> Which exact opposite? Be specific.

I already was. Here's what I wrote again: "they said the protest was in response to an earlier pro-Russia protest by some extreme left and extreme right organizations." So no, they did not say the protest consists of "pro-Russian collaborators" nor the "extreme left" nor the "extreme right."

> They didn't mention that. I just provided more context.

Yes, I know. Like I said, you're just putting words in their mouth.

> Have you read what kind of people were there? Do you know anything about it? Would you disagree that there were populists on the anti-government protest?

I don't particularly care. I'm just pointing out that you're being a dick and arguing in bad faith. You're making stuff up and acting like the person you're replying to said stuff that they didn't. It's not cool.

If you think you have a valid argument, you should be able to argue it without making up lies about what the other person said.

> They reacted to a post that specifically claimed that... and they didn't disagree either.

No, they didn't. The post "they reacted to" doesn't claim this protest is "pro-government" either. It also doesn't claim it supports their "current steps/politics."

> I am not. I am trying to establish baseline by describing the reality.

Yes, you are. They didn't say almost everything you claimed they did. Heck, you even admitted to putting words in their mouth in the first paragraph of your reply to me. Just to jog your memory: "They didn't mention that. I just provided more context."

> Or do you disagree with any of the points, such as that...

I don't have an opinion on the protests nor did I ever even remotely claim to. Like I said above, I'm taking issue with you making up strawman to argue against.

> I can support all these statements with links to Czech articles, twitter, videos etc.

Good. So instead of making up lies about what the other person said, you could have just laid out facts yourself with supporting documentation. Why didn't you just do that from the start?