Help is on its way: Trump sends medical ship to take care of Greenland's people left behind by socialist medicine in Greenland

User · February 25

5 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

I'd look at it as it says everything about the Maga-wing people that voted for him. I could 'almost' understand those in the middle who bought his sh*t about taking care of inflation on day 1 which obviously hasn't and won't happen. People always vote with their pocketbooks. How has that worked out for you so far?

If you consider him reasonably intelligent I'd suggest your apptitude leaves a lot to be desired. Reasonably intelligent people in the position act presidential in both words and actions and of which, he's done neither.

Ah I see, so now a majority of the voting age population is stupid.

At some point, you need to do some internal soul searching that maybe when you are on the side of butchering children, letting dudes destroy women in their sports, and letting illegal immigrants overrun the border and rape and murder Americans, the issue is you.

Deluge · February 25

6 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

You got something on your chin...

Satan loves you and your cult.

LinkSoul60 · February 25

21 minutes ago, User said:

Ah I see, so now a majority of the voting age population is stupid.

At some point, you need to do some internal soul searching that maybe when you are on the side of butchering children, letting dudes destroy women in their sports, and letting illegal immigrants overrun the border and rape and murder Americans, the issue is you.

Overly dramatic don't you think....

Children being butchered....like seriously (Fool). Dudes destroying woman's sports.....do you mean the ~10 trans out of the ~550K NCAA athletes? The data shows that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes or be incarcerated than native-born citizens.

Are you scared to go outside?

User · February 25

7 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Overly dramatic don't you think....

Children being butchered....like seriously (Fool). Dudes destroying woman's sports.....do you mean the ~10 trans out of the ~550K NCAA athletes? The data shows that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes or be incarcerated than native-born citizens.

Are you scared to go outside?

Yes, seriously.

You can pretend it’s not happening, doesn’t change the facts that it is and folks on your side of the political spectrum support it.

I mean, you can keep crying about half the country being stupid too…

You are pushing ignorant leftist talking points that have been long debunked.

There are more than NCAA athletes, that was also just a comment about known athletes made during a hearing, not a real or accurate count of all those engaged in the sport. Even then… it’s a ruse, as to what number is acceptable to you for some dude beating women in sports?

The answer should be zero.

The argument is not about “immigrants” in general, but ILLEGAL immigrants and even more the ones that get caught breaking the law even more and then folks like you let them go back on the streets rather than coordinate with ICE for deportation and then they go on to harm Americans more.

WestCanMan · February 26

6 hours ago, User said:

There is no verbal contract. None of these people had any authority to bind NATO to any such deal, these were negotiations BEFORE the final deal was ever made or comments made by people with no such authority.

This has been explained to you repeatedly by me on here.

This is shit pushed by Russia, long debunked, and not a serious argument.

1. The NATO Secretary General, the Chancellor of Germany, the President of the US, the US Secretary of State, all have authority to speak on behalf of their countries, or NATO, in the case of the Sec General.

2. All that you keep saying, over and over, is that oaths, guarantees and promises mean nothing to you. It's like you're trying to prove that you're not trustworthy and you have no integrity.

You can believe what you want to believe, I still know that those people lied, they broke their word, and Russia has to move forward with the full understanding that NATO, the US and Germany are not to be trusted.

Knowing that NATO, the US, and Germany can't be trusted, why would they allow them into Ukraine? What are they gonna lie about next?

Ukraine can go to hell for all I care. NATO is no longer a respectable organization, regardless of how you feel. There are consequences for lying that you are not inherently aware of.

WestCanMan · February 26

6 hours ago, User said:

Nope.

Well, the answer is yes, because every single thing I said was proven.

And you just acknowledged over and over again in this thread that the spoken word carries no meaning for you, so you're free to say whatever you want, with no regard whatsoever for honesty or integrity.

Quote

1. “Some members called themselves National Socialists.”
True for some early members. That still doesn’t mean the unit as an organization declared itself Nazi. Large volunteer units often contain ideological factions.

That is 100% false, like almost everything else you say about Russia, Nazis and Ukraine.

The GROUPS were National Socialists, and FYI that means Nazis. No one joins a group of Nazis and commits war crimes with them without ever figuring out that they're Nazis, aside from maybe robo. 1 person that I have encountered in my life might be that stupid.

FYI these aren't college kids from Vermont who don't know fascism from fornication. They live in a country where Nazis killed people. They live in a country that had its own Nazi units that fought against Russia in WWII. They know what Naziism is and they know EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS TO CALL THEMSELVES NATIONAL SOCIALISTS, AND TO WEAR NAZI INSIGNIAS AND TATTOOS.

Quote

2. “They came from far-right groups.”
Also true. The Azov Battalion was partly formed from activists connected to far-right movements in 2014.
That’s already widely documented.

No. They did not come from far-right groups. They were national socialists, and that's a very specific crew.

You're quoting people with an agenda who are lying to the greatest extent that they can to whitewash history.

Here's a specific query:

Quote

These are results for did individual members of the azovs say that they were nazis
Search instead for did individual members of the azovs say that theyw ere nazis

Yes, in the earlier years of the Azov unit's existence (roughly 2014–2015),40 some individual members and leaders made statements acknowledging neo-Nazi ideologies, or held views consistent with white supremacy, according to media reports and international briefings from that time
.
Al Jazeera +2

Key Findings on Past Statements:

"Up to 20 percent": In 2015, an Azov spokesperson, Andriy Diachenko, told USA Today that while the unit was not as a whole neo-Nazi, he estimated that 10% to 20% of the recruits identified as Nazis.

Admiration for Hitler: Journalists in 2014 spoke with fighters in the unit who, while sometimes denying being "Nazis" themselves, expressed admiration for Adolf Hitler as a military leader and questioned the Holocaust.

Founding Members: The unit was initially founded by individuals from far-right groups, including Andriy Biletsky, who in 2010 was reported to have stated that Ukraine's mission was to lead the white races of the world in a "final crusade".

International Recognition of Links: A 2017 Canadian Armed Forces briefing indicated that "multiple members of Azov have described themselves as Nazis".

Symbolism: The early uniform featured the Wolfsangel (Wolf’s Hook), a symbol commonly used by the SS during World War II.

So you have one group who 100% identify as National Socialists, which means Nazis and not one other f'ing other thing on this planet, and they all wear insignias that are 100% Nazi in origin, and a large number of individual members of that group don't even mince words and openly call themselves "Nazis".

They are Nazis. They're as Nazi as they could possibly be without actually sticking their tongues into Hitler's rectum.

Quote

3. “They used Nazi symbols.”
Some early imagery resembled symbols later used by Nazis, like the Wolfsangel.
Important detail you’re leaving out: that symbol existed centuries before Nazi Germany and appears in European heraldry.

Yeah they used Nazi symbols.... While calling themselves "Nazis". What a f'ing coincidence.

Quote

That’s why historians describe the symbolism as associated with neo-Nazis, not proof that the unit itself was Nazi

Wrong. "Historians" do not call them that. People who refuse to acknowledge that they are Nazis call them that.

Left4rd: "HE THINKS THAT HEALTHY 7 MONTH OLD BABIES SHOUDN'T BE ABORTED!! THAT MEANS THAT HE'S A NAZI!!!!"

Normal person: "What about that guy: He calls himself a Nazi, wears Nazi insignias, has Nazi tattoos, he's part of a military unit that identifies as Nazis, and they commits war crimes together, like rape, torture, and murdering POW's."

Leftard: "No, he's not a Nazi, because he is on my side."

Quote

4. “Some had Nazi tattoos.”
Correct. Journalists documented individuals with extremist tattoos.
Again, individuals inside a militia ≠ the ideology of the entire formation.

THAT'S A F'ING 100% LIE, YOU SCUMBAG.

They had NAZI TATTOOS.

N A Z I T A T T O O S

There were not "random extremists tattoos", they were NAZI TATTOOS.

Again, they're not college kids from Vermont. They live in the Ukraine, where Nazis marched. Ukrainians have a "proud" history of having served as Nazis in WWII, to hear them tell it. They know what f'ing Nazi symbols look like, just like you know what the Canadian flag looks like.

If someone says "That's a Canadian flag", when you're both looking at a Canadian flag, you don't say "That's not a Canadian flag, it's just the flag of a country in North America" do you?

Quote

5. “UN confirmed Azov war crimes.”
That’s not what the reports say.
The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights documented allegations involving multiple armed groups in the Donbas war.
They did not conclude Azov was systematically committing war crimes as a unit.

Stop playing semantics you f'ing clown.

The UN, HRW and the US Gov't all thought that the Azovs were committing war crimes. Look at the quote below.

Don't throw in the word "systematically" just so that you can make the case that "they don't commit war crimes every day, so you can't say it."

If you commit a murder, you're a murderer, and you don't have to kill someone every day to retain that title.

FACT: The Azovs committed "A LOT OF VERY SERIOUS WAR CRIMES." See below, regarding the Azovs specifically:

Quote

UN Reports: The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) documented incidents between 2014 and 2016 involving looting of civilian property, unlawful detention, and allegations of torture and rape.

Human Rights Watch (HRW): Years before the 2022 invasion, HRW raised credible allegations of egregious abuses committed by Azov fighters.

U.S. Congressional Ban: Concerns over the unit's neo-Nazi ideology and alleged torture of prisoners of war (POWs) led the U.S. Congress to ban the unit from receiving U.S. military aid in 2018

What does "documented incidents" mean to you? Fairytale stuff?

Quote

6. “Ukraine welcomed Nazi war criminals."

That is correct.

Quote

What actually happened is Ukraine incorporated many volunteer battalions into state command in 2014 to bring them under government control during the war.

Who cares?

If you invite 7 islamic state terrorists to dinner and 3 girl guides, YOU STILL INVITED THE TERRORISTS! 😂

Just because the Ukrainian gov't ALSO INVITED OTHER PEOPLE doesn't mean that they never invited Nazis, dummy. I never said that the Ukrainian gov't was only inviting Nazis. But if I did, your statement would have not have been a lie.

Look, this is never going to end. You're just going to keep lying no matter what, and we both know who the Azovs are.

User · February 26

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

1. The NATO Secretary General, the Chancellor of Germany, the President of the US, the US Secretary of State, all have authority to speak on behalf of their countries, or NATO, in the case of the Sec General.

The President of the US?

Yeah, sure, they can speak all they want, none of them have unilateral authority to engage in any deals for their own countries, let alone all of NATO.

You. Are. Full. Of. Shit.

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

2. All that you keep saying, over and over, is that oaths, guarantees and promises mean nothing to you. It's like you're trying to prove that you're not trustworthy and you have no integrity.

No, I very correctly point out that none of these things were formal agreements binding NATO to anything. They had a formal agreement after this, it was not a part of it.

You are taking historical comments out of context, paraphrasing them, stringing them together, to try to make it into something it never was.

The only person here with no integrity is you.

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Ukraine can go to hell for all I care. NATO is no longer a respectable organization, regardless of how you feel. There are consequences for lying that you are not inherently aware of.

They are not lies, these were all comments made BEFORE any formal agreement was made. If people are in negotiations and make offers and comments that are not part of the final agreed-upon deal, they are not liars, nor are they liars when they have no capacity to behold NATO to anything they said.

If you or the Soviets or the Russians are too stupid to grasp this concept, that is on you and them.

User · February 26

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

That is 100% false, like almost everything else you say about Russia, Nazis and Ukraine.

Nope.

1. “The groups were National Socialists.”
Some founding figures came from far-right organizations like the Social-National Assembly and Patriot of Ukraine. That’s documented.
That still isn’t the same as saying the entire Azov unit officially declared itself a Nazi organization.

2. Size of extremist ideology inside Azov.
In 2015 an Azov spokesperson told USA Today that about 10–20% of members identified as Nazis.
Even if you take that estimate at face value, it means most members did not.

3. Symbols.
Yes, the early emblem resembled a Wolfsangel and there were extremist symbols among some fighters.
That’s widely reported.
But that symbol existed long before Nazi Germany and appears in other historical contexts. That’s why reporting describes it as associated with neo-Nazis, not proof that the entire unit is Nazi.

4. Tattoos and individuals.
Some fighters had Nazi tattoos. True.
That still describes individual members, not the ideology of thousands of later recruits.

5. War-crime allegations.
The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights documented abuses in the Donbas war involving many armed groups.
Some incidents involved Azov members.
Those reports did not conclude that Azov as a whole systematically committed war crimes.

6. Integration into Ukraine’s forces.
Ukraine incorporated multiple volunteer battalions in 2014 to bring them under state control during an active war.
Azov was one of many units integrated that way.

Bottom line:
Early Azov had far-right members and controversial symbolism.
That is already widely documented.

What isn’t supported by the evidence is the claim that the entire unit, or Ukraine’s military as a whole, is Nazi.

Repeating “some members were extremists” doesn’t change that distinction.

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Look, this is never going to end. You're just going to keep lying no matter what, and we both know who the Azovs are.

Of course it will end, because you will run away like the coward you are and then come back a few months from now pushing this same BS and we will do this all over again.

WestCanMan · February 26

12 hours ago, User said:

The President of the US?

Yeah, sure, they can speak all they want, none of them have unilateral authority to engage in any deals for their own countries, let alone all of NATO.

You. Are. Full. Of. Shit.

No, I very correctly point out that none of these things were formal agreements binding NATO to anything. They had a formal agreement after this, it was not a part of it.

You are taking historical comments out of context, paraphrasing them, stringing them together, to try to make it into something it never was.

The only person here with no integrity is you.

They are not lies, these were all comments made BEFORE any formal agreement was made. If people are in negotiations and make offers and comments that are not part of the final agreed-upon deal, they are not liars, nor are they liars when they have no capacity to behold NATO to anything they said.

If you or the Soviets or the Russians are too stupid to grasp this concept, that is on you and them.

Nothing changed. The Preident, Secretary of State, Nato Secretary General and German Chancellor all made promises that were 100% ignored.

We lied. 100%. And it's pathetic that you don't see it as lying when we said one thing and did the opposite.

How often do you promise people something and then do the exact opposite? You seem really comfortable with that.

User: "Hey kids, we're going to Disneyland tomorrow!"

Next day: "Just kidding. I'm going to the bar to get drunk and Uncle Willy is gonna babysit you."

WestCanMan · February 26

12 hours ago, User said:

Nope.

1. “The groups were National Socialists.”
Some founding figures came from far-right organizations like the Social-National Assembly and Patriot of Ukraine. That’s documented.
That still isn’t the same as saying the entire Azov unit officially declared itself a Nazi organization.

Don't change the question in order to score partial points.

The fact is that "The Ukrainian army took a Nazi Battalion into the fold."

You're trying to contend that "One of the two group was just violent white supremacists, the other group were Nazis, so it was just a 50% Nazi group, not 100", which is pathetic enough, but the fact is

"ALL OF THE AZOVS WORE NAZI SYMBOLS ON THEIR UNIFORMS, AND EVERY SINGLE AZOV NAZI KNEW WHAT THOSE SYMBOLS MEANT"!
THE UN HIGH COMMISSION SAYS THAT THE AZOV NAZIS COMMITTED WAR CRIMES, INCLUDING RAPE AND TORTURE IN 2014 & 2015."

Nationalist · February 26

11 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Don't change the question in order to score partial points.

The fact is that "The Ukrainian army took a Nazi Battalion into the fold."

You're trying to contend that "One of the two group was just violent white supremacists, the other group were Nazis, so it was just a 50% Nazi group, not 100", which is pathetic enough, but the fact is

"ALL OF THE AZOVS WORE NAZI SYMBOLS ON THEIR UNIFORMS, AND EVERY SINGLE AZOV NAZI KNEW WHAT THOSE SYMBOLS MEANT"!

THE UN HIGH COMMISSION SAYS THAT THE AZOV NAZIS COMMITTED WAR CRIMES, INCLUDING RAPE AND TORTURE IN 2014 & 2015."

This happens to be true. There's no candy-coating it .

User · February 26

37 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

User: "Hey kids, we're going to Disneyland tomorrow!"

Next day: "Just kidding. I'm going to the bar to get drunk and Uncle Willy is gonna babysit you."

No, not t would be like some dad telling every kid in Florida they will never go to Disney Land in California, not one inch past Disney World! Never! For all time!

And then you 50 years later saying that every dad in the country is now a liar because they didn’t follow his promise.

No one lied about anything as they never had the power to hold NATO for all eternity to any such “promise” because it was never a promise or deal that was formalized.

User · February 26

38 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Don't change the question in order to score partial points.

You’re repeating the same claim and treating it as proof. It isn’t.

1. “Ukraine took a Nazi battalion into the army.”
False. The Azov Battalion was a volunteer militia formed in 2014 that included some far-right members.
That is not the same thing as the unit being officially a Nazi organization.

2. Even Azov’s own spokesperson contradicts your claim.
In 2015 Azov spokesman Andriy Diachenko said 10–20% of members identified as Nazis.
That alone disproves your claim that the entire unit was Nazi.

3. “ALL of them wore Nazi symbols.”
Also false.
The unit’s emblem was a stylized Wolfsangel-like symbol used by the battalion.
Individual fighters sometimes displayed extremist symbols, but it was not true that every member wore Nazi insignia.

4. The Wolfsangel argument doesn’t prove what you think it proves.
The symbol existed centuries before Nazi Germany and appears in European heraldry.
Nazis used it, but they did not invent it.

5. UN reports.
The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights documented abuses by multiple sides in the Donbas war.
Some allegations involved Azov members.
The UN did not declare Azov a Nazi unit or say every member committed war crimes.

6. What actually happened in 2014.
Ukraine incorporated many volunteer battalions into the National Guard to put them under state control during the war.
Azov was one of several units integrated this way.

The mistake you keep making

You take this fact:

• Some early Azov members were extremists.

And jump to this claim:

• Therefore the entire battalion was Nazi.

That conclusion simply doesn’t follow from the evidence.

27 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

This happens to be true. There's no candy-coating it .

You too cheer on Russia and don’t say a word about their war crimes and the crap they do… but sit here crying about the Azov battalion?

WestCanMan · February 26

4 minutes ago, User said:

No, not t would be like some dad telling every kid in Florida they will never go to Disney Land in California, not one inch past Disney World! Never! For all time!

And then you 50 years later saying that every dad in the country is now a liar because they didn’t follow his promise.

No one lied about anything as they never had the power to hold NATO for all eternity to any such “promise” because it was never a promise or deal that was formalized.

That's just stupid.

Here's a thing, User... Why don't you get some Nazi tattoos on your arm, wear a shirt and hat with Nazi insignias on them, and chant white supremacist slogans? What's preventing you from doing that, if doing those things doesn't mean that you're a Nazi? You can just tell people that you're supporting the Azovs.

And if they're cultists, like you, they will believe you.

See if you can get a job at a daycare that's not run by Somalis while you're doing all that, User.

Would someone who's not a Nazi do all of those things? Plus commit serious war crimes? Would they really?

Who on God's green earth would wear Nazi insignias, and stay in a group of people where 20% of them PUBLICLY ADMIT TO BEING NAZIS (and how many others say it in secrecy?), and at the very least every other person in that group is a violent white supremacist?

Again, The Asoz Nazi Battalion:

ALL wore NAZI insignias, on their uniforms, in public, in a country where everyone knew that they were Nazi insignias
are ALL violent white supremacists, to the very last man
had as many as 50% of their group identifying as "National Socialists", which means "Nazi", and nothing else
20% of them OPENLY called themselves "Nazis", and at least 30% of the others would have called themselves Nazis in secret as well, because they were already admitting to being "national socialists" while wearing Nazi emblems. So it's not unlikely that they ALL called themselves Nazis in private.
They had Nazi tattoos
The UN High Commission was saying that they were serious war criminals when Ukraine brought them into their army.

Again, the Azovs themselves get to determine whether or not they are Nazis, and they were all wearing the Nazi insignias. They only stopped bragging about being Nazis when they found out that they had to stop in order to get billions of dollars from the US and Europe.

US and Europe: "Here's $200B if you stop calling yourselves Nazis."

Azovs: "WE LOVE JEWWWWWWS!!! WE LOVE NI BLACKS!!! WE LOVE ALL OF THE INFERIOR RACES!!!!!"

Nationalist · February 26

32 minutes ago, User said:

You’re repeating the same claim and treating it as proof. It isn’t.

1. “Ukraine took a Nazi battalion into the army.”
False. The Azov Battalion was a volunteer militia formed in 2014 that included some far-right members.
That is not the same thing as the unit being officially a Nazi organization.

2. Even Azov’s own spokesperson contradicts your claim.
In 2015 Azov spokesman Andriy Diachenko said 10–20% of members identified as Nazis.
That alone disproves your claim that the entire unit was Nazi.

3. “ALL of them wore Nazi symbols.”
Also false.
The unit’s emblem was a stylized Wolfsangel-like symbol used by the battalion.
Individual fighters sometimes displayed extremist symbols, but it was not true that every member wore Nazi insignia.

4. The Wolfsangel argument doesn’t prove what you think it proves.
The symbol existed centuries before Nazi Germany and appears in European heraldry.
Nazis used it, but they did not invent it.

5. UN reports.
The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights documented abuses by multiple sides in the Donbas war.
Some allegations involved Azov members.
The UN did not declare Azov a Nazi unit or say every member committed war crimes.

6. What actually happened in 2014.
Ukraine incorporated many volunteer battalions into the National Guard to put them under state control during the war.
Azov was one of several units integrated this way.

The mistake you keep making

You take this fact:

• Some early Azov members were extremists.

And jump to this claim:

• Therefore the entire battalion was Nazi.

That conclusion simply doesn’t follow from the evidence.

You too cheer on Russia and don’t say a word about their war crimes and the crap they do… but sit here crying about the Azov battalion?

Ya...sure...

Face it. Its true. Why would you defend neo-nazis? Hell both our governments...and populations...knew what they were and still are.

I assume you ignore that because they opposed Russians inside Ukraine. You do seem to have a rather...negative impression of them.

Im curious...have you ever been to Russia or known any Russians? Ever been to Ukraine, for that matter? You know little to nothing about these cultures, I suspect. If you did, you'd know that:

A. Russians are boisterous and fiercely patriotic.

B. Ukraine has always had a fascist influence. Just ask Zelinsky's parents. Or any old Jews still in Ukraine.

Edited February 26 by Nationalist

User · February 26

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Ya...sure...

Face it. Its true. Why would you defend neo-nazis? Hell both our governments...and populations...knew what they were and still are.

I assume you ignore that because they opposed Russians inside Ukraine. You do seem to have a rather...negative impression of them.

Im curious...have you ever been to Russia or known any Russians? Ever been to Ukraine, for that matter? You know little to nothing about these cultures, I suspect. If you did, you'd know that:

A. Russians are boisterous and fiercely patriotic.

B. Ukraine has always had a fascist influence. Just ask Zelinsky's parents. Or any old Jews still in Ukraine.

Yes, you ignore Russia and their war crimes while you sit here trying to pretend to be upset about this battalion.

im not defending neo Nazis, this is your dumb game, the same crap a leftist would say. I’m pointing out the facts and even then, the whole point of this is still that you two are somehow trying to use this to say Russia was justified in invading Ukraine, which is dumb.

User · February 26

22 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Again, The Asoz Nazi Battalion:

You keep repeating the same claims and adding guesses on top of them. That isn’t evidence.

1. “ALL wore Nazi insignias.”
No. That’s simply not supported by reporting or photos of the unit over time. The Azov Battalion had a unit emblem used on uniforms. Individual fighters sometimes displayed extremist symbols. Those are not the same thing, no matter how many capital letters you use.

2. “They were all white supremacists.”
Also unsupported. Azov eventually had thousands of members, including people from different regions of Ukraine and even foreign volunteers who were not part of any neo-Nazi movement. Saying “every single one” believed the same ideology is just you asserting it.

3. Your own source contradicts you.
You keep citing the statement that 10–20% identified as Nazis.
Math still works the same way online as it does offline.
If 10–20% say they’re Nazis, that means 80–90% did not.

4. Guessing what people “secretly believed.”
Claiming the rest were “probably Nazis in private” is speculation, not evidence. You can’t turn a guess into a fact by yelling it.

5. Symbols.
The Wolfsangel symbol existed long before Nazi Germany and appears in European heraldry. Nazis used it, which is why it’s controversial today, but its existence in other contexts is a historical fact whether you like it or not.

6. War crimes claim.
The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights documented abuses during the Donbas war by multiple armed groups. Some allegations involved Azov fighters. That is very different from “the UN declared an entire battalion Nazi war criminals.”

7. Ukraine integrating the unit.
Ukraine integrated many volunteer battalions into the National Guard in 2014 during an active invasion and internal conflict. Azov was one of several units brought under state command.

The core issue

You keep doing the same thing:

• Some extremists were in the unit.
• Therefore every member must be a Nazi.

That leap just isn’t supported by the evidence. Repeating it louder doesn’t fix the logic.

And honestly, inventing numbers about who was “secretly a Nazi” isn’t an argument. It’s fan fiction.

Nationalist · February 26

1 hour ago, User said:

Yes, you ignore Russia and their war crimes while you sit here trying to pretend to be upset about this battalion.

im not defending neo Nazis, this is your dumb game, the same crap a leftist would say. I’m pointing out the facts and even then, the whole point of this is still that you two are somehow trying to use this to say Russia was justified in invading Ukraine, which is dumb.

Im only upset about the NATO entanglement. But I do choose to form my opinions based on reality.

Justified? Meh...I dont know if it's all justified. I do know what happened and understand that context is rather important.

WestCanMan · February 26

41 minutes ago, User said:

You keep repeating the same claims and adding guesses on top of them. That isn’t evidence.

1. “ALL wore Nazi insignias.”
No. That’s simply not supported by reporting or photos of the unit over time. The Azov Battalion had a unit emblem used on uniforms. Individual fighters sometimes displayed extremist symbols. Those are not the same thing, no matter how many capital letters you use.

2. “They were all white supremacists.”
Also unsupported. Azov eventually had thousands of members, including people from different regions of Ukraine and even foreign volunteers who were not part of any neo-Nazi movement. Saying “every single one” believed the same ideology is just you asserting it.

3. Your own source contradicts you.
You keep citing the statement that 10–20% identified as Nazis.
Math still works the same way online as it does offline.
If 10–20% say they’re Nazis, that means 80–90% did not.

4. Guessing what people “secretly believed.”
Claiming the rest were “probably Nazis in private” is speculation, not evidence. You can’t turn a guess into a fact by yelling it.

5. Symbols.
The Wolfsangel symbol existed long before Nazi Germany and appears in European heraldry. Nazis used it, which is why it’s controversial today, but its existence in other contexts is a historical fact whether you like it or not.

6. War crimes claim.
The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights documented abuses during the Donbas war by multiple armed groups. Some allegations involved Azov fighters. That is very different from “the UN declared an entire battalion Nazi war criminals.”

7. Ukraine integrating the unit.
Ukraine integrated many volunteer battalions into the National Guard in 2014 during an active invasion and internal conflict. Azov was one of several units brought under state command.

The core issue

You keep doing the same thing:

• Some extremists were in the unit.
• Therefore every member must be a Nazi.

That leap just isn’t supported by the evidence. Repeating it louder doesn’t fix the logic.

And honestly, inventing numbers about who was “secretly a Nazi” isn’t an argument. It’s fan fiction.

From Google AI, a known whitewasher of the historical record:

Yes, the original insignia of the Azov Battalion featured symbols that are strongly associated with Nazism, specifically the Wolfsangel (Wolf’s Hook) and, in some variations, the Black Sun (Sonnenrad).

While the unit has moved to rebrand and distance itself from this ideology as it was integrated into the Ukrainian National Guard, the early, and at times enduring, use of these symbols caused widespread recognition of the group as a far-right, neo-Nazi affiliated formation.

You don't get to change the meaning of those symbols. They are what they are. Their association with the Nazis is unbreakable, and to wear those symbols is to identify yourself as a Nazi. Or neo-Nai, if you prefer.

Quote

2. “They were all white supremacists.”
Also unsupported. Azov eventually had thousands of members, including people from different regions of Ukraine and even foreign volunteers who were not part of any neo-Nazi movement. Saying “every single one” believed the same ideology is just you asserting it.

Of the 2 founding groups, one was a Nazi group ("national Socialists"), the other was a white supremacist group.

Stop trying to split hairs. If you wanna say that "one group was somehow 1% better than the other group", I will grant you that much.

So, would you join forces with one of those groups, or with someone else? Maybe don't answer that.

Quote

3. Your own source contradicts you.
You keep citing the statement that 10–20% identified as Nazis.
Math still works the same way online as it does offline.
If 10–20% say they’re Nazis, that means 80–90% did not.

It doesn't mean that AT ALL you f'ing ******.

20% OPENLY ADMIT TO BEING "NAZIS". They used the "N" word to describe themselves.

50% were openly calling themselves "National Socialists". Please tell me that you know what that means by now... It means that they were using a cuter term for "Nazi". One that they could use in America that would make the Bernie Sanders crowd fall in love with them, but which also meant NAZI. It's like calling yourself a Canuck instead of a Canadian. Eiether way, you're still a Canadian, but to the uninformed, they might be thrown off track, and never bother to question it.

So now we're up to "50% identified as Nazis PUBLICLY, even if they used a cutesier term for it" and then the other 50% were "White Supremacists who agreed to wear Nazi symbols and join forces with a Nazi group."

But you are declaratively stating that YOU KNOW FOR CERTAIN that "none of the guys who were white supremacists, and agreed to wear Nazi symbols and join forces with self-proclaimed Nazis also considered themselves Nazis"?

Is that accurate enough for you?

Fine: I will agree that "50% identified as Nazis PUBLICLY, and the other 50% were just run-of-the-mill violent white supremacists who agreed to wear Nazi symbols and join forces with self-proclaimed Nazis and commit war crimes with them, but considered themselves to be somehow better than their avowed Nazi brothers".

Are we done now?

Quote

4. Guessing what people “secretly believed.”
Claiming the rest were “probably Nazis in private” is speculation, not evidence. You can’t turn a guess into a fact by yelling it.

It's not a guess, it's just statistics, dummy.

If 100 white supremacists join forces with 100 Nazis and adopt Nazi insignias, at the very LEAST a simple majority would have to be willing to be identified as Nazis when they put that symbol on their chest.

Quote

5. Symbols.
The Wolfsangel symbol existed long before Nazi Germany and appears in European heraldry. Nazis used it, which is why it’s controversial today, but its existence in other contexts is a historical fact whether you like it or not.

The swastika also existed long before Naziism, and who would wear a swastika in NA or Europe now, aside from Nazis?

The symbols that you are talking about are STRONGLY, EVEN EXCLUSIVELY KNOWN AS NAZI SYMBOLS and have been for 80 years. Just because a European heraldry history nerd can name a group who used it 300 years ago doesn't mean that that's what anyone else in the world sees.

Azov Nazis chose Nazi symbols, period. It's not a coincidence you f'ing cultist sap.

Quote

6. War crimes claim.
The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights documented abuses during the Donbas war ~~Some allegations involved~~ by Azov fighters.

Who cares what other people did? I said the Azov Nazis were war criminals, because they are.

Quote

7. Ukraine integrating the unit.
Ukraine integrated many volunteer battalions into the National Guard in 2014 during an active invasion and internal conflict. Azov was one of several units brought under state command.

When you went to the playground in school, and there were 10 kids there, did you make friends with them all? Even the 3 kids who were beating minority kids unconscious?

Does it make it ok that you befriended the Nazis at your school, because you also befriended other kids?

Most of us are choosier than you. Most of us don't have Nazis over for dinner.

Quote

The core issue

You keep doing the same thing:

No, the core issue is you keep lying, and minimizing. Which is also lying.

Quote

• Some extremists were in the unit.

More accurately, the unit was formed by 2 groups: a Nazi group and a violent white supremacist group. The group wore Nazi symbols and committed war crimes.

Quote

• Therefore every member must be a Nazi.

The vast majority were self-proclaimed Nazis, the rest just wore the symbols and committed war crimes with Nazis, "but somehow better" lol.

Quote

And honestly, inventing numbers about who was “secretly a Nazi” isn’t an argument. It’s fan fiction.

If you join up with a Nazi group, and wear Nazi symbols yourself, and commit war crimes with the Nazis, people will consider you a Nazi whether you like it or not. There's no denying that.

Don't wear Nazi symbols and hang with Nazis if you don't want to be called a Nazi. Make sense?

User · February 26

45 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Im only upset about the NATO entanglement. But I do choose to form my opinions based on reality.

Justified? Meh...I dont know if it's all justified. I do know what happened and understand that context is rather important.

No, you push lies and propaganda to support Russia.

Your criticism only goes one way, never towards Russia.

To that point, this whole dumb argument right now is over one small battalions actions while Russia has systematically engaged in far worse at all levels.

User · February 26

37 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Don't wear Nazi symbols and hang with Nazis if you don't want to be called a Nazi. Make sense?

You’re arguing with a version of reality that mostly exists in your own head. Let’s stick to verifiable facts.

1. “The unit was a Nazi battalion.”
No credible government, military study, or major research institute classifies the Azov Battalion as an official Nazi organization.
What they say is what has already been stated: it had far-right members, especially early on.

2. Your numbers still contradict your claim.
You keep citing the estimate that 10–20% identified as Nazis.
That literally disproves the statement that everyone in the unit was a Nazi.

3. “50% were National Socialists.”
That number does not appear in credible reporting about Azov. You added it.
If you have a real source, quote it. Otherwise it’s just a number you invented mid-argument.

4. Symbols do not magically rewrite membership.
Yes, the Wolfsangel and Black Sun are widely associated with neo-Nazis today.
That’s exactly why they were controversial.
But a controversial emblem does not turn thousands of later recruits into Nazis by default.

5. Your “statistics” argument isn’t statistics.
You can’t take:
• some extremists present
and convert it into:
• therefore everyone secretly agrees with them.

That’s not math. That’s guessing.

6. UN reports.
The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights documented abuses in the Donbas war involving multiple armed groups, including Ukrainian units and Russian-backed forces.
Some allegations involved Azov members.
That still isn’t the same thing as the UN declaring “the Azov battalion are Nazis.”

7. Reality of the unit after 2014.
By the time Azov was part of Ukraine’s National Guard, the unit had thousands of members, normal military command, and recruits who had nothing to do with the original activist groups.

The part you keep ignoring

Three things can be true at once:

• Some early Azov members were extremists.
• The unit used controversial symbols.
• That still does not make every soldier in the unit a Nazi.

You keep trying to force those into one sentence because it makes the argument easier. Reality is messier than that.

And yelling “ALL OF THEM WERE NAZIS” over and over doesn’t turn it into a historical fact. It just turns the volume up.

WestCanMan · February 26

37 minutes ago, User said:

You’re arguing with a version of reality that mostly exists in your own head. Let’s stick to verifiable facts.

1. “The unit was a Nazi battalion.”
No credible government, military study, or major research institute classifies the Azov Battalion as an official Nazi organization.
What they say is what has already been stated: it had far-right members, especially early on.

2. Your numbers still contradict your claim.
You keep citing the estimate that 10–20% identified as Nazis.
That literally disproves the statement that everyone in the unit was a Nazi.

3. “50% were National Socialists.”
That number does not appear in credible reporting about Azov. You added it.
If you have a real source, quote it. Otherwise it’s just a number you invented mid-argument.

4. Symbols do not magically rewrite membership.
Yes, the Wolfsangel and Black Sun are widely associated with neo-Nazis today.
That’s exactly why they were controversial.
But a controversial emblem does not turn thousands of later recruits into Nazis by default.

5. Your “statistics” argument isn’t statistics.
You can’t take:
• some extremists present
and convert it into:
• therefore everyone secretly agrees with them.

That’s not math. That’s guessing.

6. UN reports.
The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights documented abuses in the Donbas war involving multiple armed groups, including Ukrainian units and Russian-backed forces.
Some allegations involved Azov members.
That still isn’t the same thing as the UN declaring “the Azov battalion are Nazis.”

7. Reality of the unit after 2014.
By the time Azov was part of Ukraine’s National Guard, the unit had thousands of members, normal military command, and recruits who had nothing to do with the original activist groups.

The part you keep ignoring

Three things can be true at once:

• Some early Azov members were extremists.
• The unit used controversial symbols.
• That still does not make every soldier in the unit a Nazi.

You keep trying to force those into one sentence because it makes the argument easier. Reality is messier than that.

And yelling “ALL OF THEM WERE NAZIS” over and over doesn’t turn it into a historical fact. It just turns the volume up.

From Google AI, a known whitewasher of the historical record:

Yes, the original insignia of the Azov Battalion featured symbols that are strongly associated with Nazism, specifically the Wolfsangel (Wolf’s Hook) and, in some variations, the Black Sun (Sonnenrad).

While the unit has moved to rebrand and distance itself from this ideology as it was integrated into the Ukrainian National Guard, the early, and at times enduring, use of these symbols caused widespread recognition of the group as a far-right, neo-Nazi affiliated formation.