Response to ILA's censorship: More wisdom from Churchill

F

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas.... I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gases: gases can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected … We cannot, in any circumstances acquiesce to the non-utilisation of any weapons which are available to procure a speedy termination of the disorder which prevails on the frontier." - Winston "Racist" Churchill, in favor of using terrorism and weapons of mass destruction against civilians to spread Christian jihad/imperialism
 
Underworld King Star said:
"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas.... I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gases: gases can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected … We cannot, in any circumstances acquiesce to the non-utilisation of any weapons which are available to procure a speedy termination of the disorder which prevails on the frontier." - Winston "Racist" Churchill, in favor of using terrorism and weapons of mass destruction against civilians to spread Christian jihad/imperialism
Click to expand...

Your point?
 
Underworld King Star said:
"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas.... I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gases: gases can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected … We cannot, in any circumstances acquiesce to the non-utilisation of any weapons which are available to procure a speedy termination of the disorder which prevails on the frontier." - Winston "Racist" Churchill, in favor of using terrorism and weapons of mass destruction against civilians to spread Christian jihad/imperialism
Click to expand...

So Churchill uttered the phrase 'uncivilized tribe' and that makes him racist? I'm convinced the uber racially sensitive left's problem is that reality is 'racist'. Fact of the matter is some groups of people are more civilized than others. When reality stares you in the face, stare back before it runs you over.

If there is a singular reason the world is put on the precipice to a major war by a certain region of the world, it's because that regions people are largely uncivilized with respect to the West. The term 'clash of civilizations' is unpopular on college campuses [that should be a hint if there ever was one] and considered unsavory by liberal editors and pundits, but it is what it is.

The West is more civilized than the Middle Eastern tribes that will the kill children of unbelievers or stone their women for being raped. So, hard to fathom this should need explaining, when large groups of people from that region flood into Europe and other places, expect some problems or even conflict. People commonly refer to this as a 'clash'.

Because they don't share our values, our enlightenment or our respect for human life. In a word, they are uncivilized compared to us.

The West needs a Churchill.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
So Churchill uttered the phrase 'uncivilized tribe' and that makes him racist? I'm convinced the uber racially sensitive left's problem is that reality is 'racist'. Fact of the matter is some groups of people are more civilized than others. When reality stares you in the face, stare back before it runs you over.

If there is a singular reason the world is put on the precipice to a major war by a certain region of the world, it's because that regions people are largely uncivilized with respect to the West. The term 'clash of civilizations' is unpopular on college campuses [that should be a hint if there ever was one] and considered unsavory by liberal editors and pundits, but it is what it is.

The West is more civilized than the Middle Eastern tribes that will the kill children of unbelievers or stone their women for being raped. So, hard to fathom this should need explaining, when large groups of people from that region flood into Europe and other places, expect some problems or even conflict. People commonly refer to this as a 'clash'.

Because they don't share our values, our enlightenment or our respect for human life. In a word, they are uncivilized compared to us.

The West needs a Churchill.
Click to expand...
So we need to gas more Arabs/Muslims. I see.
 
FUCK THE GAS...
WE NEED...
guns.jpg
MORE GUNS!​
 
Sheogorath said:
So we need to gas more Arabs/Muslims. I see.
Click to expand...

You 'Trumped' Churchill, I see. He advocated gassing the bad guys with non-lethal gas so as to cause minimal casualties and terrorize them. [kind of the whole point of war is to 'terrorize' the bad guys lol] One of the things that distinguishes us from the barbarians is we try to minimize civilian casualties.

They try to maximize civilian casualties.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
You 'Trumped' Churchill, I see. He advocated gassing the bad guys with non-lethal gas so as to cause minimal casualties and terrorize them. [kind of the whole point of war is to 'terrorize' the bad guys lol] One of the things that distinguishes us from the barbarians is we try to minimize civilian casualties.

They try to maximize civilian casualties.
Click to expand...

...

Are you fucking serious?
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
So Churchill uttered the phrase 'uncivilized tribe' and that makes him racist? I'm convinced the uber racially sensitive left's problem is that reality is 'racist'. Fact of the matter is some groups of people are more civilized than others. When reality stares you in the face, stare back before it runs you over.

If there is a singular reason the world is put on the precipice to a major war by a certain region of the world, it's because that regions people are largely uncivilized with respect to the West. The term 'clash of civilizations' is unpopular on college campuses [that should be a hint if there ever was one] and considered unsavory by liberal editors and pundits, but it is what it is.

The West is more civilized than the Middle Eastern tribes that will the kill children of unbelievers or stone their women for being raped. So, hard to fathom this should need explaining, when large groups of people from that region flood into Europe and other places, expect some problems or even conflict. People commonly refer to this as a 'clash'.

Because they don't share our values, our enlightenment or our respect for human life. In a word, they are uncivilized compared to us.

The West needs a Churchill.
Click to expand...


So poisoned gas should be used on tribes someone considers uncivilized? The user is more barbaric than the tribes.
 
christiefan915 said:
So poisoned gas should be used on tribes someone considers uncivilized? The user is more barbaric than the tribes.
Click to expand...

If you read what Churchill said it was actually pretty humane, even though 'poison gas' is kind of a loaded term. Also, they *were* uncivilized and still are in too many cases.

In another thread there was a Muslim woman who was literally dismembered for something considered a 'crime' under sharia.

Do you considered that uncivilized simply as a matter of someone's opinion? Like its something that's open to debate?
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
If you read what Churchill said it was actually pretty humane, even though 'poison gas' is kind of a loaded term. Also, they *were* uncivilized and still are in too many cases.

In another thread there was a Muslim woman who was literally dismembered for something considered a 'crime' under sharia.

Do you considered that uncivilized simply as a matter of someone's opinion? Like its something that's open to debate?
Click to expand...

If you read the American news you will find that people have been beheaded, dismembered and victims of other horrible acts yet nobody says the entire race or ethnicity of the killers should be wiped out.

Dahmer, Bundy, Gein etc. all dismembered their victims because of no crime whatsoever, just because they were sadistic criminals; yet the fact that they were white men from a Christian nation was never ever part of the news.
 
christiefan915 said:
If you read the American news you will find that people have been beheaded, dismembered and victims of other horrible acts yet nobody says the entire race or ethnicity of the killers should be wiped out.

Dahmer, Bundy, Gein etc. all dismembered their victims because of no crime whatsoever, just because they were sadistic criminals; yet the fact that they were white men from a Christian nation was never ever part of the news.
Click to expand...

Maybe because Christianity and race were irrelevant with respect to the crimes?
 
christiefan915 said:
Do you really think Muslim terrorists kill because of religion? I mean, really?
Click to expand...

Well if you consider islam to be a religion then yes. It is not a religion. It is a political movement cloaked in religion.

You can ignore thousands of years of history if you like but you do so at the country's peril
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top