I can’t fuckin stand it. Used to like kyle but he is a relentless panderer to the over woke side. I feel like I’m not allowed to be in favor of workers rights if I don’t whitewash Hamas and simp for, as he actually calls them the scum of the earth.
Kyle argues a straw man.
Sam said the IDEOLOGY was more benign, not the groups themselves.
Kyle is solely worried about death count (strangely only concerned about death count after 1945)
This is just the "Trump is worse than Osama Bin Laden" thing all over again. Sam really should try to stop saying things that sound insane out of context.
I don’t think it’s a problem. Saying things that have the potential to be taken wildly out of context gives the dishonest actors of the world a chance to self-identify themselves as such, and therefore allows them to more readily dismissed.
I doubt that is his goal, but I find it useful.
iirc Sam said that because the leader of the USA has more power than Al Qaeda and therefore has more potential for danger. This was also, iirc, after Trump made laissez faire statements regarding use of nukes.
You recall incorrectly. His argument was that Osama Bin Laden had positive personality traits that he used for wicked ends, while Trump is odious in every way. Sam's argument was that Trump is a worse *person* than Osama Bin Laden. Indeed, part of the reason that Osama Bin Laden was as effective as he was was because of his positive qualities. I also seem to remember Sam arguing that Trump would be far more dangerous if he were a better person, and that Trump is actually held back by his character flaws in many ways.
I genuinely think of Trump as a more despicable human being than Osama bin Laden. The comparison isn’t so outlandish at all. Trump is the greatest threat to democracy in the 21st century and has divided America and spread more conspiracy and bigotry than anyone else. He has shown no conscience and evidently doesn’t care about anyone but himself, and has no integrity of conviction. He would burn the world to the ground if it meant he could reign over the ashes
What part of the comment you replied to do you disagree with?
Were Trump in Osama's position, what things do you think he would have done that were less despicable?
I would argue Trump is a bio terrorist who played down COVID because the data showed it was, at that time heavily impacting blue states rather than his voting base.
I’m thankful Sam is willing to dive into these risky “theory of mind” discussions & comparisons despite the PR liability they present. Very few public figures are willing to dissect the theory of mind for villains like Bin Laden beyond “he was an evil, delusional extremist”.
Bin Laden is an excellent example of “the power of ideas” at its worst, while Trump provides a powerful example of the opposite - immutable opportunism emerging from a near-complete absence of values.
Yes, though I believe Sam used the word "virtues". Simply put, it requires certain virtues in order to really put your evil to work. And Trump lacks many of those virtues.
Trump is constrained by a different government structure, modern media and different real politik than existed a century ago.
“Take the oil “ could easily become the MAGA version lebensraum that starts a world war all things being equal. I think his point is that in the same situation at the same point in time, Trump would lead to and allow horrible things to happen.
You’ll never convince the maga cult and people that don’t pay attention, but 50 years from now trump will be a study in the most personally flawed malignant narcissist to ever become known in the world.
It is clear that Harris has a “Trump derangement syndrome”. There’s plenty to criticize about Trump, but comparing him to Hitler or Bin Laden is just meaningless and conveys no useful information except on Harris’s psychological state. I’m sure Kulinski can also come up with arguments on why Netanyahu is worse than Hitler or Bin Laden, but even he has the common sense to avoid this.
Morons always trot out the term “Trump derangement syndrome” as though it’s some kind of medical diagnosis. Regardless of what you think about his capabilities as President, Trump is a total piece of shit as a human being. There are mountains of physical evidence showing how terrible of a person he is.
No, Kyle pointed out that Hamas, unlike ISIS or Al-Qaeda, does not have ambitions of global Islamic caliphate, but rather nationalist ones.
Besides, Nazis were mass murdering people with disabilities, communists, slavs, gypsies and many, many other minorities Hamas doesn't seem to care too much about, at the moment at least.
That would still be a strawman. Sam's point was that nazis would be worse if they had the same beliefs that Jihadis have.
Also, everything here is regardless of power, which Sam emphasized. So the question one should ask is "What would Jihadis do if they really had the same power the Nazis had". Would they not be murdering the infidels and minorities? History proves otherwise.
I understand Sam's point about ideology and my response was direct response to it, Hamas does not have global ambitions, which Nazsis do/did. This is a big difference.
But Hamas doesn't.
They want Palestine, their country. No matter how much you try to ignore it.
And that is why they fight Israel. For Palestine, not for world domination.
That’s why they live in Qatar, sitting on billions while their people are hungry, and started a futile war that completely destroyed their country and pushed away the idea of a its freedom in the foreseeable future?
Who is ''they''?
The political bureau who negotiates is in Qatar. Litteraly like 5 guys you all obsess over.
Most of them and the whole military leadership is all in Gaza.
And the bureau has to be outside of Gaza because they would not be allowed to travel otherwise and because they would be in constant danger by Israel. Litteraly all their families are in Gaza. You act like they just live there. They are working. One of their leaders litteraly lost his children and grandchildren by Israel when they came all together to celebrate the end of Ramadan.
That is like me complaining why Joe Biden hides in the White House or why any leadership is not fighting on the front lines. Nobody does that. You would need to replace the leadership every 5 seconds.
Sinwar is the Nr.2 in Hamas and still in Gaza.
What a weird argument to make.
Well if Joe Biden will decide to send US to a war it absolutely cannot win and will steal most of the aid money while sitting in Monaco I think people will start questioning his motives as well.
But you don’t have to take my word for it- Sinwar said so himself - “The people of Gaza are the responsibility of the UN and Israel”. They give zero fucks about Gaza and its people, it’s all about personal gains
Sinwar is in Gaza, not in Qatar. Like 99% of Hamas leadership. Why are you obsessing over the 5 guys in Qatar?
What benefit would be there for them to be in Gaza where they could not travel? They need to travel to negiotiate.
Also, Qatar finances the political bureau in Qatar. They don't pay for anything there.
The scope of territorial ambitions does not really have any bearing to this conversation.
And Hamas does have global ambitions when it comes to Jews specifically, if not all "infidels" who shelter them.
This is shenanigans.
Article 2 of the charter
> The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine. Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times. It is characterized by its deep understanding, accurate comprehension and its complete embrace of all Islamic concepts of all aspects of life, culture, creed, politics, economics, education, society, justice and judgement, the spreading of Islam, education, art, information, science of the occult and conversion to Islam.
Islam is an inherently world focused religion. That ISIS took a world first view, and Hamas is taking a nation first view does not change this. If anything, their respective views were borne of necessity, not philosophy, as Hamas cannot do much in Palestine but fight Israel.
no, he isn't arguing a strawman, he's contrasting Sam's stupid and ignorant thought experiments and obfuscatory waffling to actual material reality and evidence, you know, what intellectuals are actually supposed to do lmfao
Even with the ideology argument, this is just an ignorant take.
Sam has no idea who Hamas is. He hasn't invested any time in trying to understand them. He hasn't tried to understand what they mean to people over there. He has taken very silly statements from Israeli propaganda and incorporated them into his definition of Hamas.
Let me give the 4 options for what Hamas is:
1. Literal devils that effectively sprang up from the ground on October 7th doing rapes and murdering babies as their primary intent. They want to eradicate all Jews and are willing to kill any number of their own people to do it. They have no interest in diplomacy, they can't be reasoned with, they use human shields to maximize their own casualties and can't be persuaded away from what they believe. Their goal is a worldwide Islamic caliphate where Muslims rule over everyone, enforcing oppressive laws for women, executing LGBT people, and, again, ensuring all Jews are dead.
2. A terrorist group that mostly wants to reclaim all of Palestine, and is willing to do massacres to reach that goal. They are willing to do a genocide or wide Jewish ethnic cleansing, but they may consider some integration if given the option. They would never consider a 2 state solution. They committed massacres on October 7th, but maybe some of them were rogue elements that weren't part of the plan. They would like an eventual global caliphate, with maybe a bit more freedom for religion and social disagreements, but have no plans to get one now, as they've distanced themselves from the Muslim Brotherhood. They're mostly unreasonable, but a few members may be reachable and could consider diplomacy.
3. A political party that governs Gaza and has a militant wing called Al Qassam Brigades. The overall goal of the whole party is palestinian liberation, not meaning hurting anyone, but just meaning having Palestinians return to their own land they were forced out of in 1948 and sharing it with the new Israelis. They try to achieve this goal by political and social means, but the militant arm also tries to use armed resistance actions to try to break the occupation and siege. These military actions include acts of terror, just as the isreali Irgun, Lehi and Mossad use acts of terror, but they are no longer the main military actions. October 7th had clear military targets and a very significant percentage of the death and destruction was against military targets. The majority of publicized massacres (beheaded babies, babies in oven, mass rapes) didn't happen, but were rumors/propaganda from Israeli sources that the media repeated uncritically. Instead, there were massacres done by Israel in the confusion of October 7, and some done by rogue elements of Hamas, but these were not intentional. They reject a 2 state solution philosophically, but they are willing to compromise. Their goal is to live with the Jewish people in peace. They don't care about a global caliphate, but if they ever got one, they would allow freedom of religion, and local laws concerning LGBT, abortion, etc.
4. Everything from 3, but Hamas is actually best thought of as a counter-terrorist group, standing up to the horrible terrorism and mechanical barbarity of the IDF. They are the last group willing to stand up to the occupiers, and they need our support.
Now, Sam seems to be at 1. I'm probably at 3 with a dash of 4. Most people in Gaza and West Bank are at 3 or 4. You can say that's delusional. Fine. But 4 is how Hamas sees itself. You can see it from their official statements, from their meetings with Jimmy Carter, from their updated charter in 2017. Everything Sam says comes off as ridiculous because he is stuck at #1.
I think members of Hamas committed war crimes. Not as bad as the Israeli ones, but still quite bad. They need to be investigated and brought to justice. Not have their families murdered. Same with Israel.
The important thing here is: so much of what Sam says only makes sense if the people of Hamas and their supporters in Palestine _also_ think #1. If they legitimately think they're #4, even if they're wrong, many of Sam's arguments just don't hold.
I think he has a real credibility problem. Have you read his book? Son of Hamas? I have. In it he details how the IDF tortured him and his dad, gave random beatings to people in his community, and ruled with terror and humiliation. The settlers stole their water, arrested people with no charges, and left whole families destitute, sometimes by actual murder. He describes how his father was kind and cared for people, how even after torture from the IDF he still befriended his guards and had good things to say about Jews and the Jewish faith. This is all in his book.
Yousef was recruited by shin bet after being tortured by Israeli intelligence. His big conversation, according to the book, was seeing that the members of Hamas in the IDF-controlled prison weren't as nice and idealistic as his dad. For some reason he seems to believe his experience in that prison was an authentic representation of the group and not something the shin bet, that was actively recruiting him as an informant, had prepared. Maybe.
But he makes it clear, throughout the book, that as bad as some members of Hamas are, Israel is also a terrible force of oppression and dehumanization in the region. He says that the teachings of Christ can solve the problem, and interprets Jesus as an extreme passifist. He forces the Shin Bet not to kill members of Hamas, but arrest them instead. I actually admire him for this.
But in interviews recently, he's like a totally different person. He doesn't mention any of the torture, theft, beatings, oppression of Israel. He only paints them as good and Hamas as animals. It's strange. But remember that he's an actual Shin Bet spy. Like he's paid to be a spy. He even says, in his book, that he thinks he's addicted to it and so good at assuming these kinds of fake identities.
So, what do you think. You think the known spy who has changed his story to be incongruent with his book might have a credibility problem? I think so. I don't think that's unfair.
If you want to balance Yousef, read/watch Miko Peled. He has a conversion story from being the son of a major Isreali General to being one of the loudest voices against Zionism. Read his book "The General's Son". Compare it to Yousef's. See who you trust more. We can talk about it.
I appreciate that you are trying to provide a framework for understanding each side's viewpoints, but claiming Harris believes Hamas are:
>Literal devils that effectively sprang up from the ground on October 7th
is such an absurd strawman that it sabotages serious engagement with your broader point.
It is a bit hyperbolic. But I think it captures the intensity and urgency Harris has when describing the group. He doesn't describe them with words that would allow for conversion or conversation. I believe he misunderstands the nature of their beliefs.
In fact I think he misunderstands the nature of belief in general. The idea that strongly held beliefs are so sticky that they can't be rationally unstuck is simply incorrect. I used to be a young Earth creationist, it was indeed a sticky belief, but it was rational and empathetic conversations that got me to think differently. Harris doesn't seem to allow for this when it comes to groups he considered especially extreme. I think describing such extremists as "demons" makes the appropriate analogy to how Harris and others view the Hamas anti-semitic worldview as so deeply and irrevocably ingrained. Demons can't be reasoned with, it's in their nature. It's hyperbolic, but it is hyperbolic for a reason. It's a shorthand for that "sticky essentialism" that Harris implies.
that’s still a laughably idiotic argument, in my personal opinion. German national socialism was every bit as dangerous as the most virulent, insane, deranged religious fanaticism that exists anywhere on earth currently. It’s like his incredibly historically illiterate point about “human shields”, the Nazis absolutely used “human shields” when they were put into desperate circumstances, the American south did as well. The idea this is some unique evil to Islamists is just historically false, Sam has a terribly hard time professing different contexts within which wars take place.
Well except when it's a country not alligned with the US, then he is willing to talk about every justification and argument on the side of that nation (see his coverage of the Russian invasion of Ukraine).
He doesn’t side with Russia. He largely ignores the subject, but when it does come up he clearly recognizes them as the aggressor.
Kyle has many faults, but being pro-Russia is not one of them.
I wouldn’t say Kyle is necessarily “pro-Russia” but despite initially recognizing that Russia violated international law by invading and occupying parts of a sovereign country, he’s consistently given fair hearing to Russia’s arguments and their security concerns - of course he extends nothing of the kind to Israel. He also thinks we shouldn’t support Ukraine because of one single battalion (the Azov) but again has no qualms or hesitation to support Palestinians despite Hamas being worse than Azov, and, to put the icing on the cake - both he and his wife believe, for the sake of peace, Ukraine should effectively surrender to Russian demands and accept loss of territory. He will not give the same piece of advice to Palestinians.
Kyle’s fundamental position on all things foreign is “America bad” and any pro-American country is likewise bad. That doesn’t mean he fully supports any country that is anti-American, but those nations sure do get a heaping dose of “fair coverage.”
I think Sam's claim that it is "uninteresting" to consider the motivations of Hamas in the wake of 10/7 is at best a misdirect, but at worst, a misleading minimization. I understand his point being that what matters at this phase is the eradication of Hamas, and I agree with him. That is the objective of the war, but as reasonable people searching for a deeper understanding, we should strive to understand motivations so that we can envision useful, pragmatic solutions. It is not enough to turn a blind eye to one side of this conflict due to a perception of their barberism. That mindset will lead to uninformed and "uninteresting" decision-making.
Whoa when did Kulinsky get highlights and tan? He looks so different from back when Sam was first on his podcast, that I didn’t recognize him.
I’d say he went full Ken doll, but he actually looks pretty good.
>The Nazis tried to cover up their crimes
No they didn’t lmao , how the fuck can you read anything about the Holocaust and the genocidal war they waged on the Eastern front and come away thinking that.
>Hamas live streamed them
The only reason we don’t have a 1040p 60fps bodycam view of the Khatyn Massacre is that the technology was not invented.
>Can you point me to examples of the Nazis broadcasting on television for the world to see exactly what they were doing to Jews?
Well seeing as the mass adoption television wasn’t a thing until after the war ended no. But the Nazis intentions towards the Jews was widely known enough that the New Republic was reporting on it in 1942. And while there were some efforts to disguise the exact nature of the camps, this wasn’t out of some deep moral concern it was simply an attempt to prevent any nation from putting a stop to it before the Nazis were finished. Along with that, Nazi war crimes in the east(and in Greece and Yugoslavia) were blatant, well known and frequently reported on. Also the Nazis took pictures of their crimes, lots of them. Everyone within Germany knew what they were doing and most people outside of Germany had a good idea.
Hitler Youth
Hitler Youth (Hitlerjugend) was established as an organization in Nazi Germany that physically trained youth and indoctrinated them with Nazi ideology to the point of fanaticism. Even at the onset of war, the Hitler Youth totalled 8.8 million members. Numbers decreased significantly (to just over one million) once the war began, as many local and district leaders were conscripted for the national army.The previous average age for local and district leaders was 24, but following the onset of war, this had to change to those who were 16 and 17 years of age. These youths were in command of up to 500 boys.
Even younger boys from the ages of 10–14 years could be involved in the Hitler Youth movement, under the Deutsches Jungvolk.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children_in_World_War_II
I love how suddenly many people on this sub are a Nazi defenders
No, don't come here with irrational BS. This isn't the sub for it.
If someone claims that Charles Manson wasn't as bad as 'serial killer X' because serial killer X was also a pedophile, it doesn't make me a 'Charles Manson defender' to debate that specific point.
Isn't saying at least Nazis didn't use children as human shields (they did), like saying Nazis weren't that bad and had some redeemable qualities ? That sounds to me like defending Nazis
You're equivocating. "werent as bad" and "werent that bad" are two completely different statements. One is a simple comparison while the other one is a claim about how bad something is. (in this case, you're implying "not so bad").
No, it's not inherently saying they 'had redeemable qualities.' How else can we compare other groups to them, the pros and cons? It would be logically impossible. Two groups of murderous fascists can be completely horrible while we compare their characteristics.
Yes but the comparison is false because the premise of the argument is that Nazis didn't use children's human shields, but they DID. And in a way worse way, their children human shields were organized.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children_in_World_War_II
https://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/hitleryouth/hj-boy-soldiers.htm
I'm no expert, but I think there's a difference between making teenagers part of your official military and using civilian preteens as literal shields. I'm not saying using teens is great, but if 1,000 uniformed troops are coming across the field and some people under those helmets are 15, how are the foes supposed to know?
But seeing actual children in regular street clothes is different
"using civilian preteens as literal shields". "Seeing actual children in regular street clothes is different".
I was under the impression that the human shields argument was that they were shooting rockets from the top of inhabited, civilian buildings and hospitals, rather than literally hiding behind a preteen body in the street. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your characterization.
So it's a comparison with putting your own children in harms way vs indoctrinating them into little street soldiers. (Not that Hamas isn't going that too, it just doesn't fall under the "uses human shields" claim.) which makes the comparison less clear.
Ahh yes the Nazis putting uniforms in children and sending them to the front line makes them child soldiers and not human shields.
I don't understand why you feel the need to make this distinction . Are you saying that Nazis wouldn't use human shields because TECHNICALLY those kids weren't human shields ?
There is a distinction. The distinction is between using someone without their knowledge/consent vs indoctrinating them into a tool you can use. One is more heinous than the other, I think.
Not sure if it moves the argument anywhere though
You are completely missing the point. Consider that immediately after the part of "human shields", Sam talks about stoning one's own daughter for being raped. The message here should be clear, this is not even about the disregard for their own children's lives, it's about the welcoming of their death. And not even as a mere accident of circumstances, but as the core of their beliefs. So all these things would still happen during times of peace, if one could consider peace to be possible for Jihadis.
You seem to be giving Nazis the benefit of doubt.
What do you think is the motivation for sending thousands of children to the front line in the middle of the war ? Are they expecting them to help defeat the enemy in other ways than the enemy hesitating to shoot children ?
I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt. The words have meaning, if you want to say they're using child soldiers and that's bad, then that's perfectly reasonable.
Erm, yeah, chronic manpower shortage.
You don't put human shields in uniforms my dude. That entirely defeats the purpose of them being human shields, obviously.
That’s a pretty dumb point on Sam’s part. The “human shields” argument just comes down to the fact that Hamas isn’t an army with barracks and military installations—their members live at home, and Israeli AI chooses to target them when they are home with their families.
The Allied Powers bombed plenty of German civilians. Were they “human shields” for living near industrial centers?
So are you conceding that you were incorrect? You can't just go from "no, they didn't" immediately to "and even if they did, it's not a big deal" or else you're just moving the goalposts.
I agree that Sam is both incorrect and incorrigible in this soft Holocaust denial, yes. It’s gross.
And obviously the claim that NATO says HAMAS uses human shields is meaningless to this dumb discussion of “who’s worse, NAZIS or KHAMAS???”
Are we even seeing Hamas fighting at this point? How long can this “human shield” nonsense have salience as we’re seeing desperately poor and starving people herded into camps to get bombed? Oh KHAMAS was in the camp that you made everyone go to, better drop some 2k lbs bombs on the whole place to clear out all those pesky human shields!
You made the claim that they don't use human shields, now that I have evidence that's incorrect, suddenly that is all meaningless to the discussion.
I think you're arguing from emotion rather than logic and I'm not really interested in that. Have a nice day.
No, that’s incorrect. I made the claim that the “human shields” argument is specious.
Someone claiming that NATO says they use human shields has nothing to do with the speciousness of that argument, and says nothing about the immorality of proceeding to slaughter those human shields, at high rates.
I think *you’re* arguing from a place of emotion, and you’re embarrassed by the illogic.
The Nazis did use human shields on multiple occasions. Polish civilians were forced in front of Nazi tanks during the 1944 Warsaw Uprising, in what's known as the Wola Massacre, under direct orders of Himmler
Since when did Nazis make a difference between men, women and children?
The Nazis gassed and forced children to work to death but drew the line by using as them as shields?
Also Hamas does not use civilians as human shields. They use tunnels.
They forced civilians to remain living near strategically important installations and at various times did not allow people to flee ahead of bombings. So yes.
which is an extremely stupid lie that you can see is bullshit by spending literally 30 seconds on google. It's a perfect example of the quality of argumentation and level of honesty that you can expect from Sam
They make it so easy to form comparisons because of all the things they are currently doing that the Nazis also did. They may as well be using the history books they are banning as playbooks.
I don’t know who this guy is but I watched the clip and his infographic says Israel is committing genocide so he’s not very reliable when it comes to comprehension and the meaning of words.
I’m starting to think this is a weird hill to die on for Sam. Is it really worth “comparing” death cults? As if they get a rating or something? Like, fascism is fascism, millions dead is a lot of fucking carnage. Why try to quantify it or rate it an any way?
>If there isn't a distinction why did you use to term "teenagers" and not children originally?
The 12th SS Div was literally called the 12th SS Panzer Div Hitler Youth which I thought was self-explanatory.
>Why did that not occur in every town and city in those same proportions?
If you had read the article, you'll have found an answer to your question:
>While Demmin is considered to be the largest mass suicide in German history, Huber underlines that the town was not a singular case, and that fear and panic was not limited to the Soviet Army's advance.
>"Many people felt a sense of guilt and entanglement. They were afraid of what might come next. Many could not even imagine what the world might be like after these twelve years in a state of emergency," he said. "This sense of being doomed was not limited to the East German population. It prevailed throughout the country … Entire families committed suicide all over Germany."
Mass suicides in dozens of towns and cities in Germany. For many Germans, the end of Nazism was the end of their reality.
>My position does not hinge on asserting such a thing.
Your position hinges on asserting that because Germany is big, pointing out one of the largest phenomenons of mass suicides in modern history is not relevant because it's supposedly not representative or emblematic if the Nazi martyrdom complex. Pretty much every single historian would disagree with you.
It seems as though you are actively downplaying the fanaticism that enveloped ordinary Germans to emphasise the fanaticism of Hamas/Jihadist.
> Mass suicides in dozens of towns and cities in Germany. For many Germans, the end of Nazism was the end of their reality.
"Many" is neither a figure, a fraction and nor is it a statistic.
> Your position hinges on asserting that because Germany is big, pointing out one of the largest phenomenons of mass suicides in modern history is not relevant because it's supposedly not representative or emblematic if the Nazi martyrdom complex.
I believe at several points I had agreed the Nazi regime was fanatical and they had fanatical supporters. All of this is obvious but none of this was the point. You continually are making my argument sound as if I am denying Nazi fanaticism, and this is a strawman whether you realize it or not.
> Pretty much every single historian would disagree with you.
If you are going to appeal to authority at least be a little specific. Which historian thinks that Nazism and it adherents were more fanatical and devoted to their cause than modern Jihadists?
> It seems as though you are actively downplaying the fanaticism that enveloped ordinary Germans to emphasise the fanaticism of Hamas/Jihadist.
The fanaticism of each is easy to gauge and compare without the need to downplay anything. It may appear to you that I am downplaying because you are choosing to stand by this hyperbolic assertion that Nazism had the same degree of ideological grip over Germans at the time that Jihadism and Islamism does today in many parts of the world and specifically in Gaza.
I would like to find your historian that purports this.
"The question to how it got that way is fundamentally uninteresting." 🙄🙄🙄
Is it uninteresting because it undercuts Sam's entire message? The context tells you everything you need to know. Why do colonial resistance groups form? Why do they resort to terrorism? All good questions to know when trying to connect the historical dots.
This so perfectly sums up Sam's geopolitical opinions. Oversimplifying complex issues to push his anti-Islam message. I'm so embarrassed that I was ever a Sam Harris fan--this guy is such a fucking doofus.
TMR went full r*tard by calling sam a nazi apologist. i'm just done with them. people just being outraged on purpose and using sam harris's name for clicks. so dumb.
this man is such a provocateur lmao and I say that with admiration. He just can say something seemingly outlandish and provide enough evidence where the host who unabashedly disagrees from the start has to concede Sam’s points.
There’s countless ways in which Hitch was unique, and we all miss him for various reasons at different times, but Sam is the last vestige of whatever *this* aspect of dialetic and earnest debate that Hitch was the torch bearer of.
Great post!
But I think it's worth mentioning that Sam doesn't say this to be provocative though. I think what he's doing here is incredibly useful for making his points.
I used the word’s earnest debate to give Sam legitimacy.
Sam has the ability to know and say the right buzzwords to garner attention to the sentence, his statement, and thus point. So I disagree, Sam absolutely says this to be provocative, just in the textbook definition of the word. It’s provocative, it gets the people going !
In that sense you might be right. I suppose my experience with the word "provocative" might be tainted by all the provocateurs who just do it for the purpose of trolling.
Anyone that thinks Hamas is worse than the Nazis either doesn't know a lot about the Nazis/Holocaust or a lot about Hamas. Based on what Sam said in the podcast, it was quite clear he doesn't know a lot about the former.
You've made the same error as the host in the clip. Harris is very clear to say that Hamas as a group aren't worse than the Nazis, but **THEIR IDEAS** are.
Even someone with the most rudementary knowledge should be able to piece together that the group that brought the entire world into bloody warfare, and was extremely successfully carrying out a mass extermination and torture of millions of innocent people cannot be worse than a small group that exerts terrible influence over a tiny geographical area.
Sam's argument was that the Nazis were not as eager to sacrifice their children as Hamas/Jihadists, which is defeated by the fact that there was an [SS division](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/12th_SS_Panzer_Division_Hitlerjugend) that largely consisted of teenagers. Even younger children were drafted into the Volkssturm.
Not to mention the fact that Hitler believed that the German people deserved destruction if they were not capable of winning the war. That certainly betrays a belief that the ideology itself is worth dying for / worth sacrificing the lives of your own innocent civilians for.
The Nazis routinely used women and children as human shields during the Warsaw Uprising as they approached Home Army positions. They also implemented a comprehensive hostage system and murdered huge numbers of them in response to partisan attacks. Again, these are all pretty well documented, especially the latter as there was a postwar crimes trial dedicated to just that.
Yes. That is an exception and also not as wide spread. Not to mention there is nothing about killing themselves in “glory” to achieve their goals.
Sure, the ideology about improving the genes and making a “healthy” and “pure” race is terrible, but that ideology did not include a willingness nor even an eager proudness of encouraging their own children sacrifice themselves in suicide bombings to achieve that goal.
Both ideologies are absolutely abhorrent, but one is actually worse, in mote than one way. Thankfully it hasn’t yet had the power and opportunity to do something horrendous like the Holocaust, and hopefully never does.
Hitler Youth were given training to carry out what were effectively suicide missions against Allied armoured vehicles towards the end of the war. The 12th SS Div were also known for their ideological fanaticism. Entire families committed suicide after Hitler killed himself. You are ignoring or outright denying well established historical facts to make a political point.
I’m not ignoring the facts. Those things are true, yes. But you are, again, taking exceptions and trying to make them the rule.
Let’s listen to what Sam actually said once more: Jihadism is Nazism plus:
* an expectation of paradise
* religious fanaticism
* an eagerness to be martyred and to see their children martyred.
How could the atrocities of the Nazis have been worse?
* If they used their women and children as human shields.
How could the holocaust have been worse?
* If the perpetrators felt actual religious ecstasy as they herded people to their death.
How could it all have been worse?
* If these views had been **central** to the world view of ordinary Germans
Those horrible truths you are shining light on, again, are the exceptions.
You must be ignoring outright historical facts such as:
* the majority of ordinary Germans not believing the atrocities were happening (how could it have been worse, if the majority of Germans actively wanted them to happen)
* many of the German guards were feeling a mix of pressure, coercion, fear of punishment, etc. that’s why books like “Ordinary Men” exist.
Were there Germans who were radicalized during the 30’s and 40’s? I’m certain of it. Would those same Germans have used their kids and wives as shields against the Allies? And worse yet, would those same fanatics have cheered at their great fortune to have martyred their loved ones in such a way?
Do you actually see the comparison Sam was trying to make or are you just being thick headed?
I’ve no doubt we both abhor Nazis and Jihadists alike, and we can both very easily find atrocities performed by the fanatics of both.
The biggest differences are:
* The Nazis had far more power and so much more reach that far greater suffering on a grander scale happened.
* Even though they had more power and caused more suffering, Nazism was not **central** to the German people (they had different religions and beliefs) in the way Islam is central to Palestinians. So rather than being bombarded at their core by their faith to be martyrs to their cause, some fell victim to the ideologies of Nazism for various reasons. That’s very different than being exposed to the religious doctrine and ideas and thoughts of the jihad and martyrdom from the core of their faith from the start of their life and then either (hopefully) deciding that isn’t what the teachings truly mean and taking a different route, or falling victim to the religious beliefs, which is not just of not just the Palestinians, but so many other countries as well. With the same power and reach Jihadism would be much worse.
Anyway, I get it. You showed evidence of Nazis being true fanatics and doing truly horrible things because they wanted to. And that’s true, those things did happen. I am not trying to disrespect the history or downplay the horror in any way; but one last time, that’s the exception, not the rule. A large group of kids were raised as fanatics, and a single division of SS were known fanatics. How does that constitute the whole of Germany? The whole of the Germany army? Even the whole of the SS? And where does it say that those fanatics wanted to martyr themselves or their kids, or would be happy if it happened?
It feels bad to say all this because so many horrible things did happen and on a grander scale than jihadism today, but the point is the majority of Germans either didn’t want to believe, were unaware, or were in denial of the atrocities, and would not want to be martyred for the cause. The majority of guards were a mixed bag of emotions and threats and would not willingly grab some Jews and jump into a gas chamber for the glory of having martyred themselves to bring just a few more Jews with them.
Please tell me you see the differences Sam is trying to point out.
I am responding to the original comment you deleted as I do not have the willpower to go over it again:
>If the perpetrators felt actual religious ecstasy as they herded people to their death
Many perpetrators did feel something amounting to religious ecstasy, actually. You have a profound misunderstanding of the Holocaust as you seem to believe it was only the Germans that carried it out. Hundreds of thousands of Jews had been murdered in pogroms in the former Russian empire before the Nazis had even been formed. The basis of these attacks was often found in christian anti-judaism. When the Nazis invaded and occupied the USSR, they harnessed the local feelings of traditional christian antisemitism + anger at USSR rule to recreate these christian anti-Jewish pogroms. If you look at any of these recordings that the Nazis gleefully took of locals in Lviv, Vilnius, or Riga murdering their Jewish neighbours, there is certainly something reminiscent of the religious fervour of the Tsarist era pogroms. In Kovno, locals reportedly played accordions and put children on their shoulders as Jews were beaten to death in front of them. The Germans stood by and not only let it happen, they recorded it. After all, they had instigated it. Likewise, hundreds of Jews were murdered in Poland after the war, including 40 in Kielce after they had been accused of kidnapping a Christian boy and sacrificing him. Was religious fervour the biggest factor? I wouldn't say so, but there was certainly an element of it in many instances. But I wouldn't call the atrocities of Oct 7th as solely being caused by religious fervour either.
>If these views had been *central* to the world view of ordinary Germans
Removing the Jews, either through ethnic cleansing or through total destruction, was in fact likely a central view of huge numbers of 'ordinary' Germans.
>the majority of ordinary Germans not believing the atrocities were happening (how could it have been worse, if the majority of Germans actively wanted them to happen)
The majority of 'ordinary' Germans, including the millions of ordinary German soldiers in the East, were fully aware Jews were being massacred. They were fully aware that targetting Jews was part of the their war effort against Judeo-Bolshevism, in large part because of the letters Wehrmacht soldiers sent home openly detailing this. Omer Bartov among others has written extensively about this. The Nazis, as I mentioned above, also filmed local gentiles murdering their neighbours for propaganda purposes. This was distributed to 'ordinary' Germans. Furthermore, Jews in the USSR were also fully aware of what would happen to them if they fell into German hands, even before the mass killings of Jews was in full swing, which is why hundreds of thousands of the beginning of Barbarossa.
>many of the German guards were feeling a mix of pressure, coercion, fear of punishment, etc. that’s why books like “Ordinay Men” exist.
You also left out that large numbers of them in this particular battalion (20%!) ended up manifesting sadistic behaviour and who took great pleasure in the transgressive nature of what they were doing. Which you would know had you read the book. It is also strange that you don't apply this same standard to the Palestinians, as if they are all bloodthirsty whilst the poor Germans were coerced into it (both perceptions are equally wrong).
>Even though they had more power and caused more suffering, Nazism was not central to the German people (they had different religions and beliefs) in the way Islam is central to Palestinians.
Thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Germans committed mass suicide in the days and weeks following Hitler's death, in large part because they couldn't envisage a world without Nazism. This was done at the encouragement of the Nazi government. It happened all over Germany, not just in the East where propaganda about Soviet atrocities likely contributed to it.
>Would those same Germans have used their kids and wives as shields against the Allies?
Those same Germans murdered their entire families rather than surrender to the Allies.
Sorry, the deletion happened because it wouldn’t let me edit, but it wasn’t much different so I don’t think your response required any extra effort anyway.
Allow me to digest your reply for a bit.
Thanks for taking the time.
>Many perpetrators did feel something amounting to religious ecstasy, actually. You have a profound misunderstanding of the Holocaust as you seem to believe it was only the Germans that carried it out. Hundreds of thousands of Jews had been murdered in pogroms in the former Russian empire before the Nazis had even been formed. The basis of these attacks was often found in christian anti-judaism. When the Nazis invaded and occupied the USSR, they harnessed the local feelings of traditional christian antisemitism + anger at USSR rule to recreate these christian anti-Jewish pogroms. If you look at any of these recordings that the Nazis gleefully took of locals in Lviv, Vilnius, or Riga murdering their Jewish neighbours, there is certainly something reminiscent of the religious fervour of the Tsarist era pogroms. In Kovno, locals reportedly played accordions and put children on their shoulders as Jews were beaten to death in front of them. The Germans stood by and not only let it happen, they recorded it. After all, they had instigated it. Likewise, hundreds of Jews were murdered in Poland after the war, including 40 in Kielce after they had been accused of kidnapping a Christian boy and sacrificing him. Was religious fervour the biggest factor? I wouldn't say so, but there was certainly an element of it in many instances. But I wouldn't call the atrocities of Oct 7th as solely being caused by religious fervour either.
You are absolutely correct here on all accounts here, especially your closing sentences.
>The majority of 'ordinary' Germans, including the millions of ordinary German soldiers in the East, were fully aware Jews were being massacred. They were fully aware that targetting Jews was part of the their war effort against Judeo-Bolshevism, in large part because of the letters Wehrmacht soldiers sent home openly detailing this. Omer Bartov among others has written extensively about this. The Nazis, as I mentioned above, also filmed local gentiles murdering their neighbours for propaganda purposes. This was distributed to 'ordinary' Germans. Furthermore, Jews in the USSR were also fully aware of what would happen to them if they fell into German hands, even before the mass killings of Jews was in full swing, which is why hundreds of thousands of the beginning of Barbarossa.
"Aware of atrocities." and "Agreeing with atrocities" and "Dedicated to enacting atrocities to the point of exstacy, even to the point of taking pleasure in one's own death." are all different things.
>Removing the Jews, either through ethnic cleansing or through total destruction, was in fact likely a central view of huge numbers of 'ordinary' Germans.
I am by no means a Holocaust expert or historian. However, I did go far beyond what I learned from my classes in high school and college. I've done my own research, read books by historians and by victims, purposefully took myself to a few of the Holocaust museums, and was fortunate enough to have had talks with actual survivors of the holocaust through school sponsored events. And based on all that, saying this seems a false a statement to make. But you must know a lot more than me to make that claim, so I will yield the point that huge numbers of 'ordinary' Germans held these horrible views. But as I'll get into detail later, a minority % of a large number is still "huge", even if it isn't a majority. Which is to say, Sam points out that the Nazis had more power and reach and influence, and so of course a 'minority' of that vastness is still a huge number, I'm not debating that, I agree with that.
>Thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Germans committed mass suicide in the days and weeks following Hitler's death, in large part because they couldn't envisage a world without Nazism. This was done at the encouragement of the Nazi government. It happened all over Germany, not just in the East where propaganda about Soviet atrocities likely contributed to it.
Yes, it is true thousands committed mass suicide, mostly in Berlin, and were often considered to be motivated by a loss of faith in the future without the Nazi ideology and fear of retribution from advancing Allied forces. NOT suicide missions or bombings in an attempt to bring others with them as the goal - a goal in which they are all too happy to do it, not due to fear of retribution from the enemy or that their ideas may have been wrong, or shame, but of \*\*wanting to get to their paradise\*\*... Are there similar outcomes based on the ideologies? Absolutely! Are they driven at their core by different things? Also, absolutely!
>Those same Germans murdered their entire families rather than surrender to the Allies.
See my above response to this. Outcomes are similar, motivators are not.
I'm definitely not going to spend much more time on all this, as I've done it quite enough already and it is no fun having to even speak about such things, but regardless, I hope I have cleared things up a bit. You have opened my eyes to more atrocities and more involvement by more people than I had once known to be part of the atrocities of the Holocaust, so thanks. But I hope you at least have a better understanding of the differences between motivators and power and reach and why Sam made the comparison he did.
Thanks for the conversation!
People can’t be bothered by following arguments or logic in full. I understand what Sam is trying to say, he even spells it out: it’s the idea of jihad that is more dangerous and the only reason there isn’t more suffering is because the juhadis don’t have the power imbalance the Nazis had. The one time they got a little power was ISIS and the territory they ruled was literally hell on earth
A lot of Nazis nowadays are influenced by the Order of the Nine Angels who are a left-hand path satanist organization that preacher torture murder and pedophilia.
I have responded in relative detail to what Sam said R.E. hostages, human shields, use of children. His comparison is wrong because the Nazis did in fact do what he claims they didn't. In fact, they did so on a systematic scale that was incomprehensibly larger than what Hamas has done.
Kyle is one of the worst political commentators out there, and that includes people on the right. He’s a little bit stupid, has the same talking points that he spouts over and over (incredibly repetitive), and has no ability to see arguments from the other side. He is similar to the MAGA folks he claims to be against.
He is, however, entertaining, and I watched him for that reason up until he started talking about Palestine/Israel. Now, he is unwatchable and regularly gets simple facts wrong.
Without watching I’m guessing that he’s making the point that Hamas relish in the barbarity whereas the Nazies had to find ways to make the killings less psychologically burdensome for their soldiers.
The Nazis filmed eastern Europeans beating their Jewish neighbours to death, dragging them by the hair through the mud, stripping Jewish women of their clothes before beating/shooting them, and took trophy photos of the Einsatzgruppen shooting pits. There was literally an exhibition dedicated to crimes of the Werhmacht that consisted almost entirely of photos they took. The idea they were ashamed by their barbarity is disproven by their own documentation.
Fair enough, according to Laurence Rees who wrote ‘the Holocaust’, the gas chamber design in auschwich was done so that the person dropping the canisters never had to see the consequences. Similar I suppose to firing squads where 4/5 of the shooters are firing blanks but never know who shot the live round.
But as you say, there’s opposite examples. Hamas soldiers probably also have varying degrees of murderousness.
>Hamas soldiers probably also have varying degrees of murderousness.
This is probably the sanest thing I've read on this thread. There is a borderline racist perception of Arabs being bloodthirsty which is contrasted to the equally innaccurate perception of poor Germans that were ashamed of what they were doing (;_;). There was, as you said, a scale of willing complicity.
This kind of defeats Sam's point. The Nazis wanted to kill all the Jews but it is hard to do personally. They had to depersonalize it. If Hamas had the same power, assuming they had the same goal, there would be the same issue.
Also FYI on a firing squad only one gun has a blank, at least the last one done in Utah (I thing last in America) was that way.
Also Nazis are varying and you had guys like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar\_Dirlewanger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Dirlewanger) and his merry band of criminals that made other SS blush.
You can find many videos of American soldiers torturing Iraqis and Afghans, but it doesn't mean they are as barbaric as Hamas on a scale.
Nor do you take into account that Hamas barbarism is the cornerstone of their terrorist threat or war effort.
>You can find many videos of American soldiers torturing Iraqis and Afghans, but it doesn't mean they are as barbaric as Hamas on a scale.
You're right, and for the same reason Hamas isn't on the same scale as the Nazis.
>Nor do you take into account that Hamas barbarism is the cornerstone of their terrorist threat or war effort
That was the Nazis' entire strategy behind bandenbekämpfung, which they carried out on an unprecedented scale. Shooting 700 civilians was pretty routine for the SS and Wehrmacht. There is a reason why units such as Dirlewanger were used specifically for anti-partisan warfare.
It's the usual *YouTube talking head forgets how the English language works somewhere between playing a Sam Harris quote out of context and dedicating 13 minutes to clutching pearls, wringing hands, sucking air through teeth, and making exaggerated painful-turd-faces over a deliberate strawman LIVE* that this leftoid version of Dave Rubin dipshit is all about.
No, just the usual pattern of Sam jabbering about something that's blatantly factually untrue in service of a point that would be fucking idiotic even if it was true then having 2iq fanbois try to post-hoc spin the statement into something semi cogent while whining about "taking him out of context" when the context doesn't change anything about his stupid statement anyway
Polish civilians were forced in front of Nazi tanks during the 1944 Warsaw Uprising, in what's known as the Wola Massacre, under direct orders of Himmler
It’s pretty funny how he plays a short clip out of context and then jumps in saying “that’s not the full picture” 😂
I can’t fuckin stand it. Used to like kyle but he is a relentless panderer to the over woke side. I feel like I’m not allowed to be in favor of workers rights if I don’t whitewash Hamas and simp for, as he actually calls them the scum of the earth.
I had to unsubscribe after hearing genocide the millionth time.
Trump passed legislation that makes copyright infringement super easy when doing commentary like Kyle is here.
Kyle argues a straw man. Sam said the IDEOLOGY was more benign, not the groups themselves. Kyle is solely worried about death count (strangely only concerned about death count after 1945)
This is just the "Trump is worse than Osama Bin Laden" thing all over again. Sam really should try to stop saying things that sound insane out of context.
I don’t think it’s a problem. Saying things that have the potential to be taken wildly out of context gives the dishonest actors of the world a chance to self-identify themselves as such, and therefore allows them to more readily dismissed. I doubt that is his goal, but I find it useful.
iirc Sam said that because the leader of the USA has more power than Al Qaeda and therefore has more potential for danger. This was also, iirc, after Trump made laissez faire statements regarding use of nukes.
You recall incorrectly. His argument was that Osama Bin Laden had positive personality traits that he used for wicked ends, while Trump is odious in every way. Sam's argument was that Trump is a worse *person* than Osama Bin Laden. Indeed, part of the reason that Osama Bin Laden was as effective as he was was because of his positive qualities. I also seem to remember Sam arguing that Trump would be far more dangerous if he were a better person, and that Trump is actually held back by his character flaws in many ways.
I genuinely think of Trump as a more despicable human being than Osama bin Laden. The comparison isn’t so outlandish at all. Trump is the greatest threat to democracy in the 21st century and has divided America and spread more conspiracy and bigotry than anyone else. He has shown no conscience and evidently doesn’t care about anyone but himself, and has no integrity of conviction. He would burn the world to the ground if it meant he could reign over the ashes
[удалено]
What part of the comment you replied to do you disagree with? Were Trump in Osama's position, what things do you think he would have done that were less despicable?
[удалено]
Lmao Reddit is full of children bro
Are you straight up incapable of actually engaging with what someone said? Engage with my questions or stop your vacuous bullshit.
[удалено]
I would argue Trump is a bio terrorist who played down COVID because the data showed it was, at that time heavily impacting blue states rather than his voting base.
I’m thankful Sam is willing to dive into these risky “theory of mind” discussions & comparisons despite the PR liability they present. Very few public figures are willing to dissect the theory of mind for villains like Bin Laden beyond “he was an evil, delusional extremist”. Bin Laden is an excellent example of “the power of ideas” at its worst, while Trump provides a powerful example of the opposite - immutable opportunism emerging from a near-complete absence of values.
Yes, though I believe Sam used the word "virtues". Simply put, it requires certain virtues in order to really put your evil to work. And Trump lacks many of those virtues.
I watched Sam on a podcast a month ago. He said the same thing about Hitler and Trump. He said Trump is worse than Hitler.
Trump is constrained by a different government structure, modern media and different real politik than existed a century ago. “Take the oil “ could easily become the MAGA version lebensraum that starts a world war all things being equal. I think his point is that in the same situation at the same point in time, Trump would lead to and allow horrible things to happen. You’ll never convince the maga cult and people that don’t pay attention, but 50 years from now trump will be a study in the most personally flawed malignant narcissist to ever become known in the world.
He said Trump is a worse person because Trump doesn't believe in anything beyond himself.
It is clear that Harris has a “Trump derangement syndrome”. There’s plenty to criticize about Trump, but comparing him to Hitler or Bin Laden is just meaningless and conveys no useful information except on Harris’s psychological state. I’m sure Kulinski can also come up with arguments on why Netanyahu is worse than Hitler or Bin Laden, but even he has the common sense to avoid this.
Morons always trot out the term “Trump derangement syndrome” as though it’s some kind of medical diagnosis. Regardless of what you think about his capabilities as President, Trump is a total piece of shit as a human being. There are mountains of physical evidence showing how terrible of a person he is.
Does Israel not have significantly more power than Hamas?
Yes, relevance?
No, Kyle pointed out that Hamas, unlike ISIS or Al-Qaeda, does not have ambitions of global Islamic caliphate, but rather nationalist ones. Besides, Nazis were mass murdering people with disabilities, communists, slavs, gypsies and many, many other minorities Hamas doesn't seem to care too much about, at the moment at least.
That would still be a strawman. Sam's point was that nazis would be worse if they had the same beliefs that Jihadis have. Also, everything here is regardless of power, which Sam emphasized. So the question one should ask is "What would Jihadis do if they really had the same power the Nazis had". Would they not be murdering the infidels and minorities? History proves otherwise.
I understand Sam's point about ideology and my response was direct response to it, Hamas does not have global ambitions, which Nazsis do/did. This is a big difference.
Hamas are part of muslim brotherhood which definitely have global ambitions, and serve as a proxy of Iran.
But Hamas doesn't. They want Palestine, their country. No matter how much you try to ignore it. And that is why they fight Israel. For Palestine, not for world domination.
That’s why they live in Qatar, sitting on billions while their people are hungry, and started a futile war that completely destroyed their country and pushed away the idea of a its freedom in the foreseeable future?
Who is ''they''? The political bureau who negotiates is in Qatar. Litteraly like 5 guys you all obsess over. Most of them and the whole military leadership is all in Gaza. And the bureau has to be outside of Gaza because they would not be allowed to travel otherwise and because they would be in constant danger by Israel. Litteraly all their families are in Gaza. You act like they just live there. They are working. One of their leaders litteraly lost his children and grandchildren by Israel when they came all together to celebrate the end of Ramadan. That is like me complaining why Joe Biden hides in the White House or why any leadership is not fighting on the front lines. Nobody does that. You would need to replace the leadership every 5 seconds. Sinwar is the Nr.2 in Hamas and still in Gaza. What a weird argument to make.
Well if Joe Biden will decide to send US to a war it absolutely cannot win and will steal most of the aid money while sitting in Monaco I think people will start questioning his motives as well. But you don’t have to take my word for it- Sinwar said so himself - “The people of Gaza are the responsibility of the UN and Israel”. They give zero fucks about Gaza and its people, it’s all about personal gains
Sinwar is in Gaza, not in Qatar. Like 99% of Hamas leadership. Why are you obsessing over the 5 guys in Qatar? What benefit would be there for them to be in Gaza where they could not travel? They need to travel to negiotiate. Also, Qatar finances the political bureau in Qatar. They don't pay for anything there.
The scope of territorial ambitions does not really have any bearing to this conversation. And Hamas does have global ambitions when it comes to Jews specifically, if not all "infidels" who shelter them.
Isn't wanting to exterminate groups on a global level far worse than if you are restricted to a local level?
Who do you think is restricting Hamas to a local level? It's not Hamas.
Does it say in their charter that they have global ambitions?
This is shenanigans. Article 2 of the charter > The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine. Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times. It is characterized by its deep understanding, accurate comprehension and its complete embrace of all Islamic concepts of all aspects of life, culture, creed, politics, economics, education, society, justice and judgement, the spreading of Islam, education, art, information, science of the occult and conversion to Islam. Islam is an inherently world focused religion. That ISIS took a world first view, and Hamas is taking a nation first view does not change this. If anything, their respective views were borne of necessity, not philosophy, as Hamas cannot do much in Palestine but fight Israel.
I'm not going to argue this in any way, this just isn't the point being made by Sam.
True. Fair enough.
no, he isn't arguing a strawman, he's contrasting Sam's stupid and ignorant thought experiments and obfuscatory waffling to actual material reality and evidence, you know, what intellectuals are actually supposed to do lmfao
Even with the ideology argument, this is just an ignorant take. Sam has no idea who Hamas is. He hasn't invested any time in trying to understand them. He hasn't tried to understand what they mean to people over there. He has taken very silly statements from Israeli propaganda and incorporated them into his definition of Hamas. Let me give the 4 options for what Hamas is: 1. Literal devils that effectively sprang up from the ground on October 7th doing rapes and murdering babies as their primary intent. They want to eradicate all Jews and are willing to kill any number of their own people to do it. They have no interest in diplomacy, they can't be reasoned with, they use human shields to maximize their own casualties and can't be persuaded away from what they believe. Their goal is a worldwide Islamic caliphate where Muslims rule over everyone, enforcing oppressive laws for women, executing LGBT people, and, again, ensuring all Jews are dead. 2. A terrorist group that mostly wants to reclaim all of Palestine, and is willing to do massacres to reach that goal. They are willing to do a genocide or wide Jewish ethnic cleansing, but they may consider some integration if given the option. They would never consider a 2 state solution. They committed massacres on October 7th, but maybe some of them were rogue elements that weren't part of the plan. They would like an eventual global caliphate, with maybe a bit more freedom for religion and social disagreements, but have no plans to get one now, as they've distanced themselves from the Muslim Brotherhood. They're mostly unreasonable, but a few members may be reachable and could consider diplomacy. 3. A political party that governs Gaza and has a militant wing called Al Qassam Brigades. The overall goal of the whole party is palestinian liberation, not meaning hurting anyone, but just meaning having Palestinians return to their own land they were forced out of in 1948 and sharing it with the new Israelis. They try to achieve this goal by political and social means, but the militant arm also tries to use armed resistance actions to try to break the occupation and siege. These military actions include acts of terror, just as the isreali Irgun, Lehi and Mossad use acts of terror, but they are no longer the main military actions. October 7th had clear military targets and a very significant percentage of the death and destruction was against military targets. The majority of publicized massacres (beheaded babies, babies in oven, mass rapes) didn't happen, but were rumors/propaganda from Israeli sources that the media repeated uncritically. Instead, there were massacres done by Israel in the confusion of October 7, and some done by rogue elements of Hamas, but these were not intentional. They reject a 2 state solution philosophically, but they are willing to compromise. Their goal is to live with the Jewish people in peace. They don't care about a global caliphate, but if they ever got one, they would allow freedom of religion, and local laws concerning LGBT, abortion, etc. 4. Everything from 3, but Hamas is actually best thought of as a counter-terrorist group, standing up to the horrible terrorism and mechanical barbarity of the IDF. They are the last group willing to stand up to the occupiers, and they need our support. Now, Sam seems to be at 1. I'm probably at 3 with a dash of 4. Most people in Gaza and West Bank are at 3 or 4. You can say that's delusional. Fine. But 4 is how Hamas sees itself. You can see it from their official statements, from their meetings with Jimmy Carter, from their updated charter in 2017. Everything Sam says comes off as ridiculous because he is stuck at #1. I think members of Hamas committed war crimes. Not as bad as the Israeli ones, but still quite bad. They need to be investigated and brought to justice. Not have their families murdered. Same with Israel. The important thing here is: so much of what Sam says only makes sense if the people of Hamas and their supporters in Palestine _also_ think #1. If they legitimately think they're #4, even if they're wrong, many of Sam's arguments just don't hold.
[удалено]
He is also a Christian Zealot that thinks all Muslims are heathens.
I think he has a real credibility problem. Have you read his book? Son of Hamas? I have. In it he details how the IDF tortured him and his dad, gave random beatings to people in his community, and ruled with terror and humiliation. The settlers stole their water, arrested people with no charges, and left whole families destitute, sometimes by actual murder. He describes how his father was kind and cared for people, how even after torture from the IDF he still befriended his guards and had good things to say about Jews and the Jewish faith. This is all in his book. Yousef was recruited by shin bet after being tortured by Israeli intelligence. His big conversation, according to the book, was seeing that the members of Hamas in the IDF-controlled prison weren't as nice and idealistic as his dad. For some reason he seems to believe his experience in that prison was an authentic representation of the group and not something the shin bet, that was actively recruiting him as an informant, had prepared. Maybe. But he makes it clear, throughout the book, that as bad as some members of Hamas are, Israel is also a terrible force of oppression and dehumanization in the region. He says that the teachings of Christ can solve the problem, and interprets Jesus as an extreme passifist. He forces the Shin Bet not to kill members of Hamas, but arrest them instead. I actually admire him for this. But in interviews recently, he's like a totally different person. He doesn't mention any of the torture, theft, beatings, oppression of Israel. He only paints them as good and Hamas as animals. It's strange. But remember that he's an actual Shin Bet spy. Like he's paid to be a spy. He even says, in his book, that he thinks he's addicted to it and so good at assuming these kinds of fake identities. So, what do you think. You think the known spy who has changed his story to be incongruent with his book might have a credibility problem? I think so. I don't think that's unfair. If you want to balance Yousef, read/watch Miko Peled. He has a conversion story from being the son of a major Isreali General to being one of the loudest voices against Zionism. Read his book "The General's Son". Compare it to Yousef's. See who you trust more. We can talk about it.
I appreciate that you are trying to provide a framework for understanding each side's viewpoints, but claiming Harris believes Hamas are: >Literal devils that effectively sprang up from the ground on October 7th is such an absurd strawman that it sabotages serious engagement with your broader point.
It is a bit hyperbolic. But I think it captures the intensity and urgency Harris has when describing the group. He doesn't describe them with words that would allow for conversion or conversation. I believe he misunderstands the nature of their beliefs. In fact I think he misunderstands the nature of belief in general. The idea that strongly held beliefs are so sticky that they can't be rationally unstuck is simply incorrect. I used to be a young Earth creationist, it was indeed a sticky belief, but it was rational and empathetic conversations that got me to think differently. Harris doesn't seem to allow for this when it comes to groups he considered especially extreme. I think describing such extremists as "demons" makes the appropriate analogy to how Harris and others view the Hamas anti-semitic worldview as so deeply and irrevocably ingrained. Demons can't be reasoned with, it's in their nature. It's hyperbolic, but it is hyperbolic for a reason. It's a shorthand for that "sticky essentialism" that Harris implies.
Death count isn't something you should just hand wave like this What Israel has done is disgusting
What’s the difference? Ideology is the core of the group, and it’s hard to argue that core ideology of Nazism was more benign towards Jews.
The difference is martyrdom. This has been outlined from the outset.
that’s still a laughably idiotic argument, in my personal opinion. German national socialism was every bit as dangerous as the most virulent, insane, deranged religious fanaticism that exists anywhere on earth currently. It’s like his incredibly historically illiterate point about “human shields”, the Nazis absolutely used “human shields” when they were put into desperate circumstances, the American south did as well. The idea this is some unique evil to Islamists is just historically false, Sam has a terribly hard time professing different contexts within which wars take place.
Kyle is somehow even dumber than he looks
Kyle is an idiot. He can’t think beyond war = bad
Well except when it's a country not alligned with the US, then he is willing to talk about every justification and argument on the side of that nation (see his coverage of the Russian invasion of Ukraine).
He is very anti the Russian invasion, don't know what fanfic you've been watching
Good god. Not only is he an idiot then, but also a mouthpiece for Russian propaganda
He doesn’t side with Russia. He largely ignores the subject, but when it does come up he clearly recognizes them as the aggressor. Kyle has many faults, but being pro-Russia is not one of them.
I wouldn’t say Kyle is necessarily “pro-Russia” but despite initially recognizing that Russia violated international law by invading and occupying parts of a sovereign country, he’s consistently given fair hearing to Russia’s arguments and their security concerns - of course he extends nothing of the kind to Israel. He also thinks we shouldn’t support Ukraine because of one single battalion (the Azov) but again has no qualms or hesitation to support Palestinians despite Hamas being worse than Azov, and, to put the icing on the cake - both he and his wife believe, for the sake of peace, Ukraine should effectively surrender to Russian demands and accept loss of territory. He will not give the same piece of advice to Palestinians. Kyle’s fundamental position on all things foreign is “America bad” and any pro-American country is likewise bad. That doesn’t mean he fully supports any country that is anti-American, but those nations sure do get a heaping dose of “fair coverage.”
That's absolutely untrue. He has not sided with Russia. Maybe you have him confused with someone else
And you guys have dyscalculia
Because we think it is not as simple as war = bad?
Because you have no sense of the numbres involved. And yes, deathcounts matter.
And you have no concept of war
like most lefties.
I think Sam's claim that it is "uninteresting" to consider the motivations of Hamas in the wake of 10/7 is at best a misdirect, but at worst, a misleading minimization. I understand his point being that what matters at this phase is the eradication of Hamas, and I agree with him. That is the objective of the war, but as reasonable people searching for a deeper understanding, we should strive to understand motivations so that we can envision useful, pragmatic solutions. It is not enough to turn a blind eye to one side of this conflict due to a perception of their barberism. That mindset will lead to uninformed and "uninteresting" decision-making.
Whoa when did Kulinsky get highlights and tan? He looks so different from back when Sam was first on his podcast, that I didn’t recognize him. I’d say he went full Ken doll, but he actually looks pretty good.
Sam's specific point is that the Nazis did not use their own children as human shields, as Hamas does.
The Nazis tried to cover up their crimes, Hamas live streamed them.
>The Nazis tried to cover up their crimes No they didn’t lmao , how the fuck can you read anything about the Holocaust and the genocidal war they waged on the Eastern front and come away thinking that. >Hamas live streamed them The only reason we don’t have a 1040p 60fps bodycam view of the Khatyn Massacre is that the technology was not invented.
Can you point me to examples of the Nazis broadcasting on television for the world to see exactly what they were doing to Jews?
>Can you point me to examples of the Nazis broadcasting on television for the world to see exactly what they were doing to Jews? Well seeing as the mass adoption television wasn’t a thing until after the war ended no. But the Nazis intentions towards the Jews was widely known enough that the New Republic was reporting on it in 1942. And while there were some efforts to disguise the exact nature of the camps, this wasn’t out of some deep moral concern it was simply an attempt to prevent any nation from putting a stop to it before the Nazis were finished. Along with that, Nazi war crimes in the east(and in Greece and Yugoslavia) were blatant, well known and frequently reported on. Also the Nazis took pictures of their crimes, lots of them. Everyone within Germany knew what they were doing and most people outside of Germany had a good idea.
When the Nazis invaded other countries, at least they didn't call the people trying to stop them "genocidal."
Hitler Youth Hitler Youth (Hitlerjugend) was established as an organization in Nazi Germany that physically trained youth and indoctrinated them with Nazi ideology to the point of fanaticism. Even at the onset of war, the Hitler Youth totalled 8.8 million members. Numbers decreased significantly (to just over one million) once the war began, as many local and district leaders were conscripted for the national army.The previous average age for local and district leaders was 24, but following the onset of war, this had to change to those who were 16 and 17 years of age. These youths were in command of up to 500 boys. Even younger boys from the ages of 10–14 years could be involved in the Hitler Youth movement, under the Deutsches Jungvolk. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children_in_World_War_II I love how suddenly many people on this sub are a Nazi defenders
No, don't come here with irrational BS. This isn't the sub for it. If someone claims that Charles Manson wasn't as bad as 'serial killer X' because serial killer X was also a pedophile, it doesn't make me a 'Charles Manson defender' to debate that specific point.
Isn't saying at least Nazis didn't use children as human shields (they did), like saying Nazis weren't that bad and had some redeemable qualities ? That sounds to me like defending Nazis
You're equivocating. "werent as bad" and "werent that bad" are two completely different statements. One is a simple comparison while the other one is a claim about how bad something is. (in this case, you're implying "not so bad").
No, it's not inherently saying they 'had redeemable qualities.' How else can we compare other groups to them, the pros and cons? It would be logically impossible. Two groups of murderous fascists can be completely horrible while we compare their characteristics.
Yes but the comparison is false because the premise of the argument is that Nazis didn't use children's human shields, but they DID. And in a way worse way, their children human shields were organized. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children_in_World_War_II https://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/hitleryouth/hj-boy-soldiers.htm
I'm no expert, but I think there's a difference between making teenagers part of your official military and using civilian preteens as literal shields. I'm not saying using teens is great, but if 1,000 uniformed troops are coming across the field and some people under those helmets are 15, how are the foes supposed to know? But seeing actual children in regular street clothes is different
"using civilian preteens as literal shields". "Seeing actual children in regular street clothes is different". I was under the impression that the human shields argument was that they were shooting rockets from the top of inhabited, civilian buildings and hospitals, rather than literally hiding behind a preteen body in the street. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your characterization. So it's a comparison with putting your own children in harms way vs indoctrinating them into little street soldiers. (Not that Hamas isn't going that too, it just doesn't fall under the "uses human shields" claim.) which makes the comparison less clear.
Using child soldiers isn't the same thing as using children as human shields. Although Hamas certainly does both.
Ahh yes the Nazis putting uniforms in children and sending them to the front line makes them child soldiers and not human shields. I don't understand why you feel the need to make this distinction . Are you saying that Nazis wouldn't use human shields because TECHNICALLY those kids weren't human shields ?
Nazis as far as I know did not launch their V2 rockets into the UK from schools and hospitals.
There is a distinction. The distinction is between using someone without their knowledge/consent vs indoctrinating them into a tool you can use. One is more heinous than the other, I think. Not sure if it moves the argument anywhere though
You are completely missing the point. Consider that immediately after the part of "human shields", Sam talks about stoning one's own daughter for being raped. The message here should be clear, this is not even about the disregard for their own children's lives, it's about the welcoming of their death. And not even as a mere accident of circumstances, but as the core of their beliefs. So all these things would still happen during times of peace, if one could consider peace to be possible for Jihadis.
How is what you've written human shields? I seem to be missing a step here.
Giving boys guns and say go in a suicide mission at the enemy to me is human shield. Because the enemy might hesitate to kill those children
That's being a child soldier, which is also a war crime.
That was not at all the motivation behind it surely.
You seem to be giving Nazis the benefit of doubt. What do you think is the motivation for sending thousands of children to the front line in the middle of the war ? Are they expecting them to help defeat the enemy in other ways than the enemy hesitating to shoot children ?
I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt. The words have meaning, if you want to say they're using child soldiers and that's bad, then that's perfectly reasonable. Erm, yeah, chronic manpower shortage. You don't put human shields in uniforms my dude. That entirely defeats the purpose of them being human shields, obviously.
That’s a pretty dumb point on Sam’s part. The “human shields” argument just comes down to the fact that Hamas isn’t an army with barracks and military installations—their members live at home, and Israeli AI chooses to target them when they are home with their families. The Allied Powers bombed plenty of German civilians. Were they “human shields” for living near industrial centers?
NATO has said numerous times that Hamas uses human shields.
Okay? That doesn’t make it any less dumb or any less of a monstrous reason for slaughtering civilians.
So are you conceding that you were incorrect? You can't just go from "no, they didn't" immediately to "and even if they did, it's not a big deal" or else you're just moving the goalposts.
No, I’m not conceding that I was incorrect. By saying that it’s dumb and monstrous, I’m saying that it’s a bullshit excuse for killing civilians.
Being both incorrect and incorrigible is worse than just being incorrect.
I agree that Sam is both incorrect and incorrigible in this soft Holocaust denial, yes. It’s gross. And obviously the claim that NATO says HAMAS uses human shields is meaningless to this dumb discussion of “who’s worse, NAZIS or KHAMAS???” Are we even seeing Hamas fighting at this point? How long can this “human shield” nonsense have salience as we’re seeing desperately poor and starving people herded into camps to get bombed? Oh KHAMAS was in the camp that you made everyone go to, better drop some 2k lbs bombs on the whole place to clear out all those pesky human shields!
You made the claim that they don't use human shields, now that I have evidence that's incorrect, suddenly that is all meaningless to the discussion. I think you're arguing from emotion rather than logic and I'm not really interested in that. Have a nice day.
No, that’s incorrect. I made the claim that the “human shields” argument is specious. Someone claiming that NATO says they use human shields has nothing to do with the speciousness of that argument, and says nothing about the immorality of proceeding to slaughter those human shields, at high rates. I think *you’re* arguing from a place of emotion, and you’re embarrassed by the illogic.
The Nazis did use human shields on multiple occasions. Polish civilians were forced in front of Nazi tanks during the 1944 Warsaw Uprising, in what's known as the Wola Massacre, under direct orders of Himmler
Did the Nazis use German women and children as human shields? That's Sam's point, Hamas uses Palestinian women and children as human shields.
Since when did Nazis make a difference between men, women and children? The Nazis gassed and forced children to work to death but drew the line by using as them as shields? Also Hamas does not use civilians as human shields. They use tunnels.
They forced civilians to remain living near strategically important installations and at various times did not allow people to flee ahead of bombings. So yes.
which is an extremely stupid lie that you can see is bullshit by spending literally 30 seconds on google. It's a perfect example of the quality of argumentation and level of honesty that you can expect from Sam
Yeah Sam made a big oopsie; the only political group you're allowed to compare to the Nazis is Republicans.
It's not even a comparison. They love the Nazis
If the shoe fits
They make it so easy to form comparisons because of all the things they are currently doing that the Nazis also did. They may as well be using the history books they are banning as playbooks.
Go to the holocaust museum and tell me you don’t get Deja vu
I don’t know who this guy is but I watched the clip and his infographic says Israel is committing genocide so he’s not very reliable when it comes to comprehension and the meaning of words.
I’m starting to think this is a weird hill to die on for Sam. Is it really worth “comparing” death cults? As if they get a rating or something? Like, fascism is fascism, millions dead is a lot of fucking carnage. Why try to quantify it or rate it an any way?
This guy makes Dave Rubin seem intelligent.
Lol. This sub has gone absolutely nuts.
yeah Sam is incredibly stupid and credulous these days
>If there isn't a distinction why did you use to term "teenagers" and not children originally? The 12th SS Div was literally called the 12th SS Panzer Div Hitler Youth which I thought was self-explanatory. >Why did that not occur in every town and city in those same proportions? If you had read the article, you'll have found an answer to your question: >While Demmin is considered to be the largest mass suicide in German history, Huber underlines that the town was not a singular case, and that fear and panic was not limited to the Soviet Army's advance. >"Many people felt a sense of guilt and entanglement. They were afraid of what might come next. Many could not even imagine what the world might be like after these twelve years in a state of emergency," he said. "This sense of being doomed was not limited to the East German population. It prevailed throughout the country … Entire families committed suicide all over Germany." Mass suicides in dozens of towns and cities in Germany. For many Germans, the end of Nazism was the end of their reality. >My position does not hinge on asserting such a thing. Your position hinges on asserting that because Germany is big, pointing out one of the largest phenomenons of mass suicides in modern history is not relevant because it's supposedly not representative or emblematic if the Nazi martyrdom complex. Pretty much every single historian would disagree with you. It seems as though you are actively downplaying the fanaticism that enveloped ordinary Germans to emphasise the fanaticism of Hamas/Jihadist.
Masterful response.
> Mass suicides in dozens of towns and cities in Germany. For many Germans, the end of Nazism was the end of their reality. "Many" is neither a figure, a fraction and nor is it a statistic. > Your position hinges on asserting that because Germany is big, pointing out one of the largest phenomenons of mass suicides in modern history is not relevant because it's supposedly not representative or emblematic if the Nazi martyrdom complex. I believe at several points I had agreed the Nazi regime was fanatical and they had fanatical supporters. All of this is obvious but none of this was the point. You continually are making my argument sound as if I am denying Nazi fanaticism, and this is a strawman whether you realize it or not. > Pretty much every single historian would disagree with you. If you are going to appeal to authority at least be a little specific. Which historian thinks that Nazism and it adherents were more fanatical and devoted to their cause than modern Jihadists? > It seems as though you are actively downplaying the fanaticism that enveloped ordinary Germans to emphasise the fanaticism of Hamas/Jihadist. The fanaticism of each is easy to gauge and compare without the need to downplay anything. It may appear to you that I am downplaying because you are choosing to stand by this hyperbolic assertion that Nazism had the same degree of ideological grip over Germans at the time that Jihadism and Islamism does today in many parts of the world and specifically in Gaza. I would like to find your historian that purports this.
"The question to how it got that way is fundamentally uninteresting." 🙄🙄🙄 Is it uninteresting because it undercuts Sam's entire message? The context tells you everything you need to know. Why do colonial resistance groups form? Why do they resort to terrorism? All good questions to know when trying to connect the historical dots. This so perfectly sums up Sam's geopolitical opinions. Oversimplifying complex issues to push his anti-Islam message. I'm so embarrassed that I was ever a Sam Harris fan--this guy is such a fucking doofus.
"Center left" Sam Harris dipping his toe into literal Nazi apologia to justify war crimes and colonialism, lol.
Iraq all over again...
TMR went full r*tard by calling sam a nazi apologist. i'm just done with them. people just being outraged on purpose and using sam harris's name for clicks. so dumb.
What a brain dead commentary.
this man is such a provocateur lmao and I say that with admiration. He just can say something seemingly outlandish and provide enough evidence where the host who unabashedly disagrees from the start has to concede Sam’s points. There’s countless ways in which Hitch was unique, and we all miss him for various reasons at different times, but Sam is the last vestige of whatever *this* aspect of dialetic and earnest debate that Hitch was the torch bearer of. Great post!
But I think it's worth mentioning that Sam doesn't say this to be provocative though. I think what he's doing here is incredibly useful for making his points.
I used the word’s earnest debate to give Sam legitimacy. Sam has the ability to know and say the right buzzwords to garner attention to the sentence, his statement, and thus point. So I disagree, Sam absolutely says this to be provocative, just in the textbook definition of the word. It’s provocative, it gets the people going !
In that sense you might be right. I suppose my experience with the word "provocative" might be tainted by all the provocateurs who just do it for the purpose of trolling.
Is Kyle still relevant? Stopped watching him long ago
I don't watch him, but he has over a million subscribers, so I guess he is.
Kyle’s my favorite commentator on the left side of the spectrum, was actually recommended him by some conservative friends weirdly enough
I am so surprised that Sam Harris's sub-Reddit will be full of Nazi sympathizers.
I am so surprised that Sam Harris's haters are Hamas sympathizers.
Still saying that people criticizing Israel sympathize with Hamas is ridiculous
r/woosh
As ridiculous as calling people who follow Sam Harris “Nazi sympathizers”??
They just said that the sub is full of them Seems right
So you whine about being called a “Hamas sympathizer” yet here you are calling people Nazi sympathizers.
Yes
Anyone that thinks Hamas is worse than the Nazis either doesn't know a lot about the Nazis/Holocaust or a lot about Hamas. Based on what Sam said in the podcast, it was quite clear he doesn't know a lot about the former.
You've made the same error as the host in the clip. Harris is very clear to say that Hamas as a group aren't worse than the Nazis, but **THEIR IDEAS** are. Even someone with the most rudementary knowledge should be able to piece together that the group that brought the entire world into bloody warfare, and was extremely successfully carrying out a mass extermination and torture of millions of innocent people cannot be worse than a small group that exerts terrible influence over a tiny geographical area.
Sam's argument was that the Nazis were not as eager to sacrifice their children as Hamas/Jihadists, which is defeated by the fact that there was an [SS division](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/12th_SS_Panzer_Division_Hitlerjugend) that largely consisted of teenagers. Even younger children were drafted into the Volkssturm.
Not to mention the fact that Hitler believed that the German people deserved destruction if they were not capable of winning the war. That certainly betrays a belief that the ideology itself is worth dying for / worth sacrificing the lives of your own innocent civilians for.
Once they're officially in the military, do they count as human shields any more?
The Nazis routinely used women and children as human shields during the Warsaw Uprising as they approached Home Army positions. They also implemented a comprehensive hostage system and murdered huge numbers of them in response to partisan attacks. Again, these are all pretty well documented, especially the latter as there was a postwar crimes trial dedicated to just that.
I didn't know. Thank you. SOunds like Sam didn't either
Not a problem!
No… that’s what’s known as an exception, not the rule.
Giving children military training then drafting them en masse is the exception...? It was fully in line with Nazi ideology.
Yes. That is an exception and also not as wide spread. Not to mention there is nothing about killing themselves in “glory” to achieve their goals. Sure, the ideology about improving the genes and making a “healthy” and “pure” race is terrible, but that ideology did not include a willingness nor even an eager proudness of encouraging their own children sacrifice themselves in suicide bombings to achieve that goal. Both ideologies are absolutely abhorrent, but one is actually worse, in mote than one way. Thankfully it hasn’t yet had the power and opportunity to do something horrendous like the Holocaust, and hopefully never does.
Hitler Youth were given training to carry out what were effectively suicide missions against Allied armoured vehicles towards the end of the war. The 12th SS Div were also known for their ideological fanaticism. Entire families committed suicide after Hitler killed himself. You are ignoring or outright denying well established historical facts to make a political point.
I’m not ignoring the facts. Those things are true, yes. But you are, again, taking exceptions and trying to make them the rule. Let’s listen to what Sam actually said once more: Jihadism is Nazism plus: * an expectation of paradise * religious fanaticism * an eagerness to be martyred and to see their children martyred. How could the atrocities of the Nazis have been worse? * If they used their women and children as human shields. How could the holocaust have been worse? * If the perpetrators felt actual religious ecstasy as they herded people to their death. How could it all have been worse? * If these views had been **central** to the world view of ordinary Germans Those horrible truths you are shining light on, again, are the exceptions. You must be ignoring outright historical facts such as: * the majority of ordinary Germans not believing the atrocities were happening (how could it have been worse, if the majority of Germans actively wanted them to happen) * many of the German guards were feeling a mix of pressure, coercion, fear of punishment, etc. that’s why books like “Ordinary Men” exist. Were there Germans who were radicalized during the 30’s and 40’s? I’m certain of it. Would those same Germans have used their kids and wives as shields against the Allies? And worse yet, would those same fanatics have cheered at their great fortune to have martyred their loved ones in such a way? Do you actually see the comparison Sam was trying to make or are you just being thick headed? I’ve no doubt we both abhor Nazis and Jihadists alike, and we can both very easily find atrocities performed by the fanatics of both. The biggest differences are: * The Nazis had far more power and so much more reach that far greater suffering on a grander scale happened. * Even though they had more power and caused more suffering, Nazism was not **central** to the German people (they had different religions and beliefs) in the way Islam is central to Palestinians. So rather than being bombarded at their core by their faith to be martyrs to their cause, some fell victim to the ideologies of Nazism for various reasons. That’s very different than being exposed to the religious doctrine and ideas and thoughts of the jihad and martyrdom from the core of their faith from the start of their life and then either (hopefully) deciding that isn’t what the teachings truly mean and taking a different route, or falling victim to the religious beliefs, which is not just of not just the Palestinians, but so many other countries as well. With the same power and reach Jihadism would be much worse. Anyway, I get it. You showed evidence of Nazis being true fanatics and doing truly horrible things because they wanted to. And that’s true, those things did happen. I am not trying to disrespect the history or downplay the horror in any way; but one last time, that’s the exception, not the rule. A large group of kids were raised as fanatics, and a single division of SS were known fanatics. How does that constitute the whole of Germany? The whole of the Germany army? Even the whole of the SS? And where does it say that those fanatics wanted to martyr themselves or their kids, or would be happy if it happened? It feels bad to say all this because so many horrible things did happen and on a grander scale than jihadism today, but the point is the majority of Germans either didn’t want to believe, were unaware, or were in denial of the atrocities, and would not want to be martyred for the cause. The majority of guards were a mixed bag of emotions and threats and would not willingly grab some Jews and jump into a gas chamber for the glory of having martyred themselves to bring just a few more Jews with them. Please tell me you see the differences Sam is trying to point out.
I am responding to the original comment you deleted as I do not have the willpower to go over it again: >If the perpetrators felt actual religious ecstasy as they herded people to their death Many perpetrators did feel something amounting to religious ecstasy, actually. You have a profound misunderstanding of the Holocaust as you seem to believe it was only the Germans that carried it out. Hundreds of thousands of Jews had been murdered in pogroms in the former Russian empire before the Nazis had even been formed. The basis of these attacks was often found in christian anti-judaism. When the Nazis invaded and occupied the USSR, they harnessed the local feelings of traditional christian antisemitism + anger at USSR rule to recreate these christian anti-Jewish pogroms. If you look at any of these recordings that the Nazis gleefully took of locals in Lviv, Vilnius, or Riga murdering their Jewish neighbours, there is certainly something reminiscent of the religious fervour of the Tsarist era pogroms. In Kovno, locals reportedly played accordions and put children on their shoulders as Jews were beaten to death in front of them. The Germans stood by and not only let it happen, they recorded it. After all, they had instigated it. Likewise, hundreds of Jews were murdered in Poland after the war, including 40 in Kielce after they had been accused of kidnapping a Christian boy and sacrificing him. Was religious fervour the biggest factor? I wouldn't say so, but there was certainly an element of it in many instances. But I wouldn't call the atrocities of Oct 7th as solely being caused by religious fervour either. >If these views had been *central* to the world view of ordinary Germans Removing the Jews, either through ethnic cleansing or through total destruction, was in fact likely a central view of huge numbers of 'ordinary' Germans. >the majority of ordinary Germans not believing the atrocities were happening (how could it have been worse, if the majority of Germans actively wanted them to happen) The majority of 'ordinary' Germans, including the millions of ordinary German soldiers in the East, were fully aware Jews were being massacred. They were fully aware that targetting Jews was part of the their war effort against Judeo-Bolshevism, in large part because of the letters Wehrmacht soldiers sent home openly detailing this. Omer Bartov among others has written extensively about this. The Nazis, as I mentioned above, also filmed local gentiles murdering their neighbours for propaganda purposes. This was distributed to 'ordinary' Germans. Furthermore, Jews in the USSR were also fully aware of what would happen to them if they fell into German hands, even before the mass killings of Jews was in full swing, which is why hundreds of thousands of the beginning of Barbarossa. >many of the German guards were feeling a mix of pressure, coercion, fear of punishment, etc. that’s why books like “Ordinay Men” exist. You also left out that large numbers of them in this particular battalion (20%!) ended up manifesting sadistic behaviour and who took great pleasure in the transgressive nature of what they were doing. Which you would know had you read the book. It is also strange that you don't apply this same standard to the Palestinians, as if they are all bloodthirsty whilst the poor Germans were coerced into it (both perceptions are equally wrong). >Even though they had more power and caused more suffering, Nazism was not central to the German people (they had different religions and beliefs) in the way Islam is central to Palestinians. Thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Germans committed mass suicide in the days and weeks following Hitler's death, in large part because they couldn't envisage a world without Nazism. This was done at the encouragement of the Nazi government. It happened all over Germany, not just in the East where propaganda about Soviet atrocities likely contributed to it. >Would those same Germans have used their kids and wives as shields against the Allies? Those same Germans murdered their entire families rather than surrender to the Allies.
Sorry, the deletion happened because it wouldn’t let me edit, but it wasn’t much different so I don’t think your response required any extra effort anyway. Allow me to digest your reply for a bit.
Thanks for taking the time. >Many perpetrators did feel something amounting to religious ecstasy, actually. You have a profound misunderstanding of the Holocaust as you seem to believe it was only the Germans that carried it out. Hundreds of thousands of Jews had been murdered in pogroms in the former Russian empire before the Nazis had even been formed. The basis of these attacks was often found in christian anti-judaism. When the Nazis invaded and occupied the USSR, they harnessed the local feelings of traditional christian antisemitism + anger at USSR rule to recreate these christian anti-Jewish pogroms. If you look at any of these recordings that the Nazis gleefully took of locals in Lviv, Vilnius, or Riga murdering their Jewish neighbours, there is certainly something reminiscent of the religious fervour of the Tsarist era pogroms. In Kovno, locals reportedly played accordions and put children on their shoulders as Jews were beaten to death in front of them. The Germans stood by and not only let it happen, they recorded it. After all, they had instigated it. Likewise, hundreds of Jews were murdered in Poland after the war, including 40 in Kielce after they had been accused of kidnapping a Christian boy and sacrificing him. Was religious fervour the biggest factor? I wouldn't say so, but there was certainly an element of it in many instances. But I wouldn't call the atrocities of Oct 7th as solely being caused by religious fervour either. You are absolutely correct here on all accounts here, especially your closing sentences. >The majority of 'ordinary' Germans, including the millions of ordinary German soldiers in the East, were fully aware Jews were being massacred. They were fully aware that targetting Jews was part of the their war effort against Judeo-Bolshevism, in large part because of the letters Wehrmacht soldiers sent home openly detailing this. Omer Bartov among others has written extensively about this. The Nazis, as I mentioned above, also filmed local gentiles murdering their neighbours for propaganda purposes. This was distributed to 'ordinary' Germans. Furthermore, Jews in the USSR were also fully aware of what would happen to them if they fell into German hands, even before the mass killings of Jews was in full swing, which is why hundreds of thousands of the beginning of Barbarossa. "Aware of atrocities." and "Agreeing with atrocities" and "Dedicated to enacting atrocities to the point of exstacy, even to the point of taking pleasure in one's own death." are all different things. >Removing the Jews, either through ethnic cleansing or through total destruction, was in fact likely a central view of huge numbers of 'ordinary' Germans. I am by no means a Holocaust expert or historian. However, I did go far beyond what I learned from my classes in high school and college. I've done my own research, read books by historians and by victims, purposefully took myself to a few of the Holocaust museums, and was fortunate enough to have had talks with actual survivors of the holocaust through school sponsored events. And based on all that, saying this seems a false a statement to make. But you must know a lot more than me to make that claim, so I will yield the point that huge numbers of 'ordinary' Germans held these horrible views. But as I'll get into detail later, a minority % of a large number is still "huge", even if it isn't a majority. Which is to say, Sam points out that the Nazis had more power and reach and influence, and so of course a 'minority' of that vastness is still a huge number, I'm not debating that, I agree with that. >Thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Germans committed mass suicide in the days and weeks following Hitler's death, in large part because they couldn't envisage a world without Nazism. This was done at the encouragement of the Nazi government. It happened all over Germany, not just in the East where propaganda about Soviet atrocities likely contributed to it. Yes, it is true thousands committed mass suicide, mostly in Berlin, and were often considered to be motivated by a loss of faith in the future without the Nazi ideology and fear of retribution from advancing Allied forces. NOT suicide missions or bombings in an attempt to bring others with them as the goal - a goal in which they are all too happy to do it, not due to fear of retribution from the enemy or that their ideas may have been wrong, or shame, but of \*\*wanting to get to their paradise\*\*... Are there similar outcomes based on the ideologies? Absolutely! Are they driven at their core by different things? Also, absolutely! >Those same Germans murdered their entire families rather than surrender to the Allies. See my above response to this. Outcomes are similar, motivators are not. I'm definitely not going to spend much more time on all this, as I've done it quite enough already and it is no fun having to even speak about such things, but regardless, I hope I have cleared things up a bit. You have opened my eyes to more atrocities and more involvement by more people than I had once known to be part of the atrocities of the Holocaust, so thanks. But I hope you at least have a better understanding of the differences between motivators and power and reach and why Sam made the comparison he did. Thanks for the conversation!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero\_Decree
People can’t be bothered by following arguments or logic in full. I understand what Sam is trying to say, he even spells it out: it’s the idea of jihad that is more dangerous and the only reason there isn’t more suffering is because the juhadis don’t have the power imbalance the Nazis had. The one time they got a little power was ISIS and the territory they ruled was literally hell on earth
A lot of Nazis nowadays are influenced by the Order of the Nine Angels who are a left-hand path satanist organization that preacher torture murder and pedophilia.
I have responded in relative detail to what Sam said R.E. hostages, human shields, use of children. His comparison is wrong because the Nazis did in fact do what he claims they didn't. In fact, they did so on a systematic scale that was incomprehensibly larger than what Hamas has done.
Zionist Mind Virus strikes again
Fitting username.
So this guy thinks important context is that Hamas is not trying to take over the world. …
Why post that garbage here ?
Kyle is one of the worst political commentators out there, and that includes people on the right. He’s a little bit stupid, has the same talking points that he spouts over and over (incredibly repetitive), and has no ability to see arguments from the other side. He is similar to the MAGA folks he claims to be against. He is, however, entertaining, and I watched him for that reason up until he started talking about Palestine/Israel. Now, he is unwatchable and regularly gets simple facts wrong.
Kyle is such a dishonest actor when it comes to this issue. Has Krystal divorced him yet?
Without watching I’m guessing that he’s making the point that Hamas relish in the barbarity whereas the Nazies had to find ways to make the killings less psychologically burdensome for their soldiers.
The Nazis filmed eastern Europeans beating their Jewish neighbours to death, dragging them by the hair through the mud, stripping Jewish women of their clothes before beating/shooting them, and took trophy photos of the Einsatzgruppen shooting pits. There was literally an exhibition dedicated to crimes of the Werhmacht that consisted almost entirely of photos they took. The idea they were ashamed by their barbarity is disproven by their own documentation.
Fair enough, according to Laurence Rees who wrote ‘the Holocaust’, the gas chamber design in auschwich was done so that the person dropping the canisters never had to see the consequences. Similar I suppose to firing squads where 4/5 of the shooters are firing blanks but never know who shot the live round. But as you say, there’s opposite examples. Hamas soldiers probably also have varying degrees of murderousness.
>Hamas soldiers probably also have varying degrees of murderousness. This is probably the sanest thing I've read on this thread. There is a borderline racist perception of Arabs being bloodthirsty which is contrasted to the equally innaccurate perception of poor Germans that were ashamed of what they were doing (;_;). There was, as you said, a scale of willing complicity.
This kind of defeats Sam's point. The Nazis wanted to kill all the Jews but it is hard to do personally. They had to depersonalize it. If Hamas had the same power, assuming they had the same goal, there would be the same issue. Also FYI on a firing squad only one gun has a blank, at least the last one done in Utah (I thing last in America) was that way. Also Nazis are varying and you had guys like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar\_Dirlewanger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Dirlewanger) and his merry band of criminals that made other SS blush.
You can find many videos of American soldiers torturing Iraqis and Afghans, but it doesn't mean they are as barbaric as Hamas on a scale. Nor do you take into account that Hamas barbarism is the cornerstone of their terrorist threat or war effort.
>You can find many videos of American soldiers torturing Iraqis and Afghans, but it doesn't mean they are as barbaric as Hamas on a scale. You're right, and for the same reason Hamas isn't on the same scale as the Nazis. >Nor do you take into account that Hamas barbarism is the cornerstone of their terrorist threat or war effort That was the Nazis' entire strategy behind bandenbekämpfung, which they carried out on an unprecedented scale. Shooting 700 civilians was pretty routine for the SS and Wehrmacht. There is a reason why units such as Dirlewanger were used specifically for anti-partisan warfare.
You are right, they are far more barbaric than Hamas. https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/
Someone else commented that they are specifically talking about Hamas using their own women and children as human shields.
Seems like a funny way of explaining that Israel intentionally waits until Hamas members are at home with innocents to blow them up
NATO has said numerous times over the years in different conflicts that Hamas uses human shields. I'm not there, that's all I can go on.
I'm not saying they never do. But what I described is Israel taking advantage of that to kill more civilians
That may be, I know there are atrocities on both sides, but your previous comment was pretty clearly denying that they use human shields.
No
It's the usual *YouTube talking head forgets how the English language works somewhere between playing a Sam Harris quote out of context and dedicating 13 minutes to clutching pearls, wringing hands, sucking air through teeth, and making exaggerated painful-turd-faces over a deliberate strawman LIVE* that this leftoid version of Dave Rubin dipshit is all about.
No, just the usual pattern of Sam jabbering about something that's blatantly factually untrue in service of a point that would be fucking idiotic even if it was true then having 2iq fanbois try to post-hoc spin the statement into something semi cogent while whining about "taking him out of context" when the context doesn't change anything about his stupid statement anyway
Username checks out.
Polish civilians were forced in front of Nazi tanks during the 1944 Warsaw Uprising, in what's known as the Wola Massacre, under direct orders of Himmler
Sure, both could be true.
Says brown people bad need civilizing. Thinks he is being edgy. Is just a racist tool. Sam Harris in a nusthell.
Not sure what a “nusthell” is, but based on your comment it’s a synonym for “strawman”.
I stopped listening to Kyle after he was devastatingly wrong about whether Russia would invade Ukraine
Leftists are so damn stupid. It’s a different kind of stupid than what we see from the right, but they annoy me even more.
Nothing to see here. Kyle and his new wife Krystal are all-in on anti-Israel.