Controversy about Sean Spicer Hitler Comment

[happyho]

Sean Spicer is sooooo stupid. I mean really, really stupid. http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/11/politics/spicer-hitler-assad/index.html

Has anyone noticed all the controversy about Sean Spicer? He is the White House press secretary and in one of his press conference he made a comment about the use of chemical weapons in Syria. He said "even someone as despicable as Hitler didn't use chemical weapons".

Seems like a slip of the tongue but he's getting a lot of heat for it, with some people calling for his dismissal or even claiming he's a holocaust denier (since gas was used in the holocaust). Google "Sean Spicer Hitler" and you will get tons of articles for it. Here is the video of the actual comment.



Personally I just think the whole thing is funny. It's obvious to me what he meant to say. What do you think? An over reaction by the press or legitimate criticism of a inappropriate comment?

[ByzantinePowerGame]

Spicer did not deny the holocaust, he was merely trying to make Assad look menacing with a standard/routine Hitler comparison and he didn't speak particularly well.

[The spartan]

Spicer did not deny the holocaust, he was merely trying to make Assad look menacing with a standard/routine Hitler comparison and he didn't speak particularly well.

It is also a junk comparison. He was essentially saying "Even Hitler didn't drop chemical-filled bombs on people!" I guess trying to imply it is worse. No, Hitler just gassed people he had detained in the most inhumane camps possible; much more acceptable than bombs.

It didn't make sense on any level.

[Gallus]

This is actually kind of funny. "Even Hitler didn't use chemical weapons! Well I mean... Except... Except for the gas... Which killed... Which killed 4 million people... But Assad is even worse! Well maybe... Maybe not worse... Not exactly worse..."

In a way he's actually right because Germany didn't use chemical weapons in combat, but gas is still a weapon, even if it wasn't used against soldiers. Which reminds me, does napalm count as a chemical weapon?

[KEA]

While Hitler didn't use gas as a weapon he fell victim to an Allied gas attack in WWI. What means by this logic that the French and English were even worse than Assad - and Hitler in fact a rather nice guy.

Gas wasn't used in combat in WWII simply because it turned out to have been of rather limited use in military terms during WWI. And that was in a static trench war scenario; with the mobile warfare of WWII, gas became more or less useless as weapon.

[Gaidin]

While Hitler didn't use gas as a weapon he fell victim to an Allied gas attack in WWI. What means by this logic that the French and English were even worse than Assad - and Hitler in fact a rather nice guy.

Gas wasn't used in combat in WWII simply because it turned out to have been of rather limited use in military terms during WWI. And that was in a static trench war scenario; with the mobile warfare of WWII, gas became more or less useless as weapon.

There were still standing protocols not to use it unless it was used first by the other side. And there were plenty of battles where it could've been used to devestating effect.

[Nikitn]

I honestly don't understand why these 3rd rate jokes that call themselves journalists are so obsessed with Spicer. I mean, it's obvious that Spicer's primary purpose is to bully, abuse and trashtalk them anyway, so of course he'll make so-called "gaffes".

While Hitler didn't use gas as a weapon he fell victim to an Allied gas attack in WWI. What means by this logic that the French and English were even worse than Assad - and Hitler in fact a rather nice guy.

Gas wasn't used in combat in WWII simply because it turned out to have been of rather limited use in military terms during WWI. And that was in a static trench war scenario; with the mobile warfare of WWII, gas became more or less useless as weapon.

Yes, but it would've been extraordinary effective as as a terror weapon against cities. Not only would gas cover large areas, it also would've creeped into the air-raid shelters where people were hiding, like basements and undergrounds, due to it being heavier than air.

[caratacus]

I honestly don't understand why these 3rd rate jokes that call themselves journalists are so obsessed with Spicer. I mean, it's obvious that Spicer's primary purpose is to bully, abuse and trashtalk them anyway, so of course he'll make so-called "gaffes".

Yes, but it would've been extraordinary effective as as a terror weapon against cities. Not only would gas cover large areas, it also would've creeped into the air-raid shelters where people were hiding, like basements and undergrounds, due to it being heavier than air.

Good point. Gas is first and foremost a weapon to spread fear and panic, it is not effective as conventional weapons in killing in battlefield situations. Its use is limited by weather conditions and it has the nasty habit of blowing back to your forces if the wind changes suddenly. It therefore follows that its use in Syria is principally to target civilians.

[Nikitn]

Good point. Gas is first and foremost a weapon to spread fear and panic, it is not effective as conventional weapons in killing in battlefield situations. Its use is limited by weather conditions and it has the nasty habit of blowing back to your forces if the wind changes suddenly. It therefore follows that its use in Syria is principally to target civilians.

Indeed, but if you're pointing to this sorry excuse as Assad's motive, then you're wrong. Assad has nothing to gain from using gas to terrorise neutral civilians, yet the "rebels" have everything to gain (media attention, red lines etc). If Assad wanted to spread fear and terror, he would've gassed terrorist areas, not randomly bomb babies.

[nein]

Another government drone making the boring Hitler comparison, how many times has Assad been compared to the Austrian dictator now? Perhaps its those piercing blue eyes of his? What a man!
Sean is something of a rube, but he does not deserve this treatment from the marxoid fanatics. He was correct in stating that hitler did not use chemical weapons... BUT THA JEWS. No the jews were allegedly massacred with zyklone B, a de-lousing agent aka not a chemical weapon.
Not even HITLA used chemical weapons!!! That is because, as western powers discovered during world war one, chemical weapons are unreliable and not particularly effective... not for any moral reason.

[bigdaddy1204]

It illustrates a lack of knowledge about history, but is anyone surprised? Many of us said that Trump and his entourage were unsuitable from the start.

As for the media, I agree it's being blown out of proportion. It was obviously an inept but unintentional mistake not a deliberate snub. The low-brow media likes to whip up a frenzy over anything remotely controversial so they can make more money. They like to pretend to take the moral high ground when it is convenient for them. But really they are a den of vipers and serpents.

Never thought I of all people would defend the Trumpists. But if something is unfair I'll criticise It, even if (as in this case) the victim happens to be my enemy.

[Cyclops]

This is just Trump's way of supporting US businesses. Haven't you seen the memes?

may may

Pepsi and United had a rough week, here comes Spicer to take the heat! Classic 4-D subterranean polo-kerplunk.

[Gaidin]

This is just Trump's way of supporting US businesses. Haven't you seen the memes?

You ain't seen nothing.



Because I can't embed it:
http://i.imgur.com/99dgkTs.gifv

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Hitler never used chemical weapons. /thread

[the_mango55]

Hitler never used chemical weapons. /thread

Hitler did nothing wrong! /trump supporter

[The spartan]

Hitler never used chemical weapons. /thread

What? According to the Chemical Weapons Convention, Hitler certainly did sanction the use chemical weapons. I am guessing you mean that Hitler didn't order the use of chemical weapons in battle, which is true, but when the Nazis pumped Zyklon B into chambers filled with people, that was a chemical weapons attack.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Throwing out a rotten mango:

"During the war, Germany stockpiled tabun, sarin, and soman but refrained from their use on the battlefield. In total, Germany produced about 78,000 tons of chemical weapons.^[4] By 1945 the nation produced about 12,000 tons of tabun and 1,000 pounds (450 kg) of sarin.^[4] Delivery systems for the nerve agents included 105 mm and 150 mm artillery shells, a 250 kg bomb and a 150 mm rocket.^[4] Even when the Soviets neared Berlin, Adolf Hitler was persuaded not to use tabun as the final trump card. The use of tabun was opposed by Hitler's Minister of Armaments, Albert Speer, who, in 1943, brought IG Farben's nerve agent expert Otto Ambros to report to Hitler. He informed Hitler that the Allies had stopped publication of research into organophosphates (a type of organic compound that encompasses nerve agents) at the beginning of the war, that the essential nature of nerve gases had been published as early as the turn of the century, and that he believed that Allies could not have failed to produce agents like tabun. This was not in fact the case, but Hitler accepted Ambros's deduction, and Germany's tabun arsenal remained unused.^[5]"

Hitler, the guy who was the victim of a gas attack during WW1, ordered so many gas bombs to be dropped on the enemy.
Remember all those Sarin attacks during WW2? Oh no wait they didn't happen.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

What? According to the Chemical Weapons Convention, Hitler certainly did sanction the use chemical weapons. I am guessing you mean that Hitler didn't order the use of chemical weapons in battle, which is true, but when the Nazis pumped Zyklon B into chambers filled with people, that was a chemical weapons attack.

Hitler used Zyklon B on Jews in showers. He didn't launch chemical bombs on enemy soldiers or cities, not even insurgents or partisans. So I am making the distinction and that is obviously what Spicer meant. And I mean , Zyklon B (among other cyanide base chemicals) wasn't produced as a weapon since it was a pesticide. I guess making people drink Bleach makes Bleach a weapon too. Also take note that Spicer made the specific point that Assad was using Sarin on "his own people". NSDAP did not consider Jews to be German, not racially nor culturally nor in terms of citizenship. Hence the point that Assad's actions have reached a new level of reprehensibility.

Just so you know the OPCW did not exist until 1997 and the prohibitions articles that were linked did not exist in any form until 1968. So while Hitler may have committed a crime that specific charge would have been ex post facto and does not technically constitute the use of a chemical weapon until today. More like an execution device than a chemical weapon.

[The spartan]

Hitler used Zyklon B on Jews in showers. He didn't launch chemical bombs on enemy soldiers or cities, not even insurgents or partisans. So I am making the distinction and that is obviously what Spicer meant. And I mean , Zyklon B (among other cyanide base chemicals) wasn't produced as a weapon since it was a pesticide. I guess making people drink Bleach makes Bleach a weapon too. Also take note that Spicer made the specific point that Assad was using Sarin on "his own people". NSDAP did not consider Jews to be German, not racially nor culturally nor in terms of citizenship. Hence the point that Assad's actions have reached a new level of reprehensibility.

What kind of desperate ass covering is this? Do you work for Spicer or something? You are literally giving several different and unrelated points to his defense, I guess hoping at least one will stick.

It really isn't obvious what he meant as he bumbled through it, hence why a reporter specifically asked him to clarify. You seemed to have missed the whole point of "Hitler didn't use chemical weapons in battle, he used them on detained civilians," which is important. Pesticides can be used as chemical weapons, I don't know what makes you think they can't. And regardless of how Hitler may have felt; normal people recognize that German Jews (or Austrian, if you want to look at it that way) were still Hitler's "people", at least in the same way Syrian civilians are Assad's "people".

Just so you know the OPCW did not exist until 1997 and the prohibitions articles that were linked did not exist in any form until 1968. So while Hitler may have committed a crime that specific charge would have been ex post facto and does not technically constitute the use of a chemical weapon until today. More like an execution device than a chemical weapon.

I already knew the Chemical Weapons Convention didn't exist until 1997, that wasn't the point. We aren't talking about charging the Nazi party with statutes put forth in the convention, I was citing an authority on the issue that would classify such an action as a chemical weapons attack.

And see, this is why the comparison is junk to begin with: Spicer was trying to make an unfavorable comparison of Assad to Hitler "Even Hitler didn't...". Even given your, uh, "rationalization" of Spicer's comment, it doesn't make sense; how is using chemical weapons dropped from planes worse than gassing civilians in chambers, exactly?

[sleepyx732]

I suppose in the latter they at least had a chance to fight back before it reached that point.
I really don't know why people care now. Hasn't this been going on for years? In any case for all this whining about the stupid people say you ought to be happy, as it's only brought more attention to the issue.

Unless... nahh... NEVER!

right?