What makes you think I'm kidding. ;-P
P.S. It was funny to see yesterday on Comedy Show that Poilievre was doing a not too energetic clapping to Zelensky at Parliament. He looked like a child that daddy and mommy brought to the Church on Sunday Morning. lol
P.S. It was funny to see yesterday on Comedy Show that Poilievre was doing a not too energetic clapping to Zelensky at Parliament. He looked like a child that daddy and mommy brought to the Church on Sunday Morning. lol
@kyanite111 said in #10:
> can't blame him for thinking, especially as a young adult at the time, that the Germans were the good guys.
You seems think it was possible to have no knowledge on Holocaust living in wwii Ukraine
>primarily engaging with the soviets
"Formed in 1943, was mainly employed in the repression of Soviet, Polish[5] and Yugoslav guerrilla partisans"
Being ss soldier is not the same as being a war criminal, but Ukraine for long flirted with Nazis - Azov group etc.
> can't blame him for thinking, especially as a young adult at the time, that the Germans were the good guys.
You seems think it was possible to have no knowledge on Holocaust living in wwii Ukraine
>primarily engaging with the soviets
"Formed in 1943, was mainly employed in the repression of Soviet, Polish[5] and Yugoslav guerrilla partisans"
Being ss soldier is not the same as being a war criminal, but Ukraine for long flirted with Nazis - Azov group etc.
@few2 said in #43:
> You seems think it was possible to have no knowledge on Holocaust living in wwii Ukraine
>
> "Formed in 1943, was mainly employed in the repression of Soviet, Polish[5] and Yugoslav guerrilla partisans"
> Being ss soldier is not the same as being a war criminal, but Ukraine for long flirted with Nazis - Azov group etc.
I don't see why not, the camps were restricted areas placed in remote locations and Germans had total control of the media. If you read about it there is apparently a lot of historical debate on exactly when the public became aware but many scholars seem to think it is entirely possible with respect to German citizens, let alone Ukrainians. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_of_the_Holocaust_in_Nazi_Germany_and_German-occupied_Europe
By the way found I nice article on this, supporting what bfchessguy was saying earlier:
www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-yaroslav-hunka-nazi-unit-essay/
I mean I guess I already read Hunka's essay but its nice to have an informed reporter reviewing it and giving their take. There are lots of things I didn't know. Apparently Canada warmly welcomed as many as 2000 men from that division shortly after the war, and many Ukrainian Canadians celebrated them at the time. I'm just glad the Post is helping its readers become more informed on the issue. Its important that the public learns to think about things in depth and not take black/white stances on issues, not just when it comes to Hunka but all social, economic, etc. policies.
> You seems think it was possible to have no knowledge on Holocaust living in wwii Ukraine
>
> "Formed in 1943, was mainly employed in the repression of Soviet, Polish[5] and Yugoslav guerrilla partisans"
> Being ss soldier is not the same as being a war criminal, but Ukraine for long flirted with Nazis - Azov group etc.
I don't see why not, the camps were restricted areas placed in remote locations and Germans had total control of the media. If you read about it there is apparently a lot of historical debate on exactly when the public became aware but many scholars seem to think it is entirely possible with respect to German citizens, let alone Ukrainians. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_of_the_Holocaust_in_Nazi_Germany_and_German-occupied_Europe
By the way found I nice article on this, supporting what bfchessguy was saying earlier:
www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-yaroslav-hunka-nazi-unit-essay/
I mean I guess I already read Hunka's essay but its nice to have an informed reporter reviewing it and giving their take. There are lots of things I didn't know. Apparently Canada warmly welcomed as many as 2000 men from that division shortly after the war, and many Ukrainian Canadians celebrated them at the time. I'm just glad the Post is helping its readers become more informed on the issue. Its important that the public learns to think about things in depth and not take black/white stances on issues, not just when it comes to Hunka but all social, economic, etc. policies.
@Raspberry_yoghurt said in #38:
> Your fallacy here is taking something EXTREMELY uncommon and unusual and pretend that it's normal and what one should expect.
>
> It's the logical equivalent of finding say a horse born with two heads and then claim it's really quite silly to say that horses have just one head.
Why should Zelensky be considered as something common? Common or uncommon, a person's ethnicity or religion does not predetermine their ideological views. Zelensky could very well not be a Nazi, and yet if it is in his interests he may applaud one.
> Your fallacy here is taking something EXTREMELY uncommon and unusual and pretend that it's normal and what one should expect.
>
> It's the logical equivalent of finding say a horse born with two heads and then claim it's really quite silly to say that horses have just one head.
Why should Zelensky be considered as something common? Common or uncommon, a person's ethnicity or religion does not predetermine their ideological views. Zelensky could very well not be a Nazi, and yet if it is in his interests he may applaud one.
@StateYourPoint said in #45:
> Why should Zelensky be considered as something common?
That's the default. It's how everybody thinks if you're honest.
Nobody genuinely believes outlandish crazy things without a LOT of added evidence that shows with no doubt that here we have something extraordinaty.
So somebody saying "with no evidence to think that some Jew is a Nazi I belive it is so" is just lying. They don't belive he is Nazi, they just make up a lie in order to like make your case stronger.
Example 1:
You see a random car in the street. Do you assume that
a) This is probably just a normal car
b) This is probably a car fitted with a secret device so it can fly and turn into a submarine
If you're honest, you assume a every time you see a car.
Example 2:
A friend tells you he's been to a concert with Taylor Swift
a) You assume he bought a ticket and went and listened to the concert
b) You assume that he is friends with Taylor Swift and was invited backstage as well as gave her some singing tips
Example 3:
You hear somebody does running as a sport
a) You assume he's just probably a normal trained person
b) You assume he is a physical prodigy that easily can beat the world record for 100 m running.
> Why should Zelensky be considered as something common?
That's the default. It's how everybody thinks if you're honest.
Nobody genuinely believes outlandish crazy things without a LOT of added evidence that shows with no doubt that here we have something extraordinaty.
So somebody saying "with no evidence to think that some Jew is a Nazi I belive it is so" is just lying. They don't belive he is Nazi, they just make up a lie in order to like make your case stronger.
Example 1:
You see a random car in the street. Do you assume that
a) This is probably just a normal car
b) This is probably a car fitted with a secret device so it can fly and turn into a submarine
If you're honest, you assume a every time you see a car.
Example 2:
A friend tells you he's been to a concert with Taylor Swift
a) You assume he bought a ticket and went and listened to the concert
b) You assume that he is friends with Taylor Swift and was invited backstage as well as gave her some singing tips
Example 3:
You hear somebody does running as a sport
a) You assume he's just probably a normal trained person
b) You assume he is a physical prodigy that easily can beat the world record for 100 m running.
@Raspberry_yoghurt said in #46:
> That's the default. It's how everybody thinks if you're honest.
>
> Nobody genuinely believes outlandish crazy things without a LOT of added evidence that shows with no doubt that here we have something extraordinaty.
>
> So somebody saying "with no evidence to think that some Jew is a Nazi I belive it is so" is just lying. They don't belive he is Nazi, they just make up a lie in order to like make your case stronger.
>
> Example 1:
>
> You see a random car in the street. Do you assume that
>
> a) This is probably just a normal car
>
> b) This is probably a car fitted with a secret device so it can fly and turn into a submarine
>
> If you're honest, you assume a every time you see a car.
>
> Example 2:
>
> A friend tells you he's been to a concert with Taylor Swift
>
> a) You assume he bought a ticket and went and listened to the concert
>
> b) You assume that he is friends with Taylor Swift and was invited backstage as well as gave her some singing tips
>
> Example 3:
>
> You hear somebody does running as a sport
>
> a) You assume he's just probably a normal trained person
>
> b) You assume he is a physical prodigy that easily can beat the world record for 100 m running.
your one mistake is that their is evidence he was part of a nationalist group as a teen that believed in the nazi ideals
> That's the default. It's how everybody thinks if you're honest.
>
> Nobody genuinely believes outlandish crazy things without a LOT of added evidence that shows with no doubt that here we have something extraordinaty.
>
> So somebody saying "with no evidence to think that some Jew is a Nazi I belive it is so" is just lying. They don't belive he is Nazi, they just make up a lie in order to like make your case stronger.
>
> Example 1:
>
> You see a random car in the street. Do you assume that
>
> a) This is probably just a normal car
>
> b) This is probably a car fitted with a secret device so it can fly and turn into a submarine
>
> If you're honest, you assume a every time you see a car.
>
> Example 2:
>
> A friend tells you he's been to a concert with Taylor Swift
>
> a) You assume he bought a ticket and went and listened to the concert
>
> b) You assume that he is friends with Taylor Swift and was invited backstage as well as gave her some singing tips
>
> Example 3:
>
> You hear somebody does running as a sport
>
> a) You assume he's just probably a normal trained person
>
> b) You assume he is a physical prodigy that easily can beat the world record for 100 m running.
your one mistake is that their is evidence he was part of a nationalist group as a teen that believed in the nazi ideals
@DukeGusGold said in #47:
> your one mistake is that their is evidence he was part of a nationalist group as a teen that believed in the nazi ideals
As I previously wrote
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Unity_Party_of_Canada
Why those ones should be given a break?
Should putina invade Canada because some On-Duty members of Canada's Armed Forces are neo-nazis?
Is it double standards or hypocrisy?
Where does it ends?
> your one mistake is that their is evidence he was part of a nationalist group as a teen that believed in the nazi ideals
As I previously wrote
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Unity_Party_of_Canada
Why those ones should be given a break?
Should putina invade Canada because some On-Duty members of Canada's Armed Forces are neo-nazis?
Is it double standards or hypocrisy?
Where does it ends?
@bfchessguy said in #48:
> As I previously wrote
>
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Unity_Party_of_Canada
>
> Why those ones should be given a break?
>
> Should putina invade Canada because some On-Duty members of Canada's Armed Forces are neo-nazis?
>
> Is it double standards or hypocrisy?
>
> Where does it ends?
this is ridiculous why would putin invade canada their is no value in that the reason ukraine was invaded was to push nato and nato missiles of russia borderlines. the nazi stuff is just propaganda to play on old russian grudges
> As I previously wrote
>
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Unity_Party_of_Canada
>
> Why those ones should be given a break?
>
> Should putina invade Canada because some On-Duty members of Canada's Armed Forces are neo-nazis?
>
> Is it double standards or hypocrisy?
>
> Where does it ends?
this is ridiculous why would putin invade canada their is no value in that the reason ukraine was invaded was to push nato and nato missiles of russia borderlines. the nazi stuff is just propaganda to play on old russian grudges
@DukeGusGold said in #49:
> this is ridiculous why would putin invade canada their is no value in that the reason ukraine was invaded was to push nato and nato missiles of russia borderlines. the nazi stuff is just propaganda to play on old russian grudges
You must admit that medias in Canada now caring what putina's medias and political regime where the political opponents are killed is like playing in putina's team.
If an old man who took part in a "natinalist" group is such a big deal we should also take care of what many did in National Unity Party of Canada.
And by the way putina's managed to get Finland joining on April 4th of 2023. That NATO thing is also proganda bs.
> this is ridiculous why would putin invade canada their is no value in that the reason ukraine was invaded was to push nato and nato missiles of russia borderlines. the nazi stuff is just propaganda to play on old russian grudges
You must admit that medias in Canada now caring what putina's medias and political regime where the political opponents are killed is like playing in putina's team.
If an old man who took part in a "natinalist" group is such a big deal we should also take care of what many did in National Unity Party of Canada.
And by the way putina's managed to get Finland joining on April 4th of 2023. That NATO thing is also proganda bs.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.