04-12-2017, 01:51 PM
(04-12-2017, 11:42 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I can buy a lot of weapons from Home Depot it would seem. The point I made in asking the question to you is that something used as a weapon is still a weapon, right? Not that this matters as the issue lies with his logic.
We're venturing perilously close to semantics here but allow this point if you will. Anything that is used as a weapon is technically a weapon at that time. I've seen pencils used as weapons, but would you consider a pencil a weapon? When we're talking about a specific category like "chemical weapons" there is an implied meaning. Ralph didn't use "chemical weapons" on Tony Soprano when he sprayed Raid in his eyes, he used a chemical as a weapon.
Quote:According to Spicer's second comment, he was referring to their use of chemical weapons on their own people by dropping them into cities. This is all technically true. Hitler didn't gas large groups of citizens, just specific undesirable citizens. The point of all of this was to suggest some level of vileness in Assad's actions that even Hitler wouldn't stoop to. Except, to accept this, we are to accept that mass murder is inherently more vile than genocide.
Yes, a very valid point. It was a very poor choice for comparison.
Quote:So if we concede that his clarification to a specific scenario is true, you still have to reject the logic behind his argument. It's no different than saying, "Not even Hitler dropped nukes". I'm not suggesting Spicer doesn't know that Hitler used chemicals to kill nearly 1 million people, I'm suggesting that he is grossly trying to stretch the truth to make an obscene argument.
In other words he's being a press secretary. His job is to spin, he did a bad job.
Quote:Also, really? Obama saying "57 states"? That's not even close to someone misrepresenting facts to suggest someone did something so evil that even Hitler wouldn't do it.
They're both verbal gaffs. I'm not a huge fan of attacking someone over imprecise wording or mistakes when their intent is clear. My distaste for it is likely due to how often I interact with lawyers.
Quote:Just discussing history now, another thing I have read is that historians believed Hitler didn't use chemical weapons on the battlefield because he was worried that the allies had them too and wanted to prevent them from retaliating with their own chemical weapons, withholding unless the allies used them first.
I think that's likely part of it as well.
(04-12-2017, 11:43 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Check out the nerve agent tabun. It was the first nerve agent chemical weapon and was manufactured by the Nazis. They used Jewish prisoners as test subjects. Pretty nasty stuff but it was impractical to use at the time.
Thank you, I'm actually excited to read up on something I was unaware of. I've read numerous books on the extermination programs and I've never seen Tabun come up to my recollection. I likely overlooked it or don't remember.
(04-12-2017, 12:53 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I understood what Spicer meant, but I still think he's a moron overall. Don't even venture towards Nazis. No comparisons. Just leave it alone.
Nazi comparisons have been flying thick and fast the last few months, Spencer was only trying to join in with the cool kids.
