But ISIS wants us to react with hate!

>but ISIS wants us to react with hate!

What do you say back to the liberal cuck?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=pG225dz89TY
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Nothing

>tfw normies here want isis and islam dead

Kek enjoys hatred to degenerates.

>debating with liberals in 1st world countries

You may as well go kill boars in Elwynn Forest.

its true, if we hate and isolate muslims they are more likely to become extremists

They're right. Part of their strategy is to make the west react against Islam as a whole, which is as good a rally for ISIS as they could ever hope for.

You quote Alexander the Great
>TO THE STRONGEST!

Tell them to get some flowers, go to ISIS and give each one of them a Flower and a Hug

>Isolate Muslims, they become angry
>We let them in so they can kill us

At least isolating them is taking a defensive position instead of bending over and spreading our ass cheeks

"Why is it hateful for a sovereign nation to enforce its legal borders during a time of war? Especially when you're at war with an enemy that is known to hide among refugee/immigrant populations? See: Germany."

***Germany and France.

He;s right tbqh, Don't alienate the Shit-skins fighting ISIS because they're doing the most against ISIS right now. Even Al-Qaeda's fighting ISIS.

I don't want Muzzies in my country though because they're usually racially inferior

Just think about what this statement implies about muslims. That the only thing separating the so called "moderate" and "peaceful" muslims from crucifying children and enslaving women is what the west thinks of them.

In other words, they implicitly agree to the fact that muslims are animals.

They're right folks, all we can do is sit down and take it, we have to TOLERATE all the bombings and terror attacks that are now happening on a DAILY BASIS. That's what TOLERANCE meant, didn't you know that???

Ask him to give a single fact to back up that statement

THEN ISIS WON BECAUSE I HATE LIBERALS NOW

Nothing, you punch them in the fucking face

"true. that's why we should react logical and determined."

If they're all dead it won't matter how they want us to react.

What isis wants is for you to accept terrorism without retaliation while promoting isis wants you to retaliate.

Isis don't want you to retaliate. Retaliation means death. Isis depend on your lack of retaliation so it can continue what it does without consequence.

>tfw normies here want isis and islam dead
Even the Beaners hate ISIS and would do the freedom shuffle with them.
>They move a lot of drugs, you know, cut into their profit

That I wish I could read minds that well to know people's true motivations

>ISIS wants us to react with hate

Then give it to them, you lobotomized castrati.

>So, ISIS wants us to love them?

#notallmuslims though, right?

Some of you are simply retarded.

(1) But I want to hate them.

(2) ISIS members aren't good strategist.

>cuck

They're technically right.
ISIS wants us to turn against the non-violent Muslims already here. It wants an internal uprising of the Muslims.

Fixed:
its true, [...] muslims [...] are [...] extremists

that's exactly what I did:

>surrounded by cucks in the most cucked part of my country
>refugees welcome everywhere
>fuck this shit
>install wow
>Quest Accepted: Kill 15 Gilnean refugees

WoW is redpilled man

DEUS VULT

Redpill them on islam.

They say fighting muslims is bad, but I say opening the gates for them is even worse.

It's not that every muslim is a head-chopping lunatic. It's not really the individuals you should fear, it's islam as a religion in power over concentrated masses of people.
You see this in all the western countries where in ghettos you have "no-go-zones". Those are the places where the hivemind of islam have taken over.

There's basically no country ever that have been better off after becoming a place of muslim majority. And I would dare them to mention any western country they think would benefit from joining the ranks of muslim majority.

Ok then toots

>Soros funds and organise migration of refugees( isis fighters)
>summer of chaos
>blames all muslims
>bombs syria

They are essentially correct, the best course of action is to totally seal off trade, finance and migration between Europe and the Middle East
Apathy gets nicer results than hate

tell them that they're doing just what the quran orders them to( yes , the quran orders precisely what ISIS are doing , but it's meant to be interpreted not taken literally , just like the bible) and that the bible tells us to love those that hate us , therefore go and to syria and give the ISIS members a good 'ol hug and thereby dispose of yet another shitlib

well shit , i left my /tg/ name

now , you may call me a newfag

just start slapping him in his face and keep doing it till he hits back

Good, it just brings Islam that much closer to complete eradication

Why should I give a fuck about what they want, throw a bunch tactical nukes and kill them all.
Violence and fear is the only language muslims understand.

Well technically the "bad stuff" the Bible said was in the past and directed to specific groups of people
"God HAD TOLD the ISRAELITES to cuck the CANNANITES" etc
The quran has instructions to it's followers for all time

This.

>implying Kek doesn't wish for greater global chaos through half-witted liberal intervention

Weird how that doesn't happen with Christians, Jews, Shintoists, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Pagans, etc.

Uhhh. It's true for all of these.

When was the last time one of these groups committed an unrelenting amount of terrorist attacks on civilian populations?

In actuality, ISIS want us to react with fear. They want us to fear their ability to kill civvies at a moment's notice, they want us to fear the infrastructure and building damage they can cause, and they want us to fear the brutality when they do it.

The idea is, we fear retaliating against them due to the risk of pockets of them getting out and pulling terrorist attacks in the west. And instead of doing the right thing- calling their bluff and shitting all over them- we do the wrong thing by trying to be "tolerant" and "pacifist" and give them free reign to do whatever they want in the western world.

Buddhists: Terrorists attacks on mainland Chinese
Genocide of Rohynga in Burma.

Christians: Probably the only one historically that beats out Islam. For modern examples look the Lebanese civil war, and sub-Saharan Africa.

Shintoists: Don't know

Hindus: Pograms against sikhs, muslims, and christians

Sikhs: Pograms and massacres of muslims and hindus


Jews: Literally brag about genocide in the old testament. Modern day Israel killing tons of women and children in the name of self-defense.

Pagans: Look throughout history.

ONLY THE STRONGEST WILL SURVIVE

Here's the thing.
Muslims loves using that shit against the west. "Turn the other cheek" and so on. It's basically how all islamic organizations have prevailed in the west.

It's essential to understand that the end goal for ISIS is to create a unruly society with a constant state of a semi civil war or social unrest. In essence ungovernable.

Now liberals plays a keypart in this, much larger that what most people think. And the dynamics as work makes liberals actually working for ISIS more than against them.

It goers like this :
When ISIS performs a terror attack and the Liberals comes out in force, demonstrating for "peace" and multiculturalism, it alienates a large group of people - the right aka working people which want to deal out what was given.

The more successful attacks ISIS puts on the higher the cries for revenge will be from the right and in turn the higher the left will try to deafen the right. In Europe the left pretty much hold all the high ground politically so the right will have to fight an upwards battle from the get go.

As time go by, more and more people will agree with the right, until such a time that the lefties no longer can stop them.
At which point the purge or something like a civilwar will start in host country.

>but ISIS wants us to react with hate!
What ISIS leader did make that statement?

>For modern examples look the Lebanese civil war
Are you fucking serious you moslem prick? The civil war happened from continues islamic immigration into a once totatlly Christian country

Holy shit

They do. They want to draw us into a full scale war. They want us to turn against all muslims even the non-violent ones. Once this happens these muslims will be forced to side with ISIS against the Westerners trying to purge them.

ISIS is the joker of terrorist groups. It wants the world to burn in the hope it will bring the messiah.

Lebonon hasn't been totally christian for a while. Also the lebanose civil war was a proxy Arab-Israeli war. Regardless Christian Militias massacred a lot of muslim women and children.

>but ISIS wants us to react with hate!
>What do you say back to the liberal cuck?

Can anyone tell me what's wrong with hate? I hate injustice, and shitskins, nothings wrong with that. When did an emotion get to be 'wrong'. Tolerance is another word that's bullshit. What about injustice, child rape? I would be intolerant of that. So when they push that word around as if it's a bad thing, they just demonstrate they are fuckwits.

As for the ISIS thing, those liberals are fucking idiots, same with the security services. ISIS isn't using trucks to kill people, or cutting up priests because they are cowardly, they are doing this because they hate, and hateful people tend not to fear much. It blows my mind, it takes guts to throw your life away, kill shit loads of people, and give a finger to the world going out guns blazing or in a blast.

The fucking limp dick security services are fucking useless. the monitored lee rigbys killers, yet they fucking trounced them and carved him up, They. Just Did. Not. Give. A. Fuck.

Having an emotional response to murder and injustice is just natural, it's the very foundation of our legal system, and justice. After all, if you didn't care, why would anyone punish someone for an offence? Because of emotion. To take that law is justice free from emotion is utter horsecock. The liberals are basically scared of their own emotions, and don't want to point the finger and make a judgement, because they are weak, and afraid they might offend someone. So they avoid their emotions, and to hell with injustice.

That would be find and all, so long as they kept their limp dickishness to themselves, but they infect the world with their low energy fireless bullshit.

Trust me, the last thing ISIS, or the islamic world, wants us to do, is react with hate, we would fucking trounce them and glass the middle east.

>Trust me, the last thing ISIS, or the islamic world, wants us to do, is react with hate, we would fucking trounce them and glass the middle east.
That's exactly what they want. They want a full blown war of the west vs Islam.

Not understanding basic grammar and vocabulary, but ok I'll roll with it.
>Buddhists: Terrorists attacks on mainland Chinese
More problems with the Ughyur.
>Genocide of Rohynga in Burma.
Ahmed detected.
>Christians: Probably the only one historically that beats out Islam. For modern examples look the Lebanese civil war, and sub-Saharan Africa.
Ahmed definitely detected. My question implied recent happenings. Lebanon was a result of a Christian nation taking in Muslim refugees who then started a civil war and fuck the entire country. Once again, muzzies fucked up a country.
>Shintoists: Don't know
>Hindus: Pograms against sikhs, muslims, and christians
not a terrorist attack
>Sikhs: Pograms and massacres of muslims and hindus
Programs aren't terrorist attacks. Making another culture feel unwelcome so as to not replace yours is understandable. IIRC, massacres ended in the 90s and were part of insurgencies.
>Jews: Literally brag about genocide in the old testament. Modern day Israel killing tons of women and children in the name of self-defense.
Old Testament? How far back you gotta go? Not talking about State Sanctioned military actions, since it's just because the muzzies are still butthurt from the 6 day war.
>Pagans: Look throughout history.
History? I did imply something recent with my question.

>That's exactly what they want. They want a full blown war of the west vs Islam.

They really don't. If it's a racial war they would lose it fast. none of this teaching them to read and write bollocks, move in, level their shit, sit on it. Drone the rest. I know ISIS 'say' they want a war, but they don't realise the capablity of whites in europe. The potential that is. Our military capactiy is currently fucked, we have relied on US power for too long, building up would easy though.

It would take a change in mindset, and a racial tone, but it can be done. Infact, i would say only with a racial tone can it be done.

>talking to other people
>not exclusively talk to yourself to have an intelligent discussion
Step up, normie

>More problems with the Ughyur.
Ughyurs do it too, but that doesn't mean Tibetan buddhist don't either

>Ahmed detected.
Not an argument

>Ahmed definitely detected. My question implied recent happenings. Lebanon was a result of a Christian nation taking in Muslim refugees who then started a civil war and fuck the entire country. Once again, muzzies fucked up a country.
I know. I'm not claiming that currently isn't the worst. It is. I'm just saying that Islam isn't inherently causing of violence. As is shown by how other religions have gone through cycles of high and low violence.

>not a terrorist attack
Yeah. Pogroms and genocide usually are worse.

>Programs aren't terrorist attacks. Making another culture feel unwelcome so as to not replace yours is understandable. IIRC, massacres ended in the 90s and were part of insurgencies.
Pogroms are not just making people feel uncomfortable. Sometimes it's actually killing and torturing them. Which is what happened.


>History? I did imply something recent with my question.
French Genocide in Algeria?

Do you live in catalonia or in Madrid?

...

>They really don't. If it's a racial war they would lose it fast.
Not really. There are enough strong muslim militaries in the world to give the west trouble. The west also wouldn't be able to use nukes which would draw out the war for years if not decades.

Droning and killing them is fine, but if we start antagonizing and culling western muslims then they get what they want.

I just hope one of his/her loved ones gets raped, beaten or better yet murdered by a muslim. Just maybe then they will open their eyes

That person is right

Muslims are like a ticking bomb imo, they might one day read their book and realize that they are supposed to kill all non-believers (which will result in a great conflict), or they might spend their entire lives without reading their own book

ISIS wants to trigger them and make them realize what Islam is about by making the West hate on Muslims that are actually on a stasis

they've been killing peaceful people and other muslims for centuries. us being nicer is doing nothing to help.

>I don't care what ISIS wants. The only thing that's of interest is what WE want.

They misread how ideologies form. People have deep seated beliefs because others approve of them more when they hold them. If I am a suicidal terrorist, I hope they the people I know will hold me up as a martyr. That means there has to be lots of people around me who agree with my views.

If you have a large stream of people who are not assimilating (think European Muslim ghettos) they will have social incentive to act in a way that will immortalize them. Therefore, more people = more incentive to boom boom, not the other way around.

>Not really. There are enough strong muslim militaries in the world to give the west trouble. The west also wouldn't be able to use nukes which would draw out the war for years if not decades.

No they have the advantage in numbers, but in terms of ability, it's the wests game. All the arab nations wouldn't be able to cope with the US and Europe. Took Israel a few days to take on a few arab nations, what do you think the Entire US and Europe could do if they put their backs into it?

>The west also wouldn't be able to use nukes

The west would be able to use nukes, if the west decides. ISIS drawing us into a fight is not going to go well for them, if our mindset is right, it would be a culling. That's not even touching on the mass production of drones and other stuff that's just around the corner. 1st step, a police state, 2nd step, racial awareness, 3rd step. Europe and US recognise the threat. If those 3 steps are made, and we refuse to follow restricting 'war codes' and see clearly rather than deeply, it can be done quite easily.

>call muslim a name or offend

Wtf im a jihadist now.

>No they have the advantage in numbers, but in terms of ability, it's the wests game. All the arab nations wouldn't be able to cope with the US and Europe. Took Israel a few days to take on a few arab nations, what do you think the Entire US and Europe could do if they put their backs into it?
Israel won when it wasn't a full scale war. Also The germans were much more advanced and trained compared to the Soviets, but the soviets still won in the end. In truth the west is shit and fighting desert and gorilla warfare which is what the Arabs would most likely use to their advantage. Sure the west would most likely win at the end, but at a heavy cost. Also this assumes that China would either stay out or not join the Arabs in a quad pro-quo.

Catalonia...

>The west would be able to use nukes, if the west decides.
No they wouldn't anybody who thinks the use of nukes is possible in the modern age without MAD is an idiot. Pakistan, a muslim country, has nukes. It has enough nukes to take out most major western cities if it needed to. If the west uses nukes both sides automatically loose.

>Israel won when it wasn't a full scale war.

Doesn't matter, in terms of numbers they still beat them, easily and swiftly.

> Also The germans were much more advanced and trained compared to the Soviets

And were fighting a war on two fronts, forget that did we? German tech wasn't that in advance of Soviets, it had an edge, but not enough to give it a win, western tech is far in advance, in terms of carriers, missiles etc..

That's not even touching the mass of biological weapons that could be deployed, the US trashed the Iraqi army in not time, the rest of the arab states, arn't exactly up to scratch either.

> but the soviets still won in the end

1. They had a land border with the Nazis
2. As i said, they had the numbers
3. Nazis were fighting on two fronts.

> fighting desert and gorilla warfare which is what the Arabs would most likely use to their advantage

No that's bollocks. Again this comes down to mindset at the top, the west fucked up because they didn't have the heart to go all the way, they tried to make friends and teach them to read and write and other bollocks. The result? IED'S and shootings and diseaperances into the crowd. Same way colonialism ended. No one had the heart to do what needed to be done.

>Also this assumes that China would either stay out or not join the Arabs in a quad pro-quo.

They wouldn't. China has its own problems, and would have to deal with india at the same time, not to mention the south china sea issues would piss china off no end.

Here, watch this to get a clue

youtube.com/watch?v=pG225dz89TY

>No they wouldn't

Yes they would. Nukes have come a far way from mushroom clouds and radiation. Small scale nukes could devestate key areas and leave them ripe for assault. bunkers wouldn't help either.

>Pakistan, a muslim country, has nukes.

So does india, and they arn't exactly friends. Pakistans main problem is holding its country together and making sure india doesn't take advantage.

>western tech is far in advance, in terms of carriers, missiles etc..
Not really. Western Naval power would be useless against Arabs and Pakistanis since they would mostly be fighting on land. Also in terms of air and land power western tech isn't that far ahead of muslim since muslims are using western tech.

>the US trashed the Iraqi army in not time, the rest of the arab states, arn't exactly up to scratch either.
The Iraqi army never put up that strong of a fight. Also it was nowhere near as strong as it was during the first gulf war.

>1. They had a land border with the Nazis
>2. As i said, they had the numbers
>3. Nazis were fighting on two fronts.
These would all be true with a war against the muslims.

>They wouldn't. China has its own problems, and would have to deal with india at the same time, not to mention the south china sea issues would piss china off no end.
China could use the muslims to destroy india. India has a large enough muslim population for an internal uprising. Plus it is neighbored by muslims Pakistan and India.

>Yes they would. Nukes have come a far way from mushroom clouds and radiation. Small scale nukes could devestate key areas and leave them ripe for assault. bunkers wouldn't help either.
>So does india, and they arn't exactly friends. Pakistans main problem is holding its country together and making sure india doesn't take advantage.
Here's the thing if the west uses nukes Pakistan won't care anymore about maintaining itself. That's the point of MAD. Once a country launches the first nuke any reason to not use yours is gone. Pakistan would just nuke india and west and India would nuke pakistan. Everyone looses.

What have Shias done to piss off ISIS?

>Not really. Western Naval power would be useless against Arabs and Pakistanis since they would mostly be fighting on land. Also in terms of air and land power western tech isn't that far ahead of muslim since muslims are using western tech.

Only if you want to fight in the Sahara, why hold land or citys or turf that you don't need to? The north africa states can be taken over by Western naval powers leveling anything by the shore, with navel support in the med, the west have the supreme advantage. You level the other citys/towns out in the sticks. Because water is so important, most population centers are by the short, meaning they are all within stricking distance. Easy game. Arabs can have all the fighters they can by off western companies, they 1. Need the pilots to fly them, and 2, would have to counter drone tech that would easily beat them, if not in skill, then in numbers.

>The Iraqi army never put up that strong of a fight. Also it was nowhere near as strong as it was during the first gulf war.

They did. but they were just outmatched. Most of the casualtys on our side came from sitting in the territory without clearing it first. Again, weakness of leadership and refusal to do what needed to be done.

>These would all be true with a war against the muslims.

No it wouldn't.

1. We don't have many land borders once we push up to turkey and close our borders, the rest of the arabs can be held at bay by navel supremacy.
2. Numbers don't count Vs clear sighted doctrine.
3. We wouldn't be fighting on two fronts. 1 landish, pushing to turkey, and a sea front. (once we have the police state intact)

>China could use the muslims to destroy india. India has a large enough muslim population for an internal uprising. Plus it is neighbored by muslims Pakistan and India.

As said and demonstrated, china has it's own problems, muslims concentrated in north west, bangladesh won't be a problem.

Here's the thing if the west uses nukes Pakistan won't care anymore about maintaining itself.

It won't be the wests problem, India will deal with it, the reason i bought destablisation in it is because if pakistan gets so unstable, western and indeed global instrests would intervene to prevent nukes falling into wrong hands, they only have about 130 or so.

I avoid this entirely by not talking about politics at all in real life.