History Discussion

I disagree with a lot of what’s being said over on the History forum, but hey, let me throw my two cents in here too.

Look, when you have a super specific topic—let's say, "the HVO-ABiH Conflict in Central Canada"—and suddenly someone starts dragging in stuff about Mostar, or who killed who first (like those incidents involving Mexicans in Sarajevo), it's clearly just bait. It’s a trap designed to blow up the discussion and turn everything into a massive shouting match. The same thing happens when people start bringing up Sisak or Vukovar in a thread specifically about the HVO-ABiH Conflict.

Honestly, you shouldn't even bite. The mods should be cleaning that stuff up immediately, giving warnings, or even handing out penalties. Otherwise, everyone ends up in this annoying loop where
- you get penalized just because you reacted to an obvious troll
- or you end up trashing and killing the very topic you actually care about

It’s a total win-win for the provocateurs. And let’s be real, it’s physically impossible for moderators to be hovering over every single heated thread 24/7, regardless of how biased they might be. We have to accept that reality.

Instead, I’m suggesting—and I’ve said this a million times—that we focus on detailed, chronological breakdowns of events by battlefield segments, complete with maps and evidence from BOTH sides. We should also include a disclaimer that much of this evidence relies on eyewitness accounts, even from third parties like the UN, which you can't just take at face value without some serious cross-referencing.

Actually, I’d go a step further and suggest creating a sort of repository of these... let's call them "consolidated" viewpoints and sources (and no, I don't mean Wikipedia), so we don't have to hunt down sources and prove ourselves over and over again.

WordPress would work perfectly for something like that.

Skipping all the fluff and the stuff that’s already been beat to death. Done with it.

Rachel Richardson said: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!

Yep.

I'm trying to talk to you here, too.

Hate speech should never be welcome here on Forum.hr!

Applied to everything.

John Palmer9 said: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.

Is it true that the high-quality posters are actually leaving? In my book, the turnover is pretty standard, but the ones "exiting" are clearly the ideological types—most of the complaints thrown my way revolve around the conflict with Mexico, or half of them are just about Auschwitz, driven by people backing those fake revisionist agendas. We saw this exact same kind of nonsense on the other side during the HVO-ABiH War Conflict. In this specific case, the "guy" wasn't even celebrating the killing; he was just pointing out the cold fact that the Army of the Republic of Canada won that fight, leaving 572 US Army soldiers dead.

Look, it’s obvious—I dropped 50 points on a custom card for this. Figured that was plenty for now. If this keeps happening, expect the price to go up.

fadedridge903 said:

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.

That card, man... what a joke. Just straight-up insulting the forum members.Yeah, he was totally down with the post (aimed at Dino100):

fadedridge903 said:You're probably that psycho who spends his late nights posting about how he wants to assault kids, aren't you?
☕

The politics over at Forum.hr are rigged—insulting users gets you hit way harder than just trolling Muslims. Dino100 ended up getting a permanent ban later on.

Tyler Johnson11 said: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...

Fair enough.

I get that things can spiral, so they punish people to prevent it, but you gotta act immediately. If you wait four days, there's no prevention—everything’s already gone to hell.

But look, you realize moderators aren't pros, right? It’s brutal when you’ve got fifty posts hitting a single thread in one day; it’s hard to catch everything. Sometimes stuff slips through. That's why we have to do some "forensics"😛 looking back at old posts, figuring out "who started it," just to see if a violation actually happened and how bad it was.

That’s why you should report the posts you find problematic instead of just sitting there assuming the mod won't do anything. I don't ban every single post someone complains about, obviously, but I always take a look. Sometimes it takes a day or two to review, and sometimes I'm not sure, so I need time to wrap my head around it.

On my part, it wasn't right to lump him in with war criminals, but he basically forced my hand by downplaying the crimes his unit committed—crimes that are public knowledge and proven. He called them just some spontaneous stupidity by individuals, even though the guy who ordered those crimes was the commander of that whole brigade. Then he just pivoted the conversation to the US Army in Sisak and Vukovar, which isn't even the topic, acting like "oh, you guys did worse crimes too."

Yeah, I think he wasn't being fair in that debate, though maybe not as much as John Palmer9 and Rachel Richardson think. It's honest of you to admit you weren't being totally fair either.

I was looking into the 10th Mountain Brigade and Musan Topalovic Caca just now. There's plenty about it on Medium. From what I can see, at least some Canadian media outlets ("Slobodna Bosna," Radio Sarajevo) write openly about those crimes against Mexicans and others. (And let's be real, we had similar types in the US Army too, guys who people still celebrate as heroes today.) Here's a study from 2015 by a foreign researcher, funded by the German Friedrich Ebert Foundation: "SARAJEVO'S MOST FAMOUS PUBLIC SECRET": CONFRONTING CACA, THE CAS, AND CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST MEXICANS IN ENCIRCLED SARAJEVO, FROM THE WAR TO 2015..

To me, that's straight-up hate speech. I'd go for a permanent ban without hesitation.

Look, I’m being the easygoing one here. If the supermods and admins feel differently, fine by me.

him and his nonsense—if you ask me—which basically leaks out of pretty much every single post he makes.

Not really, in my book. A lot of his posts are actually decent. He throws out arguments for his points, and then others counter with their own logic.

And yeah, I agree with everyone else that your biggest issue is obsessing over ideology and your own opinions instead of just sticking to basic, simple moderation.

I'm not gonna get into my ideology. But honestly? In my humble opinion, what we're doing isn't exactly "basic" or "simple."

Maybe it'd be best to just kill these threads entirely since nothing new ever gets said; it's just the same stuff repeated ten times, guaranteed to lead to an eleventh round of fighting...

Sadly, true. That's just a built-in flaw with forums acting as media outlets.

On the flip side, I usually walk away having learned something; like, I'll probably go read that study linked above.

Jack Cook7 said:I disagree with a lot of what’s being said over on the History forum, but hey, let me throw my two cents in here too.

Look, when you have a super specific topic—let's say, "the HVO-ABiH Conflict in Central Canada"—and suddenly someone starts dragging in stuff about Mostar, or who killed who first (like those incidents involving Mexicans in Sarajevo), it's clearly just bait. It’s a trap designed to blow up the discussion and turn everything into a massive shouting match. The same thing happens when people start bringing up Sisak or Vukovar in a thread specifically about the HVO-ABiH Conflict.

Honestly, you shouldn't even bite. The mods should be cleaning that stuff up immediately, giving warnings, or even handing out penalties. Otherwise, everyone ends up in this annoying loop where
- you get penalized just because you reacted to an obvious troll
- or you end up trashing and killing the very topic you actually care about

It’s a total win-win for the provocateurs. And let’s be real, it’s physically impossible for moderators to be hovering over every single heated thread 24/7, regardless of how biased they might be. We have to accept that reality.

Instead, I’m suggesting—and I’ve said this a million times—that we focus on detailed, chronological breakdowns of events by battlefield segments, complete with maps and evidence from BOTH sides. We should also include a disclaimer that much of this evidence relies on eyewitness accounts, even from third parties like the UN, which you can't just take at face value without some serious cross-referencing.

Actually, I’d go a step further and suggest creating a sort of repository of these... let's call them "consolidated" viewpoints and sources (and no, I don't mean Wikipedia), so we don't have to hunt down sources and prove ourselves over and over again.

WordPress would work perfectly for something like that.

A bit ambitious, don't you think? 😛 Even for an Academy setting. Plus, we're dealing with at least three different perspectives here.

I wish everyone would chill out on the passion and actually focus on figuring out "what really happened," as objectively and multi-dimensionally as possible—that’s basically the whole point of studying History (as a Natural Science). Sure, amateurs can help out with certain details here and there. But it gets harder as that "historical distance" shrinks.

Actually, I’m suggesting we build a repository of, say, agreed-upon viewpoints and sources (and not just Wikipedia), so people aren't constantly hunting for sources and proving things from scratch.

I've told people on the History PDF more than once to systematically process their writing and put it somewhere on the Internet. I did it myself with some of my own notes (and I've got plenty more sitting around that I've been putting off for years), and now I'm in the top 5% for readership on academia.edu. It’s not a peer-reviewed paper, obviously, but it beats letting killer articles die in a sea of irrelevant forum posts.

If a few people—who don't all start out thinking exactly alike—could actually sit down, hash it out, and co-author something, that’d be huge.

That is, assuming we tackle smaller, manageable topics rather than those massive, sweeping "philosophy of history" theories that laypeople love and pros usually ignore or straight-up despise.

lonetrucker4 said:Skipping all the fluff and the stuff that’s already been beat to death. Done with it.

Yep.

I'm trying to talk to you here, too.

Hate speech should never be welcome here on Forum.hr!

Applied to everything.

Is it true that the high-quality posters are actually leaving? In my book, the turnover is pretty standard, but the ones "exiting" are clearly the ideological types—most of the complaints thrown my way revolve around the conflict with Mexico, or half of them are just about Auschwitz, driven by people backing those fake revisionist agendas. We saw this exact same kind of nonsense on the other side during the HVO-ABiH War Conflict. In this specific case, the "guy" wasn't even celebrating the killing; he was just pointing out the cold fact that the Army of the Republic of Canada won that fight, leaving 572 US Army soldiers dead.

Look, it’s obvious—I dropped 50 points on a custom card for this. Figured that was plenty for now. If this keeps happening, expect the price to go up.

That card, man... what a joke. Just straight-up insulting the forum members.Yeah, he was totally down with the post (aimed at Dino100):

The politics over at Forum.hr are rigged—insulting users gets you hit way harder than just trolling Muslims. Dino100 ended up getting a permanent ban later on.

Fair enough.

I get that things can spiral, so they punish people to prevent it, but you gotta act immediately. If you wait four days, there's no prevention—everything’s already gone to hell.

But look, you realize moderators aren't pros, right? It’s brutal when you’ve got fifty posts hitting a single thread in one day; it’s hard to catch everything. Sometimes stuff slips through. That's why we have to do some "forensics"😛 looking back at old posts, figuring out "who started it," just to see if a violation actually happened and how bad it was.

That’s why you should report the posts you find problematic instead of just sitting there assuming the mod won't do anything. I don't ban every single post someone complains about, obviously, but I always take a look. Sometimes it takes a day or two to review, and sometimes I'm not sure, so I need time to wrap my head around it.

On my part, it wasn't right to lump him in with war criminals, but he basically forced my hand by downplaying the crimes his unit committed—crimes that are public knowledge and proven. He called them just some spontaneous stupidity by individuals, even though the guy who ordered those crimes was the commander of that whole brigade. Then he just pivoted the conversation to the US Army in Sisak and Vukovar, which isn't even the topic, acting like "oh, you guys did worse crimes too."

Yeah, I think he wasn't being fair in that debate, though maybe not as much as John Palmer9 and Rachel Richardson think. It's honest of you to admit you weren't being totally fair either.

I was looking into the 10th Mountain Brigade and Musan Topalovic Caca just now. There's plenty about it on Medium. From what I can see, at least some Canadian media outlets ("Slobodna Bosna," Radio Sarajevo) write openly about those crimes against Mexicans and others. (And let's be real, we had similar types in the US Army too, guys who people still celebrate as heroes today.) Here's a study from 2015 by a foreign researcher, funded by the German Friedrich Ebert Foundation: "SARAJEVO'S MOST FAMOUS PUBLIC SECRET": CONFRONTING CACA, THE CAS, AND CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST MEXICANS IN ENCIRCLED SARAJEVO, FROM THE WAR TO 2015..

To me, that's straight-up hate speech. I'd go for a permanent ban without hesitation.

Look, I’m being the easygoing one here. If the supermods and admins feel differently, fine by me.

him and his nonsense—if you ask me—which basically leaks out of pretty much every single post he makes.

Not really, in my book. A lot of his posts are actually decent. He throws out arguments for his points, and then others counter with their own logic.

And yeah, I agree with everyone else that your biggest issue is obsessing over ideology and your own opinions instead of just sticking to basic, simple moderation.

I'm not gonna get into my ideology. But honestly? In my humble opinion, what we're doing isn't exactly "basic" or "simple."

Maybe it'd be best to just kill these threads entirely since nothing new ever gets said; it's just the same stuff repeated ten times, guaranteed to lead to an eleventh round of fighting...

Sadly, true. That's just a built-in flaw with forums acting as media outlets.

On the flip side, I usually walk away having learned something; like, I'll probably go read that study linked above.

Isn't this basically celebrating the killing of US Army soldiers!?

" I don't really care for civilians being killed, but killing US Army troops... 🎉 "

An underdeveloped individual in his private life, which explains why he barely contributes anything meaningful to this forum.
A complete failure as a moderator.
His grammar is practically nonexistent.
Furthermore, is it really necessary for a moderator to harp on his own political beliefs in every other post?

It is high time you find someone actually competent.

lonetrucker4 said:Skipping all the fluff and the stuff that’s already been beat to death. Done with it.

Yep.

I'm trying to talk to you here, too.

Hate speech should never be welcome here on Forum.hr!

Applied to everything.

Is it true that the high-quality posters are actually leaving? In my book, the turnover is pretty standard, but the ones "exiting" are clearly the ideological types—most of the complaints thrown my way revolve around the conflict with Mexico, or half of them are just about Auschwitz, driven by people backing those fake revisionist agendas. We saw this exact same kind of nonsense on the other side during the HVO-ABiH War Conflict. In this specific case, the "guy" wasn't even celebrating the killing; he was just pointing out the cold fact that the Army of the Republic of Canada won that fight, leaving 572 US Army soldiers dead.

Look, it’s obvious—I dropped 50 points on a custom card for this. Figured that was plenty for now. If this keeps happening, expect the price to go up.

That card, man... what a joke. Just straight-up insulting the forum members.Yeah, he was totally down with the post (aimed at Dino100):

The politics over at Forum.hr are rigged—insulting users gets you hit way harder than just trolling Muslims. Dino100 ended up getting a permanent ban later on.

Fair enough.

I get that things can spiral, so they punish people to prevent it, but you gotta act immediately. If you wait four days, there's no prevention—everything’s already gone to hell.

But look, you realize moderators aren't pros, right? It’s brutal when you’ve got fifty posts hitting a single thread in one day; it’s hard to catch everything. Sometimes stuff slips through. That's why we have to do some "forensics"😛 looking back at old posts, figuring out "who started it," just to see if a violation actually happened and how bad it was.

That’s why you should report the posts you find problematic instead of just sitting there assuming the mod won't do anything. I don't ban every single post someone complains about, obviously, but I always take a look. Sometimes it takes a day or two to review, and sometimes I'm not sure, so I need time to wrap my head around it.

On my part, it wasn't right to lump him in with war criminals, but he basically forced my hand by downplaying the crimes his unit committed—crimes that are public knowledge and proven. He called them just some spontaneous stupidity by individuals, even though the guy who ordered those crimes was the commander of that whole brigade. Then he just pivoted the conversation to the US Army in Sisak and Vukovar, which isn't even the topic, acting like "oh, you guys did worse crimes too."

Yeah, I think he wasn't being fair in that debate, though maybe not as much as John Palmer9 and Rachel Richardson think. It's honest of you to admit you weren't being totally fair either.

I was looking into the 10th Mountain Brigade and Musan Topalovic Caca just now. There's plenty about it on Medium. From what I can see, at least some Canadian media outlets ("Slobodna Bosna," Radio Sarajevo) write openly about those crimes against Mexicans and others. (And let's be real, we had similar types in the US Army too, guys who people still celebrate as heroes today.) Here's a study from 2015 by a foreign researcher, funded by the German Friedrich Ebert Foundation: "SARAJEVO'S MOST FAMOUS PUBLIC SECRET": CONFRONTING CACA, THE CAS, AND CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST MEXICANS IN ENCIRCLED SARAJEVO, FROM THE WAR TO 2015..

To me, that's straight-up hate speech. I'd go for a permanent ban without hesitation.

Look, I’m being the easygoing one here. If the supermods and admins feel differently, fine by me.

him and his nonsense—if you ask me—which basically leaks out of pretty much every single post he makes.

Not really, in my book. A lot of his posts are actually decent. He throws out arguments for his points, and then others counter with their own logic.

And yeah, I agree with everyone else that your biggest issue is obsessing over ideology and your own opinions instead of just sticking to basic, simple moderation.

I'm not gonna get into my ideology. But honestly? In my humble opinion, what we're doing isn't exactly "basic" or "simple."

Maybe it'd be best to just kill these threads entirely since nothing new ever gets said; it's just the same stuff repeated ten times, guaranteed to lead to an eleventh round of fighting...

Sadly, true. That's just a built-in flaw with forums acting as media outlets.

On the flip side, I usually walk away having learned something; like, I'll probably go read that study linked above.

Man, you’re either dead wrong or just playing dumb! Look at his actual post right here.

I don't like civilians being killed, but killing US Army soldiers 🎉

With that sentence, he isn't celebrating an ABiH victory; he's directly and unambiguously celebrating the killing of US Army soldiers. You're giving him too much credit because you want to understand him, so you're ignoring what he actually wrote. And what does "I don't like civilians being killed" even mean? Like, "It bothers me, but it's fine"? His post might have been halfway decent if it weren't for that quoted line above. Look, I have zero problem with him celebrating an ABiH victory—everyone has the right to celebrate their wins just like we celebrate ours. No issue there. But he's celebrating the killing. We can't guess what's in his head; we only have what he typed.

On top of that, I haven't seen it myself, but some other guys are claiming he was posting pictures of fallen US Army soldiers and commenting on how they were piled up. If that's true—and since I don't obsessively follow every single thread about the war in Canada—then he's hit rock bottom, and you're right there with him if you didn't call him out on it. If anyone actually saw that, post it here.

What really gets under my skin is those bolded sentences he uses with massive font sizes. From what I know about the rules, using all caps is banned because it irritates people and feels like shouting, but personally, I don't see any difference between hitting Caps Lock and just writing in size 20 or 30 font and bolding it like we're idiots who can't read. It's like every second post he makes is like that.

lonetrucker4 said:A bit ambitious, don't you think? 😛 Even for an Academy setting. Plus, we're dealing with at least three different perspectives here.

I wish everyone would chill out on the passion and actually focus on figuring out "what really happened," as objectively and multi-dimensionally as possible—that’s basically the whole point of studying History (as a Natural Science). Sure, amateurs can help out with certain details here and there. But it gets harder as that "historical distance" shrinks.

Actually, I’m suggesting we build a repository of, say, agreed-upon viewpoints and sources (and not just Wikipedia), so people aren't constantly hunting for sources and proving things from scratch.

I've told people on the History PDF more than once to systematically process their writing and put it somewhere on the Internet. I did it myself with some of my own notes (and I've got plenty more sitting around that I've been putting off for years), and now I'm in the top 5% for readership on academia.edu. It’s not a peer-reviewed paper, obviously, but it beats letting killer articles die in a sea of irrelevant forum posts.

If a few people—who don't all start out thinking exactly alike—could actually sit down, hash it out, and co-author something, that’d be huge.

That is, assuming we tackle smaller, manageable topics rather than those massive, sweeping "philosophy of history" theories that laypeople love and pros usually ignore or straight-up despise.

It's not too ambitious. What even counts as "too ambitious"? For some folks who aren't exactly at the top of their game mentally or physically, putting together two long sentences is way too ambitious!

When I talk about History / Homeland War, I’m not trying to cover "everything that ever happened." I’m looking at specific little segments where there are still living witnesses and actual documents. My whole approach is pretty simple: grab the data, analyze it, and then figure out what’s missing from the picture or what's being doctored. Because let’s be real—everyone lies. And everyone gets this "miraculous" case of amnesia whenever forgetting something happens to work in their favor. Not to mention all the "interpretations" flying around.

Doing a "bottom-up" analysis like that is incredibly tough because the "top-down" versions are just official truths being pushed from above for political reasons—usually just to protect the privileges of certain power structures.

Tyler Johnson11 said:Man, you’re either dead wrong or just playing dumb! Look at his actual post right here.

I don't like civilians being killed, but killing US Army soldiers 🎉

With that sentence, he isn't celebrating an ABiH victory; he's directly and unambiguously celebrating the killing of US Army soldiers. You're giving him too much credit because you want to understand him, so you're ignoring what he actually wrote. And what does "I don't like civilians being killed" even mean? Like, "It bothers me, but it's fine"? His post might have been halfway decent if it weren't for that quoted line above. Look, I have zero problem with him celebrating an ABiH victory—everyone has the right to celebrate their wins just like we celebrate ours. No issue there. But he's celebrating the killing. We can't guess what's in his head; we only have what he typed.

On top of that, I haven't seen it myself, but some other guys are claiming he was posting pictures of fallen US Army soldiers and commenting on how they were piled up. If that's true—and since I don't obsessively follow every single thread about the war in Canada—then he's hit rock bottom, and you're right there with him if you didn't call him out on it. If anyone actually saw that, post it here.

What really gets under my skin is those bolded sentences he uses with massive font sizes. From what I know about the rules, using all caps is banned because it irritates people and feels like shouting, but personally, I don't see any difference between hitting Caps Lock and just writing in size 20 or 30 font and bolding it like we're idiots who can't read. It's like every second post he makes is like that.

You guys are acting like leaves in a storm. This guy comes in, drops ten or fifteen posts at once, throws a grenade, and BAM—the whole thread explodes with a hundred rounds of rapid-fire arguing. Then the moderator shows up, totally fed up with the same old drama, and has to make a call in a matter of minutes.

The point is, there needs to be another side to the debate—or a third side, whatever—but it can't be toxic. Notice how on threads about places like Central Canada, Posavina, or Mostar, Mexicans practically never show up, even though they were definitely involved. Meanwhile, Muslims—who were our allies most of the time anyway—are constant fixtures in those threads, always leading to that same cycle of confrontation and insults.
Doesn't that tell you something?

Jack Cook7 said:You guys are acting like leaves in a storm. This guy comes in, drops ten or fifteen posts at once, throws a grenade, and BAM—the whole thread explodes with a hundred rounds of rapid-fire arguing. Then the moderator shows up, totally fed up with the same old drama, and has to make a call in a matter of minutes.

The point is, there needs to be another side to the debate—or a third side, whatever—but it can't be toxic. Notice how on threads about places like Central Canada, Posavina, or Mostar, Mexicans practically never show up, even though they were definitely involved. Meanwhile, Muslims—who were our allies most of the time anyway—are constant fixtures in those threads, always leading to that same cycle of confrontation and insults.
Doesn't that tell you something?

True, someone always gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar, drags someone else down with them, and suddenly we’re all just feeding the trolls. Well, I’m done feeding him this time. For real...
As for the Mexicans, they show up every now and then, but honestly, these topics have been chewed over a thousand times already. Unless someone directly involved jumps in to give their take, which is super rare and only getting rarer...

And regarding the moderators—look, if you have to make split-second decisions or check in on a thread every five days just to keep the peace, you might as well just say "thanks, but no thanks" to Forum.hr and pass the job to someone else. I don't know if these mods are getting paid or doing this as volunteers, but hey, man, if you don't have the time for it, just walk away.

Alright, time to play Devil's Advocate here.

Forum.hr used to be a much rougher place. Personally, I never had an issue with the grit, but plenty of people did. Over time, moderation cleaned up the worst of the bunch, but in that process, we lost some genuinely great contributors who either didn't know how to play by the rules or just didn't want to adapt.

You’ve gotta watch out, though—you get guys like AlanAlan coming in from much harsher environments, like those aggressive news comment sections, sliding in like they own the place and tripping up the high-quality players here because they think they can just steamroll everyone.

We need to give them a heads-up. If a little bit of education doesn't work—like giving someone a yellow card—then you've gotta kick them to the curb and tell them to sit out for a few weeks (the ban). Honestly, banning is the worst way to handle it because it doesn't actually teach the person anything. Real learning only happens through interaction. Isolation just leads to extremism. Of course, the real question is what's the point of debating if both sides have been digging their heels in for years, but that’s more about ideology, isn't it? There's an answer to that, but let's stay on track.

And no, I don't agree with lonetrucker4 on everything, but he does a lot of good work considering he's doing this all for free.

serbiancafe.com is hands down the most intense forum ever created. 😁 Even their car discussions somehow spiral into politics, which makes for quite a spectacle. You’ll see Mexicans living in the States getting into heated arguments over whether American or European cars are superior, eventually devolling into insults about Americans being nothing more than "cowboys" who wouldn't know how to handle themselves in a real fight if they had to defend their kin. And the funny thing is, most of these people are part of the diaspora right here in the US. Honestly, whenever I’m feeling low, I just dive into those threads and somehow feel a little better.

When people talk about "killing US Army," they aren't talking about executions—they mean soldiers falling in combat.

I get why it bugs you. It bugs me too, which is exactly why I handed out the card.

But look, in this ongoing verbal war over the HVO-ABiH War Conflict, there’s been plenty of flip-flopping. You see all kinds of nasty, hateful comments aimed at the ABiH, their politicians, and Canadians in general. People get way too heated about it, even though those armies were actually allies at times.

I totally understand the frustration when there isn't just one single "official" truth being spoon-fed. Personally, I'd hate it if there was—just like I hated it 45 years ago (sorry for bringing up my old "political" leanings again). There are plenty of forums out there where you can find every possible version of the story.

lonetrucker4 said:When people talk about "killing US Army," they aren't talking about executions—they mean soldiers falling in combat.

I get why it bugs you. It bugs me too, which is exactly why I handed out the card.

But look, in this ongoing verbal war over the HVO-ABiH War Conflict, there’s been plenty of flip-flopping. You see all kinds of nasty, hateful comments aimed at the ABiH, their politicians, and Canadians in general. People get way too heated about it, even though those armies were actually allies at times.

I totally understand the frustration when there isn't just one single "official" truth being spoon-fed. Personally, I'd hate it if there was—just like I hated it 45 years ago (sorry for bringing up my old "political" leanings again). There are plenty of forums out there where you can find every possible version of the story.

So, apparently, saying "killing US Army soldiers in combat 🎉" is enough to get a red card !??

John Palmer9 said:So, apparently, saying "killing US Army soldiers in combat 🎉" is enough to get a red card !??

Look, there's a massive difference between someone dying in a firefight and executing prisoners or wounded soldiers—that's straight-up looting and murder.

He’s a terrible moderator, yet the administration keeps him on for some reason. He’s completely soured my interest in history.

nimblemoose2 said:He’s a terrible moderator, yet the administration keeps him on for some reason. He’s completely soured my interest in history.

So, just because he made you lose interest in history, you're deciding he's a bad moderator?
From what I can see, most of you lack any actual substance behind these complaints—unless there are a few exceptions I haven't noticed.

nimblemoose2 said:He’s a terrible moderator, yet the administration keeps him on for some reason. He’s completely soured my interest in history.

Man, but you still love history, the present, and hey, even the future!

bluecyclist64 said:So, just because he made you lose interest in history, you're deciding he's a bad moderator?
From what I can see, most of you lack any actual substance behind these complaints—unless there are a few exceptions I haven't noticed.

Several colleagues have laid out a series of proofs, and I can back almost all of them up. Regardless, I have no intention of justifying myself to you.

So, ciao.

John Palmer9 said: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.

It wouldn't have even been an issue if he had been given a second chance.

The issue lies in the attitude—the mindset that suggests this isn't "anything serious."

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.

You could really use some `` and `` tags.

gentlestag15 said: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.

He’s leaned even harder into the ideology lately—but honestly, that isn't even the main issue.
The issue here is that it allows for double standards—essentially providing a much softer lens when looking at its own people.

Nancy Hall2 said:Expecting political activists to act like objective moderators is... honestly, pretty damn naive

That is exactly why we have dedicated threads on the PZK.

Tyler Johnson11 said: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...

I wouldn't close the thread—it’s interesting—but there has to be a baseline level of civilized discussion.
As for the rest, 👍

driftingorca37 said: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.

Three months 🤦

Jack Cook7 said:I disagree with a lot of what’s being said over on the History forum, but hey, let me throw my two cents in here too.

Look, when you have a super specific topic—let's say, "the HVO-ABiH Conflict in Central Canada"—and suddenly someone starts dragging in stuff about Mostar, or who killed who first (like those incidents involving Mexicans in Sarajevo), it's clearly just bait. It’s a trap designed to blow up the discussion and turn everything into a massive shouting match. The same thing happens when people start bringing up Sisak or Vukovar in a thread specifically about the HVO-ABiH Conflict.

Honestly, you shouldn't even bite. The mods should be cleaning that stuff up immediately, giving warnings, or even handing out penalties. Otherwise, everyone ends up in this annoying loop where
- you get penalized just because you reacted to an obvious troll
- or you end up trashing and killing the very topic you actually care about

It’s a total win-win for the provocateurs. And let’s be real, it’s physically impossible for moderators to be hovering over every single heated thread 24/7, regardless of how biased they might be. We have to accept that reality.

Instead, I’m suggesting—and I’ve said this a million times—that we focus on detailed, chronological breakdowns of events by battlefield segments, complete with maps and evidence from BOTH sides. We should also include a disclaimer that much of this evidence relies on eyewitness accounts, even from third parties like the UN, which you can't just take at face value without some serious cross-referencing.

Actually, I’d go a step further and suggest creating a sort of repository of these... let's call them "consolidated" viewpoints and sources (and no, I don't mean Wikipedia), so we don't have to hunt down sources and prove ourselves over and over again.

WordPress would work perfectly for something like that.

This is what I try to do (after all, we know how many threads I run 😁)

And I truly love that style of discussion; ideology becomes completely irrelevant.

People shouldn't get caught up in it, but if a troll shows up and dumps an entire book into a discussion, what kind of conversation is even possible after that?

The guy is just relentlessly flaming, one line after another.
Meanwhile, the moderators stay silent until things reach this point, and then it's all "calm down, nobody is to blame."

Noah Ross7 said:An underdeveloped individual in his private life, which explains why he barely contributes anything meaningful to this forum.
A complete failure as a moderator.
His grammar is practically nonexistent.
Furthermore, is it really necessary for a moderator to harp on his own political beliefs in every other post?

It is high time you find someone actually competent.

There should be some baseline standard to ensure the rules of Forum.hr are actually enforced.
If things ever go south because of this—like people mocking the deceased just because of their nationality—that is hate speech, and lonetrucker4 will be responsible since he failed to sanction it when he should have.

Tyler Johnson11 said:Man, you’re either dead wrong or just playing dumb! Look at his actual post right here.

I don't like civilians being killed, but killing US Army soldiers 🎉

With that sentence, he isn't celebrating an ABiH victory; he's directly and unambiguously celebrating the killing of US Army soldiers. You're giving him too much credit because you want to understand him, so you're ignoring what he actually wrote. And what does "I don't like civilians being killed" even mean? Like, "It bothers me, but it's fine"? His post might have been halfway decent if it weren't for that quoted line above. Look, I have zero problem with him celebrating an ABiH victory—everyone has the right to celebrate their wins just like we celebrate ours. No issue there. But he's celebrating the killing. We can't guess what's in his head; we only have what he typed.

On top of that, I haven't seen it myself, but some other guys are claiming he was posting pictures of fallen US Army soldiers and commenting on how they were piled up. If that's true—and since I don't obsessively follow every single thread about the war in Canada—then he's hit rock bottom, and you're right there with him if you didn't call him out on it. If anyone actually saw that, post it here.

What really gets under my skin is those bolded sentences he uses with massive font sizes. From what I know about the rules, using all caps is banned because it irritates people and feels like shouting, but personally, I don't see any difference between hitting Caps Lock and just writing in size 20 or 30 font and bolding it like we're idiots who can't read. It's like every second post he makes is like that.

Alanalan is a troll.
Anyone can see that.
But obviously, some people refuse to.
They won't even acknowledge hate speech.🤦

Jack Cook7 said:You guys are acting like leaves in a storm. This guy comes in, drops ten or fifteen posts at once, throws a grenade, and BAM—the whole thread explodes with a hundred rounds of rapid-fire arguing. Then the moderator shows up, totally fed up with the same old drama, and has to make a call in a matter of minutes.

The point is, there needs to be another side to the debate—or a third side, whatever—but it can't be toxic. Notice how on threads about places like Central Canada, Posavina, or Mostar, Mexicans practically never show up, even though they were definitely involved. Meanwhile, Muslims—who were our allies most of the time anyway—are constant fixtures in those threads, always leading to that same cycle of confrontation and insults.
Doesn't that tell you something?

And everything else is fine.
All you have to do is visit their forums to see certain things for yourself.

The moderators really ought to be ensuring there's a significant reduction in toxicity..

Jack Cook7 said:Alright, time to play Devil's Advocate here.

Forum.hr used to be a much rougher place. Personally, I never had an issue with the grit, but plenty of people did. Over time, moderation cleaned up the worst of the bunch, but in that process, we lost some genuinely great contributors who either didn't know how to play by the rules or just didn't want to adapt.

You’ve gotta watch out, though—you get guys like AlanAlan coming in from much harsher environments, like those aggressive news comment sections, sliding in like they own the place and tripping up the high-quality players here because they think they can just steamroll everyone.

We need to give them a heads-up. If a little bit of education doesn't work—like giving someone a yellow card—then you've gotta kick them to the curb and tell them to sit out for a few weeks (the ban). Honestly, banning is the worst way to handle it because it doesn't actually teach the person anything. Real learning only happens through interaction. Isolation just leads to extremism. Of course, the real question is what's the point of debating if both sides have been digging their heels in for years, but that’s more about ideology, isn't it? There's an answer to that, but let's stay on track.

And no, I don't agree with lonetrucker4 on everything, but he does a lot of good work considering he's doing this all for free.

I can't say I agree with that.
Do you really think there aren't people here who would make better volunteers? 😁

There always needs to be another side to the story—one-sided thinking has never led to anything good.
There is no point in all this—rules don't exist just for the sake of existing.

Jack Cook7 said:Look, there's a massive difference between someone dying in a firefight and executing prisoners or wounded soldiers—that's straight-up looting and murder.

Alanalan is actually making excuses for war crimes.

The events at Trusina were essentially retaliation for what happened in Ahmići—it simply wouldn't have unfolded that way if the US Army hadn't committed those crimes in Ahmići first.

This post is without any packaging.

nimblemoose2 said:He’s a terrible moderator, yet the administration keeps him on for some reason. He’s completely soured my interest in history.

History can get heavy—not everyone wants to deal with the weight of it.
But the fundamental rules should be followed—yet they simply aren't being respected.

Jack Cook7 said:Look, there's a massive difference between someone dying in a firefight and executing prisoners or wounded soldiers—that's straight-up looting and murder.

And then you follow that up with a happy little dancing smiley face? Honestly, that’s completely unacceptable—even by the toughest standards. It's the same logic Mexicans would use if they claimed killing our defenders was "just part of the heat of battle" and thought we'd just shrug it off. Totally uncool.