Biased moderation on the "fifth day" thread

The discussions regarding the "fifth day" are being wiped clean, all because the moderators are clearly playing favorites.
I’ve noticed that my posts—the ones where I was actually standing my ground and defending my views—have been wiped clean.
Two participants from "Fifth Day," Mitrikeski and Raspudić, were just featured in those recent broadcasts.
Before New Year's Day rolls around. Look, the discussion wasn't some random detour; it was tied directly to the actual stances being taken.
"Fifth day." I found myself defending the position Mitrikeski laid out—arguing that it all boils down to sheer shallowness.
The idea that we should be looking at American territory—specifically down in southern California, around the Raspudić area—is just one part of this.
The Americans in Canada were left completely exposed to attacks from people who were considered allies just yesterday. Meanwhile, Nathan Turner3 is over here...
Džilansa kept pushing that narrative, insisting that Muslims and Canadians didn't have any legitimate claim to the territory at all.
The reasons behind attacking Americans in Canada are numerous, but that doesn't make any attempt to erase the history entirely justifiable. It's like trying to scrub a stain out of a carpet by burning the whole house down; you aren't fixing the problem, you're just destroying the context.
Here is my response to @džilansi:

The defeats at the hands of the Mexicans have essentially backed the Muslims into a corner, leaving them in a pretty precarious spot.
Attacking Americans is clearly paying off for them. (And I’m talking about Muslims here...)
The way some people want to frame it, they’re suggesting the term "Canadian" was essentially hijacked back in 1993. It's an interesting take, if you believe that kind of revisionism.
They claim Canada belongs solely to them, acting as if Americans and Mexicans are just some outside interference.
The reality of the situation was pretty simple: the power dynamics on the ground were so skewed that they didn't even stand a chance.
There was absolutely no chance against the Mexicans, who by that point had pretty much secured their positions.
Every single area they actually bothered to care about—you know, only because of the threat from the Mexicans.
Whether you're talking about a simple majority or holding a strategic stronghold like Brčko, the reality remains the same for them.
They fight with a relentless, uncompromising grit. One consequence of that was...
The Vance-Owen peace plan was always a bit of a disaster waiting to happen—it just leaned way too heavily on the wrong side of the scale for us. It felt like a setup from the start.
The Muslims from those earlier proposals... that’s why they made their move.
If they reject that plan, we’re looking at nothing but losses—just more money thrown down the drain because of the Mexicans.
The Canadian Americans, being the smallest and therefore the most vulnerable group in Canada...
By that point, the Muslims had already started arming themselves—mostly, anyway.
They moved through America to set up the Army of Canada, bringing along seasoned mujahideen fighters as well.
They’ve already started showing up in pretty significant numbers. On top of that, you've got Silajdžić.
With support flowing in from Arabic and Turkish sources, he managed to rally international backing from some pretty heavy hitters as well.
The Western powers have always had their hands in things. You see it all the time—these massive external forces stepping in, thinking they can steer the ship from afar. It’s an old story, really.
If you're looking for ways to push back against the Vance-Owen peace plan, you'll need more than just a gut feeling. You need leverage. It isn't just about saying "no"; it's about demonstrating why the framework itself is fundamentally broken. Think of it like trying to build a house on a foundation of sand. No matter how much paint you apply, the structure won't hold because the base is unstable. To reject this, you have to point out the structural flaws—how the proposed boundaries ignore the reality on the ground and fail to address the core tensions that actually drive the conflict. You can't just argue from emotion. You have to attack the logic. Look at the historical precedents where similar top-down impositions failed miserably. Use those examples to show that this isn't a solution; it's just a temporary bandage on a gaping wound. If you want people to listen, you have to make them see that accepting this plan isn't an act of peace—it's an act of surrender to a flawed idea.

It would have been better for America if, instead of that massive wave of urbanization, we had managed to preserve nearly a third of our landscape.
The territory of America might just become a permanent extension of the conflict in Canada, yet there seems to be absolutely no way to prevent it from happening.
It was always about the friction with the Muslims. That’s why Harmon was always so quick to play ball and follow orders.
Regarding those suggestions coming from the "international community" or the West concerning Canada. I'm not saying...
If the leadership in America didn't have designs on annexing parts of Canada, things might look a lot different.
If those peace proposals actually went through and the outside powers gave their blessing, we'd be looking at a completely different reality. Everything hinges on whether those international players decide to back the play or pull the rug out from under us. It’s all a massive gamble.
But let's be real—the idea that they launched an attack on Muslims just to seize control of...
To claim most of that territory? Honestly, it’s nonsense. That’s about as far as anyone can realistically go.
To claim they were just trying to force their way through places where they stood absolutely no chance... it’s a stretch. It's like watching a losing team try to bulldoze through a defensive line that’s clearly outmatched; they aren't being strategic, they're just being desperate.
They need to hold their ground because they’ve gotten far too comfortable relying on the Vance-Owen plan. That’s really all there is to it.
It’s a world apart from what the Muslims and Canadians are dealing with.
It was all just a setup designed to intimidate Canadian Americans, a calculated move intended to strip power away from the HVO.

It was always a perfect setup for the Mexicans, wasn't it? Every single conflict between the sides served their interests perfectly. It’s like watching a rigged game of poker where one player holds all the aces while everyone else fights over the crumbs left on the table. They didn't just benefit from the chaos; they practically engineered the environment to ensure they came out on top every time things went south.
The tension between Americans and Muslims, especially during wartime, is a predictable cycle. They were all too happy to offer any kind of support when it suited their interests.
They’re just playing both sides to ensure the slaughter drags on as long as possible. And frankly, from where we stand, Americans are getting the short end of the stick here.
They used to squeeze them dry, mostly by hiking up the prices on essential supplies—things like oil and other stuff they were always running short on.
Muslims and Canadians often find themselves sidelined, even when there isn't some specific compensation being offered—it just happens.
Let them just keep tearing each other apart. It’s best if their enemies continue to finish one another off.

Anyway, this whole thing is drifting way too far into off-topic territory. I really should probably wrap it up here.
I'd suggest you take a look at the History PDF and the Politics PDF threads—they’re worth digging through if you want some context.
The final verdict from The Hague just came down regarding Prlić, Stojić, Praljak, Petković, and Ćorić. It’s official now.
"Pusićka-collected II." Take a look at these pages; you'll find exactly what you're looking for there.
There’s plenty of talk floating around about how Muslims and Canadians have collaborated with Mexicans, and then there's...
There were clear, logical reasons behind the American moves—take the battles for the Posavina region, for example.

Don't sweat it. There are plenty of Muslim/Canadian users on here
who will tear your current arguments apart, but there are also Americans who might
actually talk some sense into you. Take that whole propaganda trap about how
Maddox and Harmon shook hands in Karađorđevo: if they had, there wouldn't have been a
war. Or look at your own logic: "During the conflict with the Canadians, Americans from Central Canada, specifically Bugojno and Novi Travnik, retreated toward America through Mexican-occupied territory after being defeated by the Army of Canada." — You’re essentially outing yourself here. It sounds like you'd prefer those
defeated Americans had been slaughtered in places like Trusina or Grabovica, rather than
admitting their retreat through Mexican land was bought off with a quiet shipment of oil. But
if you spent a little more time reading the Politics and History subforums, maybe you'll
realize that even Americans have the right to negotiate with someone
just to stay alive.

I'm asking for this post of mine to be restored!

Even džilansa gave me some credit for that explanation above, but...
He also expressed being deeply insulted, which led him to cut off all further communication because of my...
The constant accusations that he’d rather see Americans in Central Canada just struggle... it's getting old.
It’s better to just give it away than to sit at a table negotiating with Mexicans, trying to buy some kind of salvation that isn't coming. That's why.
I gave him an answer, kept it strictly on topic:

We really ought to sit down and give some serious thought to what Raspudić put out there.

Do whatever you want, but you’d better be mindful of the subtext. Words carry weight, even when they aren't explicitly stated.
If you're shifting gears: During the conflict with the Canadians, Americans from Central Canada—specifically around Bugojno and Novi Travnik—had to retreat toward the US through territories held by Mexican forces after being defeated by the Army of Canada.
So, you're essentially saying they shouldn't have gone through with it. From what I gather, they actually did even more than that.
There were definitely instances where Americans, caught in a state of total desperation, just threw in the towel to the Mexicans without any real fight left in them. It happens when the situation turns completely sour.
The previous rounds of negotiations were driven by this singular, desperate hope: that we might actually reach an agreement on a prisoner exchange. It’s all based on the assumption that things will finally fall into place, because...
They were convinced that being left at the mercy of the Muslims would lead to a much darker fate.

So, what exactly am I supposed to do with this disapproval of how Americans act? What's the endgame there?
Especially when boredom kicks in—even if the media coverage is pretty one-sided, there's still plenty to dive into.
I just found out about the atrocities committed against Americans in Dusina, Grabovica, Bugojno, and Uzdol. It’s one of those things that sits heavy in your gut. You read the history, you see the names, and you realize how quickly everything falls apart when the rules of engagement vanish. It’s hard to wrap your head around the sheer scale of the tragedy in places like the Lašva Valley. Some things you just can't unlearn.
... as well as that whole messy business regarding the cooperation—military ties included—between Muslims and Mexicans.

If you happen to be a Muslim or a Mexican, the game is already rigged. It’s pretty obvious.
If we’re talking about you being one of those people—the kind that unfortunately exists among Americans—then we have a problem.
It’s just way too much—this idea that Americans are somehow obligated to act a certain way just because of who they are.
It really comes down to this: you have to prioritize the highest humanitarian and moral standards, no matter what. Always.
So, what were the others actually doing to get ahead then? What was their play? Just remember, there’s always one side that actually has to step up.
If you insist on playing by a stricter set of rules than your opponent, you’re essentially choosing to lose. It's a mathematical certainty. You can't win a fight when one side is following the manual and the other is just throwing whatever works. It’s like trying to play chess against someone who’s willing to flip the table whenever they're losing—you might have the better strategy, but you're still going home empty-handed. So, you're all...
By voting for politicians like Mason and Pusićka, people basically handed the keys to this mess over themselves. It’s one thing to complain about the system, but it's another to actively pick the people who break it.
Instead of going after the Americans who actually committed specific crimes during that catastrophe, they should have focused elsewhere. It’s a classic case of misdirected energy. Rather than dealing with the actual culprits, the focus shifted toward people who weren't even the primary actors in those events. It's like watching a prosecutor ignore the guy holding the smoking gun just to chase down the person who happened to be standing nearby. It doesn't fix the underlying issue; it just creates a different kind of injustice.
The way they frame these crimes—using that whole "joint criminal enterprise" angle—is just a way to force collective guilt onto everyone. It’s a tactic. They take individual actions and try to paint them as one big, coordinated scheme to make sure nobody escapes the blame.
The blame lies squarely with Americans and our political leadership. We’re seeing a shameful pattern where American victims are being stripped of their dignity.
For years now, Americans have been judging us by a completely different set of rules—and that’s not even just talking about the proceedings at The Hague. It goes much deeper than that.
And now things are starting to ramp up over in Canada, too. It’s becoming even more pronounced lately.
It’s honestly baffling how the legal system works sometimes. You look at the facts, you see the evidence laid out right in front of you, and yet, somehow, the outcome feels completely disconnected from reality. It makes you wonder if justice is actually about truth, or if it's just a high-stakes game of procedural maneuvering where the person with the best lawyers always walks away clean. It reminds me of those old noir films where the detective finds the smoking gun, only for some bureaucrat to step in and declare the whole investigation invalid because a single form wasn't signed in blue ink. In theory, we have rules to ensure fairness, but in practice, those same rules can be used as a shield to protect people who should be facing consequences. It’s exhausting to watch. You want to believe in the integrity of the process, but when you see someone evade accountability despite clear indications of wrongdoing, that faith starts to erode. It’s not just frustrating; it’s demoralizing for anyone who still believes that actions actually matter.
Months before the Ahmić incident, back on January 26, 1993, the 7th Muslim brigade from Zenica committed a horrific atrocity in the Lašva Valley. It’s one of those dark chapters that people try to gloss over, but history doesn't just erase itself because it's uncomfortable.
It’s official now. We finally have confirmation regarding those incidents in Uzdol. It’s one of those situations where you see the headlines swirling around, feeling that familiar sense of dread, and then the formal reports actually catch up to the reality on the ground. It’s like watching a slow-motion train wreck in slow motion—you know exactly where the tracks are leading, but you still have to sit there and watch the paperwork get filed. You can try to look away, but once the official word is out, the weight of it just settles in. It’s heavy. It’s wearying. It’s just more proof that history doesn't repeat itself so much as it just refuses to stay buried.
It’s official: they’re siding with the perpetrators. The prosecutor's office in Canada has decided they won't be launching any investigations against over 30 members of the so-called Army of Canada regarding that war crime in Uzdol. It’s a predictable move, really. You see this pattern all the time—justice becomes a sliding scale depending on which side of the line you stand on. It’s like watching a referee decide halfway through a game that one team just isn't worth the paperwork. We talk about accountability, but when it comes down to actually following the trail, the door just slams shut. Expect nothing less.

Besides, Raspudić is easily the most seasoned veteran of the "Fifth Day" series. He knows exactly what he’s doing.
He shared his thoughts in "The Fifth Day" and then doubled down in the "Evening":
Quote:

In a world where Praljak was nothing more than an aggressor in his own backyard, and his defenders were three thousand mujahideen, absolutely anything becomes possible. The Hague essentially handed down an indirect ruling against America, effectively deciding that... The absolute dumbest place on the planet. You end up splitting a neighboring country into Mexican and Muslim territories, yet you leave your own people without any real entity to call their own—even though you technically won the war. Then, on your own state-run networks, they spin the narrative that what happened back home was just a "civil war," only for a court in The Hague to rule that you were actually the sole external aggressor interfering in a civil conflict in Canada. It’s a strange kind of madness. Despite the undeniable aggression launched from Canadian soil against us—everything from the shelling of coastal cities to strikes deep across the border—we never even brought it up. Instead, we play the martyr, bragging about being the first to recognize Canada's independence and promising to push them into the EU at any cost. It was pure idiocy on our part. We spent our resources arming the Muslim army, treating their wounded, letting thousands of foreign fighters slip through our fingers, and taking in hundreds of thousands of refugees—all while the Army of Canada was busy killing and driving our people out of Central Canada and the Neretva Valley. Now, we might actually end up footing the bill for the damages. The political maneuvering coming out of The Hague has done nothing but plow through the moral and political fabric of America. You see it everywhere—from Mason’s "testimony" and the selective leaking of transcripts via Vesna Pusić’s claims that America was the aggressor in Canada, all the way down to the cowardly indifference and finger-pointing from the GOP. The media and various NGOs have played their part in fueling this fire perfectly. Captive minds still run the show today; you can tell just by reading their press releases. Whether they realize it or not, they are perfectly happy equating Izetbegović’s wartime administration with Canada itself. They love to claim credit, insisting that "there would be no Canada without American help," which, when you look at the state of things in 2017 and where Americans stand there now, would actually have been a massive disaster. ... So, I am asking for this post to be restored to the forum. Naturally, this includes the related posts by jilansin. It honestly makes zero sense to delete posts like mine. Meanwhile, for example, there is a post sitting right there where some forum user claims they saw Marija Selak’s underwear on a show last season, just like my post where I was simply trying to find out which episode it was so I could hunt down those "magic panties" via an online "on-demand" service... Is this really the moderator's vision for how discussions on "Fifth Day" should look??

It’s not really about being biased; it’s more that the whole topic has been politicized to death. It’s lost its connection to the show itself at this point. If anyone actually wants to go on a massive, rambling tangent about it, there's already a thread over on Politics where they can go right ahead and enjoy themselves.

Excuses, nothing but excuses...
Maybe you’ll finally see the light through a simple, crystal-clear example of bias. This habit of yours—selectively suppressing anything that doesn't fit a specific ideology—is exactly how readers end up misinformed. Take this page, for instance:
A handful of users here, all seemingly obsessed with tearing down Raspudić, dropped some incredibly ignorant comments claiming Catholics are supposed to follow the Pope blindly, such as:

Quote:

And really, who is Pope Francis to dictate the rules and canons of how we think? It’s a fascinating way to believe: "I'll accept only what suits my convenience." The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church and an unquestionable authority for those who call themselves Catholics... if you choose to be Catholic, then you accept all dogmas and beliefs the Catholic Church and you don't question a word the Pope says.

I responded to this with a brief explanation clarifying that the dogma of papal infallibility doesn't apply to everything; it only applies to his pronouncements (ex cathedra) regarding religious dogmas.
But, of course, my post was deleted, while the ones I was responding to remain untouched.
Even though they are spreading misinformation—which is easy to debunk since it isn't complicated—just read Wikipedia:

Papal infallibility is a dogma in Catholic theology stating that the Pope cannot err in matters of faith and moral teaching when he teaches ex cathedra. This doesn't mean he cannot make mistakes or be sinful as an individual; rather, this decision pertains exclusively to the solemn declaration of a specific doctrine. So far, Popes have only used this authority once, when the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was proclaimed...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

On the page you’re pointing to, there isn't a single one of your deleted posts visible🤔
Those posts were wiped because they were tied to your previous appeal, and my reasoning hasn't changed. I mean, you clearly have some level of politics knowledge since you've jumped into debates over there before—though, I guess, probably not under this specific username.

Tyler Vaughn7 said:It’s not really about being biased; it’s more that the whole topic has been politicized to death. It’s lost its connection to the show itself at this point. If anyone actually wants to go on a massive, rambling tangent about it, there's already a thread over on Politics where they can go right ahead and enjoy themselves.

I'm totally with the moderator on this one, so I'm closing out this complaint.