Terrorism actually achieves its goal unlike voting

Prove me wrong
>Ireland wasn't recognized until they committed terror acts
>israel wasn't recognized until they committed terror acts
>Palestine wasn't recognized until they committed terror acts
>the new SA regime wasn't recognized until they committed terror acts
>by default england wouldn't recognize america until our founding fathers committed acts of terrorism

Attached: 1579056730339.jpg (400x400, 23.4K)

Other urls found in this thread:

mises.org/wire/ten-reasons-why-governments-fail
youtube.com/watch?v=1MX9ruBNK44&lc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

if your argument requires terrorism rather than being able to prove in a debate or discourse that it's good then it's probably not that good

It's not the 20th century anymore.

He's not wrong. War is it, force is it, that is all that matters. All talk, negotiation is done under the umbrella of force. Force is the only reason any talk or negotiation is possible.

If you're arguing against traitors that want to destroy your country who also happen to be in positions of authority, then what?

Duh, you can't prove to someone that your existence/power/self-interest is more important than theirs. But that's what it comes down to a lot of the time. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. You're basically a coward saying the Indians are right

Attached: 1577802503289.jpg (734x900, 88.73K)

Bullshit. Words are the primary weapon of the infiltrator, the provocateur, the manipulator, the subversive parasite. If your point is that your people should survive, you don't prove that point by debating your enemies to death.
OP is right. A people cannot exist for long until they have shown they are prepared to defend themselves by drawing blood, moreover this has to be demonstrated again and again lest the people who want you dead think you've gone soft and feeble. This is literally the only known way to survive on Earth.

Attached: thomasjeffersonchaos.jpg (250x240, 3.29K)

>Timothy McVeigh

>Kike crashing planes into the towers began the fun ride to Clown World we're on now.

You might have a point.

Not terrorism per se but violence in general.
Plus you get a chance of becoming a meme on Zig Forums.

Attached: 1594551859070.jpg (4122x2748, 2.7M)

"When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived." ― Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers

Violence isnt the answer fren, unless youre talking about world history.

war=/=terrorism tho

Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived.
-Wayne Gretzky

You do not define terrorism

Attached: stupid test.png (296x337, 134.69K)

>You do not define terrorism
it seems as though you will be unable to make an argument using a definition of "terrorism".

Attached: definition of terrorism.jpg (1075x616, 490.87K)

>terrorism achieves goals
If he goal you are achieving is immoral, it is not achieving a goal.

Attached: teleos.jpg (1061x382, 405.18K)

what is the goal?
What is terrorism?
What did these people achieve and did hey actually achieve what you have stated?
Was "terrorism" the actual cause for them achieving said goal?

Attached: Doolittle much cringe.jpg (897x1300, 221K)

Fat Heimbach can't terrorize anyone except Matt Parrot.

If order in society is what you wish to achieve, you will have to achieve something objectively truthful. You need moral agency. This has to be agreed to be a moral truth with those people it is relevant

Attached: richard-spencer.jpg (820x547, 185.94K)

Attached: Modern Conflict.jpg (1600x1600, 935.86K)

>using violence to stop white genocide is immoral
wwow fucking based

You don't say?
Americans and people in general are too retarded to realize this though

Attached: 1594945361528.png (480x466, 139.12K)

This is why most conflict never approaches a level of violence. Most conflict occurs as an change of ideas. All conflict that approaches a level of violence begins with an exchange of ideas and/or information and/or lack thereof.

Attached: morality and law of names.png (1100x800, 578.28K)

Retard alert!

What is the difference?
Oh yeah, 20th century men died, now all its left are some vermin that dare to call themselves men, that love democracy and politically correct arguments that won't offend anyones feelings, they're afraid of losing their jobs when they lost their fucking country

Attached: Language Barriers and Empire.jpg (800x2000, 625.38K)

You aren't wrong.
The only thing people respect is force. If you use terrorism to demonstrate your force and resolve, people will give you what you want. It's why governments frown on it so hard.

you know, this post glows, yet Kaczynski's original article was published in major newspapers

>"When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived." ― Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers
You're using fiction to support the retarded argument that voting in a system designed by the State will change anything in it?
mises.org/wire/ten-reasons-why-governments-fail

You have to win hearts and minds, see Isis those fuckers are pretty much done.

youtube.com/watch?v=1MX9ruBNK44&lc

Attached: 1494300814109.jpg (618x973, 160.75K)