Double Standard Question

A lot of times(implieng it's not always) Sup Forums calls muslims violent and uncivilized because they are for killing civilians in acts of terror. I agree. What I don't understand is how you then think killing muslim women and children is ok and not itself just as violent and degenerate.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=_Knz69wRTW4
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>What I don't understand is how you then think killing muslim women and children is ok

the fuck are you on about?

Im against both, personally I think we should just leave ISIS alone and let them slaughter the alawiites

We never wanted to kill anyone, we just want them out off our countries

You're telling me you haven't seen posters endorsing this?

You're country kept bombing syria. Thats why daesh pulled that little shoah in Paris

That's fine. That sentiment I have nothing wrong with. What I don't understand are the crusade larpers who desire to nuke the middle-east and post pics of dead muslim kids as if somehow that's a good thing.

Sup Forums is not just one person.

Killing ALL Muslims means that they won't grow up with vendettas against their father's killer. It's the smart thing to do. End their bloodline.

It really depends on the reasoning behind the claim.
If you believe that all lives have value, then it is wrong to desire the deaths of anyone. This is the stance in most Western/Christian nations.

If you believe only some lives have value, then any death outside of the favored group is fine. This is the Islamic view. Also the ultra-nationalist view. Ultra-anything, really.

If you believe people can forfeit their right to life through certain actions, such as murder, or terror attacks, then killing terrorists is fine. This is the Western legal view.


It can be justified to kill civilians if they are knowingly contributing to an active war effort on behalf of the enemy. If they supply, conceal and aid terrorists they are essentially support personnel in their force and as such, valid targets. If Muslim terrorists hide behind innocents, and the local authorities or those communities themselves do not oppose them successfully, then it is our unfortunate duty to destroy the target regardless.

You really think it's possible to kill 1.7 billion people?

I agree with most of this except the last paragraph. I agree willingly hiding an enemy makes you an enemy, but to assume that a whole population is now at fault for the actions of a few is stupid.

Please note that those people live in some of the poorest countries on Earth. Without foreign aid and humanitarian effort, many of them would die off. They are in no way equipped to actively fight any modern force.
It's possible, just unlikely and immoral.
A far better thing would be to wage a culture war against Islam and reform or eradicate it. It's arguably a more difficult task, but an ethical and long lasting one.

Kill everyone in Western countries and force them back to the desert. Then nuke Makkah and just enjoy 1000 years of peace.

It takes a special kind of dirtbag to kill kids, who can say really. kindness and understanding are what got us into this mess

You'll note I never said anything about whole populations or accountability. Only matters of pragmatic thinking.
If 100 civilians run to the roof of a Hamas armory to protect it, knowing it will be bombed, then they accept death.
If the local Muslim family knows their nephew is about to decapitate a priest, then not alerting the authorities, or at least stopping him, makes them accountable.

>Without foreign aid and humanitarian effort, many of them would die off.
Not really. Sure more might die of hunger and disease, but most would still survive

>They are in no way equipped to actively fight any modern force.
Most Arab militaries are stronger than Eastern European ones(except for Russia of course) and stronger or on par with even some western European ones. They're far from spear chuckers. They would eventually lose to the west, but the west would suffer severe losses.

>A far better thing would be to wage a culture war against Islam and reform or eradicate it. It's arguably a more difficult task, but an ethical and long lasting one.
Completely agree.

>nuke makkah
That's how you end humanity.

I agree. I was just disagreeing on scale. For example the Hamas example I agree with. I just don't see it as then an excuse to carpet bomb gaza.

Negative, that's how you end Islam and forcefully eradicate every single one of the radicals.

I am fully aware that there is no place in a civilized society for people like me, but I am prepared to carry that burden for my son to have a future.

>but I am prepared to carry that burden for my son to have a future.
Don't you mean your wife's son?

What a great way to end a discussion. What did you want to gain from that? To hear me say that I'm a cuck?

I don't need your approval. I'm not married. The son is mine (as confirmed by two separate tests).

Anything else you want to know instead of discussing the topic at hand?

That's all right, I never said it should happen.
My actual ideas on the matter are to create a largely ineffectual political clusterfuck with Turkey at the forefront to try and spark a more secular military nation. Or would have been, until recently.
Now I think Mecca and Medina need to be evacuated, then nuked. Islam should be made illegal in the West. Have a point system, or just do like the Swiss and deport them if they won't conform.
That creates its own issues with giving that kind of constitutional power to the government, but I think it's an issue that can be solved in the long term.

>I just don't see it as then an excuse to carpet bomb gaza.

You'll have to ask the kikes why.

Westerners hate mudslimes because of terrorists (radical Islam) and rapefugees. A few people here are probably actually homicidally angry about them, but most are not unless the West is attacked. Pretty much everyone here does want them deported out of white countries.

>I don't need your approval. I'm not married. The son is mine (as confirmed by two separate tests).
Having a child out of wed-lock is considered pretty degenerate on here.

>mecca
>nuked
Do people on here actually think this is a good idea. If you do that most Muslims will rise up thinking the end times have come. Pakistan will most likely retaliate with nukes. I agree with the rest though

I don't live my life according to Sup Forums's rules, so who cares? At least I have a white child to carry on my name.

>Sup Forums is a hive mind

We want Islam destroyed. Islam, and anyone who follows it willingly is a potential combatant.

That means that they grow up and/or know of other religions or the lack thereof and still choose to follow religion.

Pic related

It's actually better to not have kids then have one out of wedlock. It shows poor judgement which usually translates to poor parenting.

I'm pretty sure Aquinas wasn't biased at all when he wrote that.

>What I don't understand are the crusade larpers who desire to nuke the middle-east and post pics of dead muslim kids as if somehow that's a good thing

Revenge. We've been invaded non stop for 1,400 years and it won't stop. While killing kids is fucked up that desire or willingness to do so comes from being attacked over and over with no change, it kind of drives people to it (like insanity doing the same thing over and over expecting different results). Islam drives us Insane and we want to just end it (Islam) and everything about it

Came here to shitpost confirmed.

I'm aware of the Muslim reaction. It's what I'm betting on. I'm betting they'll be stupid and violent enough to simply strike out, allowing armed forces to kill on sight. There would be many civilian casualties, and doubtless diplomatic hell.
Pakistan will fuck India. There'll be less Indians. That's quite unfortunate, but there you go, there's still fucktons of them anyway.
Turkey isn't gonna do much, thought they'll threaten to.


I know the US is largely Protestant, but surely you're aware that Christianity is essentially Greek Philosophy, right? And the Quran is just the same old legislative crap the Jews have.

I have lived together with the kid's mom for 8 years. We are engaged.

Calm your fucking tits, you sociopath.

Let's go ahead 740 or so years.

The First Barbary War (1801–1805) also known as the Tripolitan War or the Barbary Coast War, was the first of two wars fought between the United States and the Northwest African Berber Muslim states known collectively as the Barbary States. These were the Ottoman provinces of Tripoli, Algiers, and Tunis, which were enjoying a large autonomy, as well as the independent Sultanate of Morocco. The war was fought because U.S. President Thomas Jefferson refused to pay the high tributes demanded by the Barbary states and because they were seizing American merchant ships and enslaving the crews for high ransoms. It was the first declared war the United States fought on foreign land and seas.

From Downtrend:

In 1786, Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Great Britain. They asked this ‘diplomat’ by what right his nation attacked American ships and enslaved her citizens and why the Muslims held such hostility toward this new nation, with which neither Tripoli nor any of the other Barbary Coast nations had any previous contact. The answer was quite revealing. Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja (the ambassador) replied that Islam:

“Was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

What are you on about? Marriage is a government contract not relevant to you ability to raise children. If you have a woman committed to the cause of nurturing and properly conditioning your offspring you're good. That's how we got to the genes we have now after thousands of years. Before marriage was made up.

That is indeed quite revealing. Yet, America continued paying ransoms to these terrorists for the next fifteen years or so. Until Jefferson became President. Then, the Pasha (leader) of Tripoli sent a demand to the new leader for an immediate payment of $225,000 and $25,000 per year on an ongoing basis. Jefferson flatly refused, leading the Pasha to cut down the flagpole of the American consulate and declaring war on the United States. The rest of the terrorist states followed suit.

Jefferson had formerly been against raising a navy, but this soon changed as he was determined to meet force with force. A squadron of vessels was sent to the area and Congress authorized Jefferson to have the US ships seize all vessels and goods that belonged to the Pasha and anything else deemed necessary. As they saw the US was actually committed to the fight, Algiers and Tunis quickly abandoned the war and allegiance to Tripoli. Obviously, the US won the war. In fact, this was the reason why the line “to the shores of Tripoli” was added to the Marine Corps hymn.

So basically our most secularist and liberal (in the classic sense) hated Islam.

You haven't really been invaded for 1400 years straight. I mean the anglos have faced more wars and invasions from France then they have muslims, but I don't see the anger towards them.

Again having kids out of wedlock still correlates with worse life outcomes for the child. Even when the parents are cohabiting.

Actually legally married couples on average still have children with better life outcome then cohabiting non-married parents.

Again, I don't live my life according to Sup Forums's rules or any sort of religious dogma. I don't care about how you justify being single, without a woman in your life and without a child to carry on your name, based on nothing but your own anecdotal "evidence".

In Norway, the land of the Vikings, we breed strong warriors and have been doing just fine since before the United States were even a thing.

So once again - calm your sociopathic, shitposting tits.

Rashidun Caliphate (632–661) invaded Byzantine held places.

Umayyad Caliphate (661–750) which attacked more Byzantine places, the Caucus regions the entirety of Spain, Portugal and Southern France not to mention gaining the footholds for Islamic supremacy in the Mediterranean

Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258, 1261–1517) which expanded the reach by invading Sicily and other southern European places.

At this point all 5 holy cities in Christendom, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Rome have all been attacked and sacked and four of the five taken over.

Ottoman Caliphate (1517–1924) which really needs to explanation. They invaded south eastern Europe; Greece, the Balkans, Hungary, Bulgaria etc. eventually making it as close as Venice.

And there were at least three other Caliphates that were around the same time as the Ottoman all of which expanded into Asia and Africa.

Almost 1,400 years of this shit NOT A FUCKING ARGUMENT

>In Norway, the land of the Vikings, we breed strong warriors and have been doing just fine since before the United States were even a thing.
Your country was essentially dindu level undeveloped trash until 200 years ago.

Your pretty much describing any major historical power. I could make a similar timeline of Romans, the spread of Christianity, The Persians, The mongols, America.

Year 600-1100 we were the greatest fighting force since the Spartans of Greece. At that time you didn't even have a nation.

That's all you have? Anecdotes? Puny.

Saged.

>Year 600-1100 we were the greatest fighting force since the Spartans of Greece.
Lol. Fell for the Spartan Meme. The spartans were fucking stupid. They devoted all their manpower and intelligence to army building. In the end they had a military only slightly better than the Athenians. The Athenians on the other hand had wealth, strong military, philosophy, science, etc.

youtube.com/watch?v=_Knz69wRTW4

Muslims Wilmington continue to kill people as long as there are non muslims in the world.

If we wipe out islam, we don't have to deal with their shit ever again.

It's the lesser of 2 evils

Strawman.

All of those spread through force alone, no politics or religion behind it. And Christianity initially spread from persecution and peaceful means until Charlemagne attacked the Germanic Pagans for their barbarous human sacrificial pagan ways and even then no holy army or Deus Vult. Even the Crusades were a reaction after 400 years of being invaded and weren't an invading/empirical force but one more along the lines of Reconquista.

Islam is the only "Empire" spread through a mixture of theocratic/ideological/political reasons. Where the end goal is solely Islamic domination and death to all non believers. There has never been any other religion or religious empire that has genocides as many people as Islam.

>That's all you have? Anecdotes? Puny.
That's what it seems, I throw fact he throws an obvious dodge to the statements and a strawman

>all these spread through force alone, no politics or religion

Uhh definitely politics and religion involved. The romans would usually demand that conquered groups revered roman gods as superior. The mongols did the same. America spread mostly through politics.

Islam wasn't the only empire to spread through theology it was just the best. Also it spread mostly through the sword. In fact when you look at most historical record most Muslim conquered areas didn't convert until hundreds of years later.

Trump is a degenerate and so are his non-meme supporters.

...

The only Arab country capable of waging war on the west is Turkey.
The rest are absolute trash , some don't know how to fight but have good tech (Saudi) , Some know how to fight but lack the means (Iraq) , some don't have either (Iran)

The one thing however is that these countries are entirely dependent on the west/russia for their weaponry,their AF won't be able to fly for long without maintenance,their missiles will be shut down by de-activation codes(many countries keep them,France actually forked over the exocet codes to UK during the Falklands war)

The Arabs will certainly lose against them and will lose extremely fast,the west will barely suffer