When is genocide justified?

...

when it's against white people.

its not. unless the ones to be purged really be a treat

Wrong.

it isn't

undesirables should be relocated

Correct.

NOT LIKE THAT

when the people you are geneciding is infected with some sort of deadly plague.

Its only justified when there is no other way, but if a nuke had to be dropped on a plauge city to save the rest of the world (resident evil 2 style), even then it is morally grey but it would be justified.

How much of a threat do they have to be? Like, would the genocide have to prevent the death of 100% of our race? 50%? What if it's just 5%?

imo only when its genocide satan's offspring

but we have to let God judge and remain faithful in peace until the end

When a country has a serious problem with a "majority"

Never

a nigger punching a european is pretty much of a justification to me

When you are occupying foreign land. One of the few successful occupiers of history was genghis khan. This fucker would give everyone the chance to be apart of his future. Those who agreed carried on with the only difference being paying a tax. Those who apposed were cleansed from the lands.

Hard question to answer. The Mayans could be argued but even then I'm not so sure.

When the Führer says so

Also correct.

>When is genocide justified?
When you are killing Palestinians apparently.

Why is killing a race of people swiftly and effectively seen as the worst crime ever? Why do you consider it more evil to kill 100.000 mayans than to bomb 400.000 japs?

when its against ((them)))

When it's against a people who pose an existential threat to your own people.

I guess it's intent and the context of the situation. Japan needed to be nuked but it was never intended to wipe out the entirety of it's people. The Mayans were erased for the sole purpose of eliminating the culture and it's people.

Never why is everyone on this board so obsessed with committing the most vile act that humanity has ever purported? Can't you shits pretend not to be sociopaths for at least a few minutes?

A large part of me does agree with the Mayan genocide. They posed a risk to neighboring tribes and were savage. They most likely couldn't have been assimilated

When a minority threatens order and the well-being of the majority.

This
Both parties involved will end up being happier anyway

Yeah, we kinda went a bit crazy there but it was for the greater good.

When the people who are did more harm than good or any good at all to mankind.

>Japan needed to be nuked
No it did not fucktard

when its legal.
the best genocide is the one that the victims make them self.
start a social program to pay anyone who gets there tubes tied of nutts snipped 10k.
how quick would the us go back to a white country with out a bullet shot?

It's never justified, only necessary. One can not ever truly justify such a heinous and blatant disregard for innocent life as that which genocide entails, rather when faced with desperate circumstances in time of great need men sometimes become willing to take that evil upon themselves in order do what must be done though they fully know their actions are wicked. Logically one may find sound motive but never morally, evil committed for a greater good is still no less evil.

Japan would've kept fighting. We have historical evidence to support this. The US displayed it's dominance and Japan backed out. The only unfortunate thing about this is we didn't nuke Germany as well eliminating that trash right there preventing decades of degeneracy

> He thinks rodents and cockroaches can be relocated.

And Dresden didn't need to be firebombed into a smoking crater but we did it anyway =^)

When you can get them all, the amount of complaining through history from genocide survivors makes it not worth getting it half done.

>t. welfare Maori nigger

when you win the war

wrong pic