you have no free will, that is decided by the gods and our spritual bodies u fool

When you're contradicting half of what you say, it's pretty obvious that your "passion" is being overlooked by something much more ridiculous.

And that is nothing compared to the damage America's military could unleash if it had the public's backing. When American citizens support a war they go all out; if ISIS keeps stuff like this up or brings their attacks onto US soil I doubt the American public will maintain the stance of remaining uninvolved in the conflicts. While I am sure that most of America is very upset about the Paris attacks and any other attacks that ISIS has done against the civilized world, it would be a much different situation when the attacks come back home. Just look at how we reacted after Pearl Harbor or 9/11.

Regardless though, ISIS is digging its own grave here by harassing countries like France and Russia; bombing buildings may not hurt them in their own territory, but when it comes to the rest of the world they become severely outmatched.


Also it should be obvious to everyone that Conquest is a troll.

@Conquest tl;dr

also religion is booty and you smell like farts

Rough estimation of land controlled or contested currently by ISIS:

https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qim...t_to_webp=true


You may notice there's an awful lot of area there that is not controlled by ISIS, likely never will be, not to mention neighboring countries and so forth.

https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qim...t_to_webp=true

Faces of civilian Syrian refugee children who would be either vaporized or possibly subject to long-term radiation effects from your "nuke" option, are below. (And this is just but one random photo; it doesn't include the hundreds of thousands of others, if not more than that even, of random civilian people, men women and children, non-combatants, who are already having a bad enough life as it is, who would be effected by or annihilated by a nuclear weapon detonated in the region).

Whoever would have all this blood and guilt on their hands, well, they would make ISIS look like nothing much really, in the grander scheme of things.(btw,you will kill me too if the nuke drops. #innocent)

I'd say that is an awful lot of land when it comes down to it being under the control of a terrorist organization. That map makes it look like 1/3 of Syria is under ISIS control. The problem isn't the land ISIS doesn't control, its the land that it does control; and yes that land will definitely grow if the rest of the world stays uninvolved.

Didn't even reference nuclear warfare anywhere. Someone else did but they are probably just 12 years old and have been playing too much Call of Duty. But yea, using WMDs anywhere is pretty bad and at this point their only use is to keep the world in a state of mutually assured destruction is one was used.

Wtf, who suggested nukes?

That's straight ******ed, a nuke would pretty much ruin the land in and surrounding the blast radius including parts and Isreal and other anti-ISIS nations.

Not to mention the Syrian refugees which everyone are already sick of would literally have nowhere to go, so GG and WP smart person who suggested nukes.

Oh of course, it's this guy.

Who else would make such an intelligent suggestion?

well sometimes you have to make hard decisions (hiroshima).. and if hitler had won the war then we didnt had this problem today ;)

LOL are you serious?

Hitler already killed himself when the US even made the decision to bomb Japan.

Kid, go read your history textbook before you make ridiculous assumptions like this.

An atomic bomb is nowhere near as powerful as a nuclear warhead.

the point is we have to kill them all , i dont care what bomb they use ,they just should do it . And i never sayed that hitler was still alive when they did bomb japan ...

If bombing happens anywhere then I hope they don't end up using nuclear bombs as that would ruin a place for a long time

Two very different scenarios. From what I learned Japan as a whole was in support of the war-- Syria and Iraq certainly do not; they are being harassed by a terrorist group, so your solution is to just blow them up, innocent civilians and all? Yea, we certainly haven't ended enough innocent lives there yet. Do you even know how much land area nuclear weapons destroy? Because it certainly isn't enough for a single bomb to take care of ISIS with how spread out they are, all it would do is clear a city.

WMDs aren't meant to take down unorganized terrorist groups that are bent on destruction, they are meant to destroy cities and cripple nations during war time. A nuke would not stop ISIS, a stable government and political borders that actually make cultural sense would.


Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't very hard decisions either; those bombs saved more lives than they ended had the war continued.

Well Anglo coorporate countries have been fn the Middle East for decades so what do you expect?DERP they didn't start it Isis is a reaction to oppression

Just gonna assume this was them again