War crimes are for the losers of wars.
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You must log in or sign up to comment
14 comments:
Toast message
Yes, Winston Churchill did it but only to force Germany to bomb London so Churchill could cry out in pain and pretend to be a victim to help fool more nations into fighting to protect the Rothschild bankers and their Jew World Order.
Putin likely knows the kike government have already fled Kiev and nobody remains except the 87% Christian civilian population.
Literally don’t exist.
War, ostensibly, is a fight for survival. It’s a generalized, depersonalized representation of the individual conflict we face every day, either against another person, an animal, other aspects of nature, or the elements. It’s depersonalized because it’s a large-scale representation of this fight, involving entire groups. It's generalized because it’s very, very rarely as overt anymore as “If this group of people comes into our village, we will all cease to exist, so we have to go out and stop them.”
[Well, that is, you know…](https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/10/04/the-coudenhove-kalergi-plan-white-genocide-by-design-part-1/) Now here’s where we have to talk about what war is and isn’t, as well as the narratives surrounding the term. War is what you do to stop someone from ending your genetic line. It can be as clear cut as shooting a home invader. It can be as nebulous as *needing* to kill every banker in your country because they decided to start charging 0.00000000000000001% interest. “The end of your genetic line” can be invoked by a cyberattack just as easily as it can from a million screaming niggers flooding across your border with guns.
Someone breaks into your house and is walking toward your child with a weapon. **What behavior would you consider unacceptable in order to stop this from happening?**
*Your answer is why “war crimes” don’t exist.* The people who want you to think that specific *physical* behaviors are “unacceptable” in your own defense are the ones who are *explicitly waging war against you* by using *non-physical* behaviors to mask their actions. They shift your attention from their *abstract, non-physical* actions onto others’ (their lackeys) *concrete, physical* actions. They highlight these behaviors *solely as a proxy* for their demands that *you* not engage in them in response, not because they want those others (again, their lackeys) to stop their behavior.
After all, you would only be *able* to stop their behavior by… physically going to war. And if you’re bound to the belief that “some behaviors are unacceptable, even in war,” and your enemies *aren’t* constrained thereby… you’re going to lose.
Whites’ altruism used as a weapon against us, yet again.
There are some jew namers I’ve seen around as I’ve been trying to learn more about their subterfuge and ploys that call the bombing of Dresden by the England/USA a “war crime”. I agreed with them, but now I’m not sure about that and that’s weird to contemplate. Certainly still horrible regardless. This whole noticing thing is having me rethink every single foundational viewpoint I had on the world and humanity before I learned about the jews.
We look forward to war with the same sort of excited giddiness that toddlers have for Christmas presents. Every time Europe got into a war with us they were surprised with shock and horror over how Anglo-Saxons behave in war. You'll note that despite the fact that the vikings totally raped us we idolize them and wish we were more like them. That's our DNA.
War crimes do not exist. Genocide is not evil, it is the natural result when surrender isn't accepted. Death is a part of life. God is a God of war.
Zoglenskyy certainly did.