Muslims burn 43 more to death....because the 40 last week wasn't enough

[shagster01]

Still waiting for ya'lls solution.
What ya got?
Let's hear it.

I'm not sure there is one.

I am sure that dropping a nuke isn't one. It will kill some ISIS members and women and children, but it won't stop ISIS completely.

Do you think killing women and children to prevent ISIS from killing women and children is a solution?


So I'm still waiting to hear your REAL solution too.

 

[Granite]

Nuking ISIS (technically we'd be nuking Syria and Iraq) would validate their apocalyptic worldview and give them all the confirmation they need in the righteousness of their cause. It'd be the worst thing in the world for any number of reasons, but providing terrorists with proof that they're in the right isn't a good look.

 

[resodko]

Nuking ISIS (technically we'd be nuking Syria and Iraq) would validate their apocalyptic worldview and give them all the confirmation they need in the righteousness of their cause.

who cares if they get confirmation if they're dead?


or are you picturing a non-lethal nuke?

 

[shagster01]

who cares if they get confirmation if they're dead?


or are you picturing a non-lethal nuke?

How many nukes in how many places do you think it would take to wipe out ISIS?

And how many innocent people will die?

If an ISIS cell pops up in your city, are you cool if we nuke it without warning?

 

[Tambora]

Just nuking em includes pregnant women, babies, toddlers and children.

Most likely.

This stance is not pro-life/pro-children in any way, shape or form.

Casualties of war, not the targets of war.

When there is war, it's pretty much impossible to avoid casualties.

So what should we do? Lay down our arms?

 

[Granite]

Most likely.

Casualties of war, not the targets of war.

When there is war, it's pretty much impossible to avoid casualties.

So what should we do? Lay down our arms?

Right, because that's the only option.:yawn:

You people...are...insane.

 

[resodko]

How many nukes in how many places do you think it would take to wipe out ISIS?

if we round 'em all up and stick 'em on an island in the south pacific?

just one

 

[shagster01]

It sounds to me like Nick, musterion, res, and Tambora hate ISIS because ISIS is killing the innocent people that they want to kill themselves with nukes. Basically this fight is over who gets to kill the women and children first.

 

[resodko]

It sounds to me like Nick, musterion, res, and Tambora hate ISIS because ISIS is killing the innocent people that they want to kill themselves with nukes. Basically this fight is over who gets to kill the women and children first.

yeah, but we want the isis guys dead too

 

[Tinark]

I'm not sure there is one.

I am sure that dropping a nuke isn't one. It will kill some ISIS members and women and children, but it won't stop ISIS completely.

Do you think killing women and children to prevent ISIS from killing women and children is a solution?


So I'm still waiting to hear your REAL solution too.

Even if ISIS is taken out, it won't kill the ideology that drives ISIS.

 

[resodko]

Even if ISIS is taken out, it won't kill the ideology that drives ISIS.

that will only end with the total destruction of islam :thumb:

 

[Granite]

Even if ISIS is taken out, it won't kill the ideology that drives ISIS.

Well that's a long-term problem requiring careful thought and nuance. Not quite as sexy as nuking the planet.

 

[Tinark]

Nuking ISIS (technically we'd be nuking Syria and Iraq) would validate their apocalyptic worldview and give them all the confirmation they need in the righteousness of their cause. It'd be the worst thing in the world for any number of reasons, but providing terrorists with proof that they're in the right isn't a good look.

You've got to remember, the "nuke em" crowd doesn't want to just nuke ISIS but also all other Muslim majority countries they consider a threat. They think the biggest slaughter-fest and genocide in the history of humanity will magically solve problems.

You've really got to wonder about the mental competence of someone who thinks the solution to almost every problem is to kill people.

 

[shagster01]

yeah, but we want the isis guys dead too

Why, other than because they kill innocent people? What are your other reasons?

 

[resodko]

You've got to remember, the "nuke em" crowd doesn't want to just nuke ISIS but also all 1.5 billion Muslisms. They think the biggest slaughterfest and genocide in the history of humanity will magically solve problems.

can we get them all on an island in the south pacific?

 

[resodko]

Why, other than because they kill innocent people? What are your other reasons?

why do you think we need other reasons? :idunno:

 

[shagster01]

Casualties of war, not the targets of war.

Wrong. Nuking entire cities is targeting the entire city.

 

[Granite]

You've got to remember, the "nuke em" crowd doesn't want to just nuke ISIS but also all 1.5 billion Muslisms. They think the biggest slaughterfest and genocide in the history of humanity will magically solve problems.

Seriously, the very idea goes beyond inane, or moronic. It's not really worth discussing, or entertaining. It's an idea so beyond sanity, and so out of the realm of reality, that it just deserves to be either ignored, or dismissed out of hand. Sick product of sick minds.

 

[shagster01]

why do you think we need other reasons? :idunno:

Because you want to do the same thing just to stop them from doing it. It's pointless.

 

[Tinark]

that will only end with the total destruction of islam :thumb:

Nope - the total destruction of Christianity or the Catholic Chruch wasn't required to get it to stop the atrocities of those who adhered to it in the past, in the middle ages. Same thing with Communism. Better ideas won out.

There is also more than one type of Islam, just like there is more than one type of Christianity. The threat is political Islam, or Islamism, - those who wish to impose one version of Islam on all of society. Not all Muslims are Islamists, and it is a huge mistake to confuse the two.