Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vilanat]

Ruin morale for whom? the European based Terrorists? i think the contrary, it would only radicalize more Muslims and inspire more Terrorism.

Also, these are Death cults we're dealing with here, dying in combat is one of their motivations.

Hollande announced that France will intensify it's attacks on IS in Syria and Iraq

That's a mistake. the enemy is within, not somewhere in Raqqa or Mosul. the reason for the enemy being an enemy also isn't in Raqqa or Mosul, it's in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt and such.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Well...... If we talk about impossible events...  There are two very promising targets for nukes - Mecca and Medina.

Answering terrorism with terrorism of much greater scale is an interesting hypothetical solution "Muslims if this will continue, your holy places may vaporize"

[martinuzz]

That would only serve to send 2 billion muslims who are now moderate and peaceful into a kafir killing frenzy that makes IS look like schoolgirls. Bad idea.

[Sheb]

To be fair, if we start nuking cities to the ground, killing hundred of thousands because they happen to share a religion with someone who killed dozens here, I too will start planning terror attacks (targeting our government rather than our general civilian populace, but still).

UR: You got beat by some ISIS-affiliate setting off a bomb in Medina a few weeks ago.

[hops]

Hell, ISIS would probably raze Mecca to the ground just so that the US can't use it as a hostage.

[Kot]

Isin't the destruction of Mecca/Medina considered one of events that are likely to cause WW3? That shit would be serious.

[Sheb]

Depend how they're destroyed. You'd have a ton of pissed muslims, that's for sure.

[Orange Wizard]

That's a mistake. the enemy is within, not somewhere in Raqqa or Mosul. the reason for the enemy being an enemy also isn't in Raqqa or Mosul, it's in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt and such.

There's enemies all over the place, but the ones under arms are the most immediate threat. Frankly I'm in favour of invading pretty much every country in the Middle-east, but one thing at a time. Imperialism can wait.

So while definitly not as powerful as nukes in general, 'miniscule', or 'dwarfed' might be a bit underrating them.

Oh sure the bombs themselves are excellent, just lacks the level of mind-boggling horror

Isin't the destruction of Mecca/Medina considered one of events that are likely to cause WW3? That shit would be serious.

World war? I doubt it. The only countries likely to object are the Muslim ones (discounting hippies, UN and so on who'd complain about civilian deaths) who are all dependent on the West for soldiers and weapons. Would be loads of unrest and terror, be we have that anyway.

[Sheb]

To be fair, there is a certain logic in striking IS's territory in Syria. For starter, it's one of the few that is easy to strike. Then, the sooner Syria is quite-ish, the fast it stop acting as a training ground for European jihadis.

[hops]

You say that, as if Muslims aren't a threat. I mean, the IS is only a small fraction of muslims, and the western world is already sucking so much at getting rid of them. It's amazing how many [redacted] can fit in the [expunged] of western leaders when it comes to homeland security, really. It's like reverse tentacle [no], where instead of [golly!] tentacles, you have infinite [boy!] on the body of, say, Obama, as the IS insert their [whew] in him and filling him with their [hooey] while he moans for them to inject him with more [wow], his shivering hands grabbing for their gigantic [yep] desperately, trying to please them as they [welp] and laughed in syrian.

[miljan]

That's a mistake. the enemy is within, not somewhere in Raqqa or Mosul. the reason for the enemy being an enemy also isn't in Raqqa or Mosul, it's in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt and such.

There's enemies all over the place, but the ones under arms are the most immediate threat. Frankly I'm in favour of invading pretty much every country in the Middle-east, but one thing at a time. Imperialism can wait.

That type of logic is what got us here with terrorist attacks. If countries did not start all this shit up in middle east with invading, destroying million of lives and not thinking at all, including france, you would not have this shit here.

If you attack countries, bomb countries, try to force and dictate a change in other countries, you should not be surprised at some time in the future that they will bite you back and bring the war (or little taste of it) back to you.

Anyway there is nothing france can do now (it could maybe 10/20 years ago, but not now). They will increase probably bombing the desert or the city killing few more civilians for media and similar, and than go back to how it was.

[DJ]

Even a good old fashioned crusade would have better results than nuking stuff. Too bad our current Pope is such a hippy.

[hops]

The Pope would literally be assassinated so fast if he tried to get involved with how incompetent security is lately.

[martinuzz]

World war? I doubt it. The only countries likely to object are the Muslim ones (discounting hippies, UN and so on who'd complain about civilian deaths) who are all dependent on the West for soldiers and weapons. Would be loads of unrest and terror, be we have that anyway.

Erm, I think there's more muslim coutries getting weapons from China and Russia than there's muslim countries getting weapons from the West.
Don't forget, arabs are just a small part of muslims. Most of the world's muslims live in Asia.
If you nuke Mecca and Medina you're quite likely to eat Pakistani nukes, and face an Indonesian invasion.

[Vilanat]

That's a mistake. the enemy is within, not somewhere in Raqqa or Mosul. the reason for the enemy being an enemy also isn't in Raqqa or Mosul, it's in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt and such.

There's enemies all over the place, but the ones under arms are the most immediate threat. Frankly I'm in favour of invading pretty much every country in the Middle-east, but one thing at a time. Imperialism can wait.

That type of logic is what got us here with terrorist attacks. If countries did not start all this shit up in middle east with invading, destroying million of lives and not thinking at all, including france, you would not have this shit here.

If you attack countries, bomb countries, try to force and dictate a change in other countries, you should not be surprised at some time in the future that they will bite you back and bring the war (or little taste of it) back to you.

Anyway there is nothing france can do now (it could maybe 10/20 years ago, but not now). They will increase probably bombing the desert or the city killing few more civilians for media and similar, and than go back to how it was.

How come Japan, Korea, Germany, Israel, Mexico, China, Vietnam didn't manufacture masses of terrorists then?