Let's seriously consider this. Is this true?

Let's seriously consider this. Is this true?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=TJI5EBxdP6k
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Yes. If you kill your enemy, he becomes a zombie, he'll be immune for any bullets and he'll continue until he eats your brain

In a political situation within a domestic environment then yes. Example being liberals and BLM chimping out against Trump supporters.
I a situation between countries, if you kill your enemies you win, as long as you don't do any genocide.

Circumstantially.
Consider a culture that idolizes martyrs. There are times when you need to actually be careful who you kill. The Romans killed a bunch of Christians and look how that turned out.
For the most part the quote is retarded though.

No

You don't give fascists a plaftorm

It's a win-win situation.

This. Its why you dont need to feel bad when genociding muslims

Depends.
>Will the deaths be publicized?
>Will they be perceived as martyrdom?
>Was there a level of grotesquery involved?
>Was the killing legal/sacntioned?
>How did the general public feel about your enemies?
>Can you control the general public militarily?
>Can you control the general public through media?
>Can you reveal/fabricate things about your enemy postmortem (Pedophilia, for instance)

All of these and more contribute to the outcome.

cont.

> Can you make the killing look like an accident?
> Can you kill using robots/drones/other? anonymous tools
> Can you fight your enemy (in some historical situations) and best him in one-on-one combat?
> Can you poison your enemy?
> Can you make your enemy's death look like drug overdose/autoerotic asphyxiation?
> Can you control conspiracy theories surrounding your enemy's death?
> Can you bribe investigatory bodies, and destroy evidence of bribery?
> Are you in a situation where it's better to be feared than respected?

youtube.com/watch?v=TJI5EBxdP6k
Consider.

>For the most part the quote is retarded though.

Considering that Canada's current situation is one of those circumstances in which it is true, how is it retarded?

>Can you get your enemy to commit suicide?
>Can you perform character assassination before actual assassination?
>Can you get the general public to kill your enemy (See Gaddafi)?
>Can you kill so many of your enemies at once that the public will be unable to focus on the lives of any given one of them?
>Can you cause a riot in which your enemy is killed on accident?
>Can you get your enemy to go to a place where a natural disaster is about to happen?

>If you resist rape, the rapist wins!
>If a robber come into your home and steals your stuff, and you call the police and he gets arrested, the robber wins!
>If someone lies about you, and you disprove him, the liar wins!
>If someone injures you or damages your property, and you sue him, he wins!

Reminder that /pol/ made that quote up.

/thread

The implication is that if your enemies are nice, and you have them murdered, you'll make martyrs out of them. The quote is an oversimplified version of this notion.

That may be the case, but it's a good quote to debate, nonetheless. Let's just ignore the Trudeau aspect, shall we?

There's much more nuance to this issue than that, user. One's enemies need not be fascists.

Nuke my country pls

Not said by him apparently, see The discussion has progressed.

Funny meme tho

But then Canada will win!

YESHUA WINS

FATALITY

>romans try to use humiliating torture as show of power
>jews turn it into religious symbol

Must be the whole Martyr thing.

Yep. A clear example of martyrdom working.

Doesn't always work though, see

Veeky Forums is an 18+ website.

Nice Iranian windchime

But you can genocide and get away with it, just look at china.

Observers are active participants in the spectacle. Public torture and such became undoable cuz yeah, the gallows and the cross made for martyrs and folk heroes, executions could end in riots and rebellions.
Nowadays we avoid it, cuz we know. It's simply better in most cases to execute out of sight, out of mind.
That's not to say we don't make public shows of death, we do, a good amount of counter-ISIS propaganda involved simply footage of them getting killed on high by drones and jets, unable to resist and looking like idiots. That doesn't make martyr's.

if the enemy's supporters idolize him/her or see him/her as a martyr, then yes

why do you think such hostile takes on islam helps breed more extremists?

what do you think is more suffering for a killer? the killer being put to sleep, and having his/heart being stopped while he's unconscious, or, keeping him locked in a shitty, dark, small cell for 24 hours a day for the rest of his life?

So did the Nazis really win in the end?

I dunno senpai. My great grandad killed a lot of krauts and I'm pretty sure they lost.

I get what he is saying as far as how we treat the enemies of of our countries by simply rather punishing them in court rather than killing them because killing them is just too easy and can cause a means of them being looked upon as a Martyr than a madman that needed to be stopped, but the way he says it though is pure idiotic juice and straight up logically inept.

No. This guy is a fucking retard.

Stalin was right.

If you have a man who has a problem with you, kill the man and the problem disappears.

This.
Look at Native Indians in USA. If USA wipe them all they wouldbe zero problem with them today.
Sue some bleedin hearts will blame white men and feel guilt but in the end no man no problem.

Sure if you kill some they still can survive and win.
No if you leave no survivors.

Dont take the "encouraging terrorism" meme too seriously. If somebody massacres 50 people because you say something, they wouldve snapped at any number of things and in the end, killing them is the only reasonable choice.

I wouldnt be suprised if canada did something like allowing public executions without trials if it meant not pissing off muslims.

Why is winning such an important thing?

It's for the ego.

THAT STATEMENT REFLECTS THE MENTALITY OF AN "EVIL" HYPOCRITE; IT ARISES FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE "EVIL" ONE AVOIDING MAKING OF THE "GOOD" ONE A MARTYR.

THE MOTTO OF THE "GOOD" ONE WOULD BE THE OPPOSITE OF THAT —"IF ONE DOES NOT KILL ONE'S ENEMIES, THEY WIN."—, BECAUSE IF THE "GOOD" ONE DOES NOT DO WHAT IT MUST —ID EST: ERADICATE "EVIL" IN ANY AND ALL OF ITS MANIFESTATIONS—, IT WOULD BE TANTAMOUNT TO ENABLING "EVIL".

IS IT TRUE? NO, BECAUSE ITS RATIONALE IS BASED ON FALSITY, NOT ON TRUTH; IT IS A STATEMENT OF EXPEDIENCE, NOT OF NOBILITY; OF HUBRIS, NOT OF JUSTICE; OF "EVIL", NOT OF "GOOD".

i...
what?

>not understanding rei

hello newfriend!

If you want to stay in power you have to create a funnel for the negative policies. Aka the enemy. If you remove the enemy, then all the negative comes to you.

Put your trip back on rei