And you've endorsed the kind of military intervention which has failed in the past and arguably made matters worse, so you shouldn't be so cocksure, and should be a little more empathetic. — Sapientia

It's too late in the present case, so I will simply leave you with this: War has already been declared, and it has been declared against you. The forces of ISIS seek your death, or else your enslavement They could not be more explicit about it. The only question is when you will recognize this. No, Europe is not the main theater of the war, but it is a part of it nonetheless. For the first time in some 70 odd years, bombs and bullets can be heard again in its great cities. Why? Because the West refuses to destroy the source. You shouldn't be so cocksure that playing around with evil and letting it fester is not itself a colossal failure, morally speaking and otherwise.

Not for me at least. — Sapientia

Wonders never cease. The feeling is not exactly mutual, though.

It's too late in the present case, so I will simply leave you with this: War has already been declared, and it has been declared against you. The forces of ISIS seek your death, or else your enslavement. They could not be more explicit about it. The only question is when you will recognize this. — Thorongil

Too late in the sense that there is already a multi-sided armed conflict going on in Syria, and international military interventions have already taken place? I already recognise that, and that it includes my own sovereign state. The motion on ISIL in Syria passed December last year, with a vote of 397 to 223 after a debate which lasted over 11 hours. That's a significant length of time and a significant number who were opposed, so it shouldn't be made out to be straightforward with an obvious answer.

I was likewise already aware of the declarations of ISIS. There isn't a problem of awareness or recognition on my part in that respect.

For the first time in some 70 odd years, bombs and bullets can be heard again in its great cities. Why? Because the West refuses to destroy the source. — Thorongil

'Refuses to' implies 'is able to'.

Explain then, how the source can be 'destroyed', and how many innocent people would be killed in the process.

Where have you been in this thread....

Lurking here and there. Why? Is there a post I've missed that explains how Daesh can be surgically removed from the Earth without causing enormous suffering to those unfortunate enough to live where Daesh hangs out?

See my first post.

Your first post is this:

It will take more boots on the ground in my estimation, or else we will continue to see very slow progress if any at all. The Syrian situation called for humanitarian military intervention years ago, but the West was too cowardly to act due to the perceived failure of Iraq and an increasingly isolationist electorate. — Thorongil

Your suggestion is to put 'more boots on the ground'.

It's fine that you believe that that would work, even though past evidence suggests that that can at best provide a temporary reduction in the problem. There is room for doubt, so it is not unreasonable for you to hold the opinion that it would work.

But it makes no sense for you to assert that the West 'refuses to destroy its source'. The respective governments, and their advisors, simply disagree with you. They do not believe that what you propose can destroy its source. I could equally argue that the West 'refuses to destroy the source' of Daesh by continuing to support the Saudi regime and not taking a hard line with Israel over settlements and genuine attempts at a Palestinian solution. But I won't, because I recognise that there are genuinely differing views about this.

Governments and people can and do have different opinions about what would work, but it's pure fantasy to imply that others know that your proposed solution would work but are just scared to implement it.

War is inevitable if the two or more parties lack understanding of each other, in my opinion. Empathy or simply the willingness to understand one another should be the key to peace. However, how do we completely understand one another if our minds are never completely connected? God gave us privacy of our thoughts or there is simply no God. In other words, we have to use all our efforts in order to completely understand one another or else we are doomed into becoming each other's enemies.

Anyways, I remembered having a discussion with college students about the the nuclear bombing of two of Japan's cities and some student said it was justice because it was payback for Pearl Harbor. However, how many non-military people died in Pearl Harbor? How many kids died in Pearl Harbor compared to the Nuclear Bombings of Japan? Military people swore oath to protect the country with their very lives and military deaths are usually inevitable in the purpose of protecting their nation.
Thinking that something is justified because of "payback" or in other words, vengeance, is what keeps wars ongoing or starts wars. The US military (more like generals) justifies the Nuclear Bombings as a tactic to destroy the gun force of Japan since the factories are so close to homes and such. However, Japan's defeat was obviously inevitable after Germany lost and USA was still strong in numbers. USA didn't even need the hydrogen bombs in order to win. I guess saving one's own soldiers is worth more than the children and civilians of the enemy force. That's what I call war ethics, folks. The OP of this discussion hates it when children die; however, in WWII, USA saw more value in their own young men than the children and civilians of Japan. The nuclear warheads could have been used on Japan's military, but it obviously wouldn't be as effective.

So you see guys, war ethics isn't the same shit as actual ethics. War ethics is just an illusion of justice and is just focused on selfish goals and vengeance. The problem is the rationality of thinking violence or war is the answer to solving a problem or best choice of justice. Any attempt regarding how to solve a war situation through force is never going to be 100% angel-like ethical. So discussing about it, is kind of pointless. History repeats itself if we don't learn from it; an old, well-known quote.

I would like to say embrace empathy and all that good jazz, but to cut the horse shit. War doesn't work like the rest of the world does and it's all about and only about winning.

The only argument that I've seen that even attempts to justify, without using vengeance, the nuclear bombing of Japan's two cities is that it'll save more Japanese lives to end the war sooner to prevent the Japanese from killing themselves since most of them thought they would be tortured if caught. The Emperor of Japan lied to his people in that the Americans would torture the Japanese if they were caught and this resulted in some Japanese men into killing their own family members. However, this is a very weak and stupid argument since the two nuclear bombs killed so many people that it doesn't matter. Even if USA defeated the Japanese without using nuclear weapons, Japan would've surrendered before they all killed themselves since the moronic Emperor had enough sense to give up after the second nuclear bombing. Come on, the Japanese aren't that stupid, people. A teacher of mine actually said this shit, my fucking god ignorance is surely fucking bliss for some folks, damn.

War zone is no place for something kiddie like ethics, folks...it's where Satan truly lives.