Hitler and his Religious Pal

[accelafine]

.

[Iwannaplato]

Relations between Nazi Germany (1933–1945) and the Arab world ranged from indifference, resistance, collaboration and emulation.[1][2][3][4][5]
Nazi Germany used collaborators throughout the Arab world to support their political goals. The cooperative political and military relationships were based on shared hostilities towards common enemies, such as the United Kingdom,[4][5] the French Third Republic,[2][4] along with communism, and Zionism.[2][4][5]

Another foundation of such collaborations was the antisemitism of the Nazis and their hostility towards the United Kingdom and France, which was admired by some Arab and Muslim leaders, most notably the exiled Palestinian leader, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations ... Arab_world

Typical VA, not directly responding. That's all been known for a long time and notice how complicated it is.
But the video and the quote in the OP are saying other things

During the 1930s and 1940s, a unique and lasting political alliance was forged among Third Reich leaders, Arab nationalists, and Muslim religious authorities. From this relationship sprang a series of dramatic events that, despite their profound impact on the course of World War II and Middle Eastern history, has remained largely secret until now.

What part that is now accepted by the relevant experts was secret until recently? It certainly isn't what VA quoted above from Wikipedia. That's all been known and not secret for a long time.

Further a very similar, parallel chunk of information to the one in Wikipedia could be made about people and groups in the US - and certainly Catholics and Catholic Italy, for example - and their collaboration with Nazis during the rise of Hitler and beyond.

[accelafine]

So brave. Take out the men first so you can have your fun with the women and children. Just pallywally boys letting off a bit of steam.

[Iwannaplato]

If old VA had started with the Wikipedia, I wouldn't have brought up the issue of his sources. Not that I take Wikipedia as always accurate (hardly) or complete. But his source is one that says things not in Wikipedia and that are controversial among experts at the least. When challenged about his source, he supports it via Wikipedia, which, yes supports some pieces of his OP and the link, but does not support many of them. In other words he it's a Fallacy of Composition.

The fallacy of composition is an informal fallacy that arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.

There's also a hint of 'if you disagree with parts of the OP, you consider all of it to be incorrect.' Certainly there are and were Arabs and Muslims who could align with Nazi goals of all kinds. And so on. The issue isn't binary.

But we'll see, for example, what the series of dramatic events that has remained largely secret until now is.
.

[accelafine]

I realise you don't give a shit about children and babies chaz, but did you know the first thing your friends filmed was the shooting of a family dog, trying valiantly to protect his people? Toddlers pffft. But a dog? Now that's pure evil don't you think? Never mind the child-torture. Just don't mess with dogs eh?

[Iwannaplato]

I realise you don't give a shit about children and babies chaz, but did you know the first thing your friends filmed was the shooting of a family dog, trying valiantly to protect his people? Toddlers pffft. But a dog? Now that's pure evil don't you think? Never mind the child-torture. Just don't mess with dogs eh?

You make a poor psychic, bellend. But I see the appeal of implicitly claiming to be one. No need to actually interact with anything. Assertions and bile are your forte, well, habit. You can change your name, but it didn't make you a better thinker, did it? Propagandist, sure. Targets, different, but Goebbel's would have admired the style - nice image. Solid 'argument'.

[accelafine]

I realise you don't give a shit about children and babies chaz, but did you know the first thing your friends filmed was the shooting of a family dog, trying valiantly to protect his people? Toddlers pffft. But a dog? Now that's pure evil don't you think? Never mind the child-torture. Just don't mess with dogs eh?

You make a poor psychic, bellend. But I see the appeal of implicitly claiming to be one. No need to actually interact with anything. Assertions and bile are your forte, well, habit. You can change your name, but it didn't make you a better thinker, did it? Propagandist, sure. Targets, different, but Goebbel's would have admired the style - nice image. Solid 'argument'.

I don't believe in 'psychics' And I see you aren't acquainted with the concept of 'irony' or you wouldn't have written that sanctimonious drivel, especially to a comment that wasn't even directed at you. Or is your name 'chaz' too?