How many babies/children is it acceptable to kill to eliminate ISIS?

[Tinark]

Just curious about the range of views here. How many babies and children being killed by bombs/nukes/attacks against ISIS would you consider acceptable to eliminate ISIS?

-None - meaning you think no collateral damage is justified to eliminate ISIS.

-As many as necessary to eliminate ISIS, including dropping nukes (even if it means killing 300,000 babies/children to eliminate the some ~30,000 ISIS fighters) - Nick's position.

-Somewhere in between?

Does the fact that eliminating ISIS would not kill off the ideology that spawned it matter in your analysis? Meaning Islamist groups would still be attempting to create an Islamic state even if ISIS were eliminated.

 

[patrick jane]

Just curious about the range of views here. How many babies and children being killed by bombs/nukes/attacks against ISIS would you consider acceptable to eliminate ISIS?

-None - meaning you think no collateral damage is justified to eliminate ISIS.

-As many as necessary to eliminate ISIS, including dropping nukes (even if it means killing 300,000 babies/children to eliminate the some ~30,000 ISIS fighters) - Nick's position.

-Somewhere in between?

Does the fact that eliminating ISIS would not kill off the ideology that spawned it matter in your analysis? Meaning Islamist groups would still be attempting to create an Islamic state even if ISIS were eliminated.

i think it must be done with more specialized, smaller, highly trained, equipped, teams of operatives. nuclear or any large scale attack, is too random. we can do better than that, and we will, someone has to. keeping innocent folks safe as much as possible. if we could warn peaceful people to evacuate while keeping ISIS all in one place, that would be great. that won't work. imo, there really can't be an in between for too long. seek, identify and destroy. I Pray God changes the hearts, minds and souls of all terrorists and people filled with hate. until then, they must be removed from civilization. the 'ideology" may remain, but the violence cannot, and will not continue

 

[resodko]

you're talking about collateral damage, i hope, and not the deliberate targetting of babies

no level of collateral damage is "acceptable"

but war is messy and it's generally recognized that collateral damage is inevitable



i have a related question


is it morally acceptable to target those non-combatants who support ISIL?

even if it includes the families of combatants, including women and children?

 

[Word based mystic]

another question

Is it ethically correct to allow ISIS to conquer and destroy innocents or non-combatants.

Should we not destroy those who seek to destroy us?

The atheist/communist/humanist governments eventually stopped euthainizing the religious/educated/political opposition after many years.
should we do the same in the hope that isis will (eventually) stop slaughtering their opponents?

 

[Eeset]

is it morally acceptable to target those non-combatants who support ISIL?

even if it includes the families of combatants, including women and children?

I do not like our country being in the kill others business.

 

[Nick M]

View attachment 19254

 

[Nick M]

The next time a liberal is permitted to post his opinion on islam being just fine, I will paste pictures in the forum showing how not fine they are.

 

[resodko]

I do not like our country being in the kill others business.

even if they're nazis?

or commies?

or mooslims?

or zombies?


how about if they're nazi commie moosie zombies?

 

[Eeset]

even if they're nazis?

or commies?

or mooslims?

or zombies?


how about if they're nazi commie moosie zombies?

It is just not good for the US to be assassination king.

 

[resodko]

meshak?

does eeset know you're using her computer?

 

[Eeset]

I do not think IS can be defeated by drones and fighter jets.

 

[resodko]

so, boots on the ground?

 

[republicanchick]

Just curious about the range of views here. How many babies and children being killed by bombs/nukes/attacks against ISIS would you consider acceptable to eliminate ISIS?

-None - meaning you think no collateral damage is justified to eliminate ISIS.

-As many as necessary to eliminate ISIS, including dropping nukes (even if it means killing 300,000 babies/children to eliminate the some ~30,000 ISIS fighters) - Nick's position.

-Somewhere in between?

Does the fact that eliminating ISIS would not kill off the ideology that spawned it matter in your analysis? Meaning Islamist groups would still be attempting to create an Islamic state even if ISIS were eliminated.

I feel all this is virtually irrelevant. The bottom line:

Kill or be killed

fight the war here or fight it there.

make a choice




___

 

[Word based mystic]

eeset What country would be better in taking the lead in military and terroristic issues?

 

[republicanchick]

so, boots on the ground?

yes, and American troops if necessary and many of our military advisors say it is necessary.

I don't know why people are, apparently, averse to listening to EXPERTS

but hey... not the strangest thing to happen in this Admin


no sireee...



+

 

[Nick M]

I do not think IS can be defeated by drones and fighter jets.

The size and type of force needed is much greater than guided bombs.

Rumsfeld and his BCT strategy will not work against them.

 

[bybee]

Just curious about the range of views here. How many babies and children being killed by bombs/nukes/attacks against ISIS would you consider acceptable to eliminate ISIS?

-None - meaning you think no collateral damage is justified to eliminate ISIS.

-As many as necessary to eliminate ISIS, including dropping nukes (even if it means killing 300,000 babies/children to eliminate the some ~30,000 ISIS fighters) - Nick's position.

-Somewhere in between?

Does the fact that eliminating ISIS would not kill off the ideology that spawned it matter in your analysis? Meaning Islamist groups would still be attempting to create an Islamic state even if ISIS were eliminated.

How many Christian babies, children, adults must be killed before we are allowed to protect ourselves?
Are we to allow ourselves to be wiped off the map? Death, conversion, death to the Infidel!!!

 

[kiwimacahau]

No collateral damage is acceptable. Indeed, I would argue that the only thing killing folk is going to accomplish is the creation of more 'terrorists' further down the line. You cannot overcome hatred with hatred. Satan cannot fight against Satan.

 

[Tinark]

How many Christian babies, children, adults must be killed before we are allowed to protect ourselves?
Are we to allow ourselves to be wiped off the map? Death, conversion, death to the Infidel!!!

Who said we are not allowed to protect ourselves? The question is what do you consider protection? Dropping a nuke on them like Nick has suggested?

Do you understand the difference between defense and offense? It doesn't seem like the right wingers here are able to make that distinction.

 

[Tinark]

you're talking about collateral damage, i hope, and not the deliberate targetting of babies

no level of collateral damage is "acceptable"

but war is messy and it's generally recognized that collateral damage is inevitable



i have a related question


is it morally acceptable to target those non-combatants who support ISIL?

even if it includes the families of combatants, including women and children?

How do you tell if they support them? Do you kindly ask them before dropping a bomb on them?

In regards to deliberate targeting vs. unintentional "collateral damage", how careful should we be? How much cost should we endure to be careful? Is it ok to get sloppy if it means less money spent or if it means a quicker end to the war?