War Ideals.

If Familial Martyrdom is seen as preferential to assimilation by the culture of the invaded territory....is genocide not then deemed moral?

Edit: Term genocide was incorrect. I'm trying to describe mutual territorial warfare in which one side is presented with the two choices, die as a family or have your wife and children assimilated. More of a historian question rather than modern. 

WTF?

I connected some dots. 

Is this about what some Jews did during the Crusades when the Christian forces surrounded them? 

Killing is never moral. Especially when its erasure of an entire people for their ethnicity/ideology/religion or whatever. 

When did morality become something so fluid? 

I see it from the perspective of the party war is being waged against, I (and many others throughout history) would prefer familial martyrdom to enslavement, Forced marriage or assimilation. That being said, modern day society is so dominated by self and not familial bonds, ancestry or honor...i see how "whatever causes the least death" is the optimal choice for most.

bump for lols bc 3 downvotes just shows ignorance

Genocides and morality can not be put in one sentence. Whats your point in this question ?? Wanna make it familiar for people to accept genocides ? Dont worry they are !! War in Gasa, Lebanon, west bank, Yemen, 12 day war in Iran, epstein file release and another war on Iran. Most people will not care

Is this an "America is Christian and white" type of question? Too many taco shops in ur neighborhood? Mozzzlums and their sharia law? Indians and their curry? Bad Bunny half time show? Be specific. If ur talking about actual warfare, taking out the invading party is not called genocide even if u take them all out. Thats called defending your country from an invasion. If you are talking about what you feel to be some "takeover of America/uk/etc" by people that are not the same race or religion as u, or immigrants, go seek mental help. 

Smilin-Assassin Im sure is a huge fan of Bad Bunny .

Smilin-Assassin isn't even aware of anything called bad bunny. 

Maybe genocide is the wrong term, the situation in trying to describe is mutual territorial war in which one side is the complete Victor and all males were conscripted. 

I believe you misunderstood the preposition. Mutual territorial warfare where all men are conscripted, is there honor behind the Victor ending the territories people unilaterally and not assimilating the population.

I see it as familial martyrdom and would want my family to go into the afterlife alongside me and not be enslaved, or assimilated to the culture of the men who slaughtered me. 

There is never any honor in genocide. If the victors wanna be "honorable", they wouldnt enslave the women. Also, the women in your hypothetical have no men from their people to procreate with, so either they choose to "assimilate", if permitted, or they genocide themselves when they all eventually die off without leaving offsprings. 

I think your still viewing survival paired with assimilation as a positive outcome. For people true to their ideas and faith, this would be viewed as worse than death. Fair point though. 

You thought wrong. I said the victors would be honorable if they didn't genocide them, and gave them a choice, maybe even let them settle a separate part of the land. The women can then choose their own "outcome". They can choose to partake in the victors society, or die off without leaving offspring, and eventually be extinct. Whichever is the "positive outcome" to them, they will choose. Going extinct could be the positive outcome to them at that point. 

I think im entertaining this stupid hypothetical too much though. Peace. 

Ok

Do you mean familial martyrdom like an autogenocide? Which do you mean: Native American give two choices: assimilate or die, or Iran regime kills their own people to prevent social change from happening?

#1

Three words or 90 - 400 nukes. 

THE SAMSON OPTION

What is it?
It is the name given to Israel's deterrence strategy of massive nuclear retaliation as an absolute "last resort" if the state is facing imminent military destruction.

Biblical Origin
The name comes from the biblical figure Samson. After being captured and blinded by the Philistines, he pushed apart the supporting pillars of their temple, bringing the roof down. He intentionally killed himself along with thousands of his enemies, stating: "Let me die with the Philistines."

Why is it considered Autogenocide?
Executing this option would trigger massive nuclear fallout in a highly localized geographic region. Taking down their enemies with them would result in the radioactive annihilation of their own land and people—effectively committing a national murder-suicide.