I can see no other way out with dealing with the muslim scums. They come to our countries and threaten our people with slavery and death and we are suppose to sit quietly and let them do as they please? We can commit genocide on a global scale, starting with saudia arabia. Destroy mecca and medina. Slaughter them wholesale and do not show remorse when doing so.
Elimination of Muslims would make the world more peaceful and would be a net improvement in human rights. Islam is at war with the whole world, from the West, to Russia, to Africa, to China. Islam is also oppressive and regressive to human beings (oppressing women, killing gays, killing Christians and Jews, etc.). Islam should be eliminated.
Speaking from a species vs species only point of view (Humans vs Alien), and if there was no other peaceful ways to secure the future of both species i would except it. Without belittling or dehumanizing them and if they where trying to do the same, the only way to ensure the safety of humanity would be to eliminate them. Its hard to explain this without sounding like a Nazi but i want my species to live and would do what ever it takes to ensure that.
The untermensch pollute the earth, waste its resources and corrupt our bloodlines. They ravage the gene pool, since humans have long since destroyed the system of natural selection by playing god. This will lead to genetic diseases and further suffering to them and to the world in the long run.
When trying to figure out weather or not genocide is morally right or wrong, it depends on which side you are on. In my recent debate on weather or not evil exists, I said that Evil cannot exist because when one side believes that they are doing what they believe to be right, then they cannot be evil.
If the party committing the genocide believes that it is for the greater good, which is always the case in genocide, then it is morally right in their eyes. If they are committing genocide then then they have what they feel to be a good reason, Justification. The rest of the world may not agree, like in the case of Hitler, but as I said, it depends on whose side you are on.
In the case that genocide avoids a greater tragedy then the correct moral path is to commit genocide. For example, if a smaller group were to threaten civil war within the society they are part of, then genocide is justifiable because such action would prevent the casualties of war. Such was practiced by the U.S. government against the native populations on multiple occasions.
It can be either a morale action, or for the better good it will always be on the table to be considered. Germany eliminated Jews from their local populace, making it a haven for all of Germans Volk. All Jews that were separated from the domestic populace of German,France,Italy,Slovakia, and Denmark saw a great increase in its own good.
Genocide should be justified if the race/religion has committed many evil acts or if they are attempting a unjustified genocide of another race/religion it is only morally right especially if they are trying to take control of the world most counter arguments imply that its murder but so is killing someone on death row so if death row is justified for the worst of the worst so should genocide.
The world is currently facing a problem with overpopulation, genocide is mass murder. Even a toddler could reason out that mass murder would solve the overpopulation problem. If there is not justification for genocide morally or legally, then there is justification for it logically. Need there be any more said?
I believe that when faced with overwhelming population groups, especially groups with high poverty rates, it is justified to lower their population for the betterment of the world. People in poverty usually provide nothing to the greater mass of people who are not in poverty and usually don't try and fix their social issues only leading to another generation that acts just like their parents, ultimately acting as a drain on resources and not giving back to the community. And for overpopulation it's a similar situation, too many people in dense areas lead to environmental damage and the overuse of resources in said area. Thus it would be for the greater good of or current population as a whole if we are able to manage resources better and prepare for a world where we can handle such a large population to begin with, seeing as how large portions of the world already cannot handle this. I also want to make this clear, I think genocide can be used on several people, it doesn't need to be directed at a certain ethnicity or belief group, it can be pointed at any population whether or not said population is a mix of several groups or not. I also believe that the act of genocide can be used on a group or faction that is violent or destructive to a given area. That is why I think that genocide could be justified under certain conditions.
One of the most divisive traits of humans is our need to separate based on differences we see between each other. So instead of trying to unite, we decide that separation, and ultimately, elimination, is the answer? There is no justification for these actions, ever. No person, much less an entire race, is predetermined to do anything. In hindsight, you can go on forever on what could have been done to prevent any given situation. We can't see the future, but if we could work together to solve problems, without violence, it would the best solution. If only.
Rather than jumping to a knee-jerk conclusion (my first instinct having been WTF!?!?), I will try to look at this rationally.
Genocide is, by definition, the attempted slaughter of an entire group of people, especially because of their race, ethnicity, or religion. For such an act to be morally justified, the targets must be entirely guilty. However, because no group of people is a monolith, there will inevitably be innocents in every demographic, and you run the risk of murder in the pursuit of "justice." To all those advocating the slaughter of Muslims here, would you be willing to shoot women's rights activist Malala Yousafzai in the face, simply because she calls her god by the name "Allah?" That is what a true genocide of Muslims would demand, after all.
I have been to war 3 times. Every single time there were those within my unit, and I must include myself in this, that said we should just wipe these Muslims out. Here's the thing, we all said that before we saw the awful side effects of war. I have seen children die for no reason other than the insurgents wanted to kill us, and were willing to kill children to accomplish that goal. Once you have seen a child blown to hell with your own eyes your outlook changes. There are truly innocent people in every "race" of humanity (also they're is no such thing as race according to biology), and they make up the vast majority of that "race". My last point I have to make has nothing to do with morality, instead it relies on science. To make the human species more resilient we need genetic diversity, and by killing off subgroups of human beings we weaken the entire species as a whole.
I wanted to find out whether there were actually people in this world who thought genocide is justifiable and I found that 40% of people who were asked this question said yes. I have nothing to say other than these people are beyond convincing. They are the type of people who say, if everybody in the world was equal make them unequal, if there is no oppression, make sure there is oppression, if there are no oppressors then bring about oppressors, if there are no classes between people and people and people had economic, make sure there are economic classes. If there is no violence make sure there is violence. If the world perfect, make sure it is imperfect. If human rights are being obeyed perfectly, make sure there isn't a trace of human rights left in the world. If everybody were perfectly happy, make sure there are some people who are unhappy. If people aren't oppressed for the sake of the endless luxury of other people, make sure that they are oppressed so that people could engage in endless luxury until the end of time. I have something to say to the 40% of people who said yes, although I have no hope that it will change their mind. Someone said that genocide s justifiable if it's to prevent a crime, such as killing all the Germans to prevent the genocide of Jews. In other words, genocide should be committed to prevent genocide. What part of this makes sense? And then the person says genocide is to be committed against all terrorist groups in the war on terror. First of all, genocide is something that is committed against a major group of people, mainly minorities and majorities. Minorities are ethnicities, races, religions, creeds, major groups of people who are trying to make positive contributions to society. TERRORISTS ARE NOT MINORITIES. And another thing, the main thing I wanted to say is that, if you had a ship with 100 extremely innocent people who have never committed a single crime, I don't think it would be logical to sink the entire ship of people to punish the one person. If you wanted to punish the one person, you would seek out and arrest him. If you think otherwise, well I don't know what to say to you.
As a student of human rights, one would normally recognize that genocide is a sane action. It is perpetrated because the people who perpetrate are conditioned into believing it is the only right course of action. Yet, sometimes you just can't help but think that the people who do it are utterly sadistic and psychopathic freaks who just love doing what they are doing, and the supporters of genocide are the same.
What the hell? There are actually those who think that making a clean sweep of an entire collaboration of people---women, children, infants, and invalids included---could ever be the only and/or best way of solving a problem? Where are we living, Bedrock? Dear god, this world needs help. What is wrong with people?
One of the most awful crimes any person can commit is murder. It would be completely archaic to morally and/or legally allow not just a murder, but a mass SYSTEMATIC murder of individuals. To the opposition's argument of preventing Germans from committing the hate crimes of the Holocaust, you could say that would prevent it, but nothing is ever certain. Eliminating a group of people based on the suspicion that they may cause problems is paranoia to such an extreme level that one would be willing to take someone's life for uncertain safety. There are always better alternatives to solving problems with others than by killing them off. We have proven that before and still prove that today by the agreements, treaties, accords, etc. that countries and groups participate in annually. The actions of the past give us all the more of a reminder to never repeat such an atrocity, even if some proclaim preventative measures.