Spicer Says Hitler Didn't "Use Chemical Weapons"

[Thinker101]

It is you political hacks who are conflating execution devices to be chemical weapons so that you have a thin rationalization for ginning up some more "outrage", and the resultant personal attacks and smears.

"execution device."

Sure, dumbfuck.... this isn't a "weapon" in that man's hand... it's an "execution device."

I'm glad you are enjoying your humor.

The point stands. Hitler did not use chemical weapons in WWII.

Hence the Allies did not use chemical weapons in retaliation.

Assad DID use chemical weapons.


THis bullshit of you lefties is just another way you guys are assholes.

I am enjoying the humor -- but most of it stems from your idiocies.

Your point is retarded. That's your point. Again, by the definition of the word weapon, Hitler's use of zyklon B establishes it as a weapon. Because it's a chemical, it was employed as a chemical weapon.

Again, the hammer analogy, which aptly applies -- use a hammer on a nail, it's a tool. Use it to kill someone, it's a weapon.

This couldn't be simpler. You're just too rightarded to get it. It's ok, you're a conservative. No one really expects you to get it.

For generations after WWII, history classes were taught that Hitler did not use chemical weapons in WWII.


That's the way I learned it.

To pretend that there is no difference between a device used to kill people locked in an airtight room and a weapon used in a military operation is blatant dishonesty on the part of the Left, and you are doing so in order to be dicks.

Who cares what you were taught? Words have meaning. It was used as a "weapon." You've been shown the definition which applies to it. No one cares that you're too ignorant to learn.

Hydrogen Cyanide

Hydrogen cyanide is usually included among the CW agents causing general poisoning. There is no confirmed information on this substance being used in chemical warfare. However, it has been reported that hydrogen cyanide was used by Iraq in the war against Iran and against the Kurds in northern Iraq during the 1980's. Hydrogen cyanide has high toxicity and in sufficient concentrations it rapidly leads to death. During the Second World War, a form of hydrogen cyanide (Zyklon B) was used in the Nazi gas chambers.

Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
​

Fuck you.

Sorry, but you're a three-time loser.... (1) I'm married; (2) I'm not gay; (3) even if I were single and gay, I don't fuck losers like you.

It is you political hacks who are conflating execution devices to be chemical weapons so that you have a thin rationalization for ginning up some more "outrage", and the resultant personal attacks and smears.

"execution device."

Sure, dumbfuck.... this isn't a "weapon" in that man's hand... it's an "execution device."

I'm glad you are enjoying your humor.

The point stands. Hitler did not use chemical weapons in WWII.

Hence the Allies did not use chemical weapons in retaliation.

Assad DID use chemical weapons.


THis bullshit of you lefties is just another way you guys are assholes.

I am enjoying the humor -- but most of it stems from your idiocies.

Your point is retarded. That's your point. Again, by the definition of the word weapon, Hitler's use of zyklon B establishes it as a weapon. Because it's a chemical, it was employed as a chemical weapon.

Again, the hammer analogy, which aptly applies -- use a hammer on a nail, it's a tool. Use it to kill someone, it's a weapon.

This couldn't be simpler. You're just too rightarded to get it. It's ok, you're a conservative. No one really expects you to get it.

For generations after WWII, history classes were taught that Hitler did not use chemical weapons in WWII.


That's the way I learned it.

To pretend that there is no difference between a device used to kill people locked in an airtight room and a weapon used in a military operation is blatant dishonesty on the part of the Left, and you are doing so in order to be dicks.

Who cares what you were taught? Words have meaning. It was used as a "weapon." You've been shown the definition which applies to it. No one cares that you're too ignorant to learn.

Hydrogen Cyanide

Hydrogen cyanide is usually included among the CW agents causing general poisoning. There is no confirmed information on this substance being used in chemical warfare. However, it has been reported that hydrogen cyanide was used by Iraq in the war against Iran and against the Kurds in northern Iraq during the 1980's. Hydrogen cyanide has high toxicity and in sufficient concentrations it rapidly leads to death. During the Second World War, a form of hydrogen cyanide (Zyklon B) was used in the Nazi gas chambers.

Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
​

Fuck you.

Sorry, but you're a three-time loser.... (1) I'm married; (2) I'm not gay; (3) even if I were single and gay, I don't fuck losers like you.

Words have meaning?? Yup, especially the ones you lefties like to conveniently ignore.

 

[Correll]

For generations after WWII, history classes were taught that Hitler did not use chemical weapons in WWII.


That's the way I learned it.

To pretend that there is no difference between a device used to kill people locked in an airtight room and a weapon used in a military operation is blatant dishonesty on the part of the Left, and you are doing so in order to be dicks.

Who cares what you were taught. Words have meaning. It was used as a "weapon." You've been shown the definition which applies to it. No one cares that you're too ignorant to learn.

Hydrogen Cyanide

Hydrogen cyanide is usually included among the CW agents causing general poisoning. There is no confirmed information on this substance being used in chemical warfare. However, it has been reported that hydrogen cyanide was used by Iraq in the war against Iran and against the Kurds in northern Iraq during the 1980's. Hydrogen cyanide has high toxicity and in sufficient concentrations it rapidly leads to death. During the Second World War, a form of hydrogen cyanide (Zyklon B) was used in the Nazi gas chambers.

Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
​

Fuck you.

Sorry, but you're a three-time loser.... (1) I'm married; (2) I'm not gay; (3) even if I were single and gay, I don't fuck losers like you.

Note your own excerpt.

It states categorically that hydrogen cyanide was used in Nazis Gas chambers AND that there is "no confirmed information of this substance being used in chemical warfare".




My FUCK YOU stands, asshole.

Nah, now you're fucking yourself.

I never said it was used in warfare. The poor souls rounded up and sent to concentration camps were not engaged in war with the Nazi's. You even pointed out earlier Hitler did not use it in battle and I did not contest that.

Your point is DOA.

Don't you ever tire of losing?

So, you don't consider the Holocaust to be part of WWII? You're drawing very, very fine distinctions in order to justify being an asshole.

Why not just NOT be an asshole? Or is that out of the question for you?

Holyfuckingshit!

You're simply too rightarded to converse with. That's another point you make. The Holocaust was a non-combatant aspect of the war. The Nazi's used people they rounded up as slave labor to help their war effort and killed many of the people who couldn't, or wouldn't, help to that end. So yes, it was part of the war.

Regardless of your infinite ignorance, I gave you leading source on chemical weapons who state that it is indeed a chemical weapon. Hysterically, your "hallelujah" response was to point out it wasn't used in combat, which no one is claiming it was.

What we have he is a difference of opinion on semantics.

No one involved is denying the Holocaust.


It is YOUR side though, that has picked up on this difference of opinion on semantics to attempt to smear your enemies, unjustly, as antisemitic.


This is your sides normal way of being assholes.

 

[Faun]

Who cares what you were taught. Words have meaning. It was used as a "weapon." You've been shown the definition which applies to it. No one cares that you're too ignorant to learn.

Hydrogen Cyanide

Hydrogen cyanide is usually included among the CW agents causing general poisoning. There is no confirmed information on this substance being used in chemical warfare. However, it has been reported that hydrogen cyanide was used by Iraq in the war against Iran and against the Kurds in northern Iraq during the 1980's. Hydrogen cyanide has high toxicity and in sufficient concentrations it rapidly leads to death. During the Second World War, a form of hydrogen cyanide (Zyklon B) was used in the Nazi gas chambers.

Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
​

Sorry, but you're a three-time loser.... (1) I'm married; (2) I'm not gay; (3) even if I were single and gay, I don't fuck losers like you.

Note your own excerpt.

It states categorically that hydrogen cyanide was used in Nazis Gas chambers AND that there is "no confirmed information of this substance being used in chemical warfare".




My FUCK YOU stands, asshole.

Nah, now you're fucking yourself.

I never said it was used in warfare. The poor souls rounded up and sent to concentration camps were not engaged in war with the Nazi's. You even pointed out earlier Hitler did not use it in battle and I did not contest that.

Your point is DOA.

Don't you ever tire of losing?

So, you don't consider the Holocaust to be part of WWII? You're drawing very, very fine distinctions in order to justify being an asshole.

Why not just NOT be an asshole? Or is that out of the question for you?

Holyfuckingshit!

You're simply too rightarded to converse with. That's another point you make. The Holocaust was a non-combatant aspect of the war. The Nazi's used people they rounded up as slave labor to help their war effort and killed many of the people who couldn't, or wouldn't, help to that end. So yes, it was part of the war.

Regardless of your infinite ignorance, I gave you leading source on chemical weapons who state that it is indeed a chemical weapon. Hysterically, your "hallelujah" response was to point out it wasn't used in combat, which no one is claiming it was.

What we have he is a difference of opinion on semantics.

No one involved is denying the Holocaust.


It is YOUR side though, that has picked up on this difference of opinion on semantics to attempt to smear your enemies, unjustly, as antisemitic.


This is your sides normal way of being assholes.

Aww, poor, baby... have a tissue...

 

[ColonelAngus]

NBC London bureau chief and Chris Matthews said the same thing..."Hitler did not use chemical weapons"

Spicer was obviously referring to battlefield weapons.

The outrage is disingenuous.

Obama said there were 57 states. He's so stupid, he doesn't know how many states there are in America!!

Derp derp

The left should keep doing this stupid shit. Please.

 

[ricechickie]

As if the forum needed more evidence that you struggle with the English language.

weapon

something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy​

Both images you posted were used as weapons.

Words have meaning, even if you don't understand them.

So, would you call THIS a weapon?

Or an execution device?


Dumb ass lib.

Either could apply, depending on context. If it's not used, it's neither, it's just an ugly chair. Of course, according to your idiocy, if I were to strap you into one of those and flipped the switch, according to you, I would have killed you without a weapon.

Again, words have meaning, even though they're well beyond your limited comprehension.

Hit a nail with a hammer and it's a tool.

Hit someone over the head with that same hammer and it's a weapon.

Savvy?

Kill someone with an execution device and you've executed them, you didn't kill them in battle.

Iron is a chemical. DOes that make this a chemical weapon?

Hmmm. Iron is an element. Are all elements "chemicals"?

Depending on context, technically, yes.

Of course, only an asshole would get bent out of shape if someone said that it was NOT a chemical weapon.

An asshole with a dishonest agenda.

I know what Spicer meant. But when I grow up learning that Hitler gassed his own countrymen, and Spicer then comes out and says the opposite........SMDH

Spicer has apologized, he knew it was a terrible example, compounded by bad word choice. What else is there to argue?

The point that we can still arguing over whether he was correct or not proves how crappily-framed his point was.

Can we at least all agree on that?

 

[ricechickie]

And if some lefty had said that Bill Clinton was NOT a weapon, I would have NOT had a hissy fit about word usage.

LOLOL

What you refer to as a "hissy fit" is, in reality, "education."

You're just too oblivious to know it.

You're welcome.

Someone posted a vid of Chris Matthew stating the HItler didn't use chemical weapons. Do you consider him a "imbecile" or is that different because he is a good lefty?

Of course he's an imbecile like you. You had to ask?

Do you think there's anyone here who doesn't know a political hack like you would be calling Hitler's use of zyklon B, a "chemical weapon," had Obama's press secretary said exactly what Spicer said?

It is you political hacks who are conflating execution devices to be chemical weapons so that you have a thin rationalization for ginning up some more "outrage", and the resultant personal attacks and smears.

"execution device."

Sure, dumbfuck.... this isn't a "weapon" in that man's hand... it's an "execution device."

Seems a little .......politically correct, doesn't it?

 

[ColonelAngus]

So, would you call THIS a weapon?

Or an execution device?


Dumb ass lib.

Either could apply, depending on context. If it's not used, it's neither, it's just an ugly chair. Of course, according to your idiocy, if I were to strap you into one of those and flipped the switch, according to you, I would have killed you without a weapon.

Again, words have meaning, even though they're well beyond your limited comprehension.

Hit a nail with a hammer and it's a tool.

Hit someone over the head with that same hammer and it's a weapon.

Savvy?

Kill someone with an execution device and you've executed them, you didn't kill them in battle.

Iron is a chemical. DOes that make this a chemical weapon?

Hmmm. Iron is an element. Are all elements "chemicals"?

Depending on context, technically, yes.

Of course, only an asshole would get bent out of shape if someone said that it was NOT a chemical weapon.

An asshole with a dishonest agenda.

I know what Spicer meant. But when I grow up learning that Hitler gassed his own countrymen, and Spicer then comes out and says the opposite........SMDH

Spicer has apologized, he knew it was a terrible example, compounded by bad word choice. What else is there to argue?

The point that we can still arguing over whether he was correct or not proves how crappily-framed his point was.

Can we at least all agree on that?

I agree that no one should ever use Hitler as a modern day yardstick for atrocities.

Spicer saying Hitler did not use chemical weapons is factually accurate. Just because people do it understand the difference between a weapon used on the battlefield and other uses of chemicals doesn't mean Spicer was wrong.


BWhen a person in the USA has been executed in a GAS CHAMBER...the US used chemical weapons?

Snowflake logic

 

[ricechickie]

Either could apply, depending on context. If it's not used, it's neither, it's just an ugly chair. Of course, according to your idiocy, if I were to strap you into one of those and flipped the switch, according to you, I would have killed you without a weapon.

Again, words have meaning, even though they're well beyond your limited comprehension.

Hit a nail with a hammer and it's a tool.

Hit someone over the head with that same hammer and it's a weapon.

Savvy?

Kill someone with an execution device and you've executed them, you didn't kill them in battle.

Iron is a chemical. DOes that make this a chemical weapon?

Hmmm. Iron is an element. Are all elements "chemicals"?

Depending on context, technically, yes.

Of course, only an asshole would get bent out of shape if someone said that it was NOT a chemical weapon.

An asshole with a dishonest agenda.

I know what Spicer meant. But when I grow up learning that Hitler gassed his own countrymen, and Spicer then comes out and says the opposite........SMDH

Spicer has apologized, he knew it was a terrible example, compounded by bad word choice. What else is there to argue?

The point that we can still arguing over whether he was correct or not proves how crappily-framed his point was.

Can we at least all agree on that?

I agree that no one should ever use Hitler as a modern day yardstick for atrocities.

Spicer saying Hitler did not use chemical weapons is factually accurate. Just because people do it understand the difference between a weapon used on the battlefield and other uses of chemicals doesn't mean Spicer was wrong.


BWhen a person in the USA has been executed in a GAS CHAMBER...the US used chemical weapons?

Snowflake logic

Defend Spicer to the end.

He was incompetent in that briefing. The smartest thing he did was apologize for his bad, horrible, highly inflaming comparison.

 

[Faun]

Kill someone with an execution device and you've executed them, you didn't kill them in battle.

Iron is a chemical. DOes that make this a chemical weapon?

Hmmm. Iron is an element. Are all elements "chemicals"?

Depending on context, technically, yes.

Of course, only an asshole would get bent out of shape if someone said that it was NOT a chemical weapon.

An asshole with a dishonest agenda.

I know what Spicer meant. But when I grow up learning that Hitler gassed his own countrymen, and Spicer then comes out and says the opposite........SMDH

Spicer has apologized, he knew it was a terrible example, compounded by bad word choice. What else is there to argue?

The point that we can still arguing over whether he was correct or not proves how crappily-framed his point was.

Can we at least all agree on that?

I agree that no one should ever use Hitler as a modern day yardstick for atrocities.

Spicer saying Hitler did not use chemical weapons is factually accurate. Just because people do it understand the difference between a weapon used on the battlefield and other uses of chemicals doesn't mean Spicer was wrong.


BWhen a person in the USA has been executed in a GAS CHAMBER...the US used chemical weapons?

Snowflake logic

Defend Spicer to the end.

He was incompetent in that briefing. The smartest thing he did was apologize for his bad, horrible, highly inflaming comparison.

The hysterical part, beyond them defending Spicer who himself apologized, is there is no doubt these same conservative idiots would be arguing zyklon B was a chemical weapon had Obama's press secretary said what Spicer said.

 

[ricechickie]

Hmmm. Iron is an element. Are all elements "chemicals"?

Depending on context, technically, yes.

Of course, only an asshole would get bent out of shape if someone said that it was NOT a chemical weapon.

An asshole with a dishonest agenda.

I know what Spicer meant. But when I grow up learning that Hitler gassed his own countrymen, and Spicer then comes out and says the opposite........SMDH

Spicer has apologized, he knew it was a terrible example, compounded by bad word choice. What else is there to argue?

The point that we can still arguing over whether he was correct or not proves how crappily-framed his point was.

Can we at least all agree on that?

I agree that no one should ever use Hitler as a modern day yardstick for atrocities.

Spicer saying Hitler did not use chemical weapons is factually accurate. Just because people do it understand the difference between a weapon used on the battlefield and other uses of chemicals doesn't mean Spicer was wrong.


BWhen a person in the USA has been executed in a GAS CHAMBER...the US used chemical weapons?

Snowflake logic

Defend Spicer to the end.

He was incompetent in that briefing. The smartest thing he did was apologize for his bad, horrible, highly inflaming comparison.

The hysterical part, beyond them defending Spicer who himself apologized, is there is no doubt these same conservative idiots would be arguing zyklon B was a chemical weapon had Obama's press secretary said what Spicer said.

Oh, abso-fucking-lutely!

 

[ColonelAngus]

Kill someone with an execution device and you've executed them, you didn't kill them in battle.

Iron is a chemical. DOes that make this a chemical weapon?

Hmmm. Iron is an element. Are all elements "chemicals"?

Depending on context, technically, yes.

Of course, only an asshole would get bent out of shape if someone said that it was NOT a chemical weapon.

An asshole with a dishonest agenda.

I know what Spicer meant. But when I grow up learning that Hitler gassed his own countrymen, and Spicer then comes out and says the opposite........SMDH

Spicer has apologized, he knew it was a terrible example, compounded by bad word choice. What else is there to argue?

The point that we can still arguing over whether he was correct or not proves how crappily-framed his point was.

Can we at least all agree on that?

I agree that no one should ever use Hitler as a modern day yardstick for atrocities.

Spicer saying Hitler did not use chemical weapons is factually accurate. Just because people do it understand the difference between a weapon used on the battlefield and other uses of chemicals doesn't mean Spicer was wrong.


BWhen a person in the USA has been executed in a GAS CHAMBER...the US used chemical weapons?

Snowflake logic

Defend Spicer to the end.

He was incompetent in that briefing. The smartest thing he did was apologize for his bad, horrible, highly inflaming comparison.

Hitler did not use chemical military weapons in WWII.

That is a fact. Anything else is spin.

 

[ricechickie]

Hmmm. Iron is an element. Are all elements "chemicals"?

Depending on context, technically, yes.

Of course, only an asshole would get bent out of shape if someone said that it was NOT a chemical weapon.

An asshole with a dishonest agenda.

I know what Spicer meant. But when I grow up learning that Hitler gassed his own countrymen, and Spicer then comes out and says the opposite........SMDH

Spicer has apologized, he knew it was a terrible example, compounded by bad word choice. What else is there to argue?

The point that we can still arguing over whether he was correct or not proves how crappily-framed his point was.

Can we at least all agree on that?

I agree that no one should ever use Hitler as a modern day yardstick for atrocities.

Spicer saying Hitler did not use chemical weapons is factually accurate. Just because people do it understand the difference between a weapon used on the battlefield and other uses of chemicals doesn't mean Spicer was wrong.


BWhen a person in the USA has been executed in a GAS CHAMBER...the US used chemical weapons?

Snowflake logic

Defend Spicer to the end.

He was incompetent in that briefing. The smartest thing he did was apologize for his bad, horrible, highly inflaming comparison.

Hitler did not use chemical military weapons in WWII.

That is a fact. Anything else is spin.

Except that's not what Spicer said. Even after a couple of tries. It's not up to his audience to just "get it."

 

[ColonelAngus]

Hitler did not use chemical weapons on the battlefield. Period.

Snowflakes should argue this exact point for the next 7 years and 8 months....please.

Assad is a bad guy who has used CHEMICAL WEAPONS in combat previously. Obama's red line was a joke. Trump enforced Obama's policy.

Move on to something real...like Susan Rice lying.

 

[Desperado]

Funny the last time gas was supposedly used in Syria Chris Matthews said eactly the same thing Spicer said about Hitler.

 

[Faun]

Hitler did not use chemical weapons on the battlefield. Period.

Snowflakes should argue this exact point for the next 7 years and 8 months....please.

Assad is a bad guy who has used CHEMICAL WEAPONS in combat previously. Obama's red line was a joke. Trump enforced Obama's policy.

Move on to something real...like Susan Rice lying.

So what if he didn't use them on the battlefield? He still used them.

Here's what Spicer said...

“We didn't use chemical weapons in World War II. You know, you had a, you know, someone as despicable as Hitler who didn't even sink to using chemical weapons.”​

Only after he was called out for making such an unbelievably retarded comment did he try to fix it. Which he did horribly by pointing out how Hitler didn't use Sarin on his own people like Assad did. But that he "brought them into Holocaust centers. What the fuck is a Holocaust center??

But to his credit, he apologized. What a shame the rightards here can't accept that.

 

[Faun]

Funny the last time gas was supposedly used in Syria Chris Matthews said eactly the same thing Spicer said about Hitler.

So? If Matthews spoke on behalf of the President of the United States, his words would have mattered.

 

[WEATHER53]

I know it's horrid but I though gas was a gas ?

 

[Desperado]

Funny the last time gas was supposedly used in Syria Chris Matthews said eactly the same thing Spicer said about Hitler.

So? If Matthews spoke on behalf of the President of the United States, his words would have mattered.

Nice deflection

 

[Faun]

Funny the last time gas was supposedly used in Syria Chris Matthews said eactly the same thing Spicer said about Hitler.

So? If Matthews spoke on behalf of the President of the United States, his words would have mattered.

Nice deflection

LOL

Deflection from what? Who cares what Matthews has to say? You certainly don't. Hell, if he dared to criticize Trump, you'd be all up his ass for doing so.

What does matter is when the message from the White House is the bizarre claim that Hitler didn't use chemical weapons.

 

[Desperado]

Funny the last time gas was supposedly used in Syria Chris Matthews said eactly the same thing Spicer said about Hitler.

So? If Matthews spoke on behalf of the President of the United States, his words would have mattered.

Nice deflection

LOL

Deflection from what? Who cares what Matthews has to say? You certainly don't. Hell, if he dared to criticize Trump, you'd be all up his ass for doing so.

What does matter is when the message from the White House is the bizarre claim that Hitler didn't use chemical weapons.

I lost respect for Matthews when he said Obama sent shivers down his leg, but to libs he is regarded as a god.
So I am amazed that no one criticized him when he made the same statement. The I remember how two face liberals are. And you wonder why liberals have no credibility.