Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Why haven't isis been atom bombed yet?.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

Foreverton

Would it even be possible without harming any civilians

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 21

BrokenLife

Original post by Zuki

How so? You have a bunch of people really dedicated in what they believe in. Bombing them won't change that fact, unless you can specifically bomb that ideology out of their belief system, then killing them will accomplish absolutely nothing. During the time of the Paris attacks, a bunch of them were already killed with various air strikes and what not, but Paris still happened :dontknow:

MOTTI LIFE :afraid:

I'm not really back :colonhash:

Just kind of back :indiff:

I actually quit Pizza :u:

I'm a new man, all about that salad life now :u:

I'm good thank you :smile:

What about you? :tongue:

Are you making spaghetti rn? :hmmmm:

Well, nice to see you coming back 'kind of' :colonhash:

Not even moti no more :frown:

I'm a changed woman now..all about that salad life :innocent:

Tbh I made pasta today :indiff:

I've been good! :smile:

Glad to see you back! :h:

Reply 22

Metrododo

Original post by Sameerio

I think the IQ of OP is less than a rock

or below room temperature, as one would put it

Reply 23

581371

Original post by BrokenLife

Well, nice to see you coming back 'kind of' :colonhash:

Not even moti no more :frown:

I'm a changed woman now..all about that salad life :innocent:

Tbh I made pasta today :indiff:

I've been good! :smile:

Glad to see you back! :h:

Lmao, thanks :u:

You're definitely still moti :hand:

I don't believe you :hand:

You gulped down 9283777739.98 plates of spaghetti :hand:

Moti bandar :hand:

What did the pasta have? :colonhash:

Reply 24

BrokenLife

Original post by Zuki

Lmao, thanks :u:

You're definitely still moti :hand:

I don't believe you :hand:

You gulped down 9283777739.98 plates of spaghetti :hand:

Moti bandar :hand:

What did the pasta have? :colonhash:

Errrm...excuse me :colonhash:

So you telling me that I'm still a moti after entirely giving up on spaghetti :colonhash:

Y U SAY THIS :frown:

You pagal insaan :tongue:

Haha well..vegetable pasta..see I'm healthy :u:

Reply 25

username471863

And this, Ladies and Gentlemen is why stupid people should not talk about politics.

Reply 26

ellie0497

Lol how can you bomb ISIS? That's near impossible.
People with that ideology are all over the globe and not together in one village. Bombing ISIS means bombing more innocent people than your actual target.

Reply 27

Shillary

Original post by ellie0497

Lol how can you bomb ISIS? That's near impossible.

Many countries have been doing it for quite a while now, so that's evidently false.

Bombing ISIS means bombing more innocent people than your actual target.

No it doesn't. The UK, for instance, has minimised civilian casualties in its strikes against the IS in Syria/Iraq (to zero) by using precision-guided missiles, on terrorist targets only, meaning that where there is a civilian in range of an IS target they will not strike.

Reply 28

ellie0497

Original post by Shillary

Many countries have been doing it for quite a while now, so that's evidently false.

No it doesn't. The UK, for instance, has minimised civilian casualties in its strikes against the IS in Syria/Iraq (to zero) by using precision-guided missiles, on terrorist targets only, meaning that where there is a civilian in range of an IS target they will not strike.

Many countries have TRIED to do it for quite a while now but EVIDENTLY failed.

Also, OP wasn't talking about precision-guided missiles but was in fact referring to atom bombs.

Reply 29

Shillary

Original post by ellie0497

Many countries have TRIED to do it for quite a while now but EVIDENTLY failed.
How so? The IS has lost 40% of the territory it formerly held in Iraq, significantly reduced their oil revenue, and have lost 26,000 fighters. All due to the air-strikes that you say have "evidently failed".

Reply 30

JamesN88

If there was no fallout and no civilians in Raqqa then I'd be happy to fire the missile personally. Unfortunately neither is the case.

Reply 31

ellie0497

Original post by Shillary

How so? The IS has lost 40% of the territory it formerly held in Iraq, significantly reduced their oil revenue, and have lost 26,000 fighters. All due to the air-strikes that you say have "evidently failed".

How about the people sharing ISIS ideology in the UK and the rest of Europe, Africa or Asia? Did they drop in numbers?
The air-strikes may have targeted a particular number of ISIS members but that didn't have a significant impact on actually removing ISIS so therefore evidently failed.

Reply 32

Shillary

Original post by ellie0497

The air-strikes may have targeted a particular number of ISIS members but that didn't have a significant impact on actually removing ISIS so therefore evidently failed.

What do you mean 'actually removing ISIS [sic]'? They have not 'failed', they are a work in progress, and, as I showed you in my last post, have achieved a lot already.

Just because air-strikes cannot solve the problem entirely, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be used at all, especially when they can contribute to solving the problem in a significant way (again, as I illustrated they have been doing in my last post).

What is important is that the Islamic State's big 'draw' is its territory - its 'caliphate' on an actual land mass where sharia law governs. This is a huge part of their appeal and where they derive their legitimacy from (as an Islamic State). Targeting this, as air-strikes do, to reduce the area under their control would significantly damage their claims to being an Islamic State on earth and thus would strike at the core of their appeal.

Air-strikes in support of Kurds on the ground have helped the Kurds gain territory and have also saved lives and prevented countless massacres as a result.

I am not saying that air-strikes will prevent the radicalisation of Western Muslims or anything, just that they serve a very serious purpose that extends beyond that.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 33

JeffyBoyAnjou

Bicoz bomming thuhm rëlee iznt a vïuhbuhl opshuhn az mor ixtreemists wil simplee fil thêr pleys. Wot wee need tuh takuhl iz thuh ïdeeoluhjee, that's thuh önlee wey to püt a stop tuh theez monstuhz.

Reply 34

ellie0497

Original post by Shillary

What do you mean 'actually removing ISIS [sic]'? They have not 'failed', they are a work in progress, and, as I showed you in my last post, have achieved a lot already.

Just because air-strikes cannot solve the problem entirely, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be used at all, especially when they can contribute to solving the problem in a significant way (again, as I illustrated they have been doing in my last post).

What is important is that the Islamic State's big 'draw' is its territory - its 'caliphate' on an actual land mass where sharia law governs. This is a huge part of their appeal and where they derive their legitimacy from (as an Islamic State). Targeting this, as air-strikes do, to reduce the area under their control would significantly damage their claims to being an Islamic State on earth and thus would strike at the core of their appeal.

Air-strikes in support of Kurds on the ground have helped the Kurds gain territory and have also saved lives and prevented countless massacres as a result.

I am not saying that air-strikes will prevent the radicalise of Western Muslims or anything, just that they serve a very serious purpose that extends beyond that.

I think what you're failing to understand is the fact ISIS is pretty much an ideology so how can bombs possibly get rid of an ideology?

Also, if bombs can't solve the problem entirely, why should we gamble with hope it will work when we know innocent people will die too.

I find it absolutely selfish to drop bombs to protect your country/neighbouring countries while the residence in the areas targeted are debating whether they will live.

Reply 35

Merfie

The majority of ISIS's strongholds are mingled with the towns and villages of innocent civilians. Atom bomb ISIS, and you'll be bombing them as well.

Reply 36

Shillary

You have failed to raise anything I haven't already dealt with.

Original post by ellie0497

I think what you're failing to understand is the fact ISIS is pretty much an ideology so how can bombs possibly get rid of an ideology?

The last sentence of my last post summarises this:

I am not saying that air-strikes will prevent the radicalisation of Western Muslims or anything, just that they serve a very serious purpose that extends beyond that.

ellie

Also, if bombs can't solve the problem entirely, why should we gamble with hope it will work when we know innocent people will die too.

As I have already said:

The UK, for instance, has minimised civilian casualties in its strikes against the IS in Syria/Iraq (to zero) by using precision-guided missiles, on terrorist targets only, meaning that where there is a civilian in range of an IS target they will not strike.

Thus we can deal real, significant blows to the IS, and prevent massacres etc whilst minimising (again, in the case of the RAF, to zero) civilian casualties. The tangible benefits of air-strikes:

The IS has lost 40% of the territory it formerly held in Iraq, significantly reduced their oil revenue, and have lost 26,000 fighters.

Air-strikes in support of Kurds on the ground have helped the Kurds gain territory and have also saved lives and prevented countless massacres as a result.

These results prove that air-strikes are no "gamble".

ellie

I find it absolutely selfish to drop bombs to protect your country/neighbouring countries while the residence in the areas targeted are debating whether they will live.

As I have already told you numerous times, RAF air-strikes have resulted in the deaths of zero civilians in Iraq/Syria. In fact, Western air-strikes have saved lives on the ground, which is far more humane than sitting back and allowing Islamists to massacre Yazidis and other minorities.

With these tangible benefits, and virtually no negative consequences (I repeat: zero civilian casualties have been caused in Iraq/Syria by UK air-strikes), why on earth would you not support such air-strikes (bearing in mind that they are only one part of a multi-pronged strategy that is necessary to defeat the IS - but without doubt a crucial one).

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 37

Foreverton

Original post by ellie0497

So in your opinion, what would be the best course of action in the western world to prevent the spread of ISIS and its extreme ideology?

Reply 38

ellie0497

Original post by Foreverton

So in your opinion, what would be the best course of action in the western world to prevent the spread of ISIS and its extreme ideology?

-Improving security
-Stop giving ISIS so much media attention
-Integrate people (e.g. living in the UK) rather than alienate
-Stop intervening through violent means since that never seems to work