• hoppeduponcoffee@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    The difference between Bin Laden and Hitler was that Bin Laden actually had legitimate beef, based on the colonialist actions of a belligerent ethnostate (and their puppet, the USA) carrying out a nazi-esque regime of apartheid and ethnic cleansing, as well as blowing up countless Muslim human beings with long-range missles in the name of economic imperialism.

    So if you do asshole things in support of assholes, don’t be surprised when it comes back to bite you in the ass.

    And Hitler…. Well he didn’t have the same effective PR campaign the Zionists do.

    • ZC3rr0r@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      Hitler arguably had legitimate beef as well with at least France and the UK. The treaty of Versailles was very lopsided and placed both the blame and reparations for WW1 largely on Germany.

      It’s not unreasonable to state that clause 231 almost directly lead to the economic situation and resentment that fueled the German people to reject their political system in favour of radical change (yes, I know Hitler never actually won a fair election, but he did enjoy growing support throughout his ascension to the Reichstag).