Who is historically the most cowardly type of people?

Home Forums History Who is historically the most cowardly type of people?

Viewing 15 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #101889
      Anonymous
      Guest

      is there an historical type more coward, dishonourable and incompatible with a warrior morality than a terrorist?

    • #101890
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >He’s still seething

      • #101891
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >he’s a shitskin diaspora defending terrorists

        • #101945
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Maybe defund the terrorists

      • #101894
        Anonymous
        Guest

        amer*cans

      • #101954
        Anonymous
        Guest

        fpbp

    • #101892
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Drone pilot?

      • #101895
        Anonymous
        Guest

        lol

      • #101903
        Anonymous
        Guest

        OMG this

      • #101913
        Anonymous
        Guest

        this
        at least the terrorist is putting himself in danger which still demands some degree of courage

        • #101914
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >demands some degree of courage
          they believe they are going to fuck 30 white virgins in some garden in the sky after the job, they have no courage, just low IQ. also they are people with nothing to lose, which makes their sucicide worthless.

    • #101893
      Anonymous
      Guest

      i agree, George Washington was a scrote

    • #101896
      Anonymous
      Guest

      There is no honour in warfare. All war is deception.

      • #101899
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Honour doesn’t mean shit if you lose

        you got it all wrong.
        honour is a consequence of strength. strong people fight with honor because they are strong, weak people (=arabs) fight with deception (=terrorism) because they are weak.
        weak people trying to fight with honor are just pathetic, it doesn’t suit them.
        on a side note, please notice that the europeans created two historical moral systems:
        1. the ancient aryan warrior ethos, that is, the ideal of courage and magnanimity.
        2. semitic-larping christcuckery, that is, egalitarianism and victimism.
        if you are white, you should be able to choose without even thinking about it.

        • #101900
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Strong people win and don’t have to cry about their enemies not playing fair

        • #101902
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Strong people must resort to deception in order to fight, for if they were to make their strength obvious, no one would choose to fight them. Even the warriors of yore would keep a fair distance from the enemy, constantly shifting their position and formation until both thought that they had an advantage, in which case the battle would commence. In the end, whoever wins the battle is strong.

          • #101906
            Anonymous
            Guest

            intelligence and strategy are not deception. there is no deception when i know you are my enemy and you know i am yours.
            >In the end, whoever wins the battle is strong.
            historically you can win once or twice through deception, then you lose your element of surprise. deception logically IMPLIES , by itself, that the deceivers are not the strongest. it is a shot term survival strategy.
            you can read the warrior morality as evolutionary adaptative behaviour of the stongest ones to their environment.

            • #101908
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Strategy is deceit. With strategy, you manipulate the position of your opponent, expose their weaknesses and vulnerabilities, and pierce them before they can even know what’s going on.
              >that the deceivers are not the strongest
              Is it characteristic of the strong to win battles? It is? Then we must declare those adept at deception to be strong
              >No, because they would otherwise be weak without deception
              Key word is ‘otherwise’. Are we now going declare the armies of Hannibal, Napoleon and even the Muslim general Khalid Ibn Khalid, to be impotent amd weak, just because they used cunning strategems to overcome what was ‘otherwise’ a stronger opponent?

              • #101910
                Anonymous
                Guest

                > Strategy is deceit
                you simply are too obtuse and brown to get the difference. i already told you. if i KNOW you might you some sort of hidden strategy to beat me, you are not deceiving me. are chess players "deceiving" each others? of course not, strategy is part of the game. winning a war is not just brutal force, but also intelligence.
                >>No, because they would otherwise be weak without deception
                again you simply do not understand what i wrote. i didn’t say "otherwise" , i said "once". deception is useful when you are the "underdog", but after you win you have to secure your condition through pure strength, you can’t hide anymore. deception is useful to subvert the expectations, not to grant victory in the long run.
                >Hannibal
                won a couple battles, then his army and city and people got pulverized forever by the aryans.
                >Napoleon
                a true warrior.
                >Khalid Ibn Khalid
                a loser, a deceiver and a terrorist.

                • #101911
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >might you some sort
                  might use some sort

                • #101917
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  If you are unable to discern my plan, only suspecting that I have some sinister stratagem, then I am infact deceiving you. Chess players do not exactly announce their strategies to the opponent either. Why is that the case? Do they withold their plans because they know their opponents would make different moves if they knew about their plans. But isn’t that deceitful?
                  >i said once
                  And I will say, when the enemy has wisened up to one strategem, another strategem is formed. That is the beauty of warfare. If you want to see something as unsophisticated as two forces colliding into eachother head on, watch a car crash.
                  >all of these famous military generals are actually garbage
                  Meanwhile, I’m sure you are a man with many military accolades under your name. Even 1000mmr on chess.com is, in your case, too much of a stretch.

        • #101905
          Anonymous
          Guest

          You must not have read Homer. Ancient Aryan warriors were all about deception.

          • #101907
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Achilles (not Odysseus) is the personification of the Ancient Aryan Warrior type and the protagonist of the Iliad. Never deceived anyone, he is a pure fighter, and honor (areté) and glory (kleos) matter to him more than his own life. He is the opposite of a muslim/terrorist.

            • #101912
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Ask me how i know your a seething slav(e), pedopedohomos?

        • #101925
          Anonymous
          Guest

          again, honour is not about crying after a defeat. honour is about choosing to fight fair and square in the first place, not trying to hide, not lying, not stealing, not aiming to the week ones (e.g. civilians), being confident in your own strength and that alone. if you are weak, i CAN’T have honour. morality is not something you "choose" or "apply" is a consequence of biology.

          Well, it doesn’t seem Germanic warriors were very honourable according to the Romans. The historian
          Ammianus Marcellinus gives a description of how
          King Chnodomarius tried to run away and hide after he was being defeated in battle by Julian but got caught

          > And while this was going on, Chnodomarius, the king, finding an opportunity of escaping, making his way over the heaps of dead with a small escort, hastened with exceeding speed towards the camp which he had made near the two Roman fortresses of Alstatt and Lauterbourg, in the country of the Tribocci, that he might embark in some boats which had already been prepared in case of any emergency, and so escape to some secret hiding-place in which he might conceal himself

          > And because it was impossible for him to reach his camp without crossing the Rhine, he hid his face that he might not be recognized, and after that retreated slowly….he without delay reached the shelter of a hill in the neighbourhood; there he was recognized…and immediately a squadron of cavalry came up at full gallop with its tribune, and cautiously surrounded the wooded mound; though they feared to enter the thicket lest they should fall into any ambuscade concealed among the trees.

          > But when he saw them he was seized with extreme terror, and of his own accord came forth by himself and surrendered; and his companions, two hundred in number, and his three most intimate friends, thinking it would be a crime in them to survive their king gave themselves up also as prisoners.

          > And, as barbarians are naturally low spirited in adverse fortune, and very much the reverse in moments of prosperity, so now that he was in the power of another he became pale and confused, his consciousness of guilt closing his mouth; widely different from him who lately, insulting the ashes of the Gauls with ferocious and lamentable violence, poured forth savage threats against the whole empire.

          • #101927
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >Ammianus Marcellinus
            not a roman. there are no actual romans between 300 AD and 800 AD, then their eternal aryan spirit was reborn again in modern germans, italians, french, etc.

            do you want a true roman’s account of the germanic tiribes? read tacitus’ germania, shitskin.

            • #101931
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Pagan Germans like Saxons were cowards. They would rebel as soon as Charlemagne and his army left and quickly surrender as soon as he came back without a fight.

              > In fact, even many Saxons may have been shocked by their successful ambush of Frankish warriors and realized that the consequences would be dire. So, as Charlemagne marched north, many Saxon leaders assembled near the already significant fortified settlement of Verden, close to the confluence of the Weser and Aller rivers. However, they had not gathered to fight but to surrender. When Charlemagne arrived, these Saxon leaders handed over as many of the rebels as could be found and identified. Widukind of Westphalia was not there. He and his immediate followers had already fled north to find refuge amongst the Danes.

              > “Charlemagne entered Saxony and questioned the primores [leading men] of the Saxons, all of whom he had summoned to attend him, as to who was responsible for the rebellion which had taken place. And since they all declared that Widukind was the author of this wickedness but were unable to deliver him up … no fewer than 4,500 of the others, those who had fallen in with his promptings and committed such a gross outrage, were handed over and … at the king’s command, all beheaded in a single day.”

              • #101932
                Anonymous
                Guest

                saxons and charlemagne are the same thing, the same spirit, the same blood. their religion is irrelevant.

                • #101933
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  All G*rms got their pathetic warrior asses kicked by the Huns and were just like modern male refugees who flee instead of fight. They had to seek shelter and safety in the Roman Empire.

                  • #101935
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    This. Imagine not being a med

        • #101926
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Didn’t Vikings literally spend their time attacking defenceless monks and running away as soon as any army arrived? Is that the Aryan warrior ethos of courage and magnanimity?

          • #101928
            Anonymous
            Guest

            everyone makes mistakes and deviates from theri natural path. unlike the muslims with terrorists, i will never try to find excuses for the vikings’ dishonourable pillages against the saxons.

        • #101961
          Anonymous
          Guest

          American terrorists chimped out January 6th and tried to disrupt legal proceedings/a democratic election.

    • #101897
      Anonymous
      Guest

      On the contrary I unironically think it takes some serious balls to be a terrorist. You’re signing up knowing the fact that you’ll probably be unceremoniously blown up by some teenager playing a video game

    • #101898
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Honour doesn’t mean shit if you lose

    • #101904
      Anonymous
      Guest

      islam is a submissive cuck religion with muslims rejecting rationality no wonder why the west rapes them

    • #101909
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Woke af Muslims making scrote mutts/garden gnomes seeth and cope

    • #101915
      Anonymous
      Guest

      woke af thread just extremely woke af

    • #101918
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Be Mutt
      Have no history
      Have no courage
      Is a coward by heart
      Fights for money, lowest than the filthiest of mercenary
      Cope by killing goat herders and droning villages because too much of a coward.
      Gets cucked back home

      >be Chadliban
      Have history of BTFOing wanna be empires
      Have courage
      Has faith in God
      Fights for god and his people’s future
      Struggle dispite knowing that all could end in a moment
      Has a 4 trad wifes waiting for him at home

      >Be OP
      Is a scrote
      Copes and seeths
      Dilates because he cant spread his chud ideals anymore
      LARPs as some Aryan(persian?) Warrior
      Uses buzzwords he has no idea wjat they mean

    • #101919
      Anonymous
      Guest

      That pic grosses me out. Even if there was a God, why the fuck would you have to humiliate and castrate yourself for him. What the fuck is wrong with this planet.. humans are freaking dumb.

      • #101924
        Anonymous
        Guest

        this. arabs/terrorists are extremely prone to self humiation. this attitude sometimes leads to killing an old woman in front of the church, sometimes to dismaying in front of their own deviated conception of god, sometimes to exploiting the national welfare of the countries they smuggle in lik rats.

    • #101923
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Seething americuck

    • #101958
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The only people who care about honorable warfare are those who treat war like a game and have little fear of losing or being invaded instead of the life or death situation it is. Anyone who finds themselves on the losing side and the possibility of being subjugated by foreigners will quickly drop the facade and disillusioned notion of "honorable warfare."

      • #101960
        Anonymous
        Guest

        honror was the foremost value for the greeks , the scythians, the romans, the medieval europeans, the vedic aryans. they are all deluded losers and gamers i suppose.

    • #101959
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >MUH BRAVE WARRIOR MORALITY
      t. loser

      seethe more

    • #101962
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Idk seems like the strong have just been bulldozing the week since the sun started shining like you condemn these people now but 600 years ago some swole white barbarians with blue paint would just roll through some village of like 40 people and slaughter pretty much everybody
      Humans suck it’s the way we are

Viewing 15 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
startno id