Largest Non-Nuclear Bomb Ever Dropped on Afghanistan

[JohnWayne23 5,227]

Developing.

The bomb was dropped on ISIS territory

 

 

[Fatigay 21,211]

WWIII be like:

 

Spoiler

for real though... that's the man who has the key to the nuclear.. sh*t's going down very soon

[littlepotter 76,616]

I'm glad they used this on ISIS but I'm still like ****ing scared

The comment about releasing season 7 of game of thrones earlier because of wwiii is becoming less and less funny every day

[venusfly 17,885]

6 minutes ago, thierryrreiht said:

WWIII be like:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

for real though... that's the man who has the key to the nuclear.. sh*t's going down very soon

It was dropped on ISIS so not really, nobody is going to retaliate to the US for dropping it.  But yeah its still excessive

[Cocaine Heart 4,768]

****ing pathetic. Weather it's used on Daesh territory doesn't make a difference, innocent people live there.

All airstrikes do is radicalize more terrorists. 
America is the face of terrorism in many places in the world. 

[cryingrainbow 1,138]

Well, my dad just told me that in our mythology, something very bad for the world perhaps a world war is predicted in September this year. It is becoming more and more likely now. 

[venusfly 17,885]

4 minutes ago, Cocaine Heart said:

****ing pathetic. Weather it's used on Daesh territory doesn't make a difference, innocent people live there.

All airstrikes do is radicalize more terrorists. 
America is the face of terrorism in many places in the world. 

Those innocent people in IS territory are used as human shields and exploited/tortured to keep land, its the exact reason they interweave themselves into civilian areas, because there's less option to bomb them and combat them. 

I know its a tricky question but what else is the US supposed to do? Without intervention IS will claim a large part of the middle east through mass murder and terrorism, we cant exactly just 'mind our business' either because those countries being compromised poses a very significant threat to our existence too.

[Whispering 18,865]

The strike was on a tunnel and cave ISIS complex in a remote mountainous region. 

[YeehawKylie 7,817]

8 minutes ago, littlepotter said:

I'm glad they used this on ISIS but I'm still like ****ing scared

Yea, but sadly, I highly doubt this is an area solely containing ISIS. It is probably ISIS controlled territory, which likely would mean several civilians are caught in the crossfire.

[JohnWayne23 5,227]

I just know Trump supporters are losing their sh*t right now. They wanted zero focus on other areas of the world. 

[The Fame Joanne 5,985]

3 minutes ago, Whispering said:

The strike was on a tunnel and cave ISIS complex in a remote mountainous region. 

Then it was probably not that bad. If noone lived there it may have only affected the tunnel system and no innocents

[Cocaine Heart 4,768]

2 minutes ago, LG said:

Those innocent people in IS territory are used as human shields and exploited/tortured to keep land, its the exact reason they interweave themselves into civilian areas, because there's less option to bomb them and combat them. 

I know its a tricky question but what else is the US supposed to do? Without intervention IS will claim a large part of the middle east through mass murder and terrorism, we cant exactly just 'mind our business' either because those countries being compromised poses a very significant threat to our existence too.

So then, the solution is just to kill them all ? 

Number one is accepting refugees, creating safe zones, supporting and contributing way more in humanitarian aid ... 

All military intervention does is magnify the recruitment for terrorist organizations. Daesh exists because of the invasion of Iraq. 

[MJHolland 12,725]

11 minutes ago, Cocaine Heart said:

****ing pathetic. Weather it's used on Daesh territory doesn't make a difference, innocent people live there.

All airstrikes do is radicalize more terrorists. 
America is the face of terrorism in many places in the world. 

Yeah the innocent people in ISIS territory are pretty screwed to begin with.

It's not like the US is trying to hit civilian targets. ISIS uses civilians are human shields.

What would you rather the international community do? Just let ISIS take over the entire state?

This is my problem with moral absolutists like this. They complain than innocent people get hurt, but what is you're alternative? In order to stop ISIS, civilians that are innocent will have to die, that's just the real practical world.

If not airstrikes then we have to invade. 

[Whispering 18,865]

Just now, The Fame Joanne said:

Then it was probably not that bad. If noone lived there it may have only affected the tunnel system and no innocents

That part is unknown. Supposedly, this bomb can kill anyone within hundreds of meters of the blast. The area may have been remote, but that doesn't mean there weren't some civilians living close to the area. 

[MJHolland 12,725]

4 minutes ago, Cocaine Heart said:

So then, the solution is just to kill them all ? 

Number one is accepting refugees, creating safe zones, supporting and contributing way more in humanitarian aid ... 

All military intervention does is magnify the recruitment for terrorist organizations. Daesh exists because of the invasion of Iraq. 

Yeah lmao humanitarian intervention has LITERALLY never worked a single time to stop any authoritarian group.

Shout out to ISIS, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, North Korea, etc. 

I don't mean to come off harsh but it seems like you want the world to be a simpler place than it is. We can't just say "oh lets give them food and water and humanitarian aide and everything will be rainbows and butterflies eventually".

More innocent civilians will die under ISIS than if the US tries to liberate them from ISIS. 

Edit: also no one said that bold part