Mfw there are people on Jow Forums who still unironically believe that muslims did 9/11

The entire event was concocted in hollywood and projected by a number of 'hologram emitters' that were placed around the area a few days beforehand.

Attached: 2bbae9981525c6488af18388e899dc53de8368f2b4d6bf8dcf3032b9cff0e0a7.jpg (680x396, 23K)

Did you know that the US only created a navy (its first armed force) because of constant attacks from muslim slavers? Who said that its OK to enslave Americans because they were not muslim.
The muslims kicked the hornets nest, turned the USA from isolationist in to interventionist, then complained when they came to the middle east and pushed their shit in.

mossad

Attached: 1528267926439.jpg (1276x1280, 147K)

Indeed I did. Previous administrations had been content to simply pay them off, as had Britain and France. Indeed, Barbary raiders raided as far as Ireland and even Iceland for White slaves.
We have a monument to the war somewhere in Annapolis or Baltimore. I forget where. Those greedy pirates got what they deserved and America demonstrated that the only way to deal with Muslim pirates is to firmly say no and then kick their teeth in.

However, 9/11 was not connected with this. It was not the Muslims who kicked the hornet's nest. Nor was the USA isolationist before 9/11. The USA had been bombing them for almost a decade and had been interfering in their political systems for far longer. Nevermind the atrocity of a state that is IsraHell.
9/11 was not an attack by freedom hating Muslims against a random target. It was a specific retaliation against a specific target to demonstrate that US foreign policy has consequences. Indeed, barring a few inconsequential attacks by the Japanese during the second World War, this was the FIRST military attack on the US mainland in modern history. For the first time in almost 200 years, American civilians have had to pay a price in blood for the actions of their criminal government and their own INACTION in the face of jews taking control of our own nation.

Sadly, Muslims are backwards people with a backwards understanding of the situation. Americans are too braindead to understand symbolism. And Muslims are too braindead to figure out how to attack the people who actually matter. Such is life.

>However, 9/11 was not connected with this. It was not the Muslims who kicked the hornet's nest. Nor was the USA isolationist before 9/11

Technically the US was isolationist before 9/11. Just a very very long time beforehand.
If muslims could get their shit together they wouldnt need to keep dragging the US in to their constant wars.
And im not excusing the US here either. You guys attempts at intervention in the middle east are retarded. You literally drop in to the country, point to the nearest sand nigger and say 'he must be the good guy' and then go and kill everyone he says is the bad guy. Like its a fucking hollywood movie script.

Muslims always go around attacking other people and when it comes back on them they cry that they are victims.
You have provided examples from history but also you can look at every single area today where muslims have moved in to non muslim areas, tried to take over and make everyone follow their strict customs, and then play the victim when people dont put up with their nonsense.
With that sort of behavior, invading their region and starting wars there is perfectly reasonable. Because then they wont keep starting wars with other people on their borders as they try to expand.

The barbary wars and ww1 are 100 years apart. Jesus bongo read a fucking book you toothless niggerlover. You guys and the French divide up the middle east yourselves after the war and we finally just took everything you had after 2. Furthermore you've openly supported more Muslim groups in the past 250 years than you have europeans.

TL;DR: The Russians would have wiped the ottomans and muzzies off the map but faggot kike worshiping British interviend in the 1853 Crimea war to protect their shekels and muslim dogs.

Also your queen is a nigger lover LEL

Attached: VMR3BN4.jpg (1060x1590, 134K)

Once you find out the meaning of Tisha B'Av and Boaz and Jachin, it's pretty obvious.

>The barbary wars and ww1 are 100 years apart.

That sounds about right.
Just to be clear do you believe I said they were more than 100 years apart or less than 100 years apart?

>Semites always go around attacking other people and when it comes back on them they cry that they are victims.
Ftfy

it was the joos!!!!1!!!!1111!

True.
The difference is that muslims get angry and resort to violence when you dont follow their customs.
The jews dont want you to follow their customs and will prevent you from becoming one of them.

18 years, nothing new apart from the theories that popped up immediately after the attack. The US Gov willingly neglected Al Qaeda because we didn't take them seriously. Bush and the neocons brought Israel into it.

>Technically the US was isolationist before 9/11. Just a very very long time beforehand.
Don't be autistic. You know what I was saying.

US policy in the Middle East is a little bit more complicated than the "dumbass American looking for a bad guy to slay"
Obviously the public is told a ludicrous morality story of good guys and baddies. However, the actual policy is one designed to keep every player off balance and reliant on US support to bolster the power of unpopular regimes. In tandem with this goal is the goal of destabilizing the states around IsraHell so that they're not a threat to our "greatest ally"
As you can see, the US is not omnipotent as certain states (cough Iran) have been able to resist the Pentagon's destabilization agenda. At least in recent years anyway.

And I disagree with you. The US has ZERO reason to send our young men (and yours btw) to die in agony in deserts and towns they have never heard of to occupy a country that despises them. This does not serve our interests at all. Every single man who dies is dying for NOTHING. His life-story ends in a wasted life. At least, it is a meaningless death for his people. He is dying to defend the privileged lifestyle of jews in an occupied nation.
Muslim terrorists never attacked America before the US began murdering them (and no, don't bring up shit that happened hundreds of years ago. No one cares about the Barbary wars). Islamic terrorism has always been retalitory strikes against Israeli economic targets until after 1983 when the US invaded Lebanon in support of crazed zionist militias who butchered refugees fleeing Israeli war criminals. THAT is what got the US on the number one "Great Satan" list. So they bombed the US and French occupation barracks and chased US occupiers out of Lebanon with their tails between their legs. Ronald Fucking Reagan was so horrified by that bombing that he ordered a retreat from Lebanon.

9-11= -2

it serves the interest of the military industrial complex

>It was clearly perpetrated by 6"4 anorexic sickly desert rat in a cave, in Afghanistan. We did end up killing him but we can't show you the body because we dumped him in the sea. And everything about this story is normal.

Attached: I0000lIBp4lnZCsU.jpg (148x200, 22K)

. Indeed, Osama Bin Ladeen cited this example as one of his inspirations on how to retaliate against America.
Anyway, no. Muslims would not be attacking the US and Britain if our nations weren't being used by jews to murder their children. They operate by the 14 words too except for Muslims.
What we should do is exterminate these jewish parasites, *compel the Muslims to no longer be in our nations* cough, and then leave them alone.

Dude, there is no reason to be so rude over this. Calm down.
And I find it ironic that you want to throw stones at a head of state for being a nigger lover. I can thing of at least one other world leader who loves niggers. Indeed, he loves jews too. So much that he married his children to them.
Hmmm. I wonder what kike Baron Trump will be wedded to...

That's just another way of saying jews, user.
The MIC is beholden to the jewish oligarchy.

The truth is WTC wasn't built to code and people covered it up to prevent a massive insurance case. Osama did it.

>And I disagree with you. The US has ZERO reason to send our young men (and yours btw) to die in agony in deserts and towns they have never heard of to occupy a country that despises them

This is the crux of where we really disagree I think. As your policy would make the west vulnerable to crazy middle east people holding us to ransom. Like they did in the 70's.

The middle east is not industrialised. The people are superstitious and backward. They wouldnt even know what oil was for if it wasnt for western nations. They certainly dot have any use for unrefined oil except maybe praying to it.
The US should send an army in to every backwards country in the middle east or Africa that has oil, annex the oil fields and secure a route to the nearest port. Where it is sold on the open market.
Take the funding for the base and stuff out of the profits.
Have a 30+ mile exclusion zone where any vehicle or person gets blown up by mines and gunfire.

That shouldnt involve loads of troops but you cant do it with zero which is the number you suggested.

Yeah and dont forget It wasnt built to code in the 1960's. 50 years ago.
Regulations are much different now and you can no longer build a skyscraper with all its load bearing down on one central support column.

>Like they did in the 70's.
Of course they only did that because the US kept on trying to overthrow their government and supported the unpopular monarchy.
People don't hate the USA for no reason. They hate my government (and the people too, sadly) because of their actions.

No one hated my country before IsraHell. Even our enemies didn't really hate us. Germany for instance, did not like it that America sided with the Entente in WW1, but they got over it because the US didn't keep bombing and bombing and bombing them after the war or interfering in their political systems to guarentee the enrichment of a pariah state next door that ALSO is bombing them.
What the USA is doing now is comparable to what the Barbary states did to the USA 200 years ago. That is constantly attacking us for no reason other than their own enrichment.
So the US retaliated.

That's what happened on 9/11... also before but we forgot about it because we're Americans.

Let me put it this way. Let's forget about the jews for a moment and imagine that China destroyed your navy and set up a pariah state of Muslims in London and Kent and Surry Counties. These Muslims kept bombing you with jet aircraft and even launched surprise attacks to seize land and ethnically cleanse British people. Whenever you tried to fight back, Chinese ships came along and bombed you without even declaring war. Sometimes, they'd land ground troops to slaughter your civilians and propped up insane dictators to hold you back. All the while, Chine gives 5 billion dollars every single year to these disgusting Muslim invaders on your shores.
Would you not want to hit them back? Would you not want to send 19 guys to Beijing and blow up whatever the hell is in Beijing?

It's -2.

Attached: 1346673403868.jpg (956x979, 85K)

youtube.com/watch?v=9rsMG2hHsLo

Attached: 911amalgramvirgo.jpg (380x285, 32K)

I was on one of the planes, they were muslims.

I flew one of the planes, they were Jews dressed as muslims.

youtube.com/watch?v=Q4PC8Luqiws

Attached: iseeit.png (135x150, 11K)

>Of course they only did that because the US kept on trying to overthrow their government and supported the unpopular monarchy.

Whatever reason they did it you shouldnt allow the biggest economy on earth (plus Europe) to be held to ransom by backwards superstitious sand people.

Thats a weakness the US has brought upon itself by its totally misguided attempts to win the hearts and minds of backwards primitive people.

>Let me put it this way. Let's forget about the jews for a moment and imagine that China destroyed your navy and set up a pariah state of Muslims in London and Kent and Surry Counties. These Muslims kept bombing you with jet aircraft and even launched surprise attacks to seize land and ethnically cleanse British people. Whenever you tried to fight back, Chinese ships came along and bombed you without even declaring war. Sometimes, they'd land ground troops to slaughter your civilians and propped up insane dictators to hold you back. All the while, Chine gives 5 billion dollars every single year to these disgusting Muslim invaders on your shores.
>Would you not want to hit them back? Would you not want to send 19 guys to Beijing and blow up whatever the hell is in Beijing?

Let me put it this way: I dont hate the romans for invading and killing ancient britons. Nor any of the groups who supported the Romans.
The Romans were objectively a more advanced people who were able to work and defend the land better. They were just carrying on the process of evolution where a superior species or subspecies will naturally dominate and take over territory from a weaker more backwards one.

One of the easiest holes in the jews 9/11 story is all the phone calls made by the flight attendants in the hijacked planes while supposedly still in the air. The dumb hebrews organizing this false flag did not understand technology was not capable of making phone calls to civilians while thousands of feet in the error at that time. The phone calls were made on the ground.
letsrollforums.com/

Attached: 1566176155887.png (400x400, 99K)

Bollyn is a legend. A true hero. If there is a god and he is just, Bollyn will be a VIP.

The way to avoid that is to simply not try to overthrow their governments and bomb them.
It is exceptionally cheaper to trade stuff for peoples' oil than to invade and occupy their land for it.

>I dont hate the romans for invading and killing ancient Britons
That's because it happened two thousand years ago, user. If it were happening right now, you would resist. Or you'd be a traitor who was hated by your family and people.

Would you betray your people to side with an invader just because they were stronger? This kind of base treachery is not a human trait. Humans love their nation and people first. It isn't noble or good to betray your nation.

>Mfw there are people on Jow Forums who still unironically believe that muslims did 9/11.
They did. Israel knew about it and refused to tell anyone. ie: Dancing Israelis.

Doesn't that make more sense than "9/11 WAS IN PLANNING FOR DECADES BECAUSE I FOLDED THIS DOLLAR BILL A CERTAIN WAY!!!!!"?

>The way to avoid that is to simply not try to overthrow their governments and bomb them.

You would still piss them off simply by the fact that you are non muslim.
That was the justification for attacking Americans before America had any type of armed forces.

In the Quran the entire world is the muslim world and non muslims are seen as invaders. Even when they are moving in to our countries.

Bollyn did some great work. Read his book.

>It is exceptionally cheaper to trade stuff for peoples' oil than to invade and occupy their land for it.

Therein lies the problem.
Jews always pick the cheapest option rather than the right way to do things in the long term.

youtube.com/watch?v=OjKpXqj8gYA

Attached: CpCILsvUIAEUDyL.jpg (540x756, 38K)

>US was isolationist before 9/11.

Attached: 1567789536605.jpg (345x336, 214K)

That's naïve and completely ignores basically all of history. The barbary Pirate attacked Americans because it was easy to do and profitable.
Before America began bombing the Arab world, Muslims did not conduct attacks against America.
It's as simple as that.

I'll let you in on a little secret. Almost no one is really religious. Most wars are fought for nationalistic reasons, not for religious reasons. And Muslims do not just attack other nations because they're not Islamic. They attack them specifically in retaliation for bombing them.
And no one attacks people who are trying to trade them money for oil.

I'm not talking about money alone. I'm talking about human lives.
And even if I were talking about money alone, military occupations are not born out by individual bank accounts. They're funded by TAX dollars. Avoiding needless tax spending allows you to lower taxes for everyone. Thus enriching the lives of all.

>That's naïve and completely ignores basically all of history. The barbary Pirate attacked Americans because it was easy to do and profitable.
Yeah you could say at that point in history the muslims were in the position americans are now. They had armed and experienced soldiers where as the US didnt even have a standing army or navy to defend themselves.

Now the shoe is on the other foot they are moaning like little babbies. That is the point I am making here.

>I'm not talking about money alone. I'm talking about human lives.

That is a fair concern and I would definitely look to limit the amount of humans we send in to these territories.
Eventually when drone technology we could achieve all that without putting a single human in danger. The only danger would be primitive subhumans and peices of metal and plastic.

>they are moaning like little babbies.
If the Chinese invaded Britain with superior weapons, crush your native armies like the Romans did to Carraticus, and began colonizing your island with Chinese invaders whilst taxing every last ounce of wealth from your impoverished citizens, would you fight back or support those who did?
I am asking this question since you claimed that the strong should bully the weak.

Also, I find it funny that you should accuse the Muslims of whining when you are the one whining that they had the balls to fight back. Isn't it strange how the "MITE MAKE RITE" people are always the first ones to cry when the "weak" fight back? I'll tell you what Carraticus told the Roman Emperor Claudius.
If you intend to rule the world, don't act surprised when people resist your imperialism by whatever means they can. Or do you expect that the weak welcome their enslavement? We had men, horses, gold, and land. And you expect us to just abandon them without a fight? What you call superior civilization is nothing but reducing the world to a desert and calling it peace. You cannot claim triumph over other peoples' land and then expect them not to fight back however they can.

bin laden, who was best friends with saddam hussein, gaddaffi and bashar al-assad.
we need to take care of these democracy haters, goys!

superstitious and backward is your way of saying not as degenerate and homosexuals loving as you advanced western first worlders?

>Also, I find it funny that you should accuse the Muslims of whining when you are the one whining that they had the balls to fight back.

I dont have a problem with them fighting back. Particularly if we do what you suggested earlier and only send unmanned drones out there instead of real humans.
I would definitely get out the popcorn to watch high tech drones fight with sand people who have only achieved 'horse and cart' levels of technology by themselves.

Your hypothetical example of China invading here will always be hypothetical because we are a nuclear power. We can flatten Beijing in a press of a button. They could flatten us too. Thats why we dont get many big wars since the invention of Nukes.
Thats quite different to the leverage the mudslimes have over the Yanks. Where the muslims are only able to hold the US to ransom over oil because the US decided to put itself and its people in such a compromised position.

Mudslimes always say 'Im allowed to attack your people because your ancestor did something bad to my ancestor'.
But in the case of the Murricans, when you go back far enough the Muslims attacked first. So they need to shut the fuck up.
Obviously when a superior species or race takes over a territory from an inferior one, they will be upset. And they will moan. You can shed a tear for them as well if you like. Life is sometimes harsh and cruel.
I shed a tear for the sabre tooth tigers that were driven to extinction by the native Americans. But I dont think that Sabre tooth tigers should still be the apex predator on the north American continent.

Again, if China surprise attacked Britain, knocked out your nuclear capabilities, and began colonizing your nation, would you fight back?
If the Chinese possessed superior technology to Britain, would you side with your own people? or would you side with the Chinese inavders?
Answer the question. No more dodging.

If they knocked out our military capabilities I wouldn't fight back on my own no.
Ive heard the stories of the extremes their government goes to, to subdue their own population. Plus I have a dodgy knee.

In a way that would be similar to the US situation with the mudslimes.
We as a country have voluntarily disarmed ourselves. So we would really struggle to fight back against a foreign invasion.

>

I mean their unhygienic rituals,strange and unfounded beliefes, crazy and unbelievable stories: Like the one where there was a murder so the people decided to get a yellow cow and cut its legs off and hit the dead body with the peices of the yellow cow and then the dead person wakes up and identifies the murderer and then dies again.
WTF is that about?

I dont think theres only 2 positions. Either hardcore degeneracy or hardcore islam.
I think you could have a society without either extreme.
>MFW The captcha keeps asking me to identify stairs on the same picture every time

Attached: 88b47e44ea5847a8480620d139c66010.jpg (612x612, 152K)

>I wouldn't fight back on my own no.
>Ive heard the stories of the extremes their government goes to
>Plus I have a dodgy knee.
You English are insufferable.

Okay, allow me to rephrase so that you're not all alone. If all the above happened and you are sitting in Communist China occupied wherever you live and late at night your mate knocks on your door and says
>"Oi Nigel, we got ourselves a real crackin' insurgent army oi' reckon, and we're going to go see off these bloody chinks. Can we count on you to provide shelter to uhs insurgents while we fight 'em? We've got a real smashing plan to blow up some buildings full of rich chinks."
Would you provide support to these English terrorists? Or would you turn them in to your new Chinese overlords who are bombing and looting your country?

>You English are insufferable.

Sorry I was trying to be earnest and realistic.

>"Oi Nigel, we got ourselves a real crackin' insurgent army oi' reckon, and we're going to go see off these bloody chinks. Can we count on you to provide shelter to uhs insurgents while we fight 'em? We've got a real smashing plan to blow up some buildings full of rich chinks."

Why didnt you say that in the first place?
If he called me Nigel I would strap a bomb to myself and blow up the nearest market. Full Wahabi style.
Not really of course because im not religious.
Im more the kind of person to undermine their society with my general curmudgeonliness.
>mfw my spell checker doesnt even believe curmudgeonliness is a word but it is

People tell me that the English are the least rebellious people on the planet. Occasionally I get confirmation's of this claim.
Your leaders are very lucky people.

Attached: 1560781936487.jpg (500x600, 34K)

I dont think that is exactly the right way to characterise it. But we are an island nation and so we tend to do things our own way.

So for example, the French dragged out all their monarchs and put them to the guillotine.
The Russians killed the Tzar and every one of of his family, children included.
In England we went to our monarch and said we are going to take all your power away and give it to the people, and you will have to give all the profits from your land to the country, but we didnt physically attack or kill them. That wouldnt be very English.

Power to the people is a ridiculous concept. It's a meme which real states do not adhere to at all. Power in Britain, like America, is concentrated in the hands of just a few oligarchs. It's worse in England because the party loyalty in British politics makes even Americans look open minded. There is this one guy who used to talk on the David Duke show who interviewed people and he told stories like how he met this one labour party chap who hated the labour party and said "Oh you don't need to tell me that, I already know" when he explained how immigration was ruining Britain. He agreed with every single policy of the BNP. But when he said "So, I guess we can count on your vote" the man responded, "Oh no. I'll vote labour"
Seeing how flabberghasted he was, the man explained, "Well, you see, me father voted labour, and his father voted labour, so they'd'a be tossing in their graves if I didn't."

>Power in Britain, like America, is concentrated in the hands of just a few oligarchs

For centuries, before we joined the EU, political power is transferred back to the people every four years. At which point we 'lent' that legislative power to the politicians in parliament for up to a maximum of four years. Presuming the queen agrees that a mandate has been given (For example if nobody voted there wouldnt be a mandate)

I do agree with you on party loyalty and that is a very insightful example.
One of the big reasons why the North of England has been transformed in to a different culture is because the people there will keep voting the same politicians out of tradition.
Constituencies where one party doesnt dominate do much better as they have to pay attention to what people want and need.

England unique attitude is weird to outsiders. But something allowed us to conquer the entire world from a tiny irrelevant backwater island. In the past we must have been doing something right.

Having an unrebellious population is a boon for conquering others. The trouble is when your own elites learn that it's just as profitable to cannibalize the nation as to conquer others (though as a nationalist I also oppose imperialism because this leads to multiculturalism, degeneracy, and decay)
Who will stand up to them if not the people?

I agree in general but I dont think unrebellious is the right term. We still rebel but we dont go crazy woo no rules anymore like black people during Hurricane Katrina.
Its 100 years since a popular rebellion here in my home town where a few thousand people died in order to get votes for poor people.

We did have a black people riot in London a couple of years back where they abandoned law and order in a very un British manner.
A large number of white people turned up the next day to clean up.

It's - 2

Answer is -2, you don’t need to write a book for that