Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 kronk wrote:
But...but..

ANY

USE

OF

THOSE

SYMBOLS!!!



Tell me that those are not the eyes of an anti-semetic bird!

 loki old fart wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If we're going to start out-Godwinning eachother I'll just leave the word "Anschluss" here and be done with it.

If it makes you feel better, the SS had British members aswell.

And they got the idea of concentration camps from us, look up the Boer war.

Oh, I'm well aware, I'm just pointing out that it's not Ukraine invading another sovereign state under the pretext of protecting people of a certain ethnicity. If you recall, the same claim was made by another leader of another great European power, hence this being an "out-Godwinning".

Yup I,m aware of the Sudetenland. But we brits don't parade our mistakes in public, and I don't think those Ukrainians were being very clever using that heraldic device. And as for people not liking RT, if you watch their programs, and the BBC ETC, You get a more balanced view. Too much of one side screws with your perception.

It's not a question of "not liking RT", it's recognizing that it is a mouthpiece for an agenda.

This is a rebranded "Russia Today", as in the organization that covered the Georgia/South Ossetia conflict and had the audacity to suggest that "Georgia started it".

And American stations would never do that, would they.

You are hopeless to have a discussion with. Have fun wallowing in ignorance.

lol riiiight, because people who watch/read RT and BBC and the cnn's msnbcs and KNOW that each one of them lies and has bias towards their own agendas is much less informed then people who just believe whatever cnnmsnbcfox tell them is true as gospel.

heck I suspect most people just believe whatever their facebook feed tells them.


Such an obvious double standard "my new isnt biadsd, yours is total propaganda"

 easysauce wrote:
lol riiiight, because people who watch/read RT and BBC and the cnn's msnbcs and KNOW that each one of them lies and has bias towards their own agendas is much less informed then people who just believe whatever cnnmsnbcfox tell them is true as gospel.

heck I suspect most people just believe whatever their facebook feed tells them.


Such an obvious double standard "my new isnt biadsd, yours is total propaganda"

Between the US, the UK, and Russia there's two countries that has freedom of the press. I'll let you pick which two out and then let you have a guess at why RT is at best an unreliable source. That is not to say that other news agencies aren't biased, but comparing the BBC to Russia Today is rather disturbing.

 loki old fart wrote:


Is that the only heraldic symbols they have.? Couldn't they find something less tarnished. ?? Or are they trying to say something about their political leanings.

If they are using those signs to represent their traditional geographic locale, then yes... it is about the only heraldry they can use. There is apparently an international heraldic symbol organization whose job it is to ensure that no one has identical heraldic devices (their biggest source of work now is the US military, who, when organizing new units, have to come up with a unit crest and use heraldic devices as much as possible)


I mean, people who know heraldry would be a mite confused if people were marching up and down the square holding white shields with three red lions on them.

 loki old fart wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Everybody knows that the British perfected the art of marching up and down the square.

Yes we did, but not with SS symbols

I don't see any SS symbols in the Ukraine picture.

Right in the middle of the black and white photo, is the symbol of the Ukraine SS div.

The coloured picture has the same symbols in the same colours as used then

First of all the "symbol" is of the 14th SS Volunteer Division--Galician. It started as a Ukrainian volunteer division(and was founded to provide more forces for the Eastern Front) but later included Slovaks, Czechs, and Dutch officers/soldiers. Not a "Ukraine SS Division".

And oh what's this?

It was based upon medieval heraldry?

The coat of arms for Galicia–Volhynia(read: Ukraine)

Is that the only heraldic symbols they have.? Couldn't they find something less tarnished. ?? Or are they trying to say something about their political leanings.

But we brits don't parade our mistakes in public

From the Royal Wedding Celebrations:



Is that the only symbol the UK has? Couldn't they find something less tarnished?? Or are they trying to say something about their political leanings.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Everybody knows that the British perfected the art of marching up and down the square.

Yes we did, but not with SS symbols

I don't see any SS symbols in the Ukraine picture.

Right in the middle of the black and white photo, is the symbol of the Ukraine SS div.

The coloured picture has the same symbols in the same colours as used then

First of all the "symbol" is of the 14th SS Volunteer Division--Galician. It started as a Ukrainian volunteer division(and was founded to provide more forces for the Eastern Front) but later included Slovaks, Czechs, and Dutch officers/soldiers. Not a "Ukraine SS Division".

And oh what's this?

It was based upon medieval heraldry?

The coat of arms for Galicia–Volhynia(read: Ukraine)

Is that the only heraldic symbols they have.? Couldn't they find something less tarnished. ?? Or are they trying to say something about their political leanings.

But we brits don't parade our mistakes in public

From the Royal Wedding Celebrations:



Is that the only symbol the UK has? Couldn't they find something less tarnished?? Or are they trying to say something about their political leanings.

Duh we use the union jack, because when we us the st George flag certain ethnic groups get upset.
Sort of points out what I was saying, doesn't it.

Not sure if serious...

Did you not notice the Union Jack in all those photos of Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists??

chaos0xomega wrote:
Not sure if serious...

Did you not notice the Union Jack in all those photos of Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists??

Very serious If we use the st George flag our Muslim friends feel threatened. Harks back to the crusades. Also EDL don't help


We do try not to cause offence

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
lol riiiight, because people who watch/read RT and BBC and the cnn's msnbcs and KNOW that each one of them lies and has bias towards their own agendas is much less informed then people who just believe whatever cnnmsnbcfox tell them is true as gospel.

heck I suspect most people just believe whatever their facebook feed tells them.


Such an obvious double standard "my new isnt biadsd, yours is total propaganda"

Between the US, the UK, and Russia there's two countries that has freedom of the press. I'll let you pick which two out and then let you have a guess at why RT is at best an unreliable source. That is not to say that other news agencies aren't biased, but comparing the BBC to Russia Today is rather disturbing.

Nope, you just proved you are in the "my bias is truth, yours is a lie" so instead of hearing each sides views, you ignore the sides you dont like, and accept the one side you do.

bravo.

If you really have such unconditional trust in your preferred source over another, that is what is disturbing.

Weather you like it or not, RT is telling the truth about how that side percives the issue, and weather you like it or not, that is relevant information.

Wether you like it or not, all the western sources are just as biased as the eastern ones (not just rt) the only thing that changes is what the bias is.

By ignoring the sides you deem "unworthy of attention" you just serve to further your own ignorance and bias on the topic because you are literally looking at one side of the coin, declaring "its heads! all those who claim its tails are idiots!" and just adding your own noise to those who look at it from the other side and go "no YOU are the idiot, its tails, I see no head."

Meanwhile, Ill see both heads and tails, and youll just cry out "NO TAILS EXISTS BECAUSE I CANNOT SEE IT!", again, just adding noise because of your unwillingness to accept and process the complexity of having more then one side to issues.

 easysauce wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
lol riiiight, because people who watch/read RT and BBC and the cnn's msnbcs and KNOW that each one of them lies and has bias towards their own agendas is much less informed then people who just believe whatever cnnmsnbcfox tell them is true as gospel.

heck I suspect most people just believe whatever their facebook feed tells them.


Such an obvious double standard "my new isnt biadsd, yours is total propaganda"

Between the US, the UK, and Russia there's two countries that has freedom of the press. I'll let you pick which two out and then let you have a guess at why RT is at best an unreliable source. That is not to say that other news agencies aren't biased, but comparing the BBC to Russia Today is rather disturbing.

Nope, you just proved you are in the "my bias is truth, yours is a lie" so instead of hearing each sides views, you ignore the sides you dont like, and accept the one side you do.

bravo.

If you really have such unconditional trust in your preferred source over another, that is what is disturbing.

Weather you like it or not, RT is telling the truth about how that side percives the issue, and weather you like it or not, that is relevant information.

By ignoring the sides you deem "unworthy of attention" you just serve to further your own ignorance and bias on the topic.

Yup to see the truth, you need to look at all sides. But do bring salt.

 loki old fart wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
lol riiiight, because people who watch/read RT and BBC and the cnn's msnbcs and KNOW that each one of them lies and has bias towards their own agendas is much less informed then people who just believe whatever cnnmsnbcfox tell them is true as gospel.

heck I suspect most people just believe whatever their facebook feed tells them.


Such an obvious double standard "my new isnt biadsd, yours is total propaganda"

Between the US, the UK, and Russia there's two countries that has freedom of the press. I'll let you pick which two out and then let you have a guess at why RT is at best an unreliable source. That is not to say that other news agencies aren't biased, but comparing the BBC to Russia Today is rather disturbing.

Nope, you just proved you are in the "my bias is truth, yours is a lie" so instead of hearing each sides views, you ignore the sides you dont like, and accept the one side you do.

bravo.

If you really have such unconditional trust in your preferred source over another, that is what is disturbing.

Weather you like it or not, RT is telling the truth about how that side percives the issue, and weather you like it or not, that is relevant information.

By ignoring the sides you deem "unworthy of attention" you just serve to further your own ignorance and bias on the topic.

Yup to see the truth, you need to look at all sides. But do bring salt.

Yep, but leave out the obviously lying side. It's just a waste of time:
"In 2013 Russia ranked 148th out of 179 countries in the Press Freedom Index from Reporters Without Borders."

they are all obviously lying... the states does not have the free press that RWOBoarders says they do...

or do you forget all those people who got fired for talking off script in the states?

 Minx wrote:

Spoiler:

 loki old fart wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
lol riiiight, because people who watch/read RT and BBC and the cnn's msnbcs and KNOW that each one of them lies and has bias towards their own agendas is much less informed then people who just believe whatever cnnmsnbcfox tell them is true as gospel.

heck I suspect most people just believe whatever their facebook feed tells them.


Such an obvious double standard "my new isnt biadsd, yours is total propaganda"

Between the US, the UK, and Russia there's two countries that has freedom of the press. I'll let you pick which two out and then let you have a guess at why RT is at best an unreliable source. That is not to say that other news agencies aren't biased, but comparing the BBC to Russia Today is rather disturbing.

Nope, you just proved you are in the "my bias is truth, yours is a lie" so instead of hearing each sides views, you ignore the sides you dont like, and accept the one side you do.

bravo.

If you really have such unconditional trust in your preferred source over another, that is what is disturbing.

Weather you like it or not, RT is telling the truth about how that side percives the issue, and weather you like it or not, that is relevant information.

By ignoring the sides you deem "unworthy of attention" you just serve to further your own ignorance and bias on the topic.

Yup to see the truth, you need to look at all sides. But do bring salt.

Yep, but leave out the obviously lying side. It's just a waste of time:
"In 2013 Russia ranked 148th out of 179 countries in the Press Freedom Index from Reporters Without Borders."

See this http://www.voltairenet.org/article165297.html.

Reporters Without Borders is an international Non-Governmental Organization (NGO). According to its website it is headquartered in Paris, France. Paris is a curious home base for an organization that, as it turns out, is financed by the US Congress and by agencies tied to the US government.

Now if Japan brought back their Emperor and added red bars to their flag to re-create the "Rising Sun".....

 Jihadin wrote:
Now if Japan brought back their Emperor and added red bars to their flag to re-create the "Rising Sun".....

I don't know if the English or Americans would react badly to this. We don't seem to be worried by such things.

Be a new war..but its a economy war in over drive

 Jihadin wrote:
Be a new war..but its a economy war in over drive

Please clarify. not sure of meaning.

 loki old fart wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Not sure if serious...

Did you not notice the Union Jack in all those photos of Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists??

Very serious If we use the st George flag our Muslim friends feel threatened. Harks back to the crusades. Also EDL don't help


We do try not to cause offence

No, I'm sorry, go look at my post again. You see the Union Jack in all those photos right? Excepting the last one, do you see who is standing next to and/or in front of it? Do you see what it is being presented next to? That is the Union Jack being used as a symbol of the British Union of Fascists. You know, that anti-semitic, anti-democratic, racist, pro-white organization of the 1930s that supported Hitler and actually attempted to throw out the British government to establish Oswald Mosley as the Nazi-aligned dictator of Great Britain? Are you just blatantly ignoring what I am showing you (and/or being a terrible troll)? That the Union Jack is just as much a symbol of hate as the coat of arms of Galicia–Volhynia, and contrary to your statement that "brits don't parade our mistakes in public", the continued use of the Union Jack is arguably no different, and your inability to use the St. George Cross is irrelevant, since there are other possible symbols you can use.

And for good measure:








What was that about not parading your mistakes again?

We use the st Georges cross less now than before. you mostly see it on st Georges day, and football matches.

Can't remember seeing these ones about since we hung the guy, who's flag it was.

chaos0xomega wrote:


No, I'm sorry, go look at my post again. You see the Union Jack in all those photos right? Excepting the last one, do you see who is standing next to and/or in front of it? Do you see what it is being presented next to? That is the Union Jack being used as a symbol of the British Union of Fascists. You know, that anti-semitic, anti-democratic, racist, pro-white organization of the 1930s that supported Hitler and actually attempted to throw out the British government to establish Oswald Mosley as the Nazi-aligned dictator of Great Britain? Are you just blatantly ignoring what I am showing you (and/or being a terrible troll)? That the Union Jack is just as much a symbol of hate as the coat of arms of Galicia–Volhynia, and contrary to your statement that "brits don't parade our mistakes in public", the continued use of the Union Jack is arguably no different, and your inability to use the St. George Cross is irrelevant, since there are other possible symbols you can use.


What was that about not parading your mistakes again?

You're both correct. Yes, it is jumping to a conclusion to assume that just because a flag is in a picture with a Nazi flag, the two are inherently connected. But the flip side of the coin is that people often parade a certain flag in a certain way at a certain place/time in order to link them to certain ideologies.

Therefore unless either of you know exactly where the photo with that heraldic flag was taken, and what the march was in favour of, neither of you should jump to conclusions. So you're also both wrong as well as correct.

Thanks Ketara, at least someone gets me

 loki old fart wrote:

 Minx wrote:

Spoiler:

 loki old fart wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
lol riiiight, because people who watch/read RT and BBC and the cnn's msnbcs and KNOW that each one of them lies and has bias towards their own agendas is much less informed then people who just believe whatever cnnmsnbcfox tell them is true as gospel.

heck I suspect most people just believe whatever their facebook feed tells them.


Such an obvious double standard "my new isnt biadsd, yours is total propaganda"

Between the US, the UK, and Russia there's two countries that has freedom of the press. I'll let you pick which two out and then let you have a guess at why RT is at best an unreliable source. That is not to say that other news agencies aren't biased, but comparing the BBC to Russia Today is rather disturbing.

Nope, you just proved you are in the "my bias is truth, yours is a lie" so instead of hearing each sides views, you ignore the sides you dont like, and accept the one side you do.

bravo.

If you really have such unconditional trust in your preferred source over another, that is what is disturbing.

Weather you like it or not, RT is telling the truth about how that side percives the issue, and weather you like it or not, that is relevant information.

By ignoring the sides you deem "unworthy of attention" you just serve to further your own ignorance and bias on the topic.

Yup to see the truth, you need to look at all sides. But do bring salt.

Yep, but leave out the obviously lying side. It's just a waste of time:
"In 2013 Russia ranked 148th out of 179 countries in the Press Freedom Index from Reporters Without Borders."

See this http://www.voltairenet.org/article165297.html.

Reporters Without Borders is an international Non-Governmental Organization (NGO). According to its website it is headquartered in Paris, France. Paris is a curious home base for an organization that, as it turns out, is financed by the US Congress and by agencies tied to the US government.

I'm going to go ahead and ask for a source for that. A source that isn't a page that claims Syria is a working democracy, like the one you linked in that quote.

Furthermore, last I looked high-profile journalists critical of the US government aren't shot to death.

 easysauce wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
lol riiiight, because people who watch/read RT and BBC and the cnn's msnbcs and KNOW that each one of them lies and has bias towards their own agendas is much less informed then people who just believe whatever cnnmsnbcfox tell them is true as gospel.

heck I suspect most people just believe whatever their facebook feed tells them.


Such an obvious double standard "my new isnt biadsd, yours is total propaganda"

Between the US, the UK, and Russia there's two countries that has freedom of the press. I'll let you pick which two out and then let you have a guess at why RT is at best an unreliable source. That is not to say that other news agencies aren't biased, but comparing the BBC to Russia Today is rather disturbing.

Nope, you just proved you are in the "my bias is truth, yours is a lie" so instead of hearing each sides views, you ignore the sides you dont like, and accept the one side you do.

bravo.

If you really have such unconditional trust in your preferred source over another, that is what is disturbing.

Weather you like it or not, RT is telling the truth about how that side percives the issue, and weather you like it or not, that is relevant information.

Wether you like it or not, all the western sources are just as biased as the eastern ones (not just rt) the only thing that changes is what the bias is.

You'll note that I didn't tell anyone to ignore RT, that's you making up a strawman. What I did say it's unreliable at best, and that comparing it to the BBC is disturbing, which it is. You'll also note that I've not once stated that I blindly believe whatever anyone says, just that I'd trust the BBC over Russia Today. One is what is possibly the most respected news agency in the world, the other has links to the government of a nation where dissidents are imprisoned arbitrarily. Claiming some sort of equality between the two is silly.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 Minx wrote:

Spoiler:

 loki old fart wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
lol riiiight, because people who watch/read RT and BBC and the cnn's msnbcs and KNOW that each one of them lies and has bias towards their own agendas is much less informed then people who just believe whatever cnnmsnbcfox tell them is true as gospel.

heck I suspect most people just believe whatever their facebook feed tells them.


Such an obvious double standard "my new isnt biadsd, yours is total propaganda"

Between the US, the UK, and Russia there's two countries that has freedom of the press. I'll let you pick which two out and then let you have a guess at why RT is at best an unreliable source. That is not to say that other news agencies aren't biased, but comparing the BBC to Russia Today is rather disturbing.

Nope, you just proved you are in the "my bias is truth, yours is a lie" so instead of hearing each sides views, you ignore the sides you dont like, and accept the one side you do.

bravo.

If you really have such unconditional trust in your preferred source over another, that is what is disturbing.

Weather you like it or not, RT is telling the truth about how that side percives the issue, and weather you like it or not, that is relevant information.

By ignoring the sides you deem "unworthy of attention" you just serve to further your own ignorance and bias on the topic.

Yup to see the truth, you need to look at all sides. But do bring salt.

Yep, but leave out the obviously lying side. It's just a waste of time:
"In 2013 Russia ranked 148th out of 179 countries in the Press Freedom Index from Reporters Without Borders."

See this http://www.voltairenet.org/article165297.html.

Reporters Without Borders is an international Non-Governmental Organization (NGO). According to its website it is headquartered in Paris, France. Paris is a curious home base for an organization that, as it turns out, is financed by the US Congress and by agencies tied to the US government.

I'm going to go ahead and ask for a source for that. A source that isn't a page that claims Syria is a working democracy, like the one you linked in that quote.

Furthermore, last I looked high-profile journalists critical of the US government aren't shot to death.

 easysauce wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
lol riiiight, because people who watch/read RT and BBC and the cnn's msnbcs and KNOW that each one of them lies and has bias towards their own agendas is much less informed then people who just believe whatever cnnmsnbcfox tell them is true as gospel.

heck I suspect most people just believe whatever their facebook feed tells them.


Such an obvious double standard "my new isnt biadsd, yours is total propaganda"

Between the US, the UK, and Russia there's two countries that has freedom of the press. I'll let you pick which two out and then let you have a guess at why RT is at best an unreliable source. That is not to say that other news agencies aren't biased, but comparing the BBC to Russia Today is rather disturbing.

Nope, you just proved you are in the "my bias is truth, yours is a lie" so instead of hearing each sides views, you ignore the sides you dont like, and accept the one side you do.

bravo.

If you really have such unconditional trust in your preferred source over another, that is what is disturbing.

Weather you like it or not, RT is telling the truth about how that side percives the issue, and weather you like it or not, that is relevant information.

Wether you like it or not, all the western sources are just as biased as the eastern ones (not just rt) the only thing that changes is what the bias is.

You'll note that I didn't tell anyone to ignore RT, that's you making up a strawman. What I did say it's unreliable at best, and that comparing it to the BBC is disturbing, which it is. You'll also note that I've not once stated that I blindly believe whatever anyone says, just that I'd trust the BBC over Russia Today. One is what is possibly the most respected news agency in the world, the other has links to the government of a nation where dissidents are imprisoned arbitrarily. Claiming some sort of equality between the two is silly.

The BBC isn't as squeaky clean as it once was. hell they knew about jimmy saville for gawds sake.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

You'll note that I didn't tell anyone to ignore RT, that's you making up a strawman. What I did say it's unreliable at best, and that comparing it to the BBC is disturbing, which it is. You'll also note that I've not once stated that I blindly believe whatever anyone says, just that I'd trust the BBC over Russia Today.

riiight, you dont tell us to ignore RT, you just tell us they are totally unreliable and that you trust BBC, but not them.

You are using "strawman" incorrectly as a catch 22 , I know what you are saying, and I in no way am mis representing it or making up your arguement for you.

You have claimed, repeatedly, that RT is not a reliable source... a reliable source is one you listen too, an unreliable source is one you ignore.

That you admit to trusting ONE source over another, proves that you are only viewing this from one side. Because a source you trust, is a source you listen too.

By saying you trust BBC, you say they are telling the truth (otherwise, why do you trust them?)

By saying you DONT trust RT, you are saying they are not telling the truth... otherwise, why distrust them?

 easysauce wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

You'll note that I didn't tell anyone to ignore RT, that's you making up a strawman. What I did say it's unreliable at best, and that comparing it to the BBC is disturbing, which it is. You'll also note that I've not once stated that I blindly believe whatever anyone says, just that I'd trust the BBC over Russia Today.

riiight, you dont tell us to ignore RT, you just tell us they are totally unreliable and that you trust BBC, but not them.

You are using "strawman" incorrectly as a catch 22 , I know what you are saying, and I in no way am mis representing it or making up your arguement for you.

You have claimed, repeatedly, that RT is not a reliable source... a reliable source is one you listen too, an unreliable source is one you ignore.

That you admit to trusting ONE source over another, proves that you are only viewing this from one side. Because a source you trust, is a source you listen too.

By saying you trust BBC, you say they are telling the truth (otherwise, why do you trust them?)

By saying you DONT trust RT, you are saying they are not telling the truth... otherwise, why distrust them?

Unreliable =/= worthless. Stop putting words in my mouth when you clearly don't know what I'm saying. That's the very definition of a strawman. Yes, I've claimed that the BBC is a more reliable news source than Russia Today, and provided reasoning to back it up. You've "refuted" this by claiming I'm saying things I'm not and by telling me I'm wrong without backing it up.

I mean really, I'm telling you that I've never said that you should completely discount RT (which I haven't), you claim that I'm lying. Why would I lie about my opinion when I'm trying to explain it?

I trust the BBC more than I trust RT because the BBC has a history of relatively balanced journalism, whereas RT has a history of blatantly twisting news to suit Russian interests, while working in a nation that is notorious for its limited freedom of the press.

Uhmm, guys, you all do realize that this march from Lviv shown in the photo *IS* made in commemmoration of the 14th SS division, and that there are almost identical pictures from the one last year, when they had their "70-year-anniversary"?

The only thing that RT omitted here is that last year, a large number of the participating neo-nazis were from Lithuania and, wait for it, Russia.

 Allod wrote:
Uhmm, guys, you all do realize that this march from Lviv shown in the photo *IS* made in commemmoration of the 14th SS division, and that there are almost identical pictures from the one last year, when they had their "70-year-anniversary"?

The only thing that RT omitted here is that last year, a large number of the participating neo-nazis were from Lithuania and, wait for it, Russia.

So there was truth in it, but not the whole truth.

So they might be good Neo Nazi's.....only problem I see....is why they are still alive....

Truth told....Russia can ramp up its Re-education Camps abd be on par with our (US) FEMA Death Camps

Even though this is the "Off Topic Forum", every effort should still be made to remain On Topic within the actual threads posted in it...

...thanks!