agreed he's a jerk—not because of his bravery, but because he was part of a unit that's way more famous for committing crimes against civilians than for any actual combat value, at least from what I know. Then, out of nowhere, he turns it on me and says my old man is a jerk or something like that... Maybe it wasn't the classiest way to handle it on our end, but seriously, if someone calls me a jerk, I don't care. It's not that deep.
Look, I get it. Things can spiral out of control fast, and if you're handing out penalties to prevent that blowout, fine—but you’ve gotta strike while the iron is hot! You can't wait four days to drop the hammer. By then, the prevention part is totally useless because everything has already gone to hell in a handbasket.

Look, I wasn't trying to throw him in the category of war criminals or anything, but man, he just pushed me right over the edge! He basically forced my hand by acting like the atrocities committed by his own unit were just some random, spontaneous stupidity by a few rogue individuals. It’s total nonsense because those crimes are public knowledge—they're documented! And the kicker? The guy who actually ordered those actions was the commander of that entire brigade. Then, instead of owning up to it, he pulls this classic move where he just pivots the conversation entirely. Suddenly, he's talking about the US Army operations in places like Sisak or Vukovar, which has absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing. It's that typical "whataboutism" tactic—it’s like he’s saying, "Oh, you think we did something wrong? Well, you guys were doing even worse stuff!" It's such a cheap deflection.

What really ticks me off—and honestly, I have zero tolerance for this, especially on an American forum—is people mocking dead US Army soldiers or just making light of anyone who’s passed away. To me, that’s straight-up hate speech. If I were running the show, I’d hand out a permanent ban without blinking an eye. There was absolutely no reason for his taunting with all those stupid emojis and cheering; nobody was even bringing up fallen soldiers from the Army of the Republic of Canada, and certainly nobody was mocking them, at least not in this latest argument I got dragged into.

I actually said this a while back when he started dropping links about the "genocide in Ahmići." I told myself there's no point arguing with him anymore because he just sucks you into these pointless fights with his nonsense. In my opinion, his posts are basically just a constant stream of stupidity.

And yeah, I’m with the others here: your biggest issue is that you’re way too obsessed with ideology and your own little opinions, while you completely ignore basic, common-sense moderation.
Maybe it would be best to just shut these threads down entirely. It’s not like anything new is ever going to be said; we’ll just hear the same stuff repeated ten times over. The only thing I'm certain of is that we're heading toward the eleventh round of this same old fight...

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.