I'm not doing that, though I think I can see and believe that you think I am. we are miscommunicating at a level that makes it very hard to overcome. you go back to debating whether or not the alleged former ukranian soldier was or wasn't something, but that *completely* and *deeply* misses the point. my qualm is with the representatives who chose to honor someone as a hero for having taken part in a war. let me show you how fscked up that is with a mix of fictional and real people taking the place of that specific former soldier, to show you how it's not about him

1. this man is a hero, he fought at WWII. (*applause* without even knowing what he fought for or against)

2. this man is a hero, he was born in Austria, he was friends with my grandfather, and they both fought together at WWII
(same man as in 1; his name was Adolph)

3. this man is a hero, he was born in Ukraine, and he fought at WWII
(is this the canadian man we're talking about? my nazi grandfather? someone else? can't tell; would the parliament honor and applaud them anyway?)

4. this young man is a hero. he was born in ukraine, he dreamed of fighting fascists like his great-grandparents did, and so he jumped at the chance when war knocked on his door: he became a volunteer soldier
(*applause* without even knowing what army he joined; note: both sides have soldiers who believe to be fighting fascist enemies)

see what problem I'm getting at? it's not about him at all!