Who is worse, Hitler or Assad? (1 Viewer)

[Hatuey]

It means that the agent can be used as a weapon in battle.

Nope, that's not what weaponize means. Weaponize is not an adjective. It's a verb. Hell, weaponized the adjective doesn't even mean that.

You want to try again?

 

[apdst]

Nope, that's not what weaponize means. Weaponize is not an adjective. It's a verb. Hell, weaponized the adjective doesn't even mean that.

You want to try again?

You might want to save yourself the embarressment and let this one go. :lamo

 

[Hatuey]

You might want to save yourself the embarressment and let this one go. :lamo

Apdst you can't embarrass people because that would require you to understand the concept of shame.

Anyways, you want to post the definition of "weaponize" for us? Or do I have to show everyone why you're - again - making it up as you go?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[apdst]

Apdst you can't embarrass people because that would require you to understand the concept of shame.

Anyways, you want to post the definition of "weaponize" for us? Or do I have to show everyone why you're - again - making it up as you go?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've already illustrated how a chemical agent is weaponized. If you want to start a thread about the dictionary, git after it.

 

[Hatuey]

I've already illustrated how a chemical agent is weaponized. If you want to start a thread about the dictionary, git after it.

Apdst - there is no established method of weaponization other than to make into a weapon. That's exactly what happened to zyklon b. It was made into a weapon ie. weaponized.

Funny enough, "zyklon b"(hydrogen cyanide) is listed as a chemical warfare agent. You, in your usual eloquence, are saying it wasn't weaponized because it wasn't designed to be a weapon. Well, hammers aren't designed to be weapons either. Try beating somebody with one and then claim you didn't use a weapon.

You should be embarrassed by the pretentious failings you're about to put out - but again, no concept of shame.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ikari]

What's stupid is the fauxrage over it. The fauxragers are too stupid to understand that Zyklon B wasn't a weaponized agent. They're the same people who claim that when Assad used chlorine on people that he wasn't using chemical weapons.

What's stupid is trying to Godwin the situation. Probably should have kept his trap shut on that one, lol.

 

[apdst]

What's stupid is trying to Godwin the situation. Probably should have kept his trap shut on that one, lol.

Spicer called someone a Nazi? Link?

 

[apdst]

Apdst - there is no established method of weaponization other than to make into a weapon. That's exactly what happened to zyklon b. It was made into a weapon ie. weaponized.

Funny enough, "zyklon b"(hydrogen cyanide) is listed as a chemical warfare agent. You, in your usual eloquence, are saying it wasn't weaponized because it wasn't designed to be a weapon. Well, hammers aren't designed to be weapons either. Try beating somebody with one and then claim you didn't use a weapon.

You should be embarrassed by the pretentious failings you're about to put out - but again, no concept of shame.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Show us one time when Zyklon B was used on the battlefield.

 

[Winston]

Nope, that's not what weaponize means. Weaponize is not an adjective. It's a verb. Hell, weaponized the adjective doesn't even mean that.

You want to try again?

 

[Hatuey]

Show us one time when Zyklon B was used on the battlefield.

Weaponization has nothing to do with being used on a battlefield. It literally refers to how the object is being used and not where. You can weaponize spies, space, food, etc.

If a family member one day gets tired of you, and beats your head open with a nail studded hammer, they have effectively weaponized both the nails and hammers. Neither of which need to be used in a battlefield in order to be considered weaponized.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ikari]

Spicer called someone a Nazi? Link?

Spicer brought up Hitler in the context of comparison to Assad. It was a stupid thing to say, Hitler has zero to do with anything, There was no reason to bring it up, and he created a backlash because of it. Should have kept is stupid trap shut on that one, lol.

 

[apdst]

Spicer brought up Hitler in the context of comparison to Assad. It was a stupid thing to say, Hitler has zero to do with anything, There was no reason to bring it up, and he created a backlash because of it. Should have kept is stupid trap shut on that one, lol.

He was simply stating historical fact. Leave it to the intellectuals to get their panties in a knot about it.

 

[Ikari]

He was simply stating historical fact. Leave it to the intellectuals to get their panties in a knot about it.

bwaaahahahahahahhaa

He tried to draw a comparison between Assad's regime and Hitler and faced backlash for Godwin-ing, Stupid comparison, stupid thing to say, should have kept his trap shut. Had to apologize for all his efforts, and the Trump Admin gets more egg on it's face, lol. If he didn't want to be called out on saying stupid things, he should just avoid saying stupid things in the first place.

 

[apdst]

bwaaahahahahahahhaa

He tried to draw a comparison between Assad's regime and Hitler and faced backlash for Godwin-ing, Stupid comparison, stupid thing to say, should have kept his trap shut. Had to apologize for all his efforts, and the Trump Admin gets more egg on it's face, lol. If he didn't want to be called out on saying stupid things, he should just avoid saying stupid things in the first place.

He pointed out that Hotler didn't even use chemical weapons. It's a fact. The only reason it's a big deal is your partisan hackery.

 

[Ikari]

He pointed out that Hotler didn't even use chemical weapons. It's a fact. The only reason it's a big deal is your partisan hackery.

I'm not the one being a partisan hack. He said something stupid, there was no need to bring up Hitler or try to compare Assad to Hitler. Assad's atrocities can stand on their own, there's no need to Godwin it. Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[TheGoverness]

He pointed out that Hotler didn't even use chemical weapons. It's a fact. The only reason it's a big deal is your partisan hackery.

What's a Hotler?

 

[Ikari]

What's a Hotler?

I think it's a failed male stripper name.

 

[apdst]

What's a Hotler?

A typo. Do you know what a typo is? Or, is your ability to debate a topic that weak?

 

[apdst]

I'm not the one being a partisan hack. He said something stupid, there was no need to bring up Hitler or try to compare Assad to Hitler. Assad's atrocities can stand on their own, there's no need to Godwin it. Stupid is as stupid does.

You think it's stupid...because you hate President Trump. Spicer could say that the sky is blue and you would wet your pants over that, too.

 

[rocket88]

What's stupid is the fauxrage over it. The fauxragers are too stupid to understand that Zyklon B wasn't a weaponized agent. They're the same people who claim that when Assad used chlorine on people that he wasn't using chemical weapons.

Here you are doubling down on the "Hitler wasn't as bad" rhetoric. What's the opposite of damning with fait praise? Praising with faint damnation? Zyklon B was used to kill people, therefore it was a weapon. Therefore Hitler DID use chemical weapons even if it wasn't in the field of battle. You're defending Hitler by saying he's less bad than Assad (which a month ago, even you weren't saying because Trump wasn't saying it).

This "worse than Hitler" rhetoric is exactly what got us into Iraq in the first place. A war which Trump opposed, btw. The only thing that remains to be seen is if Trump demonstrates enough foresight to stay out of this morass.

 

[apdst]

Here you are doubling down on the "Hitler wasn't as bad" rhetoric. What's the opposite of damning with fait praise? Praising with faint damnation? Zyklon B was used to kill people, therefore it was a weapon. Therefore Hitler DID use chemical weapons even if it wasn't in the field of battle. You're defending Hitler by saying he's less bad than Assad (which a month ago, even you weren't saying because Trump wasn't saying it).

This "worse than Hitler" rhetoric is exactly what got us into Iraq in the first place. A war which Trump opposed, btw. The only thing that remains to be seen is if Trump demonstrates enough foresight to stay out of this morass.

When did I say, "Hitler wasn't as bad"? Like I said, you're lying. Now, stop it!

 

[rocket88]

I think it's a failed male stripper name.

 

[Peter King]

There are two types of Progressive Liberals:

1. Socialists attempting to lie about what they are.

2. Useful Idiots who join up because they think it’s cool or they like a social issue (abortion, gay rights). But they don’t realize they are giving support to the most destructive political/economic ideology the world has ever seen.

A close examination of the governing platforms of both Socialism and Communism shows the absolute only difference between the two is Socialist try to claim they can function without a Totalitarian Dictatorship.

The problem with that is Socialism is so antithetical to human nature that people have to be forced to do it. This can only happen with an all powerful centralized government controlling everything AKA a Totalitarian Dictatorship.

1. nonsense

2. more nonsense

Socialists are more large government than communists and both are much more big government that progressive liberals.

Communism is something that can never work, not because it would not be a "nice idea" if not for one thing, human beings and all their flaws and petty envy of others. Absolutely cannot work.

Socialism is virtually equally impossible to work because it takes away too many freedoms from people (and just wants to have too much government interference in private people's lives).

Now sure, a good part of progressive liberals are either communists at heart but socialists as a more realistic policy and others are outright socialists.

But most of the progressive liberals are neither socialist or communist.

 

[rocket88]

1. nonsense

2. more nonsense

Socialists are more large government than communists and both are much more big government that progressive liberals.

Communism is something that can never work, not because it would not be a "nice idea" if not for one thing, human beings and all their flaws and petty envy of others. Absolutely cannot work.

Socialism is virtually equally impossible to work because it takes away too many freedoms from people (and just wants to have too much government interference in private people's lives).

Now sure, a good part of progressive liberals are either communists at heart but socialists as a more realistic policy and others are outright socialists.

But most of the progressive liberals are neither socialist or communist.

Don't feed the trolls, man. Just don't.

 

[Ikari]

You think it's stupid...because you hate President Trump. Spicer could say that the sky is blue and you would wet your pants over that, too.

I think it's stupid because....it's stupid. To Godwin, and in such a clumsy manner. There was no need to bring Hitler into that equation and it blew up in his face. It was stupid, he should have known better.