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.

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

Tactical nukes are for designated battlefield areas in the main, obviously this discounts the horrible after effects of any nuclear release, but tactical nuclear warfare is more easily rationalised - not my thoughts.

 

[marco]

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.

there are many forced conscripts in those numbers two, it would be interesting to see how many run when the going gets tough, i'd say over 50% of them

 

[Bluemoon115]

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.

Locate and remove the leaders, the handlers etc, slow the flow of information between cells.

Cells are like families, and don't like to trust anyone outside of their "family". Cells don't trust each other at the best of times, and if a common handler "went missing", rifts between them would quickly appear.

 

[daveiw01]

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.

there are many forced conscripts in those numbers two, it would be interesting to see how many run when the going gets tough, i'd say over 50% of them

Would that 50% suddenly become rational?

 

[Bluemoon115]

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.

there are many forced conscripts in those numbers two, it would be interesting to see how many run when the going gets tough, i'd say over 50% of them

Would that 50% suddenly become rational?

They already are.

"Join up or die" - rational decision is to join up.

"Surrender or die" - rational decision is to surrender.

 

[marco]

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.

there are many forced conscripts in those numbers two, it would be interesting to see how many run when the going gets tough, i'd say over 50% of them

Would that 50% suddenly become rational?

certainly not daveiw, they would simply intergrate back into the population, then start again on the next uprising

 

[marco]

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.

there are many forced conscripts in those numbers to, it would be interesting to see how many run when the going gets tough, i'd say over 50% of them

Would that 50% suddenly become rational?

 

[daveiw01]

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.

It's far from unethical, but it's much harder if it's you or I that's dying for a cause and somewhat less simplistic is it not?

 

[daveiw01]

there are many forced conscripts in those numbers two, it would be interesting to see how many run when the going gets tough, i'd say over 50% of them

Would that 50% suddenly become rational?

They already are.

"Join up or die" - rational decision is to join up.

"Surrender or die" - rational decision is to surrender.

 

[daveiw01]

there are many forced conscripts in those numbers two, it would be interesting to see how many run when the going gets tough, i'd say over 50% of them

Would that 50% suddenly become rational?

They already are.

"Join up or die" - rational decision is to join up.

"Surrender or die" - rational decision is to surrender.

If only life was so easy. :)