ISIS and Islamic militants - discussion

Nutella33 said:
Much less so than ISAF forces did and Isis wouldn't be supplied with western munition's unlike Afghan last time.

Putin has his own problems with islamists though, never know, might be a common enemy!
Click to expand...

Putin dosent take any crap from Muslims which in my opinion is one of his redeeming features.
 
MrMarvelous said:
Every time something like this happens, I always ask myself why the Middle East still hasn't been levelled.

There is literally nothing of use there to anyone, the place needs a nuclear hard re-set.
Click to expand...

Could solve a lot of problems if we just removed the Middle East from the world, just think how many lives we would save, the money we would save, the time and effort being wasted on trying to keep peace in that region and the pain and suffering.

Ayahuasca said:
Apart from plenty of normal families trying to live a normal life like you and I?
Click to expand...

Small price to pay, the world has a population problem anyway and humans breed like rabbits.

Anyway, sure we be talking about the problems in the Middle East for the rest of our lives. If this forum is still here in the next 50+ or so years, I will be sure to point and quote back to it.
 
Last edited:
IronWarrior said:
Could solve a lot of problems if we just removed the Middle East from the world, just think how many lives we would save, the money we would save, the time and effort being wasted on trying to keep peace in that region and the pain and suffering.



Small price to pay, the world has a population problem anyway and humans breed like rabbits.

Anyway, sure we be talking about the problems in the Middle East for the rest of my life, if this forum is still here in the next 50+ or so years, I will be sure to point and quote back to it.
Click to expand...

So you are advocating Genocide then ?
 
Point being guys, is that the problems in the Middle East like Syria, Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan and I would also add North Korea to that list will be going on for the next 100 years easy, they already been going on since 1900 and longer I suppose.

Solve it now or wait it out, I would say it's no different to euthanasia.

Anyone heard or read the Trolley problem? If not, it's worth reading and thinking about.
 
Last edited:
And the wilfully ignorant pro-everyone's innocent squad have arrived.

I don't actually believe that but instead of debating it I jumped straight to the insult :D.
 
That's nice, dear.

Meanwhile, back to the topic of killing a billion people because of the actions of not even 100,000 of them...
 
Mynight said:
It's disgusting. I can't even contemplate how you can justify annihilating an entire country because some of the population are utter dicks.
Click to expand...

Because am not selfish and care for the many and not the few.

How many do you think would had died if the US had to invade mainland Japan instead of forcing them to surrender by the two Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I'm not the monster here, you are, you prefer to see this "conflict" carry on for the rest of our natural born lives and our childrens lives then do something about it today.

Let us remind ourselves that the Earth doesn't have infinte amount of resources, fish stocks around the world are dying or have died and land and forests are being depleted at a alarming rate while the icecaps melt on top of that problem, fresh drinking water is still a problem for many in the world and that's going to become a "major" problem in the future and the weather is getting pretty bad.

Personally, I think the next 200 years is going to be pretty troublesome to put it lightly. We as a species need a kick up the ass.
 
Last edited:
IronWarrior said:
Because am not selfish and care for the many and not the few.

How many do you think would had died if the US had to invade mainland Japan instead of forcing them to surrender by the two Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Click to expand...

Most likely just as many but with less civilians involved. Less US deaths of course by bombing though.

Look at it this way if you annihilate the entire Middle East, the people who live in other areas will obviously take offence and rise up. Ok annihilate them too, people will rise up against killing our own citizens, annihilate them too? Where does it stop if we start?

If you successfully wipe out a problem another will rise or a lesser existing problem will suddenly become your biggest. It's never ending.
 
Last edited:
IronWarrior said:
Because am not selfish and care for the many and not the few.

How many do you think would had died if the US had to invade mainland Japan instead of forcing them to surrender by the two Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Click to expand...

No. You're entirely selfish because you are not even bothering to consider the many at all. You're proposing we wipe out entire nations to save your arse from bother. Seriously, a billion people as "collateral" ?
 
Mynight said:
Most likely just as many but with less civilians involved. Less US deaths of course by bombing though.

Look at it this way if you annihilate the entire Middle East, the people who live in other areas will obviously take offence and rise up. Ok annihilate them too, people will rise up against killing our own citizens, annihilate them too? Where does it stop if we start?

If you successfully wipe out a problem another will rise or a lesser existing problem will suddenly become your biggest. It's never ending.
Click to expand...

Just as many? Just as many and with less civilians? The Japanese civilians was killing themselves at the end of the war as the US was winning. The Army was handing out grenades to everyone to use on their families while many jumped off the cliffs into the sea. If we had fight a battle on mainland Japan, it would had been worst and am pretty sure the war would had gone on longer for many years as it would had turned into guerrilla war. There are stories of lost members of the Japanese Army still fighting 30+ years and more after World War 2 ended because they didn't believe it really ended.

I'm pretty sure no one would dare rise up after X happened and if they did, it would blow over faster and sooner then letting this go on for the next 100 years.
 
Dj_Jestar said:
No. You're entirely selfish because you are not even bothering to consider the many at all. You're proposing we wipe out entire nations to save your arse from bother. Seriously, a billion people as "collateral" ?
Click to expand...

Answer this question, you have a choice. Let 5 people die or save 5 people but be forced to kill 1 person to save the 5.

No way around it, choose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom