Alan Henning - how should we respond?

[daveiw01]

its a safe bet that all on here realise it would be impossible to carry out such an attack with a nuke, now remember the napalm that's the stuff that sorts the men out from the boys, torch the little fukers and let them burn in agony like ants, a slow painful death that's whats required here

You could read napalm as nothing more than a tester, the sad reality is that, tactical nukes will be 'deployed' at some point, possibly in the near future.

 

[mackenzie]

its a safe bet that all on here realise it would be impossible to carry out such an attack with a nuke, now remember the napalm that's the stuff that sorts the men out from the boys, torch the little fukers and let them burn in agony like ants, a slow painful death that's whats required here

No, because that makes martyrs out of people.

These scumbag radicals just need to be taken off the grid. Permanently.

Absolutely; quietly and efficiently.

 

[Ban-jani]

p.

We need troops on the ground.

We do, but I'm glad I'm too old for it, how old are you?

I'm 22.

 

[TangerineSteve17]

If we're being totally honest, nuking an area is in some way equivalent to salting the earth many moons ago, but even then it was nation v nation now it's in my opinion worse - it's religion, much much harder to rationalise.

For what it's worth, I would denounce ALL religions tomorrow, from then on we may have a real chance to focus on the future.

We'll get there. It might another few thousand years but there will be a time when the mechanized animal hybrid people will look back on religion and the part it played in history. They will roll their computerized cyber eyes and kangeroo jump the fuck on with living in harmony.

 

[Bluemoon115]

its a safe bet that all on here realise it would be impossible to carry out such an attack with a nuke, now remember the napalm that's the stuff that sorts the men out from the boys, torch the little fukers and let them burn in agony like ants, a slow painful death that's whats required here

No, because that makes martyrs out of people.

These scumbag radicals just need to be taken off the grid. Permanently.

Absolutely; quietly and efficiently.

I hope that planning such tactics is why we aren't seeing a response.

End the game before the opposition even realised we were playing.

 

[daveiw01]

p.

We need troops on the ground.

We do, but I'm glad I'm too old for it, how old are you?

I'm 22.

No offence, but would you wish to fill 2 of those boots?

 

[daveiw01]

If we're being totally honest, nuking an area is in some way equivalent to salting the earth many moons ago, but even then it was nation v nation now it's in my opinion worse - it's religion, much much harder to rationalise.

For what it's worth, I would denounce ALL religions tomorrow, from then on we may have a real chance to focus on the future.

We'll get there. It might another few thousand years but there will be a time when the mechanized animal hybrid people will look back on religion and the part it played in history. They will roll their computerized cyber eyes and kangeroo jump the fuck on with living in harmony.

Ha! We can only hope, I've wanted nothing more than a robo-Skippy all my life!

 

[marco]

its a safe bet that all on here realise it would be impossible to carry out such an attack with a nuke, now remember the napalm that's the stuff that sorts the men out from the boys, torch the little fukers and let them burn in agony like ants, a slow painful death that's whats required here

You could read napalm as nothing more than a tester, the sad reality is that, tactical nukes will be 'deployed' at some point, possibly in the near future.

i'm no tactical war expert but i don't think there is any chance whatsoever of a nuclear strike not in a million years, the number of innocents killed including children would be in the thousands, then we have the contamination argument, the world has moved on a long way since japan in the 2nd world war, nukes are for total warfare not sorting a bunch of over excited hillbillies out

 

[East Level 2]

its a safe bet that all on here realise it would be impossible to carry out such an attack with a nuke, now remember the napalm that's the stuff that sorts the men out from the boys, torch the little fukers and let them burn in agony like ants, a slow painful death that's whats required here

No, because that makes martyrs out of people.

These scumbag radicals just need to be taken off the grid. Permanently.

Absolutely; quietly and efficiently.

The latest American estimate is that IS have between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters. The Syrians estimate 50,000 in Syria and 30,000 in Iraq. How on earth do you suggest we get rid of them "quietly and efficiently"?
Serious question as these clowns need to be hammered out of existence but they are spread relatively thinly over a large area and can merge with the local population in some areas. We are fighting a huge collection of terrorist cells not a national army.

 

[Ban-jani]

We do, but I'm glad I'm too old for it, how old are you?

I'm 22.

No offence, but would you wish to fill 2 of those boots?

I know what you're getting at.

My career path hasn't featured the military so far. If the issue became severe enough and ordinary people were asked to fight, for example like WW2, then yes I'd go.

I'm eternally grateful for our service men and women and I don't think it unethical to want your nation to apply military action to a situation, even if you don't put yourself forward to begin with.