[Cheburashka]

It was a yes or no question, and I don't care how you waffle.

You are advocating genocide.

---
Burn their villages to ground; killing them, killing their animals,...

---
Right. Kill them, their women and children inside the houses when you burn them, or destroy any means of feeding their families. That way they starve to death or die of exposure. Why, you're amazingly humane. How could I have missed that?

---
Very clever, to be absolute clear I am advocating a warfare techniques used at least since mankind started writing down history.
---
Genocide is excused by the fact that it is a warfare technique utilized "since mankind started writing down history." Yeah, sure.

And yes, YOU were and are still advocating it.

[Fzob]

You're entitled to your opinion. But I'll try once more. I am not advocating this, I was pointing out at some time it may be the only option left. Sorry, but that is a real possibility.

So what would you suggest be done when our friendly local Jihadist community is killing and terrorizing the local secular or Christan neighborhood? When the Jihadist hide behind their women and children counting on you being civilized enough to allow then to kill your family first?

[secretagent]

Genocide is excused by the fact that it is a warfare technique utilized "since mankind started writing down history." Yeah, sure.

Fzob forecasts a technique (terrorism), not a goal (genocide).

The Allies' terror bombing of German and Japanese cities did not aim at genocide, but surrender. Bush errs in the phrase "War on Terrorism". I don't think he would repudiate WWII's Allied terrorist bombings.

A better phrase: "War on Islamic Nutballs Who Attack the US".