There is no such place. Civilians will be among the casualties. Nukes aren't even fun in a joke. Furthermore, USA might have thrown nukes over civilians enough for the eternity. My hopes are no other country, or terrorist group will succeed. It's likely to be equal to the end of the world.
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 28, 2016 10:27 PM MST
Your right SH. I was being shallow as I know anynukes anywhere means the end of our humanity:) I was just referring to my Republican brother total reactionary ness:) Trump!!!! Shake em up!!!!!!
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 28, 2016 11:02 PM MST
Which neighbourhood do you want to see vaporised? You can take you pick and for every terrorist you kill you'll 'collateral damage' at least ten times that number of civilians. That's the problem with terrorists, they just don't play fair.
And why should they, when to do so would see their swift destruction?
I'm confused by the Obama part, I have to admit.
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 28, 2016 10:43 PM MST
Re: "That's the problem with terrorists, they just don't play fair."
Right, invading and bombarding a nation which was NOT an existential threat to the United STates and which had NOTHING to do with the 9/11 attacks was "playing fair"
I think you misinterpret my answer, OS. I made no observation about western aggression in the middle east and used the words 'play fair' merely to point out the rather absurd nature of the question.
That a lot of people expect terrorists to play by rules they have no say in, delivered by an authority they are often fighting against, and at the same time more itch to use the 'big guns' in the west's arsenal for an 'easy solution' says a lot about us, I think.
I was a bit surprised you introduced the concept of "fairness" (although I NOW understand what you were getting at) into geopolitical disputation, which is as amoral an insitution as we find in human culture.
It's even a 'good' plan if one doesn't mind harming people indiscriminately. Such plans have periodically become popular throughout history - usually when nobody has a coherent answer to important social or political questions, or merely (and most cynically) as a political tool - and I think we can guess how they've all turned out.
Really it all comes down to how 'others' are seen in the corridors of power. If they're dismissed or demonised then someone always suffers - usually lots of someones.
Please state the EXACT geopolitical goal you wish to accomplish with this action.
The phrasing of your question suggests your only goal is "KILL AS MANY F***ING HADJIS AS POSSIBLE!!!!" If that is your goal, then you are a contemptible bigot who is advocating war crimes.
(Obvious joke: That makes you a typical Trump voter...;-D...)
No nukes. That would kill many innocents, and would make young innocents hate the US even more, and give them more of an incentive to become soldiers themselves. It's better to take out the leaders of ISIS in a quick assault. Similar to the Bin Laden way. Trump is right about the element of surprise.
For strategy, a nuclear bomb would be the worst possible way to attempt to wipe out terrorism. I won't even start on the obvious reasons. The best strategy would be to disrupt their mobile phones and computers and simultaneously send in small SAS assault teams to capture or kill the leaders. Allies use radio in code. Then progressively take out the layers of leaders underneath.
The Yasidis have learned one of the best techniques. ISIS fighters believe that if a woman kills them they will not go to heaven as martyrs. So the Yasidi women are training as soldiers and when they go in, the enemy turns and runs. Many get shot in the back.
A few brave Matahari-type infiltrators could work wonders. Women fluent in the language and in Islam, who go in to become brides of key assistants to the leaders and win the trust of the community. Such women could easily assassinate those leaders and their thinkers.
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 29, 2016 12:14 AM MST
Benedict Arnold 