This website contains age-restricted materials including nudity and explicit depictions of sexual activity.
By entering, you affirm that you are at least 18 years of age or the age of majority in the jurisdiction you are accessing the website from and you consent to viewing sexually explicit content.
I mean depends on those specific grievances by the hypothetical Nazis, yes, because then they wouldn’t be Nazis as we know them.
You’ll need a source for that.
Your terrorist is someone else’s freedom fighter. Nelson Mandela was listed as a terrorist in the US until the 2000s. “Terrorist” isn’t a bad word that makes a whole organization irredeemable human scum, and considering the IRA’s contribution to North Irish liberation, I’d say the answer is yes. “Terrorists” are people you can love or hate depending on their specific actions and goals.
You just said you’d be okay with glorification of “theoretical” Nazis, but not if they hadn’t committed multiple war crimes, countless atrocities, murdering and incarcerating people based on mental health, ethnicity and sexual orientation. No, the thing you’re most with is that they didn’t have a good enough reason to invade Poland.
I lost interest in talking to you.
I was obviously (okay maybe not very obviously) talking within the context of their invasion of Poland. Anyway Nazis didn’t have legitimate grievances with anyone they targeted (because they targeted whole ethnic groups), which is part of why they’re hated so much and what illegitimizes the comparison between them and insert your hated organization of choice here.