<< Back to Off-topic Forum   Search

Posts 1 - 11 of 11   
Moral arguments about terror attacks: 6/19/2017 17:52:11


Castle Bravo
Level 56
Report
It matters very little if Europeans kill 3 or 3,000 Muslims within their borders. And it matters very little which group struck the first blow. Francis Parker Yockey compared aggression in cultural group conflicts to striking the first blow in a boxing match.

The application of morality to one side in a conflict is surrender. It means scrutinizing necessary actions taken to achieve victory that the opposition is already engaged in.
Moral arguments about terror attacks: 6/19/2017 18:01:21


Paugers 
Level 41
Report
I wouldn't revert to terror tactics in an attempt to remove a group of people I disliked unless I was absolutely desperate.
Moral arguments about terror attacks: 6/19/2017 18:39:40


Bla 
Level 18
Report
Muslims are not a collective of like-minded people who all support terrorism.
You're insane if you think some islamists carrying out terrorist attacks justifies equally disgusting terrorist attacks on all muslims - the vast majority of which have no relation to the attacks.
Applying your same logic people should be entitled to smash cars into right-wingers after Breivik, because a tiny fraction out of them carried out an attack. Would you be happy if people had applied your logic after that?

I hope you get admitted to a mental hospital for treatment.
Moral arguments about terror attacks: 6/19/2017 18:48:24


Paugers 
Level 41
Report
^^ that awkward moment bla opens up google and discovers 24% of young american muslims support suicide bombings and that percentage is the lowest among nations muslims live in throughout the world.
Moral arguments about terror attacks: 6/19/2017 18:50:29


Castle Bravo
Level 56
Report
I reject treating people as individuals because it doesn't solve problems. Human nature is to support the collective group. When massive amounts of Muslims are imported into Europe, the character of the individual is secondary - that collective will not stop itself from political domination. No collective group in history has organically stopped itself from attaining political power.

The Islamic conquest of Europe does not even have to take the form of Jihad. The peaceful Muslims seem content sitting idly by as their demographic becomes the majority.
Moral arguments about terror attacks: 6/19/2017 18:52:13


Paugers 
Level 41
Report


THAT AWKWARD MOMENT BLA DOES RESEARCH BEFORE OPENING HIS DEGENERATE LEFT WING MOUTH

THAT AWKWARD MOMENT BLA CALLS PEOPLE WHO FOLLOW THE SAME RELIGION NOT A COLLECTIVE OF LIKE MINDED PEOPLE

Edited 6/19/2017 18:53:48
Moral arguments about terror attacks: 6/19/2017 18:52:55


Castle Bravo
Level 56
Report
Furthermore Paugers' point is very accurate. Only a small minority of a collective group needs to actually be radicalized to control the mindless herd. All populations are stratified; the low-IQ masses think purely in sophistry and will do nothing as Jihadists take over, paying only lip-service to peace while their people plunder the enemy.
Moral arguments about terror attacks: 6/19/2017 18:56:02


Castle Bravo
Level 56
Report
The revolution that overthrew the Shah and imposed a plebian Islamic party-state had consent of the majority.
Moral arguments about terror attacks: 6/19/2017 18:59:03


Japanball
Level 56
Report
And 230mn sane Muslims? What about them?
Moral arguments about terror attacks: 6/19/2017 19:00:40


Castle Bravo
Level 56
Report
The mob is always self-hating, but individuals are incapable of doing anything because the mob attacks non-conformists. Only a majority of individuals coming out simultaneously in opposition to the mob would destroy it, but that is outside of human nature.

Edited 6/19/2017 19:01:04
Moral arguments about terror attacks: 6/19/2017 19:04:40


Castle Bravo
Level 56
Report
This applies to democracy
Posts 1 - 11 of 11