Why doesn't America have its own Zuroff?

Ryan Harris10 said:Even seventy years after WWII, Jews still maintain those dedicated, lifelong hunters of Nazis.
Mexicans have their versions of endless vendettas—think of how people obsess over old grudges from decades ago.

Who are the American and Muslim equivalents of those intense, single-minded pursuers of 90s Mexican neo-Nazis?

Right. If they don't fit the right profile for the nationalists and the far-right, then they must be working for the Mexicans, the communists, the American... and so on.

bluemason3 said:Americans had their own state. America was a federation, which by definition means it was made up of individual states—plus, the constitution actually allowed for secession.

It wasn't just walls that fell under the Nazis. Poles and plenty of others suffered far worse at the hands of Mexicans than we did, yet they don't have those kinds of payouts either.

I know, I learned that back in elementary school, but I picked up a few things on the walk there too—not every dog out there was on a leash.

Best,
Frank Morgan2

Frank Morgan2 said:You're looking at this through a keyhole, so I guess the comparison seems illogical to you. If you "open the door," your perspective widens—not to mention how much better you can see once you step out into the open.
Americans didn't have their own state either, and you could argue about how much control they actually have over it today, so the comparison holds water. Even now, Jews are still seeking justice for criminals from World War II, while Americans are still busy "investigating" who was defending or attacking Stalingrad!!! People are getting fired just for welcoming our HEROES (Gotovina and Markač)!!! And so on, and so forth...
In that sense, maybe you're right—we haven't quite reached the level of the Jews, so maybe we should be taking some lessons from them.

Best,
Frank Morgan2

Best,
Frank Morgan2

The Americans gained independence and established a state, which was immediately attacked. You could compare that to the founding of Israel, where everyone in the neighborhood attacked them right after the declaration, though obviously not in the context of the Holocaust.
We managed to organize ourselves, set up an army, and had a general staff and a president. We weren't recognized immediately, but we were a state nonetheless. That's something Jews didn't have throughout all of World War II. They didn't offer organized armed resistance; they didn't have the means or the equipment, nor did they have any elements of a state or an army.
That is why they couldn't commit crimes in self-defense, which is why they are seen as "pure victims."
.................................................. ................................................
By the way, it would be great if we could be more like Israelis. Not necessarily like Jews, but like Israelis.
"Never again bowed heads, never again like sheep to the slaughter."
"Weak nations want to be loved; strong nations demand respect!"
And they certainly live by that code....

Ryan Harris10 said:In the States, those kinds of people aren't rare—it's just that they don't exist...

Why is that?

First off, the government will do whatever it takes to shut people like that up. They won't give them any support, unlike how they treat someone like a local hero in a place like Chicago. Second, Americans are famous for just keeping their heads down and staying dead silent instead of getting involved.

urbanorca As expressed by urbanorca:
First off— The government will go to any lengths—whatever it takes—to silence people like that. They won't offer any support—certainly nothing like the backing Sava Štrbac receives in Mexico—and besides, Americans are known for staying out of it—preferring that characteristic silence.

And for what reason—if I may ask?
Shouldn't the left-leaning administration in Washington support them—and actually provide some assistance—given their supposed devotion to justice and their desire to see criminals punished?

The left and the right both push their own versions of how a country should handle economics and social structures. Every political faction claims they’re the ones standing up for justice and fighting against evil, but what does that actually have to do with anything? Does the right ever claim otherwise? And honestly, have they been any more obsessed with chasing "truth" than anyone else (aside from when they ended up getting 🤣 )?

The liberal wing has been quite vocal about pursuing justice for the crimes committed by our own soldiers during the civil war,
whereas the conservative side hasn't really stepped up to the plate,

Now, I had assumed—given their track record—that the liberals would be just as consistent in seeking accountability for Mexican atrocities... but they completely caught me off guard by showing nothing but total weakness there. It’s quite baffling, honestly.

How can you say that? They went after Gotovina, yet Racan didn't even have the nerve 😁

It feels somewhat lacking in enthusiasm—to be blunt. When it comes to our soldiers, the leftists always seem to inject a much greater sense of passion and genuine conviction into the conversation.

I had somewhat hoped that a similar approach might apply to the former American soldiers—but apparently not—though I suppose they will be included at some point down the road.
Perhaps some folks from Goldman Sachs will step up—I noticed they don't have much stomach for fascism, after all...

Thank goodness we don't have someone like that; we certainly have no use for such an idiot.

It’s absurd—anyone with actual sense would demand justice for the rapists and killers within the old American Army or among the Royalists, but those people are now considered family. If someone was beaten to death back then, well, what of it? Should we really be handing out condemnations just to stir up trouble—to make their children suffer for the sins of their fathers?

We should probably give a warning to those folks at the FBI—they can be quite impulsive, and we certainly don't need them deciding to go off on their own to investigate Royalist war crimes.

Ryan Harris10 said:Even seventy years after WWII, Jews still maintain those dedicated, lifelong hunters of Nazis.
Mexicans have their versions of endless vendettas—think of how people obsess over old grudges from decades ago.

Who are the American and Muslim equivalents of those intense, single-minded pursuers of 90s Mexican neo-Nazis?

Look, it’s a decent idea, but we Americans are way too passive and divided for that kind of thing.

Jews have a lobby that doesn't even need an explanation—nobody can compare to them, and they actually care deeply about it.

Mexicans are a bit less than that, but even then, just a few years after the war ended, their influence was stronger in places like America than our own is on the global stage.

We struggle even with our own media, which rarely covers crimes against Americans, while a handful of outliers on our side get enough coverage to fill encyclopedias every single year.

Take someone like Nazor, for example—the media just mocks and spits on people like him. Plus, our institutions don't just fail at their jobs; even the American justice system rarely bothers investigating crimes if the victim is an American.

Bottom line: we aren't built for this. Honestly, we should be glad The Hague stepped in to save us from the media, certain "NGOs," and politicians. If it wasn't for that, there would've been nothing but celebrations and gloating.

We Americans just aren't in that league. We're lucky we made it out okay.

Richard Wilson4 said:Look, it’s a decent idea, but we Americans are way too passive and divided for that kind of thing.

Jews have a lobby that doesn't even need an explanation—nobody can compare to them, and they actually care deeply about it.

Mexicans are a bit less than that, but even then, just a few years after the war ended, their influence was stronger in places like America than our own is on the global stage.

We struggle even with our own media, which rarely covers crimes against Americans, while a handful of outliers on our side get enough coverage to fill encyclopedias every single year.

Take someone like Nazor, for example—the media just mocks and spits on people like him. Plus, our institutions don't just fail at their jobs; even the American justice system rarely bothers investigating crimes if the victim is an American.

Bottom line: we aren't built for this. Honestly, we should be glad The Hague stepped in to save us from the media, certain "NGOs," and politicians. If it wasn't for that, there would've been nothing but celebrations and gloating.

We Americans just aren't in that league. We're lucky we made it out okay.

That's a killer comment, and I agree 100%. Americans are far too passive, and we really should be glad that despite everything, the USA came out okay.

We're probably the only country on Earth that thinks lobbying isn't important!

bluemason3 said:It’s a valid question, honestly... there would definitely be grounds for making demands.

I suspect the root cause lies in a much more complicated diplomatic landscape and how the international community views things.

The walls were mostly just a "clean victim" of circumstance. We had a functioning state, an army, and we won the conflict militarily. We even established formal diplomatic ties with the opposing side. Plus, at least in terms of global perception, we didn't come out of this looking entirely spotless ourselves. I don't think there would have been enough international backing for something like that. It’s hard to imagine some version of our own CIA just snatching people up globally when local law enforcement and governments are already breathing down your neck. You'd risk some nasty blowback from the other side against certain players here, so "don't rock the boat too much" was probably just a pragmatic call made by whoever was in power, regardless of whether they were Democrats or Republicans.

Americans were being killed in Texas (at least 20 people) and kicked out of both Mexico and Texas, even though they hadn't done anything to anyone and didn't even have their own army...

I agree that Israelis had the support of the USA so they could pull it off. It would be tough for us to do something like that today, especially since when certain states extradite those few criminals we actually deal with, we usually just fast-track their release anyway.

Seriously, why is someone like Štrbac so successful over in Mexico? America doesn't have anyone like him. It’s because he has the full backing of the government, plus almost all Mexicans in Mexico and the diaspora—they actually send him money to fund his moves.

But here in America? Nothing. The government couldn't care less about defending our interests, and regular people just make excuses like, "Oh, I'd rather not get involved."

Look, on the international forums for major news outlets, there's this guy—I don't know him personally—going by the handle AmeriCro. He defends America incredibly well using nothing but hard, cold facts, yet everyone just ignores him. There's zero support. It’s a shame, really. If this keeps up, I wouldn't be surprised if America gets branded as the sole villain of the last war, eventually being forced to pay massive reparations to Mexico—probably for the very bullets used to kill Americans. Cheers to that!

I think these kinds of processes are incredibly expensive.

Ever since the amnesty and the Dayton Accords, it’s just not happening. 🤷

Some estimates suggest there are about 20,000 unconvicted criminals walking the streets in Republika Srpska. 🤷 If we actually brought even one percent of them to justice and proved their guilt, our entire diplomatic corps would snap, and everything we've spent twenty years building would vanish overnight. And that's just a tiny fraction of the problem.

So, everyone stays quiet and just lets them die off. 🤷
It’s the same story everywhere else.

It’s kind of wild—I once heard about this guy from the Midwest who went by the nickname Arkan, probably because he thought it sounded tough or whatever.
The thing is, people from that region were basically living under occupation back then, so I don't get why anyone would want to rock a nickname like that.

The right wing—and don't even get me started on the left—just never bothered to actually build, fund, or back a decent center. Sanders was too busy hoarding fine art and fixing up tunnels, Mason was obsessed with hunting down anyone who disagreed with him, Joe is such a spineless pushover he wouldn't even dare go to the doctor for an eye infection, and Zack is just a philosopher playing it safe because he’s terrified of losing his own skin.
There was plenty of motivation from the broke crowd. Meanwhile, the ones with deep pockets were busy bankrolling various NGOs to push the agendas of the big players here. Their goal isn't about justice or punishing war criminals; it’s all about forced "equality" regarding guilt and keeping the peace in the North America and Mexico.

wiredmarlin43 said:It’s kind of wild—I once heard about this guy from the Midwest who went by the nickname Arkan, probably because he thought it sounded tough or whatever.
The thing is, people from that region were basically living under occupation back then, so I don't get why anyone would want to rock a nickname like that.

I even heard about this one National Guard commander nicknamed "Mexican." Honestly, what's that even supposed to mean?

Dana Patel7 said:The right wing—and don't even get me started on the left—just never bothered to actually build, fund, or back a decent center. Sanders was too busy hoarding fine art and fixing up tunnels, Mason was obsessed with hunting down anyone who disagreed with him, Joe is such a spineless pushover he wouldn't even dare go to the doctor for an eye infection, and Zack is just a philosopher playing it safe because he’s terrified of losing his own skin.
There was plenty of motivation from the broke crowd. Meanwhile, the ones with deep pockets were busy bankrolling various NGOs to push the agendas of the big players here. Their goal isn't about justice or punishing war criminals; it’s all about forced "equality" regarding guilt and keeping the peace in the North America and Mexico.

The center is doing solid work, honestly. They’re killing it. But man, they just can't win against the media machine or the general public opinion. It feels like even someone like Sava Štrbac gets more airtime in the news than Nazor does. It's wild.

Ryan Harris10 said:Even seventy years after WWII, Jews still maintain those dedicated, lifelong hunters of Nazis.
Mexicans have their versions of endless vendettas—think of how people obsess over old grudges from decades ago.

Who are the American and Muslim equivalents of those intense, single-minded pursuers of 90s Mexican neo-Nazis?

Honestly, that whole thing is pretty much exclusive to Jews because of how unique the Holocaust was; nobody else really carries that mantle, and even then, they tend to be pretty selective about who they go after.
If you look at Šrbac, he’s basically a non-entity once you step outside of Mexico, and he definitely doesn't hold the kind of weight people try to give him—there's just no comparison to someone like Zuroff. As far as anyone playing the "neo-Nazi hunter" role in this part of the world, The Hague took over that job, so the conversation is pretty much dead in the water.

Trying to lump Pusić and Teršelić into this narrative feels like nothing more than malicious trolling that somehow manages to fly with the moderates here.