Well, at least you aren't following orders when you say it.
"Nazi" has a very specific and definite meaning. I don't see why you need to follow some jackass that wants it to mean something else, especially given how ridiculously wrong it is to apply the term to the Taliban. Frankly, this use of "Nazi" pisses me off. I find it disrespectful to the victims and to the people who put their lives on the line to defeat them. I also think that thoughtlessly parroting some talking head is nothing to be proud of.
You want a term? What's wrong with "Islamic fanatics"? It's quite accurate. Are the extra four letters and a space that much of an effort?
That's the largest leap of logic I've seen here yet. It isn't "disrespectful" to the victims of the nazis or to those who defeated them at all; it has nothing at all to do with them.
There's nothing wrong with "Islamic fanatics," except I suppose if you were Islamic you could complain that it's a "slam" against Muslims who aren't fanatics -- a sort of "guilt by association" type of thing. Everyone wants to capitalize on that sort of **** these days.
Words have meanings. When you just change them to mean whatever you want, you lose any hope of accurate conversation. Nazi is a clearly and specifically defined term, not "convenient shorthand" for anyone you don't like. Sort of like how I don't care for robbers, but I don't call them child molesters just cause. I bet you object when people call Bush a fascist, right?
I never said the fed.gov was comparable to the Nazis in the scope of their activity (you're the one who conflated genocide with killing a few thousand people) I said they would be proud of our advances. If you can tell me Hitler et al wouldn't have loved to have the invasive tech fed.gov does, or the ability to get people to agree that having a bunch of minimum wage thugs groping little kids is a necessary evil well... You're blinded by your ideology.
I do skip your posts, you have nothing worth reading. But the bold colors and massive fonts make them annoying to scroll past. It's as infantile as your arguments, please stop.
And the not so subtle attempt at an insult in suggesting other history texts would be too long for me? Classy.
For someone who "skips" my posts you sure get riled by them.
I did not "conflate" genocide with the killing of "a few thousand" people --you're
ASSUMING I did. Even the Nazis had to start somewhere, and I'm fairly certain the Jihadis (do you like that term?
) would love to acquire a regime as large -- or larger -- than the Grösser Germania the Nazis imagined for themselves. If you think Hitler would have cared a **** about a bunch of mallninja wannabes who grope schoolkids, then, my friend it is you who is blinded by
YOUR ideology. The type of people who operated the Geheime Staatzpolizei, the Einsatzgruppen, the early brownshirts, they were far, far more serious people than the TSA wandrapers you whine about as though they
were lining up Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals along a trench and machinegunning them all down.
I think it is you who conflate the Nazis -- but NOT with the Jihadis, but
with our own government. That is the real insult to the people who fought to defeat the Third Reich, and to the victims of that Reich. To believe the TSA, as overbearing, incompetant and goofy as it is, is anywhere near as evil as the Nationale Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei ever were ... that only justifies and emphasizes my suggestion you start with
Inside Hitler's Germany. It
is a shortish book. That doesn't mean it was written for children, or for blind people, or for anyone else of diminished mental capacity. It isn't an "easy" book to read.
But to someone who thinks the U.S.A. is
anywhere near Nazi Germany, or who thinks Hitler would be in any way "proud" of what America is, it is something you should read.
But....
I waste my time and efforts. After all, you don't read my posts. They're too ... "infantile."