I’ve often heard this line from those on the left (and from that portion of the right which is retarded). That if we don’t allow ourselves to be invaded by millions of refugees, we’ll be giving ISIS victory. There are three possibilities here:
A. The people saying this are retarded,
B. This phrase has some meaning, or
C. This phrase is just a slogan, no more meaningful than “marriage is about hearts not parts” or any other leftist idiocies
Now, A is out, because the people saying this aren’t retarded, at least not all of them are. So, let’s explore option B:
First, let’s consider the literal meaning of the phrase, that if we don’t take in “refugees” ISIS will successfully establish a caliphate in Iraq and Syria. There is absolutely no logical connection between “Europe rejecting Muslim invaders” and “ISIS winning the Iraq and Syria civil wars”, so unless option A is actually correct, this can’t be what they mean.
But perhaps they mean that if we don’t submit to invasion, ISIS will win the ideological war, that is they will accomplish their propaganda goals. Well, ISIS’s goal in terms of getting people to believe a certain way is to get everyone to be a Salafi Muslim (or dead). So is it a reasonable opinion that us excluding the invaders will result in us all becoming Salafists, well no, it’s not, at all. So that’s out.
Now, is there any other possible meaning of “win” that they could be using? Certainly, there are a bunch, one can win a bet, which is N/A, one can win an argument, which isn’t it either, one can win a board game, which also is completely irrelevant, and there are a bunch of other meanings of “win”, none of which make “If we don’t let refugees in ISIS will have won” a reasonable statement.
So then, it seems that both A and B are out, so it must be C, this phrase is not intended to have an actual meaning in the English language, but exists only as a means of confusing the masses and shouting down sane policy proposals.