K, now you're just virtue-signalling and equivocating.

Let's say for hypothetical sake I was a committed Nazi from birth; my family are Nazis, I read Nazi material and my whole identity was Nazism. But, I shunned violence, and militarism because I found those things abhorrent.

Imagine I come on here and say: "Nazism is a peaceful ideology." Most people, including yourself would laugh at me. But, let's say you decide to go along with it, and debate me.

Your argument would quote Mein Kampf and all the verses in it that support the Nazi ideology. For e.g. the idea of Labensraum, and Hitler's view on Slavs, Karnal says: "Look at what Hitler said about Slavs; he said they were inferior and the lowest of society. What do you say to that?" As a committed Nazi, I respond: "Well, Hitler was talking about 'cultural' inferiority; he wasn't referring to them being sub-human...." You see now, how I'm interpreting Hitler's views to reconcile my identity?

Let's talk another example: what Hitler did (imagine the Sunnah of Hitler). Karnal says: "Hitler invaded Poland and France and wanted to conquer Europe, so he was warmonger who committed aggressive warfare." I then respond: "Well, actually no, the rest of Europe was threatening Germany; they wouldn't eventually have accepted German dominance in Europe despite appeasement, and they did nothing about Soviet Communism in the East. Hitler was also protecting German minorities in those countries. He was engaging in self-defence. IN FACT, AFTER HITLER CONQUERED PARIS, THE FRENCH SURRENDERED AND HITLER CREATED VICHY FRANCE, GIVING THE FRENCH AUTONOMY. Is this the action of an offensive warmonger? Wouldn't Germany have just conquered all of France if he were a warmonger? The French ceased and Hitler gave them their own State."

Let's have another example: the Holocaust. Karnal says: "The Nazis enslaved people and exterminated them. This isn't the action of a benevolent conqueror?" Caesar replies: "Well, they were enemies of the state. Their internment was only designed to be temporary. Did people die? Sure, but they weren't innocent because they wouldn't have ever accepted the Nazi ideology and the supremacy of a German-dominated Europe. If they simply became Nazi converts and accepted Hitler's supremacy, maybe they Hitler would've shown mercy." You see where this line of thinking is similar to the Muslim apologists?

Now, you might argue: "Well Caesar, Hitler isn't a Prophet; God didn't dictate Mein Kampf to Hitler, and therefore the comparison is not valid". To which I respond: "No, K, I believe that Hitler was inspired by superior thinking and rationale and that he was smarter than the average human..... His views would've made a better world; if only people had just accepted his ideology and a German-dominated Europe."

You see the similarities??

Karnal wrote on Feb 1^st, 2018 at 10:06pm:


Would you like to compare what people ‘believe’ as opposed to what’s in scripture?

Auggie wrote on Feb 1^st, 2018 at 10:15pm:


Yes lets do that. Its what I've been spending most of my time doing here. FD for one completely rejects the idea that there is any discrepancy between muslim's belief that apostates must be killed and what Islamic texts say. Ditto for pretty much every barbaric/violent belief that muslims hold. Not for peaceful/tolerant beliefs though, muslims are wrong when they believe those things you see.

Doesn't apply to what?

You seem to assume that I take for granted whatever conclusions you are making about the timeline-determines-legitimacy of the Quran. Needless to say I don't.