Do people really fail to understand that the quote is referring to martyrdom...

Do people really fail to understand that the quote is referring to martyrdom, and the idea that attempting to defeat revolutionary and rebel movements through brute force alone will work.

It didn't work for the Romans against Christianity, it didn't work for the British in the American Revolution, for the Soviets in Afghanistan, and it hasn't worked in the Middle East today.

I've seen many people act as though the insurgencies and rebels we face today are somehow comparable to previous conventional wars?

I see a lot of people saying things like;
"Oh, so Germany and Japan won WW2 then."
For some reason they fail to see that the Axis killed far more Allies than vice versa, so it doesn't really prove/disprove anything.

Other urls found in this thread:

ecomena.org/tag/agriculture-in-the-middle-east/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_industry_of_Iran#Market
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_scientists_and_scholars
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs#Apostolic_Age.E2.80.941st_century
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Christian_policies_in_the_Roman_Empire#History
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_(1258)
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

It doesnt work only if you cant kill good enough.

...

You know what does work? Killing them all. We should try that. That's good land to be had. They're wasting it.

Not much martyrdoom possible if they are all dead.

Got it ?

Gotta say im disapointed, expected this thread to be made by a fucking leaf

then it should read:

"If you insufficiently kill your enemies, they win."

faggot

the quote was made up by someone on Sup Forums and then gavin mcinnes made it popular; he never actually said this.

i thought he meant they win if you kill them so thats why canada isnt aloud to kill nayone

i guess your explination makes more sense

Please let me know when we can help muslims out by martyring them all.

Your enemies can't win if they're dead

-Sup Forums

How do you propose to do that? Waste millions of western lives going on a pointless extermination campaign? Nuke them, starting a Nuclear war that will kill everyone?

Or, maybe the west could stop interfering in the middle east, rather than going over and destabilizing every government that doesn't bend over backwards for them. Maybe that's a better idea than sacrificing millions of lives and trillions of dollars, or starting a nuclear holocaust? Just maybe?

>Good land
>Mostly desert wasteland
Yeah, sure. If you really want to live there, go ahead.

Muslims come into conflict with each and every other group of people they've come into contact with for their entire history.

You are correct and I'm sad at the responses here

For instance during the Trump protests some people on here were saying "just shoot them" and stuff

But that would be the WORST thing to do, because then you create martyrs and they have all the glory, and you look like the big bad oppressors

If you make a martyr out of someone, their ideology wins over yours

GLASS EM
L
A
S
S

E
M

>How do you propose to do that? Waste millions of western lives going on a pointless extermination campaign? Nuke them, starting a Nuclear war that will kill everyone?
Secure white borders, bomb key infrastructure nodes, prohibit selling of any tech and industrial goods to non-whites. Their population shrink soon enough because they cant feed themselves, they return back to stone age eventually, and problem will be solved.

I heard something about sand glowing

If a black man sleeps with your wife, you win.

Most of where Iran is actually good land. Same with a lot of east Iraq.

Unless of course, you kill all of them.

Pretty sure ever culture has come into conflict with every culture they have met at some point in history, what's your fucking point?

How about, instead of exterminating them and wasting human lives, you reform and educate them?

"No, that won't work because they are subhuman ape race!!!!111!!!1!!"

Really? The birthplace of civilization is populated by subhuman ape races? Okay, so civilization itself was started by subhuman ape races? That doesn't make sense to me. How about you reform and educate, rather than exterminate? Isn't that a better long term investment?

>Secure white borders.
Fine. Doesn't hurt them really. Keeping out of their business probably helps actually.

>Bomb key infrastructure nodesWhat the fuck? Why? What will that do? What will stop them from rebuilding infrastructure nodes?

>Prohibit selling of any tech and industrial goods to non-whites.
You do realize they have their own industry right? They can produce their own tech and industrial goods. Also, all non-whites? India, China, and Japan. That's all I need to say.

>Their population shrink soon enough because they cant feed themselves, they return back to stone age eventually, and problem will be solved.

You're a fucking retard. You think all middle easterners are retarded primitive apes? Funny, that's what Hitler thought about Slavs. Funny, because neither theory has any basis in reality.

Islam may be the most regressive ideology we know today, but does that really justify exterminating entire races, rather than educating and reforming them? Is that really beneficial for humanity?

Agriculture is a key component of Middle Eastern economies. They have been farming the land, despite its aridity, since the dawn of civilization. Egypt and Iraq were almost certainly the birthplaces of agriculture in the western world. Starving them won't work.
ecomena.org/tag/agriculture-in-the-middle-east/

Yeah, well, they use that land quite well actually. Get off your high, Ameritard Imperialist horse. America has been the most reckless, wasteful, inefficient, and idiotic Imperial power in human history. They don't bring peace, civilization, or improve humanity. They just rule with violence, and cause more problems than there were to begin with. The problems in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and Iran? You caused most of them. You have held the Middle East back by supporting religious extremists and terrorists (ie, ISIS, Saudi Arabia) , while opposing moderate, secular governments. (Sadam, Qaddafi, Assad, Mohammad Mosaddegh)

Prove me wrong, I dare you.

Let's reason this out lads:

If you kill your enemies
>They become martyrs and win
If you spare your enemies
>They kill themselves, become martyrs, and win
If you spare yourself
>The enemy will kill either you or alternately himself, and thus win.
Therefore since victory does not lie with the enemy being either alive or dead, it must lie with you.

The only path to victory in battle is to pre-emptively kill oneself.

I'm not here to improve their lives, Ahmed, I'm here to kill every sand nigger there is.

Whoops, meant to quote you.

And you think that isn't a waste of time, money, and lives? You think that's the best choice for yourself and humanity?

It's a fucking made-up quote.

>What the fuck? Why? What will that do? What will stop them from rebuilding infrastructure nodes?
Their brains. All that was built there was built under supervision of whites who were hired for oil.
>but does that really justify exterminating entire races, rather than educating and reforming them?
It is not possible to force civilization on those who biologically incapable of adapting it. You can spend centuries trying to teach niggers and sandniggers to be like you, but in the end they remain violent apes and probably also kill you the moment you lose vigilance. Best you can do is isolate them until they learn hiv to be civilized and dont even give them food or guns. And dont you fucking try to mention "arabic" medieval science and culture, which was created by caucasian Persian people who now almost dissolved in shitskin population.

You really don't understand much about any of the things you listed. In Rome, Christianity was a popular cult with a very attractive message for the average person, slaves, and even some nobles, popular enough that Constantine's mother-in-law and maybe his wife (I can't recall this) was a Christian. Then because Constantine was lead to become sympathetic and convert, due to circumstances not related to persecution of Christians, the Roman empire became Christianized under Constantine. The course of history in this case was independent of any martyrdom. Any historical examples of persecution are very small scale and fairly infrequent. Most people didn't really care.

In the American Revolution, people were set to war with the British over taxes. Before the Brits even started killing anyone over smaller uprisings, Many colonists were set on waging war on England. The martyrdoms suggested were trivial in the overall course of history.

In Afghanistan, there were billions of dollars of Stinger missiles, courtesy of the US government as a cold-war measure against the soviets.

In the Middle East, we are practically seeing the outcome of CIA intervention and attitudes against the west (and any non-muslim countries) that had existed since Islam took hold in Arabia.

You're full of shit OP.

Look mate.. just... just sit down. You don't know what you're talking about do you.

>Their brains. All that was built there was built under supervision of whites who were hired for oil.

Yes, because Iran, which has been isolated from the west for decades, hasn't built anything, have they...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_industry_of_Iran#Market

>It is not possible to force civilization on those who biologically incapable of adapting it. You can spend centuries trying to teach niggers and sandniggers to be like you, but in the end they remain violent apes and probably also kill you the moment you lose vigilance. Best you can do is isolate them until they learn hiv to be civilized and dont even give them food or guns.

Except, that hasn't really happened. The west has exploited the Middle East, not tried to uplift it. Also, as I said before, they provide most of their own food, and can probably make their own weapons.

>And dont you fucking try to mention "arabic" medieval science and culture, which was created by caucasian Persian people who now almost dissolved in shitskin population.

There were plenty of Arab Mathematicians. (ARAB, not PERSIAN) You can't just make assertions like that. Sure, the Persians, with their mostly sedentary lifestyles, played a larger roles. However, your "mixing with shitskins" spiel is unscientific, and you have given no supporting evidence.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_scientists_and_scholars

Image depicts people with clearly caucasian profiles. You refute your point with it.
>Iran, which has been isolated from the west for decades
There is still some white genes in them, their IQ is much higher than most of the kebab.
>There were plenty of Arab Mathematicians.
I wonder, where are all the arab mathematics now? White devil killed all these kangz huh?
Interference from West is not an argument, western countries decimated each other by war for all known history, and still they shaped civilization the way it is now. Also it proves that those who claim to be ruined by western invaders were undeveloped enough to be unable to stop it to begin with.
>However, your "mixing with shitskins" spiel is unscientific
Dependence of IQ upon genetics is unscientific? Ah yes, (((unscientific))).

>You really don't understand much about any of the things you listed...
Then because Constantine was lead to become sympathetic and convert, due to circumstances not related to persecution of Christians, the Roman empire became Christianized under Constantine. The course of history in this case was independent of any martyrdom. Any historical examples of persecution are very small scale and fairly infrequent. Most people didn't really care.

Rome was quite Christianized before Constantine legalized it. He only converted on his death bed. Many emperors before him had persecuted Christians. Before Rome did it, the Jews did it. Don't forget the entire religion started with the death of one man. Did that one man win?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs#Apostolic_Age.E2.80.941st_century
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Christian_policies_in_the_Roman_Empire#History

>Implies taxes were the primary cause of the war

No, it was merely one aristocracy overthrowing another. They actually payed less taxes than Britain itself for a long time, and were only forced to after the wars against the french had hurt the British coffers.

>In Afghanistan, there were billions of dollars of Stinger missiles, courtesy of the US government as a cold-war measure against the soviets.

And yet the Afghans took huge losses compared to the Soviets, who were still better armed. Who won exactly?

>In the Middle East, we are practically seeing the outcome of CIA intervention and attitudes against the west (and any non-muslim countries) that had existed since Islam took hold in Arabia.

Yes, we are seeing the results... the toppling of stable governments, supporting backward religious extremists... and an angry population, tired of foreign oppression and intervention.

>And yet the Afghans took huge losses compared to the Soviets, who were still better armed. Who won exactly?
Scorched earth tactics is the only one which works against guerilla war which Afghans were fighting. But purpose of this war was not purging the mountain apes, but joining them into commie kike empire, so no scorched earth tactics were implemented, and kikes were forced to withdraw their army after losing many people to guerillas. So if they would have killed all afghan population supporting guerilla combatants, they would have won the land, but failed to add more shitskins to their Swarm.

Nice shitposting
That was a pol meme quote, Trudeau never actually said it.

>I wonder, where are all the arab mathematics now? White devil killed all these kangz huh?
Interference from West is not an argument, western countries decimated each other by war for all known history, and still they shaped civilization the way it is now. Also it proves that those who claim to be ruined by western invaders were undeveloped enough to be unable to stop it to begin with.

No, not white devil, yellow devil. Mongols and Timurids? No? Okay, I forgot that never happened. Western countries never did to each other what happened in the middle east. Also, the clear difference is that western country vs western country has a western winner, resulting in one gaining power. Western country vs middle eastern country with Western winner? Results in middle east losing power.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_(1258)
Remember the loss of knowledge after Rome fell? Similar concept with the fall of Baghdad. It took civilization a long time to regain much that was lost after Rome fell. The renaissance occurred some 1000 years after Rome fell. Based on a similar timescale, Islam should have mostly recovered from the Mongols by 2250s. If the Timurids were similarly negative, we can expect it to occur by the 2600s.

>Dependence of IQ upon genetics is unscientific? Ah yes, (((unscientific))).
>calls me unscientific
>Provides 0 evidence to back up any of his claims
Okay.

Well if we kill them all then nobody will be left to praise them as a martyr. We win!

...

Ahh, of course. Scorched earth tactics. A favorite of the Untermensch.
You weren't able to kill all of the insurgents. How do you plan on killing the entire population? Sounds like you were just shit to me.

...

...

Okay.

...

Except the axis, nazism and imperial Japan were destroyed through brute force.

The thing about brute force is you have to use it fully, be in a position to use it without consequence and then reeducate the population.

How do you think countries like France, italy, rassis, Spain, Germany manage to function? They asserted their identity over the locals and just kept bearing down on them

Yes Islam turned the birthplace of civilization into a burning shithole of mass murder and mass rape. I'm glad you're catching on.

>Or, maybe the west could stop interfering in the middle east
The west can't stop interfering precisely because of nukes.

The west can't let those countries just developed independently due to possible nuclear threat in the future

>When you win a little too hard

Well, the Axis certainly killed more than they lost.
>The thing about brute force is you have to use it fully, be in a position to use it without consequence and then reeducate the population.
Killing didn't win, occupation and re-education won. The people gave up, because they didn't really care about the reasons behind the war.

But when a population really does care about a cause? You have to kill all of them to get them to stop fighting, and that isn't feasible or practical.

>Implying that hasn't been the norm for most of history

>If you make a martyr out of someone, their ideology wins over yours
Yeah the cathars are doing much better than the Catholics nowadays huh

Brute Force.
If it isn't working, you're not using enough.
See: Hiroshima, Nagasaki

>Well, the Axis certainly killed more than they lost
That doesn't matter

>Killing didn't win, occupation and re-education won.
That's what I said, reread my post.
>The people gave up, because they didn't really care about the reasons behind the war.
Right and do you think all of the Middle East supports Isis and other Islam radicals? Do you think the people they are killing support their cause?

If the west did to the Middle East what they did to nazu Germany and Japan long enough they would get the same result, à pacifiées nation

>But when a population really does care about a cause? You have to kill all of them to get them to stop fighting, and that isn't feasible or practical.
It's happened multiple time through our history.

They literally wiped most Cathars, and destroyed their religious texts. Total extermination of an idea, and the people would rather live than die over following a different sub-sect of Christianity.

Islam on the other hand? Most are far more fanatical, and would rather die than surrender. Similar to WW2 Japan, but without a unified leadership to surrender.

However, in the broader sense, Catholicism lost the battle against Protestantism, no matter how much they tried to kill them.

>Rome was quite Christianized before Constantine legalized it. He only converted on his death bed

You're arguing about semantics. Such as when does the phrase "Christianize" apply? It's independent of the point.

The small list you linked me to only proves my point. The incidents were rare. You haven't rebutted anything. Whether there were anti-christian policies does not imply that the average roman cared and went out of their way to do anything let alone spend money all the time to pay soldiers to kill people when there are other things for them to do. Your perception of events is expecting much more of a classical civilization than its methods of communication allow.

Anti-christian policies =/= incidents of persecution.

You're addressing points aren't there.

>No, it was merely one aristocracy overthrowing another. They actually payed less taxes than Britain itself for a long time, and were only forced to after the wars against the french had hurt the British coffers.

>Aussie flag

I've been raised with american history. Taxes were a huge influence in the the desire of many colonists to go to war with England. Many of these "aristocrats" were influence by liberal philosophy and saw the taxes as wrong because they were without representation. You see where this is going? You still haven't rebutted anything. Only offered a possible factor that could have influenced some people.

>And yet the Afghans took huge losses compared to the Soviets, who were still better armed. Who won exactly?

Doesn't really have anything to do anything, yet alone anything I actually said. I'll take this as confession of your loss.

>Yes, we are seeing the results... the toppling of stable governments, supporting backward religious extremists... and an angry population, tired of foreign oppression and intervention.

Does not rebut anything I said rebutting you. You probably didn't even mention it. Moderates and extremists have little distinction there.

It's a fake meme quote anyway.

>That doesn't matter
>Except the axis, nazism and imperial Japan were destroyed through brute force.

Again, different conflicts, different contexts, different cultural values. Nazism wasn't innately German, so why have everyone die for it? Japan, well, the Emperor was lucky he managed to surrender. Some Generals were planning on refusing, and trying to push for what would have been the collective suicide of the Japanese people.

>It's happened multiple time through our history.

Generally with smaller, mostly unarmed populations. Radical Muslims are neither of those things.

>Right and do you think all of the Middle East supports Isis and other Islam radicals? Do you think the people they are killing support their cause?

Most people in general are more against the west than against radical Islam.

>If the west did to the Middle East what they did to nazu Germany and Japan long enough they would get the same result, à pacifiées nation

Yes, that isn't killing your enemies.

>They literally wiped most Cathars
Thats the point, they wiped out the fanatics and everyone else converted.

Islam is not different, there's nothing special about it. The fanatics die, the rest convert. You do realise this has happened multiple times to Islam in the Middle East and Africa, it has just been left to regress and not followed through to completion
>similar too WW2
obviously Japan wasn't that fanatical if they were willing to convert into americas ally after brute force was used on them.
>Catholicism lost the battle against Protestantism
No it didn't, it won in some places and lost in others

Again you're ignoring most of the points I made in my first post, the three conditions are
>1.have the means to enact brute force indefinitely
>2.be able to enact brute force without lasting consequence
>3.need to reeducate the conquered population.

These conditions were meet with west against nazi germany and Japan. The Catholics were unable to meet the first two conditions, so couldn't win completely. It doesn't mean brute force doesn't work, it means the Catholics weren't in a position to use it to completely eradicate protestantism

Evidence of what? High IQ of first world population and low IQ of brown shitholes? Go to wikipedia, but i already know that you will screech about how these proofs are wrong and you need one from specific sources approved by (you).
Straight nose, high forehead, seems european enough to me. Arabs have hooked snouts and low forehead.

>I've been raised with american history. Taxes were a huge influence in the the desire of many colonists to go to war with England. Many of these "aristocrats" were influence by liberal philosophy and saw the taxes as wrong because they were without representation. You see where this is going? You still haven't rebutted anything. Only offered a possible factor that could have influenced some people.

Most Americans weren't even able to vote due to wealth requirements. I know all those taxes and freedom lies appeal to your nationalistic beliefs, but they are irrelevant. The point is, the Revolutionary forces and supporters lost more than the British, yet they won.

>Doesn't really have anything to do anything, yet alone anything I actually said. I'll take this as confession of your loss.

Fuck off dumb cunt. Confession of my loss? How about you rebutt me rather than claiming every counter point I've made as invalid, even though it is valid. The Russians killed vastly more of their enemies than vice versa. Yet their enemies won. How could that possibly support my original point? Hmmm... it is a mystery...

>Does not rebut anything I said rebutting you. You probably didn't even mention it. Moderates and extremists have little distinction there.

Yes, it does. Foreign policy has been to kill perceived enemies in the middle east. It hasn't worked. If you consider the Iraq and Afghan wars anything more than Pyrrhic victories, you are wrong.

>Yes, that isn't killing your enemies.
They did though, they killed the ones driving those countries to oppose them

And again Islamic countries are no different, I don't know why you've got it in your head it's something unique.

It's simple, fanatics have to die, the rest convert. It's the same with every religion and you are vastly overestimating the number of radicals willing to die.

>Most people in general are more against the west than against radical Islam.
It doesn't matter, just like the axis killing more people.

What matters is power, and the west is vastly more powerful than the Middle East/North Africa. It has the power to eradicate Islam. What's holding the west back is its lack of desire to do so.