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

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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.
Nations should not go to war against random groups that pop their heads out of the sand. They should only declare war on other nations.

The use of nukes should be decided based upon an expectation that their use will save lives.

And why are so many liberal pansies starting threads on nukes?
 

Mocking You

New member
Nations should not go to war against random groups that pop their heads out of the sand. They should only declare war on other nations.

What nation attacked us on 911? What nation blew up the USS Cole? Put a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center? Blew up Pan Am 103?
 

Christian Liberty

Well-known member
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.

The clear Christian answer is clearly "absolutely none" and no, it doesn't "matter" if it would work or not, its still immoral.

That said, I apologize for the fact that you've received a completely aberrent and disgusting form of Christianity from this website and the hell-bound apostates that run it.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
What nation attacked us on 911? What nation blew up the USS Cole? Put a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center? Blew up Pan Am 103?

None.

I thought that would have been obvious. :duh:
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Nations should not go to war against random groups that pop their heads out of the sand. They should only declare war on other nations.

The use of nukes should be decided based upon an expectation that their use will save lives.

And why are so many liberal pansies starting threads on nukes?

You ever heard of MAD Stripe, I mean the non theological acronym just to save some confusion for you?

The yield capability of modern nukes goes way beyond those used on Japan -and they were more than destructive enough - so try and think for once, and really think through the ramifications of launching a nuclear strike on a nation.

If you're familiar at all with the consequences of a nuclear assault then you should know that the 'fallout' of the situation wouldn't simply be localized to the area you've targeted even without inevitable reprisals in turn.

You're as clueless and as 'gung ho' as Nick, and to liken an objection to the use of a weapon of mass destruction as being a 'liberal pansy' really just shows you for what you are, sadly enough.
 
Top