The Blitz

You do realize they interned those German refugees in India just in case right?

A lot of Muslim refugees are being interned in Western countries as well. Your comparison is shit.

This is a conventional war Leftists don't like portraying as such because an entire religion of brown people are the enemy.

Wehrmacht that didn't believe in Nazism still fought for it, as do "moderate" Muslims enabling Islam.

>he thinks the German refugees were let in while the war was actually happening

Yeah, that's why you see boats full of armed soldiers landing on the shores of Italy and Greece and attack costal towns before getting pushed back into the sea by the national army.

What a retarded comparison. Wehrmacht soldiers who didn't believe in Nazism should be compared with ISIS fighters who do not believe in radical Islam (such as secular Iraqi Baathists who joined ISIS because they wanted to regain their power), while moderate Muslims who try to dispel negative perceptions about Islam should be compared with moderate Germans who tried to dispel negative perceptions about the German people. And no, Islam is not a religion of brown people.

>an entire religion of brown people are the enemy.
>Literally the Indonesians.

>as do "moderate" Muslims enabling Islam.

"Coconut islam," as the extremists call it, doesn't enable Islamic terrorism anymore then a random protestant church in New York enables the bombing of abortion clinics in Texas.

Mudslimes are too poor and stupid to afford such vehicles or plan such attacks. If their method of being let right in ain't broken, don't fix it.

"Moderate" Islam inherently does by claiming the acts carried out in the name of Islam condoned by the Quran are not Islamic, and that Islam is actually peaceful and everyone should accept it.

The only good moderates admit Islam is flawed and causes violences and needs reformation and attention, but these moderates are few and are shunned by Leftists.

Radical Islam is Islam because Islam is radical.

>disproving the interpretation of Islam followed by Islamic extremists helps the Islamic extremists

>Radical Islam is Islam because Islam is radical.

On what account?

>The only good moderates admit Islam is flawed and causes violences and needs reformation and attention, but these moderates are few and are shunned by Leftists.

Maybe because this "reformation" is literally the ISIS and other such groups trying to create a serious national identity based on Islam, and (obviously) not the kind the West can accept.

>"Moderate" Islam inherently does by claiming the acts carried out in the name of Islam condoned by the Surahs are not Islamic

FTFY

The interpretation of Islam followed by Islamic extremists is actually Islam word for word.

Saying Islamists aren't Islamists and Islam isn't Islam doesn't help a thing you gigantic fucking retard. Holy shit.

See It just encourages complacency from the victims and makes sure the actual issue, ISLAM, isn't addressed.

>On what account
Muhammad raped children and condoned the killing of all non-Muslims, said Allah loves sex slaves of war, molested a little boy and had a 6 year old wife, you know, shit like that

>Islam isn't Islamic
As said this doesn't help anything, it only hurts and creates a weak complacent mindset to being killed by Islamists in the name of Islam as the Quran decrees.

>The interpretation of Islam followed by Islamic extremists is actually Islam word for word.

Of course it is, I'm sure you know more about Islam than millions of Muslim scholars who have dedicated their entire lives to studying this religion and who disagree with the interpretation of Islam followed by Islamic extremists.

>Muhammad condoned the killing of all non-Muslims

He clearly prohibited the killing of the following categories of non-Muslims: dhimmis, women, children, elders, handicapped, the ill, the insane, monks, slaves, and musta'mins (non-Muslim foreigners who only temporarily reside in Muslim lands). You clearly know nothing about Sharia, why do you pretend that you understand it better than the vast majority of Muslims and Islamic scholars?

Oh yes, Muslim scholars who take oaths that lying about their religion during the time of Jihad, which is now, is acceptable. Who respect Muslims more than non-Muslims and will defend Islam to the bone. Who will quote a peaceful verse of the Quran that is immediately followed by the order to cut all hands off non-Muslim swine.
They surely don't deceive or cherry pick to save face for their violent genocidal religion. No siree.

Oh, and
>Muslim Scholars
What's next, Mexican intellectuals?

Why kill women and children when your God says enslaving them as sex toys is acceptable and preferred? Duh.

Why do you think that ISIS understands Islam better than, say, the ulema of Al-Azhar?

Because they follow the teaching off Muhammad as said in the Quran and later books more strictly and accurately.

>sola scriptura
Look like we got a memer

So, you seem to know more about Islam than the Grand Mufti of al-Azhar, that's interesting. Tell me, in what academic institution have you studied this religion?

Readingthefuckingtexts-institute

Read Bukhari. You're ignorant as shit to trust a religion of genocidal lying rapists to not lie about their genocidal rapist religion. It's even written for them to lie about Islam in time of Jihad.

The leader of ISIS has a doctorate in Islamic studies and worked as a Muslim cleric for years. He probably knows more about Islam than you think you do.

>The leader of ISIS has a doctorate in Islamic studies

Yes, from Iraq. That's like getting a doctorate in physics from Congo.

>Islamic scholars know more about Islam than you do, dumb goy!
>Oy Vey stop right there goyim, that Islamic scholar is terrible and doesn't count!

Are you saying that an Islamic scholar from al-Azhar is no better than an Islamic "scholar" from Saddam University?

Yes.

Kek

>Only scholars who agree with my point of view are relevant sources
Interesting arguement to make

Saying that only scholars that were educated in internationally respected institutions of higher education are relevant sources is not the same thing as saying that only scholars who agree with my point of view are relevant sources. Who do you think should be considered a more relevant source when it comes to, say, economics: a person who got a doctoral degree in economics from MIT, or a person who got a doctoral degree in economics from the University of Somalia?

Well that entirely depends on the quality of their work doesn't it? You don't suddenly stop learning when you finish university

Al-Baghdadi hasn't produced any academic works on Islam prior to declaring himself caliph, so your point cannot be applied in this case

Yeah, turns out that attacking Germans already on your territory isn't going to magically win the war for you.

>Oh yes, Muslim scholars who take oaths that lying about their religion during the time of Jihad, which is now, is acceptable. Who respect Muslims more than non-Muslims and will defend Islam to the bone.

I guess every Christian in America is Jack Chick's relative then.

>They surely don't deceive or cherry pick to save face for their violent genocidal religion. No siree.

Oh, the irony.

>What's next, Mexican intellectuals?

Yes.

>Why kill women and children when your God says enslaving them as sex toys is acceptable and preferred? Duh.

What?

Your other points are irrelevant and ill informed/ignorant (Christianity =/= Islam and is a safe space in comparison), but as for
>What?
Bukhari 34:432

>Bukhari 34:432

Which is not part of the Quran.

Fun thing it's that most terrorists attacks are from people who where born in the country and not from the refugees. Also they are pretty despicable but I find pretty hypocritical that americans can bomb civilians and still being called the good guys while if this motherfuckers do theil same they are monsters.

>Fun thing it's that most terrorists attacks are from people who where born in the country and not from the refugees
And yet in a lot of cases their parents were refugees, people make this mistake, the refugees aren't the issue, it's their gay cunt edgy children

>Mudslimes are too poor and stupid to afford such vehicles or plan such attacks. If their method of being let right in ain't broken, don't fix it.

>It's a conventional war
>our enemies just aren't fighting it conventionally and we just aren't addressing it conventionally

>two nations formally at war
>one launches a coordinated attack over the span of nearly a year which causes tens of thousands of deaths

vs

>a few random durkas kill a handful of people
>some cavedwelling nutjobs in a shithole half the world away claim responsibility

Apples and oranges. You can believe the response to radical Islam isn't appropriately severe, but your comparison is just patently dumb. Modern terrorism and WWII are not the same thing.