User

This is a good example of why your argument keeps falling apart. You’ve replaced evidence with made-up math. Those “1 in a million” numbers are something you just invented. They’re not statistics, they’re vibes with exponents. Probability only works if you have real data. You don’t. You’re also still stuck in the same circular loop: • you assume only Nazis use the symbol • therefore anyone using it must be a Nazi • therefore the symbol proves they’re Nazis That’s the conclusion baked into the premise again. And the “two Nazi groups” claim still rests on the same word trick you’ve been using all thread. The Social-National Assembly being far-right or having extremist members is not the same thing as literally being the Nazi Party because the words look similar. At this point the argument is basically: Start with the assumption they’re Nazis Reinterpret everything through that assumption Invent numbers to make it sound scientific That isn’t analysis. It’s just storytelling with a calculator.

OK, and? He never made any promise; in fact, he said at the time that plans always change, and that is what he was focused on.

Show us the lie. The source you provided links to an article that cleary says: "Indeed, there have always been caveats to Trump’s criticisms of “regime change”" LOL, now you are defending Iran? You are such a clown. You will do or say anything to spite Trump.

I am not the one crying about ERMAGWD!! Someone is meddling in our nation's affairs. That is you.

Iran is like 4% of daily oil exports.

Um, no. Looks like we are blowing some stuff up and that is all. You folks on the left cried about a war the last time and it didn't happen and you cried about a war in Venezueala and that didn't happen...

No, Biden was playing a dumb, dishonest game, bragging about zero inflation for a month, when we were still facing like 9% inflation for the year. Even then, that 0% was still an absurd thing to brag about, as it was the total CPI, which was basically everything that had increased in prices except gas that month. Now keep hiding, coward.

Amazing how you did not care at all about this for the 4 years Biden was president.

Your argument keeps collapsing into circular logic. You say: Only Nazis have used that symbol for 80 years. Azov used that symbol. Therefore Azov were Nazis. But the only reason you think “only Nazis used it” is because you’re already labeling anyone who uses it a Nazi. That’s a loop, not evidence. It’s like saying: “Only criminals wear hoodies. That guy wore a hoodie. Therefore he’s a criminal.” You’ve defined the conclusion into the premise. The AI snippet you pasted doesn’t fix that. Those summaries compress messy history and often blur categories. Most serious sources describe early Azov as having far-right and neo-Nazi elements, not as a monolithic Nazi organization. You keep turning: • some extremist founders • controversial symbols • allegations against some fighters into • therefore everyone in the unit must be Nazis. That leap is doing all the work in your argument. The caps lock and insults are just decoration.

No, Biden and his administration lied. They were made to look like the incompetent fools they were with their crap withdrawl and the deaths of our military being blown up at the gate. Biden needed a response and the military rushed to judgement making numerous assumptions to blow up that car. Which, I can forgive them for, but not the lies. They knew and had enough evidence after to know they had just killed some kids, but Biden spent weeks celebrating this as a big retaliation and win over ISIS for their attack on us. It was only after the NYT investigation weeks later, showing it was clearly a family and a bunch of kids killed, that the Biden administration finally admitted the truth. They were trying to get away with using this as a political victory.

Dear Lord, and how much time do you spend on this forum crying about American policy you want to change? LOL

You are not denying that you are stupid or just playing dumb. Maybe it's both?

OK, I really do think you are this stupid. These are not the same thing, at all: "I'm asking how you know what the file details when they were not released. " vs what I actually said: "There is no evidence that Trump was involved in any trafficking or other crap with Epstein. What a pathetic liar you are. "

You’ve reduced your whole argument to just shouting “liar” and repeating the same sentence. That isn’t evidence, it’s a tantrum. 1. “Two Nazi groups” One of the groups you keep citing, Patriot of Ukraine, is widely described as neo-Nazi. No one disputed that. The other group you keep trying to label “Nazis because of the name” was a far-right ultranationalist coalition, not literally the Nazi Party reborn. Word-matching isn’t historical analysis. You’re basically arguing: “Social-National = National Socialist = therefore identical.” That’s middle-school logic. 2. “Symbols exclusively worn by Nazis for 80 years” That’s simply not true. The Wolfsangel symbol existed centuries before Nazi Germany and appeared in European heraldry long before the SS used it. Nazis used it, which is why it became controversial later, but they didn’t invent it and they weren’t the only people who ever used it. Saying it’s been “exclusively Nazi for 80 years” is just historically incorrect. 3. The leap you keep making You start with: • some founders were extremists • controversial symbols existed Then jump to: • therefore everyone in the unit must be a Nazi That leap is the entire problem with your argument. 4. The irony You keep accusing everyone else of lying while repeating claims that collapse the moment you check basic history. At this point it looks less like you’re defending facts and more like you’re defending a slogan you got attached to.

Oh no!

You have no care at all for the truth here. None.

So, again, are you playing dumb or are you really this stupid?

This BS. I never claimed to know the file details of something that doesn't exist. You can't argue honestly, so you play these dumb, dishonest games.

You keep playing the same dishonest parlor game and acting like no one can see the cards up your sleeve. Here’s how the game works: Step 1: Start with something real. • Some early members had extremist views. • Some early imagery had neo-Nazi associations. Step 2: Quietly swap that for a much bigger claim. • Therefore the entire unit was a Nazi battalion. Step 3: When someone points out the leap, shout “LIAR.” That’s not evidence. That’s a parlor trick. The part where your argument collapses Even sources you cite say something like 10–20% identified as Nazis at one point. Your version of that statistic somehow becomes: 10–20% → actually half → actually most → actually all → actually secretly all That isn’t how facts work. That’s how someone massages a story until it says what they want. The UN claim you keep stretching The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights documented abuses in the Donbas war involving multiple armed groups. Some allegations involved Azov fighters. What you keep pretending that means is: “Therefore the entire battalion was a Nazi war-criminal organization.” That leap exists only in your version of events. The irony here You keep accusing everyone else of lying while you: • inflate numbers • guess what thousands of people “really believed” • rewrite what sources actually say Then you toss in a couple laughing emojis like that substitutes for an argument. It doesn’t. It just makes the parlor game more obvious. Those analogies only work if you quietly change the facts first. That’s the same parlor game again. Your comparison assumes: • every person in the new group shares the same ideology • the membership never changes • the symbol proves belief None of those things are actually true in the situation you’re talking about. A more accurate analogy would be this: Two fringe political clubs help start a volunteer fire department during an emergency. A few of them bring their weird flags with them. Then hundreds of normal firefighters join when the town turns it into an official department. You’re standing there years later yelling: “THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS A POLITICAL CULT!” That’s basically your argument. The symbol argument also keeps collapsing People wearing a symbol does not magically let you read their ideology. If that were true, then every soldier who wore something historically misused by extremists would share that ideology. That’s obviously not how the real world works. And the historical record still doesn’t say what you claim Researchers consistently describe the Azov Battalion as: • a unit that had far-right and neo-Nazi individuals early on • which later expanded into a much larger National Guard formation You keep trying to compress that into a bumper sticker because the full picture ruins the narrative you’re trying to sell. Repeating the same analogy with more confidence doesn’t fix the underlying problem. It just shows you’re still arguing with a simplified version of events instead of the documented one.

If you are so concerned about BS, start looking at what you do here.

It helps if you actually, accurately, and honestly represent what I said. I said there is no evidence. Because there is none.

Maybe... It was a year ago I asked there, and we were told it was just around the corner...

When you feel the need to lie and push BS criticisms... others may feel compelled to point that out. No surprise.

So, is this an act or are you really this stupid?

No, I’m not “finally admitting” anything. I’ve said the same thing the whole time, you just keep trying to trap it in a yes/no box because nuance breaks your script. 1) “Are you admitting they were Nazis?” I’m saying what the evidence supports: Some early founders and members had neo-Nazi ideology and imagery. That does not prove the entire unit was uniformly Nazi, then or forever. You’re trying to turn “subset” into “whole.” That’s not a debate point. That’s a basic Venn diagram faceplant. 2) “You were pretending far-right but not Nazi” Wrong. “Far-right” is the umbrella category. Neo-Nazis sit under it. You treating “far-right” as a dodge is like yelling “LIAR!” because someone called a pickup truck a vehicle. 3) “Two groups formed the vast majority: neo-Nazis and National Socialists” You keep repeating this but you still haven’t produced an actual source showing: that the SNA was literally the Nazi Party (it wasn’t), or that “National Socialists” was the formal self-identity of “half the unit,” or that this equals “vast majority.” “Social-National Assembly” ≠ “National Socialist German Workers’ Party.” If your argument depends on word-matching, it belongs in a crossword, not a history discussion. 4) “Nazi insignias therefore Nazi battalion” Yes, some early symbols were strongly associated with neo-Nazism. That’s documented and criticized widely. No, that does not logically convert every member into a Nazi, especially as the unit expanded, restructured, and was absorbed into a state chain of command. Your rule seems to be: symbol = mind-reading. That’s not evidence. That’s cosplay-level reasoning. 5) “War crimes” There were serious abuse allegations in the Donbas conflict. Multiple armed groups were implicated; some allegations involved Azov fighters. The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights documented abuses across parties. That supports “allegations involving Azov members,” not “everyone in the unit is a Nazi war criminal.” 6) Your “minimization” accusation Calling your leap a leap isn’t minimization. It’s correction. You keep doing this: Some extremists existed early → therefore the unit was a Nazi battalion → therefore anyone associated is a Nazi → therefore disagreement is lying That’s not logic. That’s a slogan wearing a lab coat. And the “you know that, I know that” line isn’t evidence either. It’s the rhetorical version of “trust me, bro,” just with more yelling. If you want to argue history, bring sources and stop trying to win by accusation. If you want to argue by insult and mind-reading, you’re already doing that.