Moral arguments about terror attacks: 2017-06-19 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: 2017-06-19 18:39:40 |

Bla
Level 22
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: 2017-06-19 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: 2017-06-19 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: 2017-06-19 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: 2017-06-19 18:59:03 |
Japanball
Level 56
Report
|
And 230mn sane Muslims? What about them?
|
Moral arguments about terror attacks: 2017-06-19 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: 2017-06-19 19:04:40 |

Castle Bravo
Level 56
Report
|
This applies to democracy
|