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

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, User said:

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. 
 

 

Lies? Like?

 

[User]

13 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Lies? Like?

 

Oh please. Go back to the Ukraine war thread…

[Nationalist]

29 minutes ago, User said:

Oh please. Go back to the Ukraine war thread…

To see what? 

[User]

35 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

To see what? 

What are you here talking about? 

[Nationalist]

3 minutes ago, User said:

What are you here talking about? 

Lol...ok...

[WestCanMan]

7 hours ago, User said:

I see you have gotten to the point of the discussion where you have given up. 

I got to the point of the conversation where I just keep re-posting facts that you can't challenge.

Bottom line, the makeup of your beloved Azov Nazi Battalion is like this:

1. 50% of the people who formed the group called themselves "National Socialists", as in "National Socialist German Workers' Party", which is the formal name of the Nazi party. They had Nazi tattoos and wore Nazi insignias as well. They also committed war crimes. It doesn't get any more Nazi than that. They were Nazis, through and through.
2. The other half of the people who formed the Azov Nazi Battalion didn't admit to being Nazis at that time, but they were violent white supremacists who agreed to adopt Nazi insignias and join up with known Nazis. If you join a group of Nazis and wear Nazi insignias, what does that make you?  
3. 20% of the people in the Azov Nazi Battalion just came right out and admitted that they were actual Nazis, which is not a small thing to do: it instantly heaps a lot of severe hatred on oneself. You have to be in an area where Nazis are fairly popular to walk around admitting to being a Nazi. 

You're not the first person to support Nazis, User. And fascism is actually extremely popular in Canada, even if Canadians don't want to admit it. 

[User]

4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I got to the point of the conversation where I just keep re-posting facts that you can't challenge.

Except I responded to them point by point, used pretty bold words and dividers, and all for you. 

6 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Bottom line, the makeup of your beloved Azov Nazi Battalion is like this:

Let me do it again for you, I will respond point by point with pretty format and everything for you:

You keep repeating claims that aren’t supported by evidence.

1. “50% were National Socialists.”
There is no credible source showing half the unit identified that way. None.
The only widely cited number is that an Azov spokesman said about 10–20% identified as Nazis in 2015. That directly contradicts your claim.

2. “So the battalion was Nazi.”
That conclusion doesn’t follow.
Militias and armies often contain extremists without the entire unit sharing the ideology. Researchers consistently describe the Azov Battalion as a unit that had far-right members, not a Nazi organization.

3. “Everyone wore Nazi symbols.”
Also incorrect.
The unit had a single official emblem, and individuals sometimes displayed extremist imagery.
Those are not the same thing, even if you keep insisting they are.

4. “If you join them you’re automatically a Nazi.”
That’s your personal rule, not history.
By the time the unit expanded and joined Ukraine’s National Guard, it had thousands of members with different motivations, many simply fighting in the war.

5. War crimes allegations.
Reports by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights documented abuses in the Donbas conflict by multiple armed groups on all sides.
Some allegations involved Azov fighters. That still doesn’t turn every member into a Nazi.

---

The core problem with your argument

You start with a real point:

• Some extremists were involved in the early unit.

Then you stretch it into:

• Therefore half or all of them were Nazis.

That leap isn’t supported by the evidence. Repeating it doesn’t make it true.
 

6 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You're not the first person to support Nazis, User. And fascism is actually extremely popular in Canada, even if Canadians don't want to admit it. 

I don't support Nazi's, but you are the one here supporting Putin. 

[WestCanMan]

10 hours ago, User said:

Except I responded to them point by point, used pretty bold words and dividers, and all for you. 

Let me do it again for you, I will respond point by point with pretty format and everything for you:

You keep repeating claims that aren’t supported by evidence.

1. “50% were National Socialists.”
There is no credible source showing half the unit identified that way. None.
The only widely cited number is that an Azov spokesman said about 10–20% identified as Nazis in 2015. That directly contradicts your claim.

2. “So the battalion was Nazi.”
That conclusion doesn’t follow.
Militias and armies often contain extremists without the entire unit sharing the ideology. Researchers consistently describe the Azov Battalion as a unit that had far-right members, not a Nazi organization.

3. “Everyone wore Nazi symbols.”
Also incorrect.
The unit had a single official emblem, and individuals sometimes displayed extremist imagery.
Those are not the same thing, even if you keep insisting they are.

4. “If you join them you’re automatically a Nazi.”
That’s your personal rule, not history.
By the time the unit expanded and joined Ukraine’s National Guard, it had thousands of members with different motivations, many simply fighting in the war.

5. War crimes allegations.
Reports by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights documented abuses in the Donbas conflict by multiple armed groups on all sides.
Some allegations involved Azov fighters. That still doesn’t turn every member into a Nazi.

---

The core problem with your argument

You start with a real point:

• Some extremists were involved in the early unit.

Then you stretch it into:

• Therefore half or all of them were Nazis.

That leap isn’t supported by the evidence. Repeating it doesn’t make it true.
 

I don't support Nazi's, but you are the one here supporting Putin. 

Id10t, Here's who formed the group:

• The Azov Battalion (now the 12th Special Forces Brigade "Azov" of the National Guard of Ukraine) was formed in May 2014 in Berdiansk as a volunteer police battalion. 
• The group was formed from several key far-right and ultra-nationalist elements

• 1) Patriot of Ukraine: A neo-Nazi, ultra-nationalist organization that acted as the core of the new battalion.
• 2) Social-National Assembly (SNA): An umbrella organization for various far-right, ultranationalist groups that, along with Patriot of Ukraine, formed the foundation of the unit.

 

Patriot of Ukraine -> neo Nazis

"Social National Assembly". Hmmmm, who were the National Socialist German Party? Oh yeah, the Nazis.

Neo-Nazis plus National Socialists = Nazis and more Nazis. 

So a group of Nazis joined with another group of Nazis and they all wore TWO Nazi insignias, and they committed war crimes together, but BY DECREE of USER, they aren't allowed to call themselves Nazis because @User says so 😂

Twat.

[User]

53 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

they aren't allowed to call themselves Nazis

More of your usual dishonesty and repeating the same garbage before, here you go again. 

 

1. “Patriot of Ukraine = therefore the whole battalion was Nazi.”
Patriot of Ukraine was a far-right organization. Correct.
But the Azov Battalion did not remain a small activist group. Within months it expanded with volunteers, police units, and later National Guard recruits.

So your argument is basically:
“Some founders were extremists → therefore thousands of later members must be too.”

That’s not analysis. That’s lazy logic.

---

2. “Social-National Assembly = Nazis because the words sound similar.”
This is where your argument falls apart.

“Social-National Assembly” is not the same thing as the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.
Matching two words and declaring victory isn’t history. It’s word association.

By that standard, North Korea would be democratic because it has ‘Democratic’ in the name.

---

3. “Two Nazi groups joined.”
No serious researcher describes it that way.

What historians actually say:

• The battalion drew from ultranationalist and far-right activists, especially early on.
• It then rapidly expanded beyond those networks during the war.

You keep pretending the roster froze on day one.

It didn’t.

---

4. “Everyone wore Nazi insignias.”
Again, not supported by evidence.

The unit had a single emblem used on uniforms.
Some early imagery had symbols associated with neo-Nazis.
That’s why it was controversial and widely reported.

But “everyone wore Nazi insignias” is something you’re repeating, not something documented.

---

5. “They committed war crimes so they’re Nazis.”
War crimes unfortunately happen in many wars.

The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights documented abuses by multiple sides in the Donbas conflict.
Some allegations involved Azov fighters.

That does not magically redefine the entire unit’s ideology.

---

The part you keep dodging

Even the sources you quote say only a fraction identified as Nazis.

You then inflate that into:

• half
• most
• all
• secretly all

That isn’t evidence. It’s escalation.

---

Reality in one sentence

Early Azov had far-right founders and controversial symbolism.
The unit later expanded into a much larger National Guard formation.

Both of those things are true whether shouting about it online feels satisfying or not.

---

And honestly, if your argument relies on guessing what thousands of people “secretly believed,” you’ve already left the evidence behind and wandered into fan fiction.

[WestCanMan]

9 minutes ago, User said:

More of your usual dishonesty and repeating the same garbage before, here you go again. 

1. “Patriot of Ukraine = therefore the whole battalion was Nazi.”
Patriot of Ukraine was a far-right organization. Correct.
But the Azov Battalion did not remain a small activist group. Within months it expanded with volunteers, police units, and later National Guard recruits.

So your argument is basically:
“Some founders were extremists → therefore thousands of later members must be too.”

That’s not analysis. That’s lazy logic.

Lol. You call me dishonest, then the very next thing you say is a total lie.

FYI Patriot of Ukraine isn't "far right". Noooooot at all. They were "neo-Nazi". It's important not to mix the two up, because anyone with a firmer anti-LPoC stance than Poilievre is considered "far right" here, and that doesn't make them neo-Nazis by a bajillion miles. 

And FYI the neo prefix doesn't diminish the Naziism aspect at all, it just means in "new". They're "new" Nazis, as opposed to Nazis who were working for Hitler in the '40s. People within those "neo-Nazi" groups don't call themselves neo-Nazis, they just call themselves Nazis, like the Azov Nazi Battalion did before they had to change the optics to make way for billions of dollars to flow into Ukraine.

This is from Wiki, not from 'me' personally:

1.  Patriot of Ukraine: A neo-Nazi, ultra-nationalist organization that acted as the core of the new battalion.
2. Social-National Assembly (SNA): An umbrella organization for various far-right, ultranationalist groups that, along with Patriot of Ukraine, formed the foundation of the unit.

That's two Nazi groups. Neo-Nazis, and National Socialists, which is a cuter name for Nazi, and nothing else.

What is written there^, by me, is a 100% accurate reflection of the actual historical record.

What you're doing is trying to whitewash the historical record to remove the Nazi aspect from the Azov Nazi Battalion.

Again: the Azovs themselves were in charge of determining whether or not they were Nazis, and they left no doubt: they called themselves Nazis and National Socialists (Nazis again), they wore Nazi insignias, and they acted exactly like Nazis... They raped and tortured POW's who were wearing military uniforms, and therefor should have been protected by the Geneva Conventions. 

 

I don't know what your problem is with this. It's cut-and-dried: the Azov Nazi Battalion were Nazis, and there's no room to dispute that claim rationally. 

Are you ethnic Ukrainian? Is that your problem? You want to expunge the record of any association between Ukraine and Naziism? 

Well here's a chill pill for you: back in the 1930s and '40s, when Ukrainians were deciding between fighting Hitler and fighting Stalin, Ukrainians had WAY MORE REASONS TO HATE STALIN THAN HITLER, and it's not even close. Stalin was responsible for killing anywhere from 3.5M Ukrainians (the very lowest estimate) to 10M Ukrainians (highest estimate) by forced starvation in the 1930s and before Hitler was even a big name, and Hitler hadn't done anything close to that to the Ukrainians yet. Not only did Stalin take all the food out of Ukraine in the '30s, he blocked the border to stop food from getting into Ukraine, and his soldiers killed tens of thousands of people to enforce those food blockades. 

So, did Ukrainians "proudly" call themselves Nazis, so that they could kill Russians during WWII? 100%. Is it understandable? 1,000%. Of all the forces that aligned themselves with Hitler in WWII, the Ukrainians are the only ones with a good excuse, and their excuse was awesome. I woulda done it too back then. It wasn't until after WWII that the world really learned how bad the Nazis actually were. There were even a lot of people in the German army who had no clue about the horrors of Dachau and Auschwitz, just like vax-fascists in Canada have no clue how far into actual fascism we were here in 2021 and early 2022. 

BUT, in the 2020s, when the Azov Nazi Battalion declared themselves to be Nazis, there was NO EXCUSE FOR CALLING ONESELF A NAZI anymore. Not at all. The Azovs were not "taking on a shiny new military name just so that they could fight against a Russian dictator who killed millions of their people, including family members", the Azovs were taking on a name "entirely synonymous with violent bigotry and genocide".  They took the name and the insignias. There's no mistaking what they did for "being kinda like Nazis". They went all-in. They crossed the Rubicon when they committed war crimes. They are what they are. 

[User]

25 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Lol. You call me dishonest, then the very next thing you say is a total lie.

You really need to learn what a Venn Diagram is and the basics of logic. 

You’re calling things lies because you’re missing some really basic logic.

1. “Patriot of Ukraine wasn’t far-right, it was neo-Nazi.”

This isn’t the gotcha you think it is.

Neo-Nazis are part of the far right.
That’s how political classification works.

Simple version:

Far-right
→ includes ultranationalists
→ includes white supremacists
→ includes neo-Nazis

So saying a group is far-right does not exclude it from also being neo-Nazi. It’s the broader category.

Arguing otherwise is like saying calling a tiger a mammal is false because it’s actually a tiger.

---

2. Founders vs the entire unit

Yes, activists from groups like Patriot of Ukraine and the Social-National Assembly were involved early.

What you keep ignoring is that the Azov Battalion didn’t stay a tiny activist club.
It expanded rapidly and was later incorporated into Ukraine’s National Guard with thousands of members.

Freezing the roster at the founding moment and pretending it never changed isn’t history.

---

3. Your numbers contradict your own claim

You keep citing the estimate that 10–20% identified as Nazis.

That does not magically turn into:

• half
• most
• all
• secretly all

That’s escalation, not evidence.

---

4. Symbols

Yes, some early imagery used symbols strongly associated with neo-Nazis.

That’s exactly why it was controversial and widely reported.

But jumping from “controversial symbols existed” to “every member must therefore be a Nazi” is your interpretation, not the conclusion historians draw.

---

5. War crimes allegations

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 still isn’t the same as declaring the entire unit a Nazi formation.

---

The pattern in your argument

You keep doing the same thing:

• Some extremists were involved early.
• Therefore the entire unit must be Nazis.

That leap is where your argument breaks.

And repeating it louder every post doesn’t fix the logic. It just advertises that you’re stuck on the same step.

 

[WestCanMan]

55 minutes ago, User said:

You really need to learn what a Venn Diagram is and the basics of logic. 

You’re calling things lies because you’re missing some really basic logic.

1. “Patriot of Ukraine wasn’t far-right, it was neo-Nazi.”

This isn’t the gotcha you think it is.

Neo-Nazis are part of the far right.
That’s how political classification works.

Simple version:

Far-right
→ includes ultranationalists
→ includes white supremacists
→ includes neo-Nazis

So saying a group is far-right does not exclude it from also being neo-Nazi. It’s the broader category.

Arguing otherwise is like saying calling a tiger a mammal is false because it’s actually a tiger.

 

That's just semantics, dumbass, but you're still 100% wrong, like every time.

And not just because you're stupid, because you're lying.

 

FYI "Nazi" is a sub-set of "Alt-right", from a leftist POV. Nazis are actually socialists, because of the lvl of control that the gov't exercises over the economy and health care, etc, but lefties like to say "alt-right" to lump them onto the conservative side of the graph. 

So you can say either one, and a leftist will agree that they're the same thing, but FYI a Nazi is a very specific subset, so my description is just several times more accurate than yours.

It's like if we are looking at an actual pitbull, and you say "It's a dog", and I say, "Yeah, it's a pitbull", and you counter back with, "No, it's not a pitbull, it's a dog."

Sure you can say it's a dog and be 100% correct, but that doesn't mean that the dog in question isn't a pitbull. Get it?

"Dog" means everything from a pug that can't even kill a mouse to all kinds of breeds that are capable of killing grown men. Therefor, dog is an almost useless description in some contexts, as is "alt-right", and that's why you choose to use it deceptively. You're clinging to your deceptive term like a drowning man clutching at straws.

Leftists call everyone who doesn't love abortions of 7-month old babies alt-right. You're making the Azov Nazi Battalion sound like normal people. 

 

So, FYI, the Azov Nazi Battalion fits 100% into the Nazi category - by their own insignias, statements, and deeds - and just loosely fits into some people's version of the alt-right category. 

Quote

---

2. Founders vs the entire unit

Yes, activists from groups like Patriot of Ukraine and the Social-National Assembly were involved early.

If you join a Nazi group, you're probably a Nazi. It's pretty hard to join by mistake, and then stay there for any length of time. 

User: "Ooops! I'm hanging out with cannibals, and it's dinner time... Does it make me a cannibal too if I just eat some of those juicy-looking ribs?"

Now, no doubt some of the teens and grandpas that the Ukrainian gov't snatched off the street and forced into active duty in the last few years weren't Nazis, and were attached to the Azovs against their will, so the Azovs are becoming less and less of a Nazi battalion all the time, but it is still 100% correct to say that:

1. The Ukrainian gov't brought a Nazi battalion into their armed forces
2. The Azovs actually were a Nazi battalion, committing war crimes, when Russia accused them of being a Nazi battalion committing war crimes. End of discussion. It's true, so just stfu and admit it. FYI just because Putin is a dick doesn't mean that everything he says is untrue. Hell, AOC, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi tell the truth sometimes. Even Adam Schiff has told the truth more than once in his lifetime. 
3. And just because other Ukrainian soldiers were committing war crimes doesn't make it ok for the Azov Nazi Battalion to do it.

 

You're lying about other things as well, but I'm not gonna go point-by-point anymore. It's just well-established that you're lying about everything in this thread now. 

You're literally blowing your credibility to hell here, User. They called themselves Nazis and National Socialists, wore Nazi insignias, and committed f'ing war crimes. If they did that in Canada or the US, we would accept that they were indeed Nazis (technically 'neo-Nazis' I guess), and throw their Nazi asses in jail.  

[User]

7 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

That's just semantics, dumbass, but you're still 100% wrong, like every time.

And not just because you're stupid, because you're lying.

This is not Uno Reverse. I swear you are a child. 

YOU were the one who called me a liar, making a big deal out of the fact that I used the upper classification of far right instead of specifically saying neo-Nazi. 

Now that I called you out for your own stupidity, you try to flip it around as if I was the one making a big deal out of you doing that. 

I swear, your level of stupidity knows no bounds. 

I am not even clinging to just saying far right, either, as I then went on to clearly agree with the Nazi term. 

9 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

So, FYI, the Azov Nazi Battalion fits 100% into the Nazi category - by their own insignias, statements, and deeds - and just loosely fits into some people's version of the alt-right category. 

You just keep saying this over and over again. That doesn't make it true. 

Again:

The pattern in your argument

You keep doing the same thing:

• Some extremists were involved early.
• Therefore the entire unit must be Nazis.

That leap is where your argument breaks.

And repeating it louder every post doesn’t fix the logic. It just advertises that you’re stuck on the same step.

 

13 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

If you join a Nazi group, you're probably a Nazi. It's pretty hard to join by mistake, and then stay there for any length of time. 

You’re still doing the same trick: take one real detail and then stretch it until it says something completely different.

1. “If you join a Nazi group you’re a Nazi.”

That might feel satisfying as a slogan, but it’s not how reality works.

Real analogy:

If a company is founded by three conspiracy nuts in a garage and ten years later has 3,000 employees, it doesn’t magically mean every accountant, mechanic, and janitor believes the founders’ ideology.

Organizations grow. Membership changes. Motives differ.

Your version freezes time in May 2014 and pretends nothing changed afterward.

History doesn’t work that way.

---

2. The cannibal analogy you tried

That analogy fails for a simple reason.

People didn’t join Azov because they were looking for a Nazi social club.
They joined because there was a war and it was one of the units recruiting volunteers.

A closer analogy would be:

A rough street gang helps form the first version of a volunteer fire brigade.
Later hundreds of normal firefighters join when the city formalizes it.

Saying every firefighter decades later must be in the gang is… not serious thinking.

---

3. “Ukraine brought a Nazi battalion into the military.”

What actually happened is documented:

• Ukraine integrated multiple volunteer battalions during the 2014 war.
• The Azov Battalion was one of them.
• The unit expanded far beyond the original activist core.

You keep pretending the roster stayed identical to the founding members because your argument collapses if it didn’t.

---

4. War crimes point

No one said war crimes are okay.

The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights documented abuses by many groups on all sides in that conflict.

That’s what actual reports say, not the simplified version you’re repeating.

---

5. The “you’re lying about everything” routine

That’s not an argument.
It’s what people fall back on when the evidence stops cooperating.

Right now your entire position is basically:

1. Assume everyone shared the founders’ ideology

2. Assume anyone who stayed must secretly agree

3. Declare disagreement “lying”

That’s not historical analysis. That’s just stubbornness with a keyboard.

---

And honestly, the fact that you keep inventing numbers, motives, and secret beliefs while accusing everyone else of dishonesty is a bit rich. If irony generated electricity, your last few posts could power a small city.

[WestCanMan]

45 minutes ago, User said:

YOU were the one who called me a liar, making a big deal out of the fact that I used the upper classification of far right instead of specifically saying neo-Nazi. 

That's because you lied, User.

It was 100% deceitful to try to take the Nazi label away from the Azovs when they are the ones calling themselves Nazis and National Socialists while wearing Nazi insignias, to rebrand them as "alt-right" when the alt-right description was wildly inaccurate.

You know for a fact that even the Freedom Convoy here in Canada was called far-right, and alt-right, by no less than our own PM and MSM. 

Were the Freedom Convoy members at all like the Nazis? 

Freedom Convoy/Nazi Battalion, same/same?

 

The Azov Nazi Battalion WERE NAZIS by their own definition, by their tattoos, by the insignias that they all wore, and by their war crimes. PERIOD. Those are all 100% established facts. Their war crimes are documented, and stand as a historical fact, they just didn't stand trial for them. 

To try to water their description down to "alt-right" is to move them out of their proper category and into a meaningless category where leftists throw everyone that they don't like.  IE, it is to engage in deception, and engaging in deception is lying. Minimizing is lying. Lying is lying, and you outright lied several times. 

Nothing that I said is inaccurate, but you keep on trying to change the goalposts and use inaccurate descriptions to try to prove tht you are right, when you know that you are wrong.

Bro, people called themselves Nazis and wore Nazi emblems, and you tried to say "Those weren't always Nazi symbols." Sure, but when avowed Nazis wear Nazi symbols, it's not a f'ing coincidence.

 

You're a liar dude. Not just a bit of a liar, you're a raging, all-out, nutjob liar. Your credibility is sinking like a lead balloon here. 

[User]

7 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

That's because you lied, User.

You’re still pretending I said something I didn’t say, then calling it a lie. That trick only works if people don’t read.

1. “Far-right vs neo-Nazi”

Calling a neo-Nazi group far-right is not removing the Nazi label. It’s the broader category.

This is basic classification:

Far-right
→ includes ultranationalists
→ includes white supremacists
→ includes neo-Nazis

So when you scream that saying “far-right” is a lie, what you’re really revealing is that you don’t understand how categories work.

It’s like accusing someone of lying for calling a shark a fish because it’s specifically a great white shark.

Both statements are true.

---

2. The thing you keep misrepresenting

No one said extremist elements didn’t exist in early Azov.

What you keep insisting on is this leap:

• Some founders were neo-Nazis
→ therefore every member forever must be a Nazi

That’s the part that doesn’t follow.

And repeating it twenty times doesn’t suddenly make the logic work.

---

3. Your Freedom Convoy comparison

That actually hurts your argument.

You’re literally demonstrating the exact point about broad political labels being applied loosely.

You complain that “far-right” was used too broadly in Canada, but then turn around and insist everyone connected to Azov must be Nazis.

That’s the same sloppy thinking you’re criticizing.

---

4. Symbols

No one denied that Nazis used those symbols.

What you’re doing is pretending that:

symbol used by Nazis
= everyone wearing it must be a Nazi

History is not that simple.

Context, time, and membership matter. That’s why researchers describe the Azov Battalion as a unit that had extremist members, especially early on, rather than declaring every soldier a Nazi.

---

5. The “you’re lying” routine

At this point you’ve basically replaced evidence with volume.

Every time a claim doesn’t hold up you just shout:

“LIAR!”

That’s not debate. That’s a toddler discovering the caps lock key.

---

The actual issue

You want a simple slogan:

“Azov = Nazis.”

Reality is messier:

• Early founders included neo-Nazis.
• The unit later expanded and changed.
• Not every member shared that ideology.

You can dislike that complexity, but pretending it doesn’t exist isn’t honesty.

[WestCanMan]

16 minutes ago, User said:

You’re still pretending I said something I didn’t say, then calling it a lie. That trick only works if people don’t read.

1. “Far-right vs neo-Nazi”

Calling a neo-Nazi group far-right is not removing the Nazi label. It’s the broader category.

Are you admitting that they were Nazis now, because if you're finally doing that, then we are done here.

But to this point, this is the first time that you're really hinting at accepting the N word for them.

Up until now you were desperate to pretend that they belonged in the far right category but not the Nazi category. 

Quote

2. The thing you keep misrepresenting

No one said extremist elements didn’t exist in early Azov.

What you keep insisting on is this leap:

• Some founders were neo-Nazis
→ therefore every member forever must be a Nazi

That’s the part that doesn’t follow.

And repeating it twenty times doesn’t suddenly make the logic work.

See that? You just lied again, by minimization.

It's not a case of "some founders were Nazis" at all.

It's a case of:

1. Two groups joined to formed the vast majority of the Azovs
2. 1 was a group of neo-Nazis, and 1 group was "National Socialists", which is another term for Nazis. So it was formed by: Nazis and other Nazis.
3. These self-proclaimed Nazis wore Nazi insignias, which you like to pretend is a coincidence, because you say that "they chose cool logos harkening back to the days when random medieval GERMANS used them" lol. Not Ukrainian... German
4. The self-avowed Nazis wearing the Nazi insignias committed war crimes

Quote

therefore every member forever must be a Nazi

I said many times that "The Azovs were a Nazi battalion when the Ukrainian army brought them into the fold", to which you always reply: "The Ukrainians brought lots of militias into their army". 

The Azovs have been distancing themselves from Naziism as fast as they can for years now, because billions of dollars in aid is riding on it. You know that, I know that, everyone knows that.

 

All you do is lie, and then wrongfully accuse me of lying.

Go look back to my first comments about the Azov Nazi Battalion. I've always said that they were Nazis when the Ukrainians brought them in. Of course they're pretending to not be Nazis anymore.  

[User]

6 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Are you admitting that they were Nazis now, because if you're finally doing that, then we are done here.

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.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, User said:

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:

No.

You are vastly understating what the evidence clearly shows.

Two avowed Nazi groups banded together to form a group that wore Nazi insignias, and they committed war crimes that were documented by the UN.

"But they weren't Nazis" 😂😂😂

[WestCanMan]

Two Christian churches combine, and the members all wear crosses and get together together to pray on Sundays.  

"But the new church isn't Christian." - User

Hockey players from all over the NHL join up to go to the Olympics. They wear team Canada jerseys and play hockey.

"But it's not a hockey team." - User

[User]

23 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

No.

You are vastly understating what the evidence clearly shows.

Two avowed Nazi groups banded together to form a group that wore Nazi insignias, and they committed war crimes that were documented by the UN.

"But they weren't Nazis" 😂😂😂

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.

7 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Two Christian churches combine, and the members all wear crosses and get together together to pray on Sundays.  

"But the new church isn't Christian." - User

Hockey players from all over the NHL join up to go to the Olympics. They wear team Canada jerseys and play hockey.

"But it's not a hockey team." - User

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.

[WestCanMan]

4 minutes ago, User said:

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. [<- that is a 100% lie]
• Some early imagery had neo-Nazi associations. [<-That is a 100% lie, all of their uniforms and banners]

Liar.

Two Nazi groups joined up, and they all wore insignias which have been exclusively worn by Nazis for 80 years. 

[User]

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Liar.

Two Nazi groups joined up, and they all wore insignias which have been exclusively worn by Nazis for 80 years. 

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.

[WestCanMan]

49 minutes ago, User said:

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.

AI Search:

• Social-National Assembly (SNA - Соціал-Національна Асамблея): A neo-Nazi group. 

Dude, National Socialists are Nazis. They are just barely couching the word Nazi by saying that. It's like the word "Nazi" wearing a teensy little thong.  

So, yeah, two Nazi groups. 100%.

Quote

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.

OMG, are you retarded? 

Who else has used that symbol in the last 80 years aside from Nazi groups?

NO ONE.

1. I said that it has been an EXCLUSIVELY A NAZI SYMBOL FOR 80 YEARS....... BECAUSE ONLY NAZIS HAVE USED THAT SYMBOL FOR THE LAST 80 YEARS.... ONLY NAZIS HAVE USED THAT SYMBOL FOR THE LAST 80 YEARS. Right? That means that "it has been exclusively worn by Nazis for the last 80 years". That is EXACTLY what that means. And I am 100% correct again. This is getting really f'n annoying.
2. And it appeared in medieval GERMAN heraldry. Not Ukrainian heraldry. GERMAN HERALDRY. So you're trying to say that "modern Ukrainians, from 2 NAZI groups, randomly decided to use a medieval GERMAN symbol, but it had nothing to do with the fact that they were both Nazi groups and it was a Nazi symbol..... You are f'ing crazy. K-raaayyyzeeee.

[WestCanMan]

Honestly, whatever you say man. I'm so done with this. 

[User]

15 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

OMG, are you retarded? 

Your argument keeps collapsing into circular logic.

You say:

1. Only Nazis have used that symbol for 80 years.

2. Azov used that symbol.

3. 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.