Genocide as a viable alternative solution to world problems 73 replies

Please wait...

AzH

I'm too cool to Post

269,650 XP

17th September 2003

0 Uploads

24,050 Posts

0 Threads

#1 11 years ago

Reading this thread gave me an idea on how to fix ALL the problems faced in the world.

GENOCIDE

Look at it this way. The US and her allies, notably the UK are the biggest kids on the block. Okay, so the US is the biggest kid on the block, but we're in your gang so that's all that matters. The solution to the problems in the world are simple:

My gang is bigger than your gang and your gang is making demands on my gang or on my turf. I kill your gang and the problem goes away. Let's look at some the notable trouble spots in the world right now.

  • Iraq
  • Israel
  • Sri Lanka

In each you have a smaller gang making demands of a bigger gang and the bigger gang just sitting there acting dumb or maybe beating up on the smaller gang members occasionally. Why not just pull out all the stops and eradicate the problem.

Imagine Iraq without the Kurds or the pesky Sunni tribes. Imagine Israel with no Palestinian problem. Imagine Sri Lanka without the Tamil.

These are all nightmare situations which could very easily be fixed if we employed the methods of the Colonial era. Find out who is causing the issue and erase them. We have the tech. We have thousands of nukes, we just lack the balls of steel the old British Empire (as an example) had.

Now, before you all start shouting 'Hitler' at me, consider that I'm not suggesting we do what Old Adolf did. I'm suggesting we round up queers and retards and gas them, or that we consider some groups of people to be sub-human or less developed than us. All men were created equal, but after creation the equality stops. Let's start nuking nuisance populations right away. World peace is only a nuke or four away!!




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,011 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,003 Posts

6 Threads

#2 11 years ago

What is the point of world peace if attaining it causes more misery than the present conflicts?




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,365 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,147 Posts

5 Threads

#3 11 years ago

What matters is not the sum of overall suffering but the part of that total that can be exacted against us.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,011 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,003 Posts

6 Threads

#4 11 years ago

But then you're back to "we're inherently superior to others", which AzH apparently tried to avoid in his argumentation.




AzH

I'm too cool to Post

269,650 XP

17th September 2003

0 Uploads

24,050 Posts

0 Threads

#5 11 years ago

No, this is not about racial superiority, it is about the removal of one society/race/nation/culture/system to ensure the continued survival and dominance of another society/race/nation/culture/system.

Regarding misery, people only experience misery if they're alive. I do not condone the use of concentration camps or other methods of abuse/torture. Genocide can be afflicted quickly and relatively painlessly. Suffering would be kept to an absolute minimum by ensuring quick deaths for the condemned.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,365 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,147 Posts

5 Threads

#6 11 years ago
MrFancypants;3997085But then you're back to "we're inherently superior to others", which AzH apparently tried to avoid in his argumentation.

Equality is not a grounds for restraining from a things destruction or harm. Were that the case then you couldn't put people in prison for violating the law, for surely they are equal enough to you that you don't gain any innate right to rule them, you could not kill people who were threatening to take your life, for they would also be broadly speaking equal to you. The greatest threat to us often comes from those most equal to ourselves, and their destruction or harm often makes the most sense regardless of that equality.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,011 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,003 Posts

6 Threads

#7 11 years ago

AzH;3997091No, this is not about racial superiority, it is about the removal of one society/race/nation/culture/system to ensure the continued survival and dominance of another society/race/nation/culture/system.

Regarding misery, people only experience misery if they're alive. I do not condone the use of concentration camps or other methods of abuse/torture. Genocide can be afflicted quickly and relatively painlessly. Suffering would be kept to an absolute minimum by ensuring quick deaths for the condemned.[/quote] The conflicts you named aren't really fights for survival, at least for the side that would be supposed to use genocide as solution. Besides, nationalism (in this form) is just as bad as racism if you ask me.

If a quick death is not problematic for you why bother in the first place? Most of the victims of a suicide-bomb attack die in the fraction of a second and it seems obvious that a small number of killed people offers less of a potential for misery through injury than a large number.

[quote=Nemmerle;3997100]Equality is not a grounds for restraining from a things destruction or harm.

That's not what I said, my argument was only that someone who is willing to kill countless of people to prevent a relatively small threat to his own people must think that his own people are in some way superior or more valuable than others.

Equality seems to be a good reason not to kill others for most people though, as far as I know murder is illegal in most countries.

Were that the case then you couldn't put people in prison for violating the law, for surely they are equal enough to you that you don't gain any innate right to rule them, you could not kill people who were threatening to take your life, for they would also be broadly speaking equal to you. The greatest threat to us often comes from those most equal to ourselves, and their destruction or harm often makes the most sense regardless of that equality.

You can't really compare self-defence or punishment of criminals with slaughter of countless of innocents.




Biiviz

Eggs!

50 XP

29th February 2004

0 Uploads

3,168 Posts

0 Threads

#8 11 years ago

I have a hard time imagining AzH as a father, but nevertheless, pressing the big red button to get rid of problem groups does sound tempting, although not too realistic.




AzH

I'm too cool to Post

269,650 XP

17th September 2003

0 Uploads

24,050 Posts

0 Threads

#9 11 years ago
MrFancypants;3997343The conflicts you named aren't really fights for survival, at least for the side that would be supposed to use genocide as solution. Besides, nationalism (in this form) is just as bad as racism if you ask me.

At the minute they're not fights for survival, but they will get that way if we do not do something about it. Our very way of life is being threatened and we, in our politically correct induced madness either stand by and watch or actually aid in it's destruction. Look at the immigration problems facing the developed world. In the US, Mexicans pour north in their millions. In Europe the opening of the eastern states has lead to an influx of immigrants invading the towns and cities of our nations. The war is being fought each day, and not through conventional means either. Here's a great example of what I am talking about:

Chinese Taking Over Russian Land

Russia’s Yellow Peril nightmare is coming true: Chinese migrant workers have started taking over unused land around Yekaterinburg, and claiming it as their own.

According to an alarmist article coming from Novy Region, a news agency covering the Russian provinces, Chinese workers are beginning to illegally take over land around Yekaterinburg. (See where that is.) For some time now, Chinese laborers have been renting farmland from Russians around Yekaterinburg. But recently, they’ve started to get uppity about the rent money. First they refused to pay, and now they've decided to squat.

Local residents say that Chinese farmers have been making a handsome profit selling cucumbers, tomatoes and other produce (all grown by the Chinese themselves) at a local market. Flush with cash, they decided to expand. A dozen or so Chinese migrants picked an uninhabited tract of land in a forest right outside of town, made a clearing, parked a few trailers and started building a housing complex.

Locals are livid. Not only are the Chinese taking over land illegally, they say, but are potentially endangering wildlife, as well as polluting the river by dumping human waste into it.

Funny thing is, as the Russians don’t speak Chinese and the Chinese don’t speak any Russian, there’s no communication going on. One party doesn’t know what the other party is thinking. Which is too bad because judging by the tone of the article, the Chinese might have to host a lynching party thrown in their honor.

The chinese could essentially win this undeclared war through the power of mass migration. How many ethnic Chinese are there in Europe or the USA? Just the same as the Chinese in Russia you have the Mexicans in California, the asians in Great Britain, Albanians in Berlin. The list goes on. I'm sure every European on these forums can give you an example of immigrants in cities or towns close to them who refuse to integrate. We're being forced out of our homes through the migration of the same people that in less 'civilised' (and I use that word so very loosely) times would have been our enemies and victims of aggression against them. We're soft and we're losing.

Now, of the three examples I pulled out of the air, this only really applies to the Israel one. Simple demographics mean that eventually the Israelis will lose. The Pals will simply out-breed them, and there is not a lot you can do about that. Some guy in a shack in Palestinianville has 15 or 16 kids to three wives. His Jewish counterpart has one, maybe two? It's simple maths. The Palestinians will win this fight in the end.

Unless the Israelis opt for genocide (which ironically would not sit too good with the Jews, would it?).

If a quick death is not problematic for you why bother in the first place? Most of the victims of a suicide-bomb attack die in the fraction of a second and it seems obvious that a small number of killed people offers less of a potential for misery through injury than a large number.

It's a case of looking at the motive of the suicide bomber. He/she is not out to kill as many people as possible - okay, he is, but that's not the primary motivation. The suicide bomber is a weapon of terror. An arab blows up a bus full of Israelis, the Israelis are fearful and do not use the buses, business is affected, etc etc etc. The families of the victims of the suicide bomber are the real victims as opposed to those killed. They have to live with that loss for the rest of their lives. Knowing that the death was a futile death. That is the true purpose of terror.

The solution offered here is the eradication of the group/race/class whatever responsible for this. If you kill them all nobody but a few bleeding heart liberals would care. Of course in these days of instant communication the entire world would know about what you did and there would be some questions to answer. But if you're ensuring the survival of your way of life and the way of life of your children and your children's children, what's the big deal with explaining a little blood on your hands?




Rich19

Italicised no more

50 XP

14th August 2004

0 Uploads

4,058 Posts

0 Threads

#10 11 years ago

AzH;3997019Reading this thread gave me an idea on how to fix ALL the problems faced in the world.

GENOCIDE

If that were the case, then to "fix all the problems faced in the world" a simple genocide of all Americans and western Europeans should indeed solve all the world's problems.