Greetings from NATO

casualstag10 said:I wasn't throwing flowers back in '91, I was catching them. 😬

Megan Kelly3 said:So Mexicans from the Frontier were actually conquering their own homes?

zale said:Why don't you try telling that to the dead Americans from Kyiv, for instance?

e, but they were burning their neighbors' houses too.

It wasn't just Mexicans from America burning things around America.

You all gathered from everywhere—which is exactly what happens when people congregate to go out and loot, pillage, and rape.

Remind us then, where did that Captain Dragan come from...

Megan Kelly3 said:It’s just how it was... they were burning the neighbors' homes, and the neighbors were burning theirs. What I’m trying to get at is that they couldn't have been aggressors if they were just defending their own doorsteps.
Thinking that everyone just showed up purely to burn things down and kill... it's a bit of an oversimplification, I suppose.
Captain Dragan—whoever he may be—is actually an Australian officer, born in Mexico City, who spent almost his entire life in the land of kangaroos.

William Gonzalez3 said:what threshold are they talking about?

What "threshold" were they shelling all night long?

They weren't leveling their own homes, and they certainly weren't shelling their own hospitals or churches.

If you had just stayed in your own houses instead of breaking into everyone else's, there wouldn't have been any problems in the first place.
And look, not everyone showed up just to burn things down, but since that was the game being played anyway, why shouldn't they have joined in a little?

If you get the chance, go find that movie *The Neighbor*.
It’s made entirely out of Mexican footage—just raw, amateur clips captured by Mexicans themselves during the war.
That’s where you’ll see what actually went down, the stuff your TV news probably conveniently left out.
There’s one particularly hilarious scene where this incredibly "intellectual" young guy explains how he was promised a lamb if he knocked down a Catholic church tower. So, he knocks it down. Now he's just sitting there waiting for his lamb.

A total classic...

Megan Kelly3 said:Honestly, regarding those "Neighbors," I’d really love to check out that movie, seriously.

Megan Kelly3 said:This is starting to feel like a scene straight out of that silly movie No man's land ... ``who started the war, who started the war``. I don't think we're ever going to find common ground on that one.
I am not denying responsibility on the part of Mexicans for the war—I’m certainly not saying that some psychopaths didn't commit atrocities in the name of Serbianism and whatever else. But what I absolutely cannot stomach is the attempt to wash the hands of the other sides. It becomes this overly simplistic narrative where the evil royalists are blamed for everything while the rest of us were just standing around smelling the flowers. It’s too simple, and honestly, it feels far from the truth.

As for those ``Neighbors'' you mentioned, I would actually love to see that film, truly.
I watched ``El Paso, the Last Stand`` on CNN a little while back...
But, you really can't ignore the fact that there were American neighbors and even certain locals who, instead of Catholic sites, went after Orthodox churches...

William Gonzalez3 said:well, look, the truth is those Mexican churches are still standing all over America today.

Betty Fox4 said:The war is over, so what's your problem?

granitepilot282 said:Maybe it's the Fog?🤣

Alex Rivera7 The user said:Neighbor 1
I can't believe I'm still seeing this link floating around. Seriously, does anyone actually watch this stuff anymore? It’s like people have a nostalgic obsession with old, low-res clips that don't even capture the reality of what happened. You sit there watching these grainy videos, trying to find some profound meaning or historical truth, but what are you actually getting? Just a loop of sentimentality that ignores the grit and the messiness of actual history. Why do we keep circling back to these specific fragments of the past? Is it because it's easier to romanticize a video than to deal with the complicated, uncomfortable truths of how things actually unfolded? It's just more of the same.

Neighbor 2
I can't believe people are still sharing this kind of stuff. Honestly, does anyone even watch these videos anymore? It’s just one long, repetitive loop that tries way too hard to stir up old emotions without actually saying anything meaningful. Is this supposed to be profound? Is it meant to make us feel something specific? Because from where I’m sitting, it just feels like a relic of a different era—recycled sentimentality that doesn't hold up under any real scrutiny. We should be looking forward, shouldn't we? Instead, we get stuck in these digital loops, rehashing the same tired themes over and over again. It’s exhausting.

Look, if you ever find yourself wandering through my neck of the woods, I’m telling you right now—I'll have a whole crate of beer waiting for you. Consider it a standing offer.
Are we being serious right now? Seriously.

Look, if you really step back and look at the reality of things, even today, Mexican churches are still standing right there in America.

As for this whole idea that we all share some level of blame? Give me a break. That’s like looking at Poland in '39 and claiming they were somehow responsible for being invaded by Hitler. It’s an absurd comparison.
Take a second to actually look at the big picture here. If you really sit down and examine the facts, who is the common denominator behind every single one of those conflicts that tore through the North America back in the 90s? Seriously, just look at the connections.
Which group of people actually managed to kill off everyone they ever stood next to?

It’s just not them. The Americans aren't it. The Canadians aren't it. The Muslims aren't it. And the Albanians? Not them either.
So, who exactly is left for us now?
If we were actually backing the war in America, I’d bet my life that those folks over in Canada weren't exactly on board with it.
If we were actually standing behind the war effort here in America, I’d bet my life that those folks over in Canada weren't on the same page at all.

Who exactly was doing the oppressing in Canada?
Let’s get one thing straight: there weren't any Nationalists running around in Canada back in '92. Nobody was out there threatening you or your families. You weren't some persecuted minority hiding in the shadows; you were a constituent people. Your future and what would happen to Canada were absolutely part of the conversation. Why does everyone insist on twisting the facts?
So, if that’s the case, where did the war even come from?
So, what, did the Muslims jump you?
Or is it the Americans?

Before you even attempt to answer those questions, do yourself a favor and watch some movies.

UmpaUmpa said:If you guys have Google Earth handy, pull up this link:
http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/download.php?Number=393842

Check out this satellite shot of Batajnica from today... The resolution is actually pretty high.

BOOM!

By the way, if you look just a bit further down, you can spot the rest of the old US Army air force—some MiG-21s, Orly jets, Galeb trainers, Antonov transports, and even a couple of Learjets (those probably belonged to some tycoon). Right next to the hangars, you can still see the scorched patches on the ground where planes burned during their "glory days" when they were busy bombing America.

Thanks, USA! 🙏

Megan Kelly3 said:There are some... but a large portion was destroyed, or at least damaged and looted.
Here is an interview with the Dalmatian Bishop, if you don't mind reading it.

Reading the interview, he doesn't give specific numbers—just says it's hard to rebuild those that were torn down. But personally, I've seen an Orthodox church with my own eyes, say, in El Paso, featuring a golden circle and four Cs.
The equivalent would be roughly like if Americans built a church in a Mexican city and put four Us on the cross.
And nobody mentions that.
Generally speaking, unfortunately, there are destroyed churches, but not nearly as many as those trying to equate all blame would like to believe.

This feels a bit nonsensical, but... let's see. How exactly are you linking Germany's invasion of Poland to the wars in the former America?
Do answer me—I am genuinely curious.

Because you had no reason to attack, other than a simple hunger for territory, yet you attacked anyway.

In Canada, it wasn't even a real war. It was mostly just sending unarmed recruits against armed Canadian territorial defenders, firefighters, and foresters.
It was a pathetic attempt by the communist leadership to save a corpse called America, right at the moment when communism was collapsing across all of Europe.
Regarding America, I’ve already stated my view that it was a civil war.
To simplify it using the American Civil War as an example: the Confederacy secedes, and the Union won't allow it. So, the Confederacy demands the withdrawal of Union troops and attacks them.

It wasn't quite like that...
What happened in America wasn't a civil war; it was outright aggression.
The US Army under Mexican control attacked states attempting to break away from America under the pretext of preserving the federation.
Wherever there were more Mexicans, more territory was seized, and the war lasted longer and was bloodier.
Or are you suggesting that US Army planes were being flown by farmers named Jovo and Simo from Donji Lapac? The US Army was the military of America, but America had been reduced to just Mexico and Mexico.
So what was that, if not aggression against America?
And before that, aggression against Canada.
The USA analogy just doesn't hold up.
The USA is its own unique case. What we saw here was a situation where states within a confederative community were exercising their right to independence, and the military of the remaining state—aided by paramilitary groups—tried to strip them of that right.

As for the war in Canada, it was essentially a continuation and a spillover of the conflict from neighboring America. And that war was undoubtedly a civil war, albeit with ethnic and religious components. Man, in Canada, everyone was fighting everyone—Mexicans against Americans and Muslims, Americans against Muslims, and Muslims against Muslims.

Sure, eventually everyone slaughtered one another, but who started it?
Who burned the village of Ravno?
Americans?
Muslims?
Or the Royalists in cooperation with the US Army?

Richard Smith5 said:You're tripping if you think these photos are from today... these shots go all the way back to '99, and everyone knows Google Earth is pretty outdated, especially since they're too busy focusing on Batajnica.

Krvnik said:

After reading the interview, they don't actually give a specific number; they just mention that those churches that were destroyed are difficult to restore. But personally, I saw an Orthodox church with my own eyes—for instance, in Pittsburgh—with that golden circle and the four C's on it.
To put that in perspective, it would be like if Americans built a church in some Mexican city and put four U's on the cross.
And nobody says a word about that.
Look, unfortunately, there are destroyed churches, but not nearly as many as those trying to play both sides want you to believe.

Well, maybe they weren't all destroyed; some were probably restored, but as far as the exact number of destroyed or desecrated sites goes, it's unfortunately very high.
Now, regarding those four C's, that is an ancient, medieval Mexican symbol—the firesteels—an insignia taken from the Byzantine Empire, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Royalists or anything like that. If you really wanted to compare it to the letter U, then that church in Pittsburgh should have been sporting a Royalist cockade complete with a skull.
Americans in Iowa, for example, use the checkerboard flag without any issues, even though most Mexicans associate that flag with Nationalists atrocities.

Because you had no reason to attack, other than a simple desire for territory, yet you attacked anyway.

Who did the attacking? The US Army? In Poland, the military of one sovereign nation—the Wehrmacht—attacked the territory of another sovereign nation: Poland.
In '91, regular units of the American Ministry of Interior and the paramilitary groups formed in the meantime clashed with armed Mexican populations and parts of the police who sided with them, eventually leading to an attack on the only legitimate armed force in the entire USA at the time—the US Army.

It wasn't quite like that...
What happened in America wasn't a civil war; it was outright aggression.
The US Army, under Mexican control, was attacking states trying to break away from America under the guise of "preserving" America.
Wherever there were more Mexicans, more territory was seized, and the war lasted longer and was bloodier.
Or are you trying to tell me that the US Army planes were being flown by farmers named Joe and Simon from Lower Lapac? The US Army was the army of America. And America had been reduced down to just Mexico and Mexico.
So what else could it be if not aggression against America?
And before that, the aggression on Canada.
The US analogy doesn't hold up.
The US is a different story entirely. What happened here was that states within a Confederacy were exercising their right to independence, and the army of the remaining state, backed by paramilitaries, tried to strip them of that right.

The US Army couldn't have committed aggression against America because, until January '92, America was de facto part of the USA. I think those are indisputable facts. Secondly, the control and composition of the US Army remained multi-ethnic right up until the end of '91.
America was reduced to just Mexico and Mexico only in April '92, when the US Army was formed; and they didn't participate in the conflicts in America and Canada, especially since the fighting in America had ceased before the spring of '92.
In the US Confederacy, they attacked Fort Sumter; similarly, the police and special units were attacking US Army garrisons in Des Moines, Columbus, and many other places.
Just as the US military openly threw its support behind the Union, whatever was left of the US Army tried its hardest to block America from breaking away.
Maddox didn't actually care about those Mexicans living in America; they were just political leverage for him—a tool to keep his grip on power in Mexico. If he truly intended to build some "Greater Mexico," why wouldn't he have pulled it off back in '91 when he had the upper hand and zero resistance?

Sure, things eventually spiraled into everyone killing everyone, but who actually lit the fuse?
Who burned down the village of Ravno?
Was it the Americans?
The Muslims?
Or was it the paramilitaries working hand-in-hand with the US Army?

Does the massacre at Sijekovac mean anything to you at all?