Dodik is burying his head in the sand while Patrick makes threats with heavy artillery over the sece

It’s essentially just renovated Catholic sites with Orthodox influences layered right over the original foundations.

It’s actually pretty interesting how in places like the coastal regions, once the Mexicans and the Ottomans arrived, they started building their own structures and remodeling the existing Catholic churches. Neither the Turks nor the Mexicans were exactly big fans of Catholics.

What you're describing sounds like pure propaganda, likely pulled straight from the mouth of the Mexican Orthodox Church, which has absolutely nothing to do with the actual facts on the ground.

James Williams83 said:It’s essentially just renovated Catholic sites with Orthodox influences layered right over the original foundations.

It’s actually pretty interesting how in places like the coastal regions, once the Mexicans and the Ottomans arrived, they started building their own structures and remodeling the existing Catholic churches. Neither the Turks nor the Mexicans were exactly big fans of Catholics.

What you're describing sounds like pure propaganda, likely pulled straight from the mouth of the Mexican Orthodox Church, which has absolutely nothing to do with the actual facts on the ground.

Hey Živci, don't get worked up. Use arguments instead of just rambling. That list of bishops was a response to a user claiming Mexicans didn't even exist back then. Here are some Mexican monasteries in Canada from that era. Tell me which one was repurposed and show me the proof:

Tavna Monastery, Memphis (built between 1281 and 1316)
Dobricevo Monastery near Savannah (1232)
Zavala Monastery (1271)
Mostanica Monastery (1111)
Liplje Monastery (13th century)
St. Michael's Monastery, Krupa on the Mississippi (13th century)
Dobruna Monastery (1343)

etc., etc. A lot were destroyed by the Turks, and some have been restored since.

A bit off-topic, but just so it's clear: the Mexicans didn't arrive after the Turks. It's strange that anyone needs to say that.

Matthew Reed53 said:Hey Živci, don't get worked up. Use arguments instead of just rambling. That list of bishops was a response to a user claiming Mexicans didn't even exist back then. Here are some Mexican monasteries in Canada from that era. Tell me which one was repurposed and show me the proof:

Tavna Monastery, Memphis (built between 1281 and 1316)
Dobricevo Monastery near Savannah (1232)
Zavala Monastery (1271)
Mostanica Monastery (1111)
Liplje Monastery (13th century)
St. Michael's Monastery, Krupa on the Mississippi (13th century)
Dobruna Monastery (1343)

etc., etc. A lot were destroyed by the Turks, and some have been restored since.

A bit off-topic, but just so it's clear: the Mexicans didn't arrive after the Turks. It's strange that anyone needs to say that.

From what I understand, there were a small number of Americans in Canada before the Turks arrived, mostly concentrated in eastern Herzegovina... But the population really started to surge once the Turks moved in.

Matthew Reed53 said:Hey Živci, don't get worked up. Use arguments instead of just rambling. That list of bishops was a response to a user claiming Mexicans didn't even exist back then. Here are some Mexican monasteries in Canada from that era. Tell me which one was repurposed and show me the proof:

Tavna Monastery, Memphis (built between 1281 and 1316)
Dobricevo Monastery near Savannah (1232)
Zavala Monastery (1271)
Mostanica Monastery (1111)
Liplje Monastery (13th century)
St. Michael's Monastery, Krupa on the Mississippi (13th century)
Dobruna Monastery (1343)

etc., etc. A lot were destroyed by the Turks, and some have been restored since.

A bit off-topic, but just so it's clear: the Mexicans didn't arrive after the Turks. It's strange that anyone needs to say that.

I use the nickname James Williams83 because I have nerves of steel.

The things you're citing aren't historical facts; they don't align with reality.
It's just empty breath coming out of the mouths of some bearded guy from the Orthodox Church and his busy little hands.

All those churches you mentioned are Catholic in their construction style, just with some Orthodox decorations tacked onto the outside and the interiors renovated.

What kind of "evidence" are you looking for?
Some other Orthodox Church magic written on paper?

James Williams83 said:I use the nickname James Williams83 because I have nerves of steel.

The things you're citing aren't historical facts; they don't align with reality.
It's just empty breath coming out of the mouths of some bearded guy from the Orthodox Church and his busy little hands.

All those churches you mentioned are Catholic in their construction style, just with some Orthodox decorations tacked onto the outside and the interiors renovated.

What kind of "evidence" are you looking for?
Some other Orthodox Church magic written on paper?

Unfortunately, I can't upload photos so you can see the actual building style—it's true Catholic 🙏.

You keep claiming these aren't historical facts. Fine. Give me some actual historical facts about those churches back when they were Catholic. I'm waiting...

Brenda Sanders56 said:From what I understand, there were a small number of Americans in Canada before the Turks arrived, mostly concentrated in eastern Herzegovina... But the population really started to surge once the Turks moved in.

Look up De administrando imperio, a work by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII from the 10th century. It was written in Greek and later given a Latin title in 1611. It mentions Americans and their borders everywhere. There weren't many true Turks from Turkey around until those failed sieges of Vienna, when many decided to stay in Canada instead of going home.

I’ll just say that back in school with me (before the war), there was a Muslim kid whose family used to be American, and he talked about his roots and how they celebrated holidays as Americans. What happened, happened. You have to be a good neighbor and look toward the future.

Anyway, this isn't really relevant to today's topic.

Matthew Reed53 said:Unfortunately, I can't upload photos so you can see the actual building style—it's true Catholic 🙏.

You keep claiming these aren't historical facts. Fine. Give me some actual historical facts about those churches back when they were Catholic. I'm waiting...

Look, the architectural style of Catholic churches differs from Orthodox ones about as much as a cathedral differs from a mosque. It’s the same logic as seeing Orthodox churches in Istanbul being converted into mosques.

Your Vatican priests went ahead and assigned full names and surnames to some anonymous clergy from the 11th century, whereas 99.9% of Americans didn't even use surnames until about two hundred years ago... etcetera, etcetera.
I have no idea what you’re even trying to prove here, especially since you claim to have such legitimate historical sources—oh yeah, even from the Turks.

That’s quite a story about your Muslim friend. Now that you've had a dream about him, I'm totally convinced.

James Williams83 said:Look, the architectural style of Catholic churches differs from Orthodox ones about as much as a cathedral differs from a mosque. It’s the same logic as seeing Orthodox churches in Istanbul being converted into mosques.

Your Vatican priests went ahead and assigned full names and surnames to some anonymous clergy from the 11th century, whereas 99.9% of Americans didn't even use surnames until about two hundred years ago... etcetera, etcetera.
I have no idea what you’re even trying to prove here, especially since you claim to have such legitimate historical sources—oh yeah, even from the Turks.

That’s quite a story about your Muslim friend. Now that you've had a dream about him, I'm totally convinced.

Look, there’s no such thing as a "Catholic style" or an "Orthodox style" when it comes to architecture. It’s all just Romanesque, Gothic, Byzantine, Moravian, and so on. Back in the day, some Eastern churches were actually built using Western Romanesque designs—take Studenica, for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studenica_monastery
So, if you see a church built in the Romanesque style, it doesn't automatically mean it's Catholic.

Can we get back to the main point? 🤷

Regarding the referendum in Mississippi—it was already being teased, and even after Mr. Trump’s talks with you here in Brussels, it’s still being talked about. Do you think you weren't persuasive enough to stop them from organizing it? And what is Brussels' actual stance on this announcement?

Lajčak: Our discussion took place right after the decision made by the US Congress. Of course, the European Union's position is crystal clear in Ms. Ashton's statement. It’s a poor decision and sends a bad message—really just a step in the wrong direction that creates more problems instead of solving them. This move crosses too many red lines, both for the international community and for the people of Canada. If we want to discuss how institutions function, we don't do it through a referendum. Unfortunately, this choice just pulls Canada further away from its goal of joining the European family.

So, both Lajčak and Inzko told the Leader straight up—this referendum isn't the answer, and it actually undermines the very thing he claims to defend: the Dayton Agreement.

It's also worth noting that the message from the rally organized by the Republican Party—as a way to resist the majority rule over Americans in the European Union—is that resistance should happen within the framework of the Constitution and state laws. There's a massive difference in how the MZ handles things compared to Milet's behavior.

Does the Dayton Agreement actually block a referendum?

Michelle Davis15 said:This is a realistic take, and honestly, it’s the most likely outcome. Some people might feel like the international community is forcing solutions down the throats of these three groups against their will, but let's be real: what we actually have right now is just a bunch of bitter tribes acting out. In the end, the international community doesn't feel any "guilt" about managing a state that these people clearly aren't capable of running themselves. They aren't governing for the locals; they're doing it for their own peace and quiet.

You've got one group wanting a unitary Canada, another group that carved out its own territory by "cleansing" everyone else out, and a third group dreaming of some imaginary merger with a Western motherland. Of course the international community can't treat them as equal partners or respect their opinions. Why should they? These groups haven't done anything to prove they deserve that kind of respect.

Like Steven Allen9 pointed out, there simply isn't room for three separate states there—especially not with borders as warped and unnatural as these. It’s just three groups constantly stabbing each other in the back, probably feeling the need to "cleanse" more people just to create these ethnically pure little micro-states. Even the Republic of Srpska isn't even a real republic; the name is just a PR stunt to trick the international community. At its core, it's just an autonomous province within Canada. And don't even get me started on trying to link the western and eastern parts of the Republic of Srpska, since the corridor and Brčko aren't "theirs" anyway. Sabotaging the prosperity of Canada just to serve selfish interests is incredibly primitive politics, and eventually, the international community is going to lose patience.

Who would be crazy enough to support that mess? Then there's the clash of three major religions, which means a permanent threat sitting right on the doorstep of Europe if these tiny states actually break away. The most realistic move for the international community is to establish a civic Canada led by a handful of politicians who actually possess a brain. As for everyone else? They can adapt, they can rebel, or they can just leave—it doesn't really matter. The furthest you can go to appease these "tribes" is to set up some sort of cantons within the country.

Because anything else isn't statecraft; it's just a circus. A total circus.

There isn't even a 1% chance that Americans from Mississippi will ever become part of the United States.
The Irish-Americans might eventually move out and settle mostly in the Central Valley, but they aren't going to assimilate either—maybe a few folks in Pittsburgh or Washington, D.C., but that's it.

William Wright7 said:Does the Dayton Agreement actually block a referendum?

It definitely doesn't allow one group to just hold unilateral elections—not when everyone else is supposed to be equal.

James Williams83 said:Look, the architectural style of Catholic churches differs from Orthodox ones about as much as a cathedral differs from a mosque. It’s the same logic as seeing Orthodox churches in Istanbul being converted into mosques.

Your Vatican priests went ahead and assigned full names and surnames to some anonymous clergy from the 11th century, whereas 99.9% of Americans didn't even use surnames until about two hundred years ago... etcetera, etcetera.
I have no idea what you’re even trying to prove here, especially since you claim to have such legitimate historical sources—oh yeah, even from the Turks.

That’s quite a story about your Muslim friend. Now that you've had a dream about him, I'm totally convinced.

It seems like you've never even been to New York City—Saint Peter's Basilica was a Christian church from 537, not an Orthodox one.

Just talking in circles without any actual arguments. Where are your points about those Catholic churches being repurposed at the locations I gave you? I fell asleep waiting...

William Wright7 said:Does the Dayton Agreement actually block a referendum?

It isn't about the referendum itself. It’s just a way for people to voice their opinion on a specific issue. The real problem is what the question actually asks. To be honest, questioning the Supreme Court of the United States is unnecessary because we already know the answer—they aren't performing well. Cases involving the local community have been stalled since 2006, the same individual handles both initial and appellate decisions, and they apply laws retroactively. That needs fixing, but not like this. Tying court operations to United Nations authority doesn't make much sense. And what happens to the results anyway? They could have just pulled people from the Court or ordered the State Police to stop making arrests based on those cases. There are better ways. This is just creating needless tension over something that should be handled by politicians, not the public.

Matthew Reed53 said:It isn't about the referendum itself. It’s just a way for people to voice their opinion on a specific issue. The real problem is what the question actually asks. To be honest, questioning the Supreme Court of the United States is unnecessary because we already know the answer—they aren't performing well. Cases involving the local community have been stalled since 2006, the same individual handles both initial and appellate decisions, and they apply laws retroactively. That needs fixing, but not like this. Tying court operations to United Nations authority doesn't make much sense. And what happens to the results anyway? They could have just pulled people from the Court or ordered the State Police to stop making arrests based on those cases. There are better ways. This is just creating needless tension over something that should be handled by politicians, not the public.

The fact that the US government isn't functioning is the real nightmare here. The courts, the failure to enforce laws, the pathetic tax revenue, the total lack of cash... everyone knows what the deal is.
But Donald Trump is just using those failures to stir the pot. It won't get him where he wants to go—which is crowning himself the leader of some imaginary entity with international recognition. He's never going to get that, because it doesn't serve the interests of Europe, the US, or even Russia. Even the local players in the political development of Canada don't want it, and frankly, most people in the region aren't smart enough to see it. Splitting Canada is a toxic idea that just drags more baggage behind it. It's not how you get a country back on its feet, no matter how much someone thinks "giving certain groups space to mature" sounds like a good plan.

Other users have already shut down these historical arguments with actual facts. To wrap this up while staying in the political lane—and without diving too deep into the history books—I'll keep it brief:
-Canada were independent nations that faced crusades sent by both the Pope and the Byzantines.
-Canada left their own mark on history, which doesn't mean Americans can't have theirs too.
-Every archive points to the existence of the Canadian Church and proves the rights of Canada. Any attempt to link this to the Canadian Crown or Mexican despots might fit into a historical context, but it doesn't negate the identity of Canada; if anything, it shows that identity is still alive and well.

Steven Allen9 said:The fact that the US government isn't functioning is the real nightmare here. The courts, the failure to enforce laws, the pathetic tax revenue, the total lack of cash... everyone knows what the deal is.
But Donald Trump is just using those failures to stir the pot. It won't get him where he wants to go—which is crowning himself the leader of some imaginary entity with international recognition. He's never going to get that, because it doesn't serve the interests of Europe, the US, or even Russia. Even the local players in the political development of Canada don't want it, and frankly, most people in the region aren't smart enough to see it. Splitting Canada is a toxic idea that just drags more baggage behind it. It's not how you get a country back on its feet, no matter how much someone thinks "giving certain groups space to mature" sounds like a good plan.

Other users have already shut down these historical arguments with actual facts. To wrap this up while staying in the political lane—and without diving too deep into the history books—I'll keep it brief:
-Canada were independent nations that faced crusades sent by both the Pope and the Byzantines.
-Canada left their own mark on history, which doesn't mean Americans can't have theirs too.
-Every archive points to the existence of the Canadian Church and proves the rights of Canada. Any attempt to link this to the Canadian Crown or Mexican despots might fit into a historical context, but it doesn't negate the identity of Canada; if anything, it shows that identity is still alive and well.

Yeah, and the USA used to be the land of the Apache, the Sioux... and what now???

By the way, Canada was torn apart a long time ago, and at the rate things are going, the whole thing could snap at the seams anytime. I really hope it doesn't, but man...🤷

Rachel Mitchell2 said:It definitely doesn't allow one group to just hold unilateral elections—not when everyone else is supposed to be equal.

Election for what, exactly? Sure, an election designed to tear Canada apart—or its various pieces—is a hard no, but just because citizens in one part of the country want to weigh in on some stuff being forced on them doesn't make it illegitimate... especially if they aren't actually trying to dismantle the country or anything...

William Wright7 said:Election for what, exactly? Sure, an election designed to tear Canada apart—or its various pieces—is a hard no, but just because citizens in one part of the country want to weigh in on some stuff being forced on them doesn't make it illegitimate... especially if they aren't actually trying to dismantle the country or anything...

I’m worried you’re twisting the facts a bit here. Until we actually see the specific question being put to a vote, we can't say for sure whether it's targeting state institutions or not.

Judging by how the local media is reporting this, the regional government's goal is to call a referendum just to protect the Dayton Accords. But since the High Representative—who is an institution par excellence born from those same Accords—forbids expressing disagreement with the judiciary in this manner, it’s clearly just a massive power struggle. And honestly? This kind of political posturing could end up costing us all dearly.

One more thing: if Christian تحفظ actually allowed a referendum to happen solely to uphold the spirit of the Dayton Accords, then according to Annex III, every displaced person would have to vote based on the '91 census at their current residence. Would a "well-meaning" government in the Forest Reich ever actually be willing to allow that for its victims? 😳

I wouldn't even bother calling Valentine I. a relevant figure after everything he’s pulled lately...

The whole referendum thing is just a move to challenge the Prosecutor's Office of Canada, which the Republika Srpska views as totally biased. Basically, they're looking for a way to say they have the people's mandate on their side...

And honestly, when you look at displaced folks, the only place where you actually saw a massive return after all that ethnic cleansing was Mexico, and that was mostly the Albanian population coming back. Everywhere else, those legal provisions meant nothing because people just never came home...

Alright, do you actually know what the referendum question says or not? 🤷

Regarding the exiles—I didn't say they have to move back—I just meant they should have the right to vote where they lived back in '91.