Re: Hitler and his Religious Pal
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2024 7:38 am
.
For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Typical VA, not directly responding. That's all been known for a long time and notice how complicated it is.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 1:41 amRelations 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
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 10:13 am 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?
I don't believe in 'psychics'Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 11:12 pmYou 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 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 10:13 am 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?