Posted on 01/05/2024 3:12:00 PM PST by ransomnote
[H/T JonPreston]
Excerpted:
SNIPThe ‘Azov Debate’
Azov Regiment has been a point of heated debate since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Critics of the unit point to its ongoing use of Nazi symbols, and evidence of continuing links to Andrey Biletsky, a white supremacist, Azov founder and leader of the far-right National Corps political party. Until Russia launched its invasion, extensive reporting from Western media outlets documented comments from Azov commanders and members who openly endorsed neo-Nazi ideas.
Those who defend Azov, including some Western news outlets and opinion writers, claim that since it was integrated into Ukraine’s national guard in 2014, the regiment has been gradually deradicalized and today functions as an ordinary military unit. Focusing on the group’s neo-Nazi origins, they argue, lends credence to Russia’s claim that its invasion of Ukraine was necessary because the country was overrun with fascists and needed to be “de-Nazified.”
Last year, The Maple found that major Canadian news outlets adopted this position during the spring of 2022, when Azov fighters were engaged in an intensive battle against Russian forces in Azovstal. At this time, news stories began suggesting that the group’s Nazi ideology was consigned to its past, or the publications glossed over the issue entirely.
This culminated in a profile published by The Globe and Mail in August 2022 that critics said whitewashed Azov’s ongoing neo-Nazism and functioned as a piece of far-right propaganda, regardless of the reporter’s intent. The Globe reporter wrote that Azov “has a history of far-right leanings but is now part of the Ukrainian army.”
Writing in The Nation last June, The Forward correspondent Lev Golinkin accused Western media of whitewashing the neo-Nazi unit.
“This overnight normalization of white supremacy was possible because Western institutions, driven by a zeal to ignore anything negative about our Ukrainian allies, decided that a neo-Nazi military formation in a war-torn nation had suddenly and miraculously stopped being neo-Nazi,” he wrote.
“But the truth is that this is an easily debunked fantasy spun out by a handful of propagandists.”
MORE AT LINK
“You’re pretending that you didn’t just claim all I ever posted was Q and maybe I was Q blah blah blah.”
Nice try, kid. You jump to conclusions and rush to judgment; so typical of losers. I mentioned your Q threads because they were at the very top of your profile page, and the first thing seen, and therefore prominent.
“When I pointed out your falsehoods...”
What falsehoods, kid: Post them here, so we can all see them.
“...you just whirl around without admitting your numerous errors and strike a pose...”
Nice try, kid,.
“...that of ‘warrior against evil.’ That pose looks pathetic on you.”
No; I just don’t like fanaticism; of any stripe.
No one is disputing there were extremists in the ranks; the topic was INFESTATION, which implies great numbers; numbers enough to harm and adversely affect the host. There was no such INFESTATION.
“Prove it, Bob. Or man up and admit you exaggerated and...”
We ALL here know your MO, which is to demand proof, but NEVER accept any. I posted multiple headlines PROVING my statement, so it’s clear you guys are, once again, playing the same game here.
So, others here can choose who they agree with - they have my response in Post 51 to judge.
In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled NATO Directorate Warned Azov Remained ‘Fanatics.’ Recruits Acquired Canadian-Made Rifles. ‘It’s true that Azov was brought into the National Guard of Ukraine, but they are fanatics.’, ought-six wrote: “You’re pretending that you didn’t just claim all I ever posted was Q and maybe I was Q blah blah blah.”
Nice try, kid. You jump to conclusions and rush to judgment; so typical of losers. I mentioned your Q threads because they were at the very top of your profile page, and the first thing seen, and therefore prominent.
You still don't know what you're talking about? Or are you lying? You checked a table I made myself and then extrapolated to mean that's all I ever posted, starting in 2018. I just pointed out that I've been posting since 2008 but you are too fragile to admit your error..so...
“When I pointed out your falsehoods...”
What falsehoods, kid: Post them here, so we can all see them.
Just read your own post wherin you made false statements about my posting history and stupid hints that I might be Q. You know, before you started trying to rewrite what you actually posted...
“...you just whirl around without admitting your numerous errors and strike a pose...”
Nice try, kid,.
Casablanca? Or condescension? You make a stupid analysis of a portion of my posting history and then try to stick the landing, talking down to me as if I am a 'kid' beside your massive 'enlightment'. The 'kid' routine doesn't look good on you either. Why do you even need a pose?
“...that of ‘warrior against evil.’ That pose looks pathetic on you.”
No; I just don’t like fanaticism; of any stripe.
You shot your mouth off with a baseless ad hominem attack, and I pointed out your errors/distortions. Since then, you keep compulsively repeating 'Nice Try Kid.' You are wasting my time.
“Did NATO orchestrate Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and force Russia to illegally annex Crimea? “
Yes. By pushing the idea that a hostile alliance (NATO) would be on a difficult to defend border (the 1991 border of Ukraine) the countries pushing to have Ukraine in NATO made this war inevitable.
“Go back to, oh, starting May, 2022; you’ll find a lot of FR posts from you guys heralding the destruction of Azov and the Ukrainian “nazis.””
Don’t need to, since we all knew that as long as Zelensky was in power, the Nazis had a place at the table. But these Nazis are “Good Nazis”. Right?
“Yes. Conspiracies exist which I’m agreeing with your conspiracy.”
It is not MY conspiracy.
“I would call that infiltrated agencies.”
INFILTRATED is not INFESTED. Nice try, though.
“We ALL here know your MO, which is to demand proof, but NEVER accept any.”
Too funny! You’re the guy who regularly demands “Link please” on your posts.
So, it is clear you CAN’T prove your claims.
“You still don’t know what you’re talking about? Or are you lying? You checked a table I made myself and then extrapolated to mean that’s all I ever posted, starting in 2018.”
Nice try, kid. You assume facts not in evidence, jump to conclusions, and rush to judgment; all signs of someone who can’t support his own arguments. I made no such claim that your Q-boi threads were the only things you ever posted. But they must be significant to you, or else why have you posted the extensive list of them at the very top of your profile page? It is because you WANT people to see them! If you wanted to keep a record of them you could simply put them in your computer’s documents library. Good grief, kid; the primary purpose of a profile page is to introduce yourself and describe your interests. It’s a “Hey! Look at me!” page.
“I just pointed out that I’ve been posting since 2008 but you are too fragile to admit your error..so...”
Again, what error? Describe specifically what I said was an error. You can’t.
“Just read your own post wherin you made false statements about my posting history and stupid hints that I might be Q. You know, before you started trying to rewrite what you actually posted...”
What false statements about your posting history? Your Q threads? Kid, your own profile page defeats your claim.
Again, what statements of mine were false? Cite them, kid.
And, suggestions that you might be Q? It was a valid suggestion: QAnon came out of nowhere on 4chan on October 24, 2017; you began posting Q stuff on FR at least as far back as November 24, 2017, a mere four weeks later. Then, you began with your litany of Q threads not long afterwards (and you continue to do so in 2023). So, it’s a legitimate question: Are YOU Q? You could just as easily be Q’s press agent or publicist, given the amount of the Q stuff on FR you are responsible for. Or, you could just be a gullible Q fanboi. But, kid: A suggestion is not a claim; it is not an accusation; it is speculation, a question.
“Casablanca? Or condescension? You make a stupid analysis of a portion of my posting history and then try to stick the landing, talking down to me as if I am a ‘kid’ beside your massive ‘enlightment’. The ‘kid’ routine doesn’t look good on you either. Why do you even need a pose?”
Casablanca? You don’t even know the line from Casablanca: It’s, “Here’s looking at you, kid.” And I call you “kid” because you act as one. Kids are generally the ones who fall for conspiracy theories and parrot them, and fill their profile pages with shameless “look at me!” self-promotion. You fit the bill, kid.
“You shot your mouth off with a baseless ad hominem attack, and I pointed out your errors/distortions.”
Not baseless. And, again; what errors/distortions?
Grow up, kid.
“Yes. By pushing the idea that a hostile alliance (NATO) would be on a difficult to defend border (the 1991 border of Ukraine) the countries pushing to have Ukraine in NATO made this war inevitable.”
Ukraine wasn’t going to be brought into NATO and you know it. It does not now meet nor has it ever met the conditions for admittance into NATO. Moreover, admittance into NATO requires UNANIMOUS consent by all NATO members; and there is no way Ukraine would get that (hell, Turkey and Hungary alone would not assent to it).
“...we all knew that as long as Zelensky was in power, the Nazis had a place at the table.”
That is YOUR assumption.
“But these Nazis are ‘Good Nazis’. Right?”
Well, the Russians thought there were “Good Nazis,” because they made a pact with them and allied with them to start WWII. And after the war the Russians brought a bunch of Nazi scientists back to Russia. So, it would appear that one’s attitude towards Nazis is “situational.”
I’m not gonna read your screed. Find something else to do. I already have.
“It does not now meet nor has it ever met the conditions for admittance into NATO. Moreover, admittance into NATO requires UNANIMOUS consent by all NATO members;...”
The supposed sacred “rules” of these international organizations are BS, and you know it.
Greece was let into the EU. In 2011 the German Court ignored its own law on bailouts of other countries. Almost none of these NATO countries meet their own spending committments. Orban could be pushed out via a Color Revolution...
The Referendum defeats of the Maastrich Treaty were ignored and implemented by the Lisbon Agreement. The EU created a workaround to avoid an Orban veto to send more aid to Ukraine.
The “sacred rules” of Globalist outfits like NATO are about as real as “the rule of law” in America when it applies to Trump and conservatives.
Then don’t post to me anymore: It’s pretty simple.
“The supposed sacred ‘rules’ of these international organizations are BS, and you know it.”
Yeah? Then according to your argument Ukraine would already be in NATO.
But, it’s not. Why is that, if your argument is credible?
I get it: You don’t like NATO; you don’t like the EU; you probably don’t like the US all that much. Do you like BRICS? Do you like the CSTO? Do you prefer the Russian Federation over the United States? Just wondering.
It was officially announced months ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.