Yikes, he looks like deep fried hell. The dude hasn’t looked good for a while, but this is bad. It’s wild that the context of other pictures just makes it worse.

Imagine being the kind of fucking busy body that sees someone in a mask and thinks “Egads, the cops should know about this!”

This is really cool, but it would have been cooler if they’d named their scouting missions Hugin and Mugin, since they’re Odin’s ravens that scour the earth for secrets to give to Odin.

Just wrapped act 2 on my Karlach run.

Nothing personal, merc.

Linus for the win!

How can I?

I love to see it. I wonder who the US will what about next after China gets their pollution under control. I’ve looked it up and almost everywhere I’ve looked has been adding more renewable capacity more aggressively than the US. That includes Honduras, who we tried to destabilize not all that long ago. This place is embarrassing.

It seems an awful lot like Israel is doing systematic genocide on flimsy pretenses, kind of a lot like the Nazis did. Nobody’s life is worth anything to the state, dipshit.

You’ve read me wrong if you think I’m upset over dead Nazis. I think you’re being obtuse on purpose, so I’ll do you a fair turn and wager that you’re very happy with how Israel’s been fighting “terrorism”.

I had a dad that was in poor health and also an abusive POS. He’ll try to hang whatever he thinks he can, including his health, over you for control. The only way to win is not to play.

tl;Dr: No, not a right, but an obligation.

I think that states have not a right, but a requirement to kill terrorists in order to guarantee their continued existence. If they don’t, then they no longer have the monopoly on violence, and the odds that a new state will form increase. It’s the same as anything that seeks to kill another thing to further its own existence. Though, I reject your assertion that one must only absolutely agree or disagree that state violence towards terrorists is legitimate, regardless of whether it’s in bad faith. By that logic, if you agree that the police in China may use deadly force to kill a spree murderer, you necessarily agree to the genocide of Palestine. As the Israeli state functionally considers all surrounding peoples, including Palestine, to be terrorists, they would be justified in committing genocide, because the Israeli state is doing it (in bad faith) to stop terrorism.

I also think that people have a much more legitimate right to resist the state than the state has to propagate its continued existence. It’s really down to whose violence you believe is legitimate, and I tend to air on the side of people over states. Were the native American raids against US settlers legitimate violence? Was the US right to kill the native American terrorists? Was the French Resistance to the Nazi occupation legitimate violence? Were the Nazis right to kill the resistance fighters? The Russian empire and the revolutionaries? Israel and Hamas? It’s states acting on their requirement to maintain and exercise the monopoly on violence. It’s just states propagating their own existence, which they always must do or face extinction; so the question becomes, does every state have a right to secure its existence in the way it imagines itself? No, I don’t believe so. It’s going to do it anyway, because that’s what states do, but I don’t think that the state, as a composition of political elements, has an absolute right to execute its will against all others.

Edit: took out the “free of all harassment”. We’re talking about whether the state has the right to kill terrorists, so the natural assumption is that the state in question has already been harassed.

Not that I know of, tbh. I’m sure that the answer to that question can technically be yes; I’m certain that somewhere across all the horrors of human history, it must have happened, but I can’t think of a case I’m aware of.

Did I? Because I was thinking about how the Soviet Union had a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany until the latter attacked the former. It was only then that the USSR started giving a shit about killin natzis. Which, in total fairness, was kind of generally true of much of the West at that time. The only reason the Holocaust was stopped was that shithead got too big for his britches and pissed off 110% of the right people. It had nothing to do with the noble cause of ending genocide, ending genocide was just a happy side effect.

Ending the Holocaust was the right thing to do, but it was only ever a retroactive point for the war against the Nazis. A lot of their political contemporaries either agreed with them or didn’t have the political will to go to war over it. And yeah, anyone paying attention knew what was going on. Maybe the full scope wasn’t well understood until after the war, but plenty of states knew what was happening.

I think that arguing about justification is a moot point. Anyone can justify anything if they want to, and that goes twice for states. That’s without wading into the quagmire on the question of terrorism, largely for sanity’s sake. Generally, I think it is always correct to resist a state whose objectives include mass murder.

TC_209’s position on killing Nazis accidentally didn’t align with the party’s. They are put against the wall by a young officer who didn’t pay attention when they read theory in school.

I swear, bro, it’s okay if we kill you, it’s different for us. We read these books that said it was okay for us, those other auths’ books are wrong and they need the bullet. If we just kill a few more people for the right reasons, it’ll totally be okay.

No, more like badly executed self-deprecating humor. I stand by what was deleted. I think accelerationism is like throwing matches at your furniture and yelling “Shazam!” in hopes that it summons a genie instead of burning you to death.

I’m trying to get on as many shit lists as possible. Really get up against that wall, you know?

Removed by mod