CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Actually it's a tactic Communists described in their writings on how to destroy enemy nations in the West. I've even shown you this. You don't care. Isn't that interesting?
Hello again, bront:
Why, the fuck, do you think I give a shit about what fucking Communists write??? DUDE!
You think I'm a fucking commie, and I think you're a fucking Russian bot.. Are we EVEN??
Because the Democrat Party is following those writing like it's the Bible.
The spectre of Communism was used to win dictatorial powers.[80]
Hitler made use of it to portray Nazis as the only alternative to the Communists, fears of which he whipped up.[82] This propaganda resulted in an acceptance of anti-Communist violence at the time, though antisemitic violence was less approved of.[83]
Hitler preached class warfare, agitating the working class to resist “exploitation” by capitalists , particularly Jewish capitalists, of course. Your exact position, eh Nom?
Hitler preached class warfare, agitating the working class to resist “exploitation” by capitalists , particularly Jewish capitalists, of course.
HITLER DEDICATED HIS ENTIRE LIFE TO TELLING LIES ABOUT THE LEFT WING, OMITTING FACTS, TURNING THEM UPSIDE DOWN AND VICIOUSLY ATTACKING COMMUNISTS. You are an utterly absurd, lying Nazi scumbag and that can easily be proven right here:-
Nazism rejected the Marxist concepts of class conflict and universal equality
Do you see the way that you abuse words deliberately in order to create lies and distortions of the facts??
The word "everyone" is objectively erroneous. You have used it deliberately in order to misrepresent me. The reason you need to misrepresent me is because you lack the intelligence to actually rebut my arguments.
who isn’t a commie like you must be a fascist, you’re engaging in a Nazi-like false dichotomy.
I have never made any such claim, liar. Lies are all you have, aren't they buddy?
Let's just have another look at the absurdity of your post. You begin by pretending that because I have accurately determined you and several others on this site to be literal fascists, I therefore believe "everyone who isn't a commie must be a fascist". From there, you use this deliberate misrepresentation as a straw man argument, and you end by trying to persuade people that I must be a Nazi because YOU created a false dichotomy.
Do you have any idea whatsoever how absurd that is?
Oh just shut your lying mouth you retarded Nazi scumbag. If they were leftists then you wouldn't have a problem showing us a single historian who agrees with your absurd fucking lie.
Unfortunately, all you have is the private blog of a raging mad campaign finance attorney called Paul H Jossey, who also writes for numerous fake news websites such as The Daily Caller, The National Review and The American Spectator. All of these publications have a confirmed record of failing independent fact checks. See:-
MediaBIasFactCheck.com describes itself as “the most comprehensive media bias resource in the Internet.” The site is owned by Dave Van Zandt from North Carolina, who offers no biographical information about himself aside from the following: “Dave has been freelancing for 25+ years for a variety of print and web mediums (sic), with a focus on media bias and the role of media in politics. Dave is a registered Non-Affiliated voter who values evidence based reporting” and, “Dave Van Zandt obtained a Communications Degree before pursuing a higher degree in the sciences. Dave currently works full time in the health care industry. Dave has spent more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence.”
WND was unable to locate a single article with Van Zandt’s byline. Ironically, the “fact checker” fails to establish his own credibility by disclosing his qualifications and training in evaluating news sources.
Asked for information concerning his expertise in the field of journalism and evaluating news sources, Van Zandt told WND: “I am not a journalist and just a person who is interested in how media bias impacts politics. You will find zero claims of expertise on the website.”
Concerning his purported “25+ years” of experience writing for print and web media, he said: “I am not sure why the 25+ years is still on the website. That was removed a year ago when I first started the website. All of the writing I did was small print news zines from the ’90s. I felt that what I wrote in the ’90s is not related to what I am doing today so I removed it. Again, I am not a journalist. I simply have a background in communications and more importantly science where I learned to value evidence over all else. Through this I also became interested in research of all kinds, especially media bias, which is difficult to measure and is subjective to a degree.”
WND asked: Were your evaluations reviewed by any experts in the industry?
“I can’t say they have,” Van Zandt replied. “Though the right-of-center Atlantic Council is using our data for a project they are working on.”
Van Zandt says he uses “three volunteers” to “research and assist in fact checking.” However, he adds that he doesn’t pay them for their services.
Van Zandt lists WND on his “Right Bias” page, alongside news organizations such as Fox News, the Drudge Report, the Washington Free Beacon, the Daily Wire, the Blaze, Breitbart, Red State, Project Veritas, PJ Media, National Review, Daily Caller and others.
“These media sources are highly biased toward conservative causes,” Van Zandt writes. “They utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Sources in this category may be untrustworthy.”
His special notes concerning WND link to Snopes.com and PolitiFact.com, websites that have their own questionable reputations and formulas as so-called “fact checkers.” (See the “Snopes” and “PolitiFact” entries below.)
Van Zandt says he uses a “strict methodology” in determining which news sources are credible, but his website offers vague and typo-ridden explanations of his criteria, such as the following:
Asked if his own political leanings influence his evaluations, Van Zandt said: “Sure it is possible. However, our methodology is designed to eliminate most of that. We also have a team of 4 researchers with different political leanings so that we can further reduce researcher bias.”
Bill Palmer of the website Daily News Bin accused Van Zandt of retaliating when the Daily News Bin contacted him about his rating. Palmer wrote:
“[I]t turns out Van Zandt has a vindictive streak. After one hapless social media user tried to use his phony ‘Media Bias Fact Check’ site to dispute a thoroughly sourced article from this site, Daily News Bin, we made the mistake of contacting Van Zandt and asking him to take down his ridiculous ‘rating’ – which consisted of nothing more than hearsay such as ‘has been accused of being satire.’ Really? When? By whom? None of those facts seem to matter to the guy running this ‘Media Bias Fact Check’ scam.
“But instead of acknowledging that he’d been caught in the act, Van Zandt retaliated against Daily News Bin by changing his rating to something more sinister. He also added a link to a similar phony security company called World of Trust, which generates its ratings by allowing random anonymous individuals to post whatever bizarre conspiracy theories they want, and then letting these loons vote on whether that news site is ‘real’ or not. These scam sites are now trying to use each other for cover, in order to back up the false and unsubstantiated ‘ratings’ they semi-randomly assign respected news outlets. …
“‘Media Bias Fact Check’ is truly just one guy making misleading claims about news outlets while failing to back them up with anything, while maliciously changing the ratings to punish any news outlets that try to expose the invalidity of what he’s doing.”
But Van Zandt accused Palmer of threatening him, and he said MediaBiasFactCheck welcomes criticism. If evidence is provided, he said, the site will correct its errors.
“Bottom line is, we are not trying to be something we are not,” he said. “We have disclaimers on every page of the website indicating that our method is not scientifically proven and that there is [sic] subjective judgments being used as it is unavoidable with determining bias.”
you wouldn't have a problem showing us a single historian who agrees with you
Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives
Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives is a 1991 book by Alan Bullock, in which the author puts Adolf Hitler in perspective with Joseph Stalin. Bullock analyses the inner doctrines that made victory and unparalleled terror possible. While theorizing the lives of Hitler and Stalin, he prompts the reader with importance of the German-Russian axis in the first half of the century.[1]
“It is sometimes suggested that the [Nazi economic] recovery was a product of a specific fascist economic strategy, which distinguished it from the recovery efforts of capitalist states. While few would disagree that the Nazi regime had a number of clear ideological preferences when it came to the economy, the policies pursued in 1933 had much in common with those adopted in other countries, and with the policies of the pre-Hitler governments.”
There was nothing conservative about Adolf Hitler. Hitler was an artist and a revolutionary at heart. He wanted to completely upend and remake German society.
Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives is a 1991 book by Alan Bullock, in which the author puts Adolf Hitler in perspective with Joseph Stalin
You were asked to provide a single historian who believes the Nazis were left wing. Nowhere does Alan Bullock claim the Nazis were on the left wing. You are copying the exact propaganda tactics of the third reich.
The Nazi Roots of the American Left
Authored by Dinesh D'Souza. The first line of Dinesh D'Souza's Wiki:-
Dinesh Joseph D'Souza (/dɪˈnɛʃ dəˈsuːzə/; born April 25, 1961) is an Indian-born American conservative political commentator, author, filmmaker, and conspiracy theorist
Another lie and purposeful use of Nazi propaganda techniques.
A.E. Samaan
A.E, Samaan is not a historian. He is an author who has written a book. There is no Wikipedia page on him, nor is there any evidence of his qualifications.
Still waiting for you to provide ONE SINGLE HISTORIAN who believes the Nazis were left wing.
Do you want another try, you complete fucking liar?
Were the Nazis socialists? No, not in any meaningful way, and certainly not after 1934.
To say that Hitler understood the value of language would be an enormous understatement. Propaganda played a significant role in his rise to power. To that end, he paid lip service to the tenets suggested by a name like National Socialist German Workers’ Party, but his primary—indeed, sole—focus was on achieving power whatever the cost
By the late 1920s, however, with the German economy in free fall, Hitler had enlisted support from wealthy industrialists who sought to pursue avowedly anti-socialist policies. Otto Strasser soon recognized that the Nazis were neither a party of socialists nor a party of workers, and in 1930 he broke away to form the anti-capitalist Schwarze Front (Black Front).
Hitler allied himself with leaders of German conservative and nationalist movements, and in January 1933 German President Paul von Hindenburg appointed him chancellor. Hitler’s Third Reich had been born
I think you are deceived by and oblivious to Commies. There's a difference.
and I think you're a fucking Russian bot..
Russia is Communist. I'm definitely not a Communist. There are no bots. The media has given you two fake boogeymen. Bots and 63 million racists that you've never met in real life.
Those "bots" they say were mass spamming social media with real news and fake news are called libs and conservatives.
We have two fake events that leftists don't care to show us one ounce of evidence on.
Fake event 1
A DNC hacked server that they refused to hand over to the FBI, meaning no one has ever seen even a tittle of proof that any hack ever happened.
Fake event 2
Russian bots. Some of those mass posts the left has whined on about were me and others like me. I literally posted some of their claims personally. We're called Americans, and we're human. And we hate Russia. While we're on the topic, the Clintons and Barack should give them their money back for that shit dossier with literal Russian disinformation in it.
Ah, I see. Nom has used the "Jews aren't people" tactic on you so many times, that you are using it now.
Hello again, bront:
Nahhh... We're buds, right?? I wouldn't lie to you. We USED to argue.. You don't argue any more.. You just post shit like a bot. I'm telling you this as your friend..
Step away from the Bondingo's, the Limprods, and the fucking FOX News..
So we have the DUMMY from ROAD ISLAND trying to engage it's LEFTIST BRAIN but the only problem is the LEFTIST does it's best to tie the shoe laces on it's SLIPPERS !!!!!!!!!
Now the TERRORIST SUPPORTER did type this -They kill everyone. If they killed only conservatives, I'd support the Second Amendment as is.
DUMMY it is easy to see you like VIOLENCE well get your PUSSY ASS out of YANKEE LAND and then put your FUCKIN MONEY where you LEFTIST MOUTH is. You got the BALLS there BOY ???????????
They kill everyone. If they killed only conservatives, I'd support the Second Amendment as is.
Let me get this straight. If they only killed Conservatives, you'd support me defending myself, but since they kill both of us, neither of us should be able to defend ourselves...
Almost all terrorist atrocities are poorly planned acts of indiscriminate murder, maiming and destruction.
As their apt name implies their main aim is to instill terror in the civilian population and intimidate the democratically elected governments of the west into yielding to all or most of their demands.
Almost all terrorist atrocities are poorly planned acts of indiscriminate murder, maiming and destruction.
Utterly ridiculous bullshit. The United States has been sponsoring international state terrorism for the last seventy years son. Read a book.
These labels you throw around like "terrorist" always tend to be aimed at the enemies of the American right wing. Usually poverty-stricken farmers fighting Israel or some American puppet regime. It's exactly the same propaganda Hitler pulled against the French Resistance.
Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/; Latin for "you also"), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s)
Yes. My rebuttal is that if you thought these campaigns were terrorism, you shouldn't have participated in them.
But my real rebuttal is...
Iraq literally marched its military into a neighboring country to conquer it. Do you condemn that? Nope. You condemn those who stopped them. Why? Well you're evil, that's why.
Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/; Latin for "you also"), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s)
I SEE YOU'VE BEEN OVERDOSING ON THE CADBURY'S FRUIT AND NUT AGAIN NOM.
So, according to your standard loony left wing nonsense the Government of the United States of America have formed the following, and many more terrorist organizations.
The so called Islamic State,
The Irish Republican Army,
The Islamic Jihad Union,
The Ulster Volunteer Force.
The Liberation Tigers of Tamil,
Hamas,
The Palestinian Liberation Front,
Hezbollah,
Al-QED,
The Basque Fatherland & Liberty Organization, etc, etc, etc.
While your unique form of unfathomable madness is amusing it is also tragic for you and those who have to be in contact with you.
A good start for your road to mental stability would be to lay off the Fruit and Nut Chocolate.
Did you start experimenting with Fruit and Nut confection at Uni?
When did you first realize that you had become addicted?
So, according to your standard loony left wing nonsense the Government of the United States of America have formed the following
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."
When you eventually develop enough intelligence to read basic English you might note that I said the United States has been sponsoring state terrorism for the last seventy years. What I DID NOT say, is that the United States has sponsored every terrorist group in history.
You see how those things are completely different? Of course you don't, because you're a fucking stupid, inbred white trailer trash imbecile, here to illustrate what a complete waste of sperm and egg you turned out to be.
Your obsessional personality forced you to Google the meaning of a straw man, only part of which you copied.
If you had presented Google's interpretation of straw man in full it would have confirmed that its use, within the context of your mumbo-jumbo gibberish was the perfect, if not a little too kindly, choice of word.
Your obsessional personality forced you to Google the meaning of a straw man
Lol. Your chronic narcissistic personality disorder causes you to forcefully inform complete strangers on the other side of the world what they have done throughout the day. It's a pity you don't understand the difference between Wikipedia and Google.
If you had presented Google's interpretation of straw man in full
If you could try to understand that I have known what a straw man argument is for the last nineteen years it would be fantastic. I daresay people probably aren't interested in your wild, fanatical fascist hate speech, nor in your efforts to pretend like it is somehow self-evidently true. The fact of the matter is that you made a straw man argument, you got busted doing it, and demanding I link the entire Wikipedia page isn't going to change that. But, if it keeps you happy I'll do it. Just for you.
In sum, you're a fucking prick who gets paid by the oil and gas junta to attack people on the internet. Way to go you. What a success.
Here you go buddy, as per your request. How deceitful of me not to post this the first time around, hey pal?
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.[2][3] Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.
Straw man tactics in the United Kingdom can be known as an Aunt Sally, after a pub game of the same name, where patrons threw sticks or battens at a post to knock off a skittle balanced on top.[4][5]
Contents
1 History
2 Structure
3 Examples
4 Contemporary work
5 Steelmanning
6 See also
7 References
8 External links
As a fallacy, the identification and name of straw man arguments are of relatively recent date, although Aristotle makes remarks that suggest a similar concern;[6] Douglas Walton identified "the first inclusion of it we can find in a textbook as an informal fallacy" in Stuart Chase's Guides to Straight Thinking from 1956 (p. 40).[6][7] However, Hamblin's classic text Fallacies (1970) neither mentions it as a distinct type, nor even as a historical term.[6][7]
The term's origins are a matter of debate, though the usage of the term in rhetoric suggests a human figure made of straw that is easy to knock down or destroy—such as a military training dummy, scarecrow, or effigy.[8] A common but false etymology is that it refers to men who stood outside courthouses with a straw in their shoe to signal their willingness to be a false witness.[9] The Online Etymology Dictionary states that the term “man of straw” can be traced back to 1620 as “an easily refuted imaginary opponent in an argument.”[10]
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.
This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.
For example:
Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[3]
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[2]
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Exaggerating (sometimes grossly exaggerating) an opponent's argument, then attacking this exaggerated version.
Examples
Straw man arguments often arise in public debates such as a (hypothetical) prohibition debate:
A: We should relax the laws on beer.
B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.
The original proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has misconstrued/misrepresented this proposal by responding to it as if it had been something like "(we should have) unrestricted access to intoxicants." It is a logical fallacy because Person A never advocated allowing said unrestricted access to intoxicants (this is also a slippery slope argument).
In a 1977 appeal of a U.S. bank robbery conviction, a prosecuting attorney said in his closing argument:[11]
I submit to you that if you can't take this evidence and find these defendants guilty on this evidence then we might as well open all the banks and say, "Come on and get the money, boys," because we'll never be able to convict them.
This was a straw man designed to alarm the appeal judges; the chance that the precedent set by one case would literally make it impossible to convict any bank robbers is remote.
An example often given of a straw man is US President Richard Nixon's 1952 "Checkers speech."[12][13] When campaigning for vice president in 1952, Nixon was accused of having illegally appropriated $18,000 in campaign funds for his personal use. In a televised response, based on an earlier politician's Fala speech, he spoke about another gift, a dog he had been given by a supporter:[12][13]
It was a little cocker spaniel dog, in a crate he had sent all the way from Texas, black and white, spotted, and our little girl Tricia, six years old, named it Checkers. And, you know, the kids, like all kids, loved the dog, and I just want to say this right now, that, regardless of what they say about it, we are going to keep it.
This was a straw man response; his critics had never criticized the dog as a gift or suggested he return it. This argument was successful at distracting many people from the funds and portraying his critics as nitpicking and heartless. Nixon received an outpouring of public support and remained on the ticket. He and Eisenhower were elected by a landslide.
Christopher Tindale presents, as an example, the following passage from a draft of a bill (HCR 74) considered by the Louisiana State Legislature in 2001:[7]
Whereas, the writings of Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, promoted the justification of racism, and his books On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man postulate a hierarchy of superior and inferior races. . . .
Therefore, be it resolved that the legislature of Louisiana does hereby deplore all instances and all ideologies of racism, does hereby reject the core concepts of Darwinist ideology that certain races and classes of humans are inherently superior to others, and does hereby condemn the extent to which these philosophies have been used to justify and approve racist practices.
Tindale comments that "the portrait painted of Darwinian ideology is a caricature, one not borne out by any objective survey of the works cited." The fact that similar misrepresentations of Darwinian thinking have been used to justify and approve racist practices is beside the point: the position that the legislation is attacking and dismissing is a straw man. In subsequent debate, this error was recognized, and the eventual bill omitted all mention of Darwin and Darwinist ideology.[7] Darwin passionately opposed slavery and worked to intellectually confront the notions of "scientific racism" that were used to justify it.[14]
Contemporary work
In 2006, Robert Talisse and Scott Aikin expanded the application and use of the straw man fallacy beyond that of previous rhetorical scholars, arguing that the straw man fallacy can take two forms: the original form that misrepresents the opponent's position, which they call the representative form; and a new form they call the selection form.
The selection form focuses on a partial and weaker (and easier to refute) representation of the opponent's position. Then the easier refutation of this weaker position is claimed to refute the opponent's complete position. They point out the similarity of the selection form to the fallacy of hasty generalization, in which the refutation of an opposing position that is weaker than the opponent's is claimed as a refutation of all opposing arguments. Because they have found significantly increased use of the selection form in modern political argumentation, they view its identification as an important new tool for the improvement of public discourse.[15]
Aikin and Casey expanded on this model in 2010, introducing a third form. Referring to the "representative form" as the classic straw man, and the "selection form" as the weak man, a third form is called the hollow man. A hollow man argument is one that is a complete fabrication, where both the viewpoint and the opponent expressing it do not in fact exist, or at the very least the arguer has never encountered them. Such arguments frequently take the form of vague phrasing such as "some say," "someone out there thinks" or similar weasel words, or it might attribute a non-existent argument to a broad movement in general, rather than an individual or organization.[16][17]
A variation on the selection form, or "weak man" argument, that combines with an ad hominem and fallacy of composition is nut picking, a neologism coined by Kevin Drum.[18] A combination of "nut" (i.e., insane person) and "cherry picking", nut picking refers to intentionally seeking out extremely fringe, non-representative statements or individuals from members of an opposing group and parading these as evidence of that entire group's incompetence or irrationality.[16]
Steelmanning
The steel man argument (or steelmanning) is the opposite of the straw man argument. The idea is to find the best form of the opponent's argument to test opposing opinions.[19][20]
Your ridiculously long winded misrepresentation of a straw man into this thread is nothing else than your standard straw-man diversionary tactic and exposes you as a deranged MAN-OF-STRAW.
You introduced an element into a debate which its creator, ( the Bront) was neither arguing for nor against.
That, you idiotic little poop is a straw-man argument.
You seem to dislike being hounded in the way you do to so many others.
If you have the intellectual ability to consider dispassionately the double standard nature of the gripe in your post you must recognise that your contrasting of principles is further confirmation that you are a real Cadbury's Fruit and Nut case.
An episode of Channel 4’s Dispatches, to be broadcast at 8pm on Monday and presented by the former commissioner of the Metropolitan police, Lord Hogan-Howe, claims that homicides using a knife committed by those under 18 years of age rose by 77% from 2016-2018 - from 26 to 46 incidents.
Rape and sexual offences where a knife was used by someone aged under 18 rose by 38% to a total of 46, and robbery offences where a knife was used rose by over 50%, to 999 crimes.
Data from the NHS shows in the last five years the number of children aged 16 and under being treated for assault by a knife or other sharp objects rose by 93%, from 180 admissions in 2012-13 to 347 in 2017-18.
LIMEY speak to the rise in crime under the MOOSLIME that governs LONDON !!!!!!!
These labels you throw around like "terrorist" always tend to be aimed at the enemies of the American right wing
I don't think so Nom. ISIS and Al-qaeda have never once asked a Westerner their political affiliation before blowing themselves or a building to bits. They'd chop your head off regardless of your lefty card. There's only one group they hate more than Christians or Jews. It's you buddy. Your clan is all over the Quran. Maybe you should look up what they plan for the "unbelievers".
ISIS and al-qaeda are both enemies of the American right wing you completely pointless imbecile. If you "don't think so Nom" then at least have the basic brainpower not to prove me right with your next three words.
ISIS and al-qaeda are both enemies of the American right wing
Interesting. They literally went on a shooting spree in a leftist gay nightclub in Orlando and never asked political affiliation of the places they bombed and/or attacked.
In other words, these terrorist groups are anti American and anti Europe, as opposed to anti right as you attempted to narrate. They'll kill a leftist and never bat an eye.
Aren't you tired of being a little sick, lying little bastard?
Hamas, meaning zeal, is an acronym for “Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya,” the Islamic Resistance Movement.1 It was founded in the occupied Gaza Strip in 1987
Hitler was a European fascist dictator who dedicated his life to wiping out Communism. He literally didn't give a shit about the Middle East you stupid Nazi propagandist idiot.
Everything you ever say is fucking absurd. You are an absurd, stupid little fascist scumbag. Your wife hates you, your kids hate you, you're a self-confessed paedophile, and you spend your life telling lies on the internet.
Honestly, just what kind of retarded fucking fascist idiot claims Hitler supported the Palestinians and then attempts to evidence it with a story about how an Indian once saluted him?
Struggling today aren't you nom?
Amin al-Husseini
Mohammed Amin al-Husseini (Arabic: محمد أمين الحسيني;[5] c. 1897[6][7] – 4 July 1974) was a Palestinian Arab nationalist and Muslim leader in Mandatory Palestine
Honestly, just what kind of retarded fucking fascist idiot claims Hitler
We are going to need a detailed analysis of why if Hitler said 50 things, you take all of those positions, and I take the opposite position. Go ahead. Tell us why.
We are going to need a detailed analysis of why if Hitler said 50 things, you take all of those positions
We are going to need you to explain why you are on the extreme far right yet spend all of your time accusing leftists of being on the extreme far right. You are fundamentally absurd. Everything you ever say is absurd.
Oh, I see! Hitler's exact political position is that he supported Hamas's (created in 1987) struggle against the apartheid state of Israel (created in 1948). Well, you learn something new everyday. In this case we learn how desperately stupid and dishonest you are in trying to project your own fascism onto other people.
Cool. Show us Hitler going after jihadists with propaganda.
What an astonishingly stupid comment.
Firstly, I said Hitler went after the French Resistance. I didn't mention Jihadists.
Secondly, the modern Jihadi movements began after the American right wing became involved in sponsoring the Afghan feudal tribes in the 1970s. They didn't even exist when Hitler was alive.
Changing the subject to one of your choosing is not a method of rebutting criticism about something else, you fucking retarded neo-Nazi imbecile.