Heisenberg wrote:The quote you chose backs up what I said. I didn't say specifically that Navalny is a neo-Nazi. I said he has ties to them, which he does.
False. Your partisan source has been thoroughly addressed, none of the below is evidence of your propaganda: https://jacobinmag.com/2017/07/alexey-n ... ment-trump
Now who's being obtuse? In my experience, people without far right sympathies don't usually attend marches organised by the far right.
As Atlantis informed you, you can't call the guy a 'nationalist' and a puppet of the west at the same time. You got to choose your poison. Navalny is smart enough to understand this and play with the cards that have been dealt already for him
Being a nationalist does not make him "neonazi", nor does it mean that he has "neo-nazi connections" as you claimed but most importantly it does not make him worse than Putin as is evidenced below.
Heisenberg wrote:Yeah, I'd say that supporting a far right campaign named "Stop Feeding the Caucasus" and calling for strict limits on Central Asian (hint: Muslim) migration to Russia is not the sort of thing that cuddly liberals do.
In an interview in January, Navalny laid out the main points of the so-called nationalist agenda, including combating illegal immigration and ethnically based organized-crime groups; protecting ethnic Russians abroad; and bringing order to the North Caucasus, which he has called a de facto lawless "off-shore zone."
He called for an open discussion of all these issues -- which he prefers to call a "realistic agenda" -- in order to develop policies that will prevent ethnic conflict. "This is a basic, realistic agenda," he said. "It exists, but for some reason many in the liberal movement think that all these questions have to be suppressed because a discussion of them would mean the mythical dark side of the soul of the Russian people will be inflamed and the Russian people will immediately produce a Hitler and so on. This is all absolute nonsense."
Sounds like a garden-variety conservative. The more you bring these forward the more appealing you make this person to the average Russian and the more your characterisation of "neo-nazi" falls flat on its face. The alternative to Navalny, Putin.
Here you go, unless Time magazine is also too pro-Putin for you.
Sounds like an angel compared to Putin who rounded up the migrants as per your own source:https://world.time.com/2013/10/14/russia-responds-to-anti-migrant-riots-by-arresting-migrants/Russia Responds to Anti-Migrant Riots by Arresting Migrants
Once again, please show me where I said "Putin is the antidote" to anything. You won't be able to, of course, because I never said it.
Since you do not stand by your own arguments, I am saying now that Putin is far more far-right and "neonazi" than Navalny and your source has confirmed this conclusively.
What do want for Navalny? They have already tried to poison him and he is currently in prison. You 're calling him a stooge with "neonazi connections", what do you want to happen to him? You want him to run or stay in prison or stay dead? What is it exactly that would make you happy Heisenberg? What's your point here?
I think it's pretty clear that my "dismissive attitude" in this thread is reserved for western liberal interventionists, and not "Ukrainian & Russian democracy". Perhaps this is why I've so clearly hit a nerve...
You have gone from, "see you later" to "I'm back", it's laughable claiming you 've hit anyone's nerves other than your own.
The only western interventionist in this conversation is your own self. You are the only one supporting a Russian faction(Putin) by trying to dismiss his opposition with not a single real argument. You 're an agitprop for Putin and have made several statements against Navalny that do not stand up to scrutiny.
You have done this against the Russian opposition leader that has been poisoned and imprisoned and have not even had the decency to state your opinion.
Of all your histrionics, this is the icing on the cake. As a general rule, don't present things as direct quotes when they aren't direct quotes. It's widely considered to be bad form.
Why is it "bad form" to quote your own words? That's a new one.
You claimed that Navalny is a "CIA-MI6 neo nazi stooge", for evidence you said "well the FT and Economist like him, so he must be"
Get a grip.
EN EL ED EM ON
...take your common sense with you, and leave your prejudices behind...