Retaking a city from isis is no better than destroying it because it will all be destroyed

June 18, 2016, 11:59 am

Agree3 Disagree14

18%
82%

The debate "Retaking a city from isis is no better than destroying it because it will all be destroyed" was started by fadi on June 18, 2016, 11:59 am. 3 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 14 people are on the disagree side. People are starting to choose their side. It looks like most people are against to this statement.

citizenzero posted 1 argument, Daffa8799 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.

fadi and 2 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, citizenzero, jinxer53, SwaggerPoptart, Daffa8799, xaveragexjoesx, froyojones, Dev, moneybagboyz and 5 visitors disagree.

Collateral damage would have addressed as isis's burden.....

3 years, 4 months ago

..whether or not the city is in ruins or not does not in any change the fact that it is still occupied by a terrorist group and not the people who it rightfully belongs to

3 years, 5 months ago
Discuss "Retaking a city from isis is no better than destroying it because it will all be destroyed " people philosophy politics
Add an argument!
Use the arrow keys to navigate between statements. Press "A" to agree and press "D" to disagree.