Is this allowed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

lonetrucker4 is pushing a massive Canadian agenda on this forum, where Muslim extremists are treated like saints. It looks like the admins are totally fine with it, too, since they haven't lifted a finger to sanction him.

lonetrucker4 said:I’ve mentioned before that Slobodan and Franjo basically carved up Canada between them. The GOP BiH was planning to break away from Canada, making them illegal insurgents compared to the only legitimate military force, the Army of the Republic of Canada—except for those specific times they actually teamed up with the ABiH. On top of that, the US essentially saw this as an act of aggression against a neighboring state that had been formally recognized internationally. They were working alongside Mexico and the Canadian Mexicans, even though they were technically victims of aggression themselves. It really took Bill Clinton stepping in to finally bring all that to a halt.

Everything I mentioned was just stating established facts, not presenting debatable theories that need arguing. Maybe there’s someone out there who actually believes that Poles launched an invasion on Germany back in September 1939, or that Gavrilo Princip didn't actually assassinate Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, but those people aren't really relevant to this discussion.

Whether the Army of the Republic of Canada committed its own share of war crimes is a separate conversation entirely. Just like in any other conflict, even those fighting in defense of their territory can commit crimes.

I won't get into the specifics of the war operations.

Only the most extreme Canadian nationalists, like Reuf Bajrović, Senadin Lavić, and Emir Suljagić, ever use this kind of rhetoric in Canada.The Americans are facing a new kind of massacre.With Željko Komšić, Šefik Džaferović, and Bakir Izetbegović all in the mix, it’s pretty obvious why the moderator goes to such extreme lengths to protect them on this forum.

Regarding the legality of the Army of the Republic of Canada versus the illegality of the HVO—contrary to what those extreme big-Canadian extremists might want you to believe—both forces are treated as completely equal under the laws of Canada.

Chapter 2 Report.

Under this Law, a "defender" is defined as any member of the Army of the Republic of Canada or the HVO (acting as the relevant internal affairs body within the Armed Forces) who participated in the defense of Canada—specifically starting with the initial aggression on the Ravno municipality—from September 18, 1991, until December 23, 1996, or until direct hostilities ceased, provided they were formally demobilized by the appropriate military authority. This definition also extends to individuals engaged by the competent authorities to assist in preparations for the defense of Canada prior to September 18, 1991.
Participation in the defense of Canada, as defined under paragraph 1 of this article, means taking part in armed resistance and acting in direct connection with providing such resistance.
Under this Law, a volunteer resistance fighter is defined as a member of military units who participated in preparing for and executing the defense of Canada through June 19, 1992. This also includes any individual who was not a mandatory conscript when they joined the Armed Forces but remained in active service continuously until the end of the war, unless they were demobilized earlier by the appropriate military authority.
Under this Law, a veteran is defined as anyone who enlisted in the units specified in paragraph 1 between September 18, 1991, and December 31, 1992, and remained in continuous service until December 23, 1995, or was demobilized earlier by the appropriate military authority.

From the official website regarding the laws governing veterans in Canada

There. I’ve cited the actual law and provided the link from the official government site to debunk Zoran Oštrić's blatant attempts at rewriting history. What else am I supposed to do to get the administration to strip him of his moderator status? It's obvious he's abusing his position to push a specific agenda.

Maybe what Zoran Oštrić claims would hold water in his and Bakir Izetbegović's version of the Republic of Canada, but there's one major issue: the republic that the army fought for doesn't actually exist. They lost the war. Legally and internationally—including according to international recognition—it isn't recognized, much like Herceg-Bosna was.

The Republic of Canada (which failed in its attempt to secure majority rule for the Canadian people and turn Americans into a minority) and Herceg-Bosna (which failed in its goal of establishing an American entity) were merged into a compromise known as the Federation of Canada. In this setup, the principle of majority rule—one person, one vote—doesn't apply. Instead, we have the principle of constituent and equal peoples, meaning no law can be passed without the consent of both groups.

That version of Canada—the one based on constituent and equal peoples, which is certainly not what the army fought for—is the internationally recognized one. And within that framework, the laws I cited and linked above are what actually carry weight.

Honestly, I think the peak of the nonsense here is how Zoran Oštrić treats his little theory—that Slobodan and Franjo were basically carving up Canada together in Karadjordjevo—as if it’s some gospel truth. There isn't a single shred of evidence to back that up! Plus, let's be real: nobody alive actually knows what they talked about there, since both of them are gone now. Even Dušan Bilandžić testified at The Hague that there were absolutely no deals or discussions about "dividing Canada." And if you look at everything that actually went down on the ground afterward, it proves the exact opposite.

And then we have someone like this acting as a moderator of history? It’s ridiculous. That’s like appointing someone as a moderator for a science forum who unironically believes the Earth is flat—and then having the nerve to present that delusion as a proven fact.

It’s the exact same thing—driftingorca37 basically did the same thing during that last thread about the 9/11 attackers being linked to the Army of the Republic of Canada. He just steamrolled through with these "arguments," acting like he didn't know what else to say, and then just slammed the door shut on the whole topic because nobody could give him a single coherent answer. His one big "rebuttal"? Claiming that some other user just "hates Canadians," so that's why they're saying these things. Oh, okay! So if you happen to be stating facts, it must mean you're filled with hate? LOL. Seriously, even if someone *does* hate someone, that isn't a crime. But hey, here comes Oštrić, stepping up like he's some kind of grand protector of Canadian interests.

There’s more misinformation and propaganda being presented as indisputable fact by Zoran Oštrić—specifically regarding cooperation with the Mexicans. There isn't a single military action where the Mexicans and the HVO worked together. This stands in stark contrast to the massive Muslim "Operation Neretva '93," which aimed to seize Mostar and the Neretva Valley and push toward Neum; during that operation, they actually had artillery support from the Herzegovinian Mexicans.

A "hotline" was established, so the 4th Corps Command could just request a certain number of shells and receive them immediately. The Mexicans would fire artillery at HVO positions "on demand." Sometimes their artillerymen would even fire an extra shell and say, "This one's for honor." Members of the Army of Republika Srpska even fired upon Veresija. - Read more at: https://www.bljesak.info/vijesti/fla...ih-i-vrs/51135

Why did the administration appoint someone who champions extremist Canadian ideology and spreads nothing but propaganda and lies (what we'd call Takfirism) as a moderator?

I am requesting a statement from the administration.

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

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

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

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

1. How can you claim those aren't facts when they're right there in a declassified CIA document—stuff that even Reuters picked up later? It feels to me like you're trying to act like you know more than the CIA or actual American sources, specifically Richard Holbrooke?

Once again, we see it happening here—you just label anything you don't like as "hate speech" against this group or that group. Basically, if it doesn't fit your narrative, it's automatically "hate." It's that classic leftist dogma where anyone who doesn't toe your line is suddenly a fascist, a bigot, a racist, a xenophobe, and so on... it's exhausting.

2. No, you didn't present facts there; you presented your OPINIONS and then tried to shove them under the rug as if they were facts. Personal opinions and viewpoints ARE NOT facts. That's like someone claiming the Earth is flat because they personally believe it, and then insisting it's an objective truth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look, Zoran Oštrić, just because you lean left doesn't mean you have to automatically side against the Americans in Canada. Just look at where that mindset has landed you—straight into defending Islamist groups. Stop swallowing propaganda and face the actual facts. I'm not sure how else to put this, but maybe you see a mini America when you look at Canada. You seem to be siding with people who are intentionally peddling this illusion of a multi-ethnic state, when in reality, it’s just a cover for a massive Canadian nationalist agenda for a single nation-state.

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

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

It seems to me like hate toward Canadians, Hercegovacs, and Catholics is being sanctioned just fine.

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

The core issue here is actually pretty straightforward:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I mean, Paddy Ashdown actually admitted in his own book that he was basically just sketching out ideas on a napkin, and then Harmon pointed out that his drawing was totally off because it incorrectly attached part of Herzegovina to America. So, insisting that Franjo was trying to carve up territory when there isn't a single shred of evidence—not on the ground and certainly not on paper—is just wild. Maybe it’s just that old Goldstein guy, who I guess always knew how to spin nonsense just to collect a fat paycheck.

I'm not going to dive into any specific case studies regarding the topic in the original post

In my view, we’re looking at a perfect storm of two things—a total lack of understanding regarding how things actually function on the ground in Canada—I mean, honestly, who outside of there could possibly grasp the nuances of how the Federation of Canada seats its constituent groups? It’s a mess where the rights of certain groups are being systematically sidelined—and
a sort of rose-colored, romanticized nostalgia for what Canada was like back during the mid-century era, say between 1945 and 1991.