hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Maybe because they are backward savages who kill people who dont believe in what they preach, use religion to hold onto their societal dominance over women, they kill our soldiers.
These people are not human. They are disgusting. I say bomb the region to all hell.

And how are you any better than those so-called savages if you things like this? In fact, I think it makes you just as bad, if not worse. What you write is absolutely disgusting.
Why do the moderators even allow sick Hitler-like rambling like this on the forum?

"they are backward savages who kill people who dont believe in what they preach"
Just like the US you mean?

Spoiler:

Many times, the US has attacked places that did not share American values in order to "liberate them from their dictators and bring them democracy" which invariably leads to bloodshed.

"use religion to hold onto their societal dominance over women"
Women's rights are culturally subjective. Many muslim women do not even want to have more rights.

"they kill our soldiers."
Seriously? Of course they do! They are invaders. If they don't fight back, your soldiers are going to kill them (which they are going to do anyways, because the fight is anything but fair). Maybe if you did not want your soldiers killed, you should not have send them there in the first place.

"These people are not human. They are disgusting. I say bomb the region to all hell"
HEIL the glorious American master race! Death to the sub-human Islamic vermin!
I really hope you realise how horrible you sound here...
In any case, I wish you the best of luck in bombing disgusting non-human children like these to hell:


I sincerely hope you are trolling here and this is Poe's Law in effect, because if not, it is absolutely pathethic.



Maybe it would be better if the moderators lock this thread. I do not feel anything good is going to come out of it.

Wrong, they are objectively bad people. It isn't a culture difference like how in Sweden they don't kill people for murdrr.
They chop heads of live, burn people, steal school girls to be raped, impregnated and used for being a wife to some 50 year old man.
I know good muslims, but the east aren't muslims, they areally using Muslim doctrine for self gain. Like republicans.

 feeder wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Given that we are fighting a foe who is deliberately trying to cause collateral damage, yes its very few.

And just look at other wars in the past.

WW2: An estimated 62% of the total deaths were civilian. The Iraq and Afghan war isn't particularly egregious in that.

Well, at least we are on pace with the most destructive conflict in history.

My point is, we have people in our society proudly calling for the total eradication of the Middle East based on the extremely horrifying actions of a tiny minority of it's inhabitants. That is seven shades of backward-ass, fethed up nonsense.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
There is real issues out there. However the likes of Isis need to know there messed up actions will not be tolerated and there Is a response.

Stop them before they bring there messed up thinking to western cities.

That messed up thinking is already here. We have enlightened, civilised Westerners ITT calling for the total destruction of the Middle East because the inhabitants are not human. Truly, this thread is a low point for Dakka.

While its still important to not lose sight of humanity, there has to be a point where you say enough is enough.

We can't just let these terrible things continue to happen.

Stopping something terrible by doing something which is also terrible isn't a bad thing. Its the hard decision that is ultimately the right one.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Given that we are fighting a foe who is deliberately trying to cause collateral damage, yes its very few.

And just look at other wars in the past.

WW2: An estimated 62% of the total deaths were civilian. The Iraq and Afghan war isn't particularly egregious in that.

Well, at least we are on pace with the most destructive conflict in history.

My point is, we have people in our society proudly calling for the total eradication of the Middle East based on the extremely horrifying actions of a tiny minority of it's inhabitants. That is seven shades of backward-ass, fethed up nonsense.

That tiny minority isn't as tiny as many people are claiming.

Its more like a large minority, backed up by at best an apathetic majority who passively support them but aren't quite willing to go over.

And that minority is growing at a worrying pace.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
There is real issues out there. However the likes of Isis need to know there messed up actions will not be tolerated and there Is a response.

Stop them before they bring there messed up thinking to western cities.

That messed up thinking is already here. We have enlightened, civilised Westerners ITT calling for the total destruction of the Middle East because the inhabitants are not human. Truly, this thread is a low point for Dakka.

While its still important to not lose sight of humanity, there has to be a point where you say enough is enough.

We can't just let these terrible things continue to happen.

Stopping something terrible by doing something which is also terrible isn't a bad thing. Its the hard decision that is ultimately the right one.

"If you gaze into the abyss for too long, the abyss gazes back into you" "When fighting a dragon, take care not to become one yourself".
Stopping something terrible by doing something also terrible is not possible. It would be like stopping a nosebleed by cutting of the nose.

 Grey Templar wrote:
When the end result is less innocent people getting hurt overall, yes it does.

If these people have their way, they would conquer the world and spread their terror to every corner. Realistically, we have a portion of the globe that just churns out terrorists that will make civilized life a living hell with the constant threat of bombs and other attacks until they are stopped. And we always risk them actually uniting behind one banner and becoming a new evil empire like the US or Nazi Germany, a small but definite threat.

War is already a nasty business. Attempting to make it civilized only results in you hampering yourself when the other guy doesn't have the same morals. Rules only make sense when everyone follows them, we're fighting people who have no rules. And that lets them fight us on an even playing field when it really shouldn't.

 Grey Templar wrote:
When the end result is less innocent people getting hurt overall, yes it does.

If these people have their way, they would conquer the world and spread their terror to every corner. Realistically, we have a portion of the globe that just churns out terrorists that will make civilized life a living hell with the constant threat of bombs and other attacks until they are stopped. And we always risk them actually uniting behind one banner and becoming a new evil empire like the USSR or Nazi Germany, a small but definite threat.

War is already a nasty business. Attempting to make it civilized only results in you hampering yourself when the other guy doesn't have the same morals. Rules only make sense when everyone follows them, we're fighting people who have no rules. And that lets them fight us on an even playing field when it really shouldn't.

 Grey Templar wrote:
When the end result is less innocent people getting hurt overall, yes it does.

If these people have their way, they would conquer the world and spread their terror to every corner. Realistically, we have a portion of the globe that just churns out terrorists that will make civilized life a living hell with the constant threat of bombs and other attacks until they are stopped. And we always risk them actually uniting behind one banner and becoming a new evil empire like the USSR or Nazi Germany, a small but definite threat.

War is already a nasty business. Attempting to make it civilized only results in you hampering yourself when the other guy doesn't have the same morals. Rules only make sense when everyone follows them, we're fighting people who have no rules. And that lets them fight us on an even playing field when it really shouldn't.

 feeder wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
When the end result is less innocent people getting hurt overall, yes it does.

If these people have their way, they would conquer the world and spread their terror to every corner. Realistically, we have a portion of the globe that just churns out terrorists that will make civilized life a living hell with the constant threat of bombs and other attacks until they are stopped. And we always risk them actually uniting behind one banner and becoming a new evil empire like the USSR or Nazi Germany, a small but definite threat.

War is already a nasty business. Attempting to make it civilized only results in you hampering yourself when the other guy doesn't have the same morals. Rules only make sense when everyone follows them, we're fighting people who have no rules. And that lets them fight us on an even playing field when it really shouldn't.

Well, we not going to agree on this one. Thanks for the discussion.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Who said anything about becoming like them?

We're not going to be deliberately targeting civilians like they do. We'll simply stop letting them hide behind civilians. And you know what that will do? They'll stop hiding behind them, because they'll either be dead OR they'll smarten up and go and actually hide somewhere. End result is they'll stop doing that.

When something stops working, they'll stop doing it. They hide behind civilians because it works, because we lack the stomach to do the right thing and kill the bad guy.

You'd rather let someone get away with killing, raping, and generally making life hell for hundreds or even thousands of people than kill a couple innocent people because the terrorist is standing behind them. Thats really the choice here.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Who said anything about becoming like them?

We're not going to be deliberately targeting civilians like they do. We'll simply stop letting them hide behind civilians. And you know what that will do? They'll stop hiding behind them, because they'll either be dead OR they'll smarten up and go and actually hide somewhere. End result is they'll stop doing that.

When something stops working, they'll stop doing it. They hide behind civilians because it works, because we lack the stomach to do the right thing and kill the bad guy.

You'd rather let someone get away with killing, raping, and generally making life hell for hundreds or even thousands of people than kill a couple innocent people because the terrorist is standing behind them. Thats really the choice here.

So you are going to stop the terrorist from hiding behind the civillian by blowing the civillians up? And somehow you still think that is not deliberately targetting them?
Maybe you should ask the civillians first whether they prefer being killed by the West over being killed by ISIS?
The thing is that you can't stop this with just killing a couple of innocent people. Depending on the weapons used, a military campaign against ISIS would lead to hundreds of thousands if not millions of civillian casualties. And how are you going to tell terrorists and civillians apart in the first place? Is the person who joins ISIS to fight the West after the West bombed his kids really evil? Is he a terrorist? Things are never black and white, and the West loses any claim to the moral high ground if it deliberately targets civillians (which is what you are doing when you kill them along with the terrorist that hides behind). And if the West is just as bad as ISIS, than what is the justification for the bombings in the first place?

 feeder wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
There is real issues out there. However the likes of Isis need to know there messed up actions will not be tolerated and there Is a response.

Stop them before they bring there messed up thinking to western cities.

That messed up thinking is already here. We have enlightened, civilised Westerners ITT calling for the total destruction of the Middle East because the inhabitants are not human. Truly, this thread is a low point for Dakka.

 feeder wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Given that we are fighting a foe who is deliberately trying to cause collateral damage, yes its very few.

And just look at other wars in the past.

WW2: An estimated 62% of the total deaths were civilian. The Iraq and Afghan war isn't particularly egregious in that.

Well, at least we are on pace with the most destructive conflict in history.

My point is, we have people in our society proudly calling for the total eradication of the Middle East based on the extremely horrifying actions of a tiny minority of it's inhabitants. That is seven shades of backward-ass, fethed up nonsense.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Who said anything about becoming like them?

We're not going to be deliberately targeting civilians like they do. We'll simply stop letting them hide behind civilians. And you know what that will do? They'll stop hiding behind them, because they'll either be dead OR they'll smarten up and go and actually hide somewhere. End result is they'll stop doing that.

When something stops working, they'll stop doing it. They hide behind civilians because it works, because we lack the stomach to do the right thing and kill the bad guy.

You'd rather let someone get away with killing, raping, and generally making life hell for hundreds or even thousands of people than kill a couple innocent people because the terrorist is standing behind them. Thats really the choice here.

So you are going to stop the terrorist from hiding behind the civillian by blowing the civillians up? And somehow you still think that is not deliberately targetting them?
Maybe you should ask the civillians first whether they prefer being killed by the West over being killed by ISIS?
The thing is that you can't stop this with just killing a couple of innocent people. Depending on the weapons used, a military campaign against ISIS would lead to hundreds of thousands if not millions of civillian casualties. And how are you going to tell terrorists and civillians apart in the first place? Is the person who joins ISIS to fight the West after the West bombed his kids really evil? Is he a terrorist? Things are never black and white, and the West loses any claim to the moral high ground if it deliberately targets civillians (which is what you are doing when you kill them along with the terrorist that hides behind). And if the West is just as bad as ISIS, than what is the justification for the bombings in the first place?

There is nothing to discuss with you if you can't tell the difference between targeting a terrorist and happening to catch some civilians in the crossfire and deliberately targeting those civilians in the first place.

 AduroT wrote:
It's very true though, if we just nuke the whole region then they won't be able to kill any more innocents since well already have killed them all ourselves.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Who said anything about becoming like them?

We're not going to be deliberately targeting civilians like they do. We'll simply stop letting them hide behind civilians. And you know what that will do? They'll stop hiding behind them, because they'll either be dead OR they'll smarten up and go and actually hide somewhere. End result is they'll stop doing that.

When something stops working, they'll stop doing it. They hide behind civilians because it works, because we lack the stomach to do the right thing and kill the bad guy.

You'd rather let someone get away with killing, raping, and generally making life hell for hundreds or even thousands of people than kill a couple innocent people because the terrorist is standing behind them. Thats really the choice here.

So you are going to stop the terrorist from hiding behind the civillian by blowing the civillians up? And somehow you still think that is not deliberately targetting them?
Maybe you should ask the civillians first whether they prefer being killed by the West over being killed by ISIS?
The thing is that you can't stop this with just killing a couple of innocent people. Depending on the weapons used, a military campaign against ISIS would lead to hundreds of thousands if not millions of civillian casualties. And how are you going to tell terrorists and civillians apart in the first place? Is the person who joins ISIS to fight the West after the West bombed his kids really evil? Is he a terrorist? Things are never black and white, and the West loses any claim to the moral high ground if it deliberately targets civillians (which is what you are doing when you kill them along with the terrorist that hides behind). And if the West is just as bad as ISIS, than what is the justification for the bombings in the first place?

There is nothing to discuss with you if you can't tell the difference between targeting a terrorist and happening to catch some civilians in the crossfire and deliberately targeting those civilians in the first place.

Maybe you'd care to explain yourself for once rather than making statements without arguments.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Who said anything about becoming like them?

We're not going to be deliberately targeting civilians like they do. We'll simply stop letting them hide behind civilians. And you know what that will do? They'll stop hiding behind them, because they'll either be dead OR they'll smarten up and go and actually hide somewhere. End result is they'll stop doing that.

When something stops working, they'll stop doing it. They hide behind civilians because it works, because we lack the stomach to do the right thing and kill the bad guy.

You'd rather let someone get away with killing, raping, and generally making life hell for hundreds or even thousands of people than kill a couple innocent people because the terrorist is standing behind them. Thats really the choice here.

So you are going to stop the terrorist from hiding behind the civillian by blowing the civillians up? And somehow you still think that is not deliberately targetting them?
Maybe you should ask the civillians first whether they prefer being killed by the West over being killed by ISIS?
The thing is that you can't stop this with just killing a couple of innocent people. Depending on the weapons used, a military campaign against ISIS would lead to hundreds of thousands if not millions of civillian casualties. And how are you going to tell terrorists and civillians apart in the first place? Is the person who joins ISIS to fight the West after the West bombed his kids really evil? Is he a terrorist? Things are never black and white, and the West loses any claim to the moral high ground if it deliberately targets civillians (which is what you are doing when you kill them along with the terrorist that hides behind). And if the West is just as bad as ISIS, than what is the justification for the bombings in the first place?

There is nothing to discuss with you if you can't tell the difference between targeting a terrorist and happening to catch some civilians in the crossfire and deliberately targeting those civilians in the first place.

Maybe you'd care to explain yourself for once rather than making statements without arguments.

You couldn't tell the difference between deliberately targeting civilians, which is what terrorists do, and targeting terrorists and happening to cause some collateral damage.

Basically, we need to be less sensitive to collateral damage.

If we make the previously safe areas terrorists like to hide in suddenly unsafe, they'll stop hiding there. If they can no longer sit next to schools, hospitals, and houses and be safe, they'll instead go and hide where they're not in plain sight. Our restrictive ROE basically allows them to get away with doing what they do, which is hurt innocent people.

See the difference now? Its all about intent. We're shouldn't to go out of our way to cause harm to civilians, but neither should we allow terrorists to escape.