What is blurry is your rationalization.
Who gave a trial and conviction, of a plan to genocide?
Merkel said herself she acted on a international humanitarian crisis.
And she has since been reelected.
A Jew killing a Nazi in 1944 during the holocaust is not comparable with a Neo-Nazi murdering a politician in 2019.
> Who gave a trial and conviction, of a plan to genocide?
Well, that’s the thing about war, there are no trials and no convictions.
In analyzing the situation, the reality of war being waged by these international Communists upon the various native populations of Europe really should be acknowledged front and center.
At what point is it OK to wage war back?
At what point is it morally necessary to do so?
How on earth does the killing of a politician rise to genocide?
Oh... my apologies. You live in Germany, don’t you?
I shouldn’t really ask you to tackle any of the fundamental moral and philosophical issues at the heart of the conflict of civilizations - I know better than to ask you to do something that’s illegal in your country, like having a frank discussion of this topic.
Then again, perhaps that’s part of the reason why peaceful redress of grievance was not pursued in this case - because it was not available. Had he spoken his mind with words, he would be subject to arrest and imprisonment in a jail full of Muslims, correct?
Markell created an international humanitarian crisis by allowing her country to be invaded by cut throats and other low IQ leeches.
Where is the proof that the guy was a neo-Nazi? Hell, some on the right in German (i.e. the AFD) are Jewish. The muzzies are the real anti-Semites.
I for one am glad that SOB Luebcke is pushing up daisies.