# Politics and News > SOCIETY & humanities >  Exterminate ISIS now!

## protectionist

This idiocy has gone on far too long. These lunatics called ISIS, IS, or ISIL or whatever the hell their names are, never should have been allowed to hatch in the first place. Now that they're established, and have killed thousands of people (including children), and are threatening to come to the USA and carry on their genocide here, one thing needs to be done. That is to EXTERMINATE these filthy creeps 100%. > *NOW!!

*There must be no listening to their treats against journalists or politicians, or whatever games they're trying to play. In World War II, America did not play Germany's games. Germany was carpet-bombed by US and British bombers for 4 years, decimating their cities, while killing hundreds of thousands of Germans, most of them civilians. Likewise, a quarter of a million people in Japan (almost all of them civilians) were nuclear bombed.
Those Americans did what they had to do. That's the way war is.

Now we have a president who never served a day in the military, and is now the commander of it. God help us. Hopefully, somebody can get this guy to comprehend what is happening here. We are only weeks away from the time when ISIS will be here in the US (_"See you in New York"_), snatching people out of WalMart parking lots, and killing them.

Obama needs to wise up and toughen up. This is his biggest challenge so far. If he blows it (like he so commonly does) a lot of Americans are going to die here in the US, and a lot of innocent people (Christians, Tazidis, etc ) are already dying. Obama should allocate every ounce of US military might, and diplomatically work to get other countries, to join in to OBLITERATE ISIS. ASAP. Period.

----------

Coolwalker (08-20-2014),East of the Beast (08-27-2014),EvilObamaClone (08-20-2014),Old Ridge Runner (08-21-2014)

----------


## Katzndogz

obama supports ISIS.   He's not changing his mind over this.  The reporter is white.  obama isn't going to risk his street cred over a white guy killed by brown bruthas.

----------

NuYawka (09-03-2014)

----------


## sotmfs

> obama supports ISIS.   He's not changing his mind over this.  The reporter is white.  obama isn't going to risk his street cred over a white guy killed by brown bruthas.


Really?

----------


## EvilObamaClone

I'm in complete agreement.

Alas, people don't want to hear this and wrongly think it can't happen to them.

----------


## Coolwalker

The camel's back is breaking from a thousand straws.

----------


## protectionist

> obama supports ISIS.   He's not changing his mind over this.  The reporter is white. Obama isn't going to risk his street cred over a white guy killed by brown bruthas.


  Obama's mother was white.  His grandparents who raised him were white.  I don' think white is the issue.  I think Obama is just steeped in this ultra liberal ideology, that is in the toilet when it comes to foreign policy.  This is true even with an issue like ISIS, which is threatening (BIG time) to the US.

----------

Old Ridge Runner (08-21-2014)

----------


## SecondSon2nd1

> OBLITERATE ISIS. ASAP. Period.


How?

----------

Devil505 (09-12-2014)

----------


## protectionist

> How?


By killing as many of them as possible, as quickly as possible.  For starters, by bombing every bit of them, when they are vulnerable in convoys out on open desert roads.

----------


## TrueMan

Obama’s political problem is that this renewed challenge of violent extremism comes at a time when, by most accounts, he is weak at home and abroad. Our nation is in danger, and it seems like, no one can protect us.

----------

protectionist (08-23-2014)

----------


## Devil505

ISIS is a threat that cannot be stopped with U.S. military power alone.
It's more a religious ideology that is more a danger to moderate Arab states than us.

We should work with them and selectively behead the ISIS leadership with covert actions and drones with Hellfire missiles.
We should not rush in there like a dumb/deranged elephant again to no purpose!

My opinion.

----------

DeadEye (08-21-2014)

----------


## protectionist

> What if there are no links boogieman killer?  What if what I say I just saw on TV?  Does the internet make links to every word ever uttered?  Personally boogieman killer, I dont give a rats ass if you believe what I post or not.  If you dont, prove Im wrong!


  I don't NEED to prove you wrong.  You need to prove you right. Just like in American law.  Burden of proof is on the person stating the claim.  In this case, that's you.  :Grin:

----------


## Trinnity

> I believe he re-posted your comments where you made a personal attack against him. Name calling is against the group rules. And he didn't even need to highlight your personal attack. You did when you posted it.
> A just and fitting punishment for you would be that you're infracted and thread banned from your own thread. Maybe a 24 hr. group ban would be in order as you seem to do the name calling thing quite often.
> I hope you get what you deserve.


LOL, let's ALL be civi, eh? I've got the modding well in hand. No worries.

----------


## Trinnity

> Speaking of bans....Is there a public listing of who's been infracted/banned and for how long anywhere?


Nope.

----------


## Devil505

> This may never fly, but consider this.  The terrorists use beheading as a propaganda tool to frighten us. We need an even more hideous tool to dissuade them. How about spraying them with napalm and cluster bombs, and throwing in a few daisy cutters for good measure?  In other words, get meaner than a junk yard dog, no holds barred, and keep it up until no one is standing. 
> 
>  It is my understanding that a daisy cutter will clean a path about one mile in diameter.
> How's that for effectiveness?  If those sobs come to pissing their pants at the sound of a C-130 or a C-17 then maybe
> they will learn that we can play dirty too.  Those two birds can deliver daisy cutters by the way and are needed because a daisy cutter is a physically large device, too big for bomb bays and for fighter bombers to carry.  Propane bombs are  a real treat too, a poor man's nuke.  What a gas?


We tried that with Shock and Awe and killed mainly civilians whose kids will be coming after us for decades.

ISIS blends into the population and offers no clear target for massive firepower.
(Same trick the VC used in Vietnam to great effect.)

Your idea is unworkable in the real world. (in the movies it's great!)

----------


## goosey

I think that war is crap. It's destructive and that's why it offends me.

----------


## Devil505

> Nope.


OK but I think it would be a good idea.

----------


## squidward

> You don't have a clue about what I am.  Calling me a "progressive" makes you a laughingstock.  I am for a BIG, strong govt, with a big, strong national defense, including a big, strong military, and I am as non-progressive (non-liberal) as anyone could ever be.


you have no idea what conservative is. You are a big government authoritarian progressive, fully supporting the fiat bankers' wars, a resounding endorsement of the sixth plank of the communist manifesto.

----------

Invayne (09-11-2014)

----------


## squidward

> I see you are young (under 40) and didn't live during the time period before Reagan came along an changed the definition of a conservative (just for you youngsters ignorant of what went before)  For your edification, Eisenhower was a REAL conservative, true to what makes a person a conservative > concentration on NATIONAL SECURITY, and the taxation to support it.


goody for Ike. He hung the "conservative" label on big, world policing government, in full fledged defense of dollar hegemony, .............. and all the little dupes bought in.

----------


## squidward

> If you're really a conservative, you're concerned with conserving America's traditional values. and not letting them go down the drain to illegal aliens, jihadists, or whoever else, >> and that takes *money*.  If you keep the govt small, weak, and poor, you're a friend of the liberals.


Go home progressive, you just blew your cover.

----------


## protectionist

> you have no idea what conservative is. You are a big government authoritarian progressive, fully supporting the fiat bankers' wars, a resounding endorsement of the sixth plank of the communist manifesto.


You have no idea what a conservative is.  I will teach it to you now.  If you ignore it, your loss.  Not my problem.

Conservatives conserve.  We conserve America's traditional values.  Marriage (man/woman).  English (national language).  Islam (unconstitutional criminality).  Affirmative Action (racist discrimination).  Immigration (long list of harms).  National Security (# 1 item of importance)  Military (peace thru strength)  Death Penalty (100% positive deterrent).  Street cameras (praised by police & prosecutors).
Law Enforcement (police, prosecutors, prisons)

All these things require MONEY.  In large amounts.  The young Reaganists who see conservatism as protecting the fortunes of the rich (which has absolutely NOTHING to do with conservatism) are enemies of conservatism by denying the nation the money it needs to strengthen all the items I listed above.  In so doing, they are allied with liberals, who oppose all the things I itemized by denying govt the money it needs to make these things function in ways to PROTECT the American people. >>

- Build border fence

- hire ICE agents

-hire CBP officers

- create immigration courts and jails

- build prisons

- hire lawyers and fight court cases (against CAIR, ACLU, NAACP, LA Raza, etc)

- strengthen the military

- buy crime fighting equipment   etc. etc.

----------


## goosey

Protectionist, I really agree with your view. It's very sensible.

But why all the prisons?

----------


## squidward

> You have no idea what a conservative is.  I will teach it to you now.


No thanks. You can keep your authoritarian, big government, big taxing, corporatist, progressive, neo-conservative bullshit to yourself.

All the worst of both parties rolled into one.

----------

Devil505 (09-12-2014)

----------


## Robo

> I don't NEED to prove you wrong.  You need to prove you right. Just like in American law.  Burden of proof is on the person stating the claim.  In this case, that's you.


On the contrary Boogieman killer, you're the one insinuating that anything that doesn't have an internet verification link is a lie.  The burden of proof is on you!  For your information, much of what's on the net is bullshit propaganda.  So, just because you can "link" to your horseshit, doesn't mean squat.  *<<removed>>*

----------


## Robo

> As the buzzer says in the quiz shows, when you get the *wrong answer* >>*AAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!*
> 
> No, Mr. Constitution. It so happens that Islam is not constitutional. It is a supremacist ideology (masquerading as a religion), and thus is in clear-cut violation of Article 6, Section 2 of the Constitution (the Supremacy Clause) >>
> 
> _"_*This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States* _which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States,_ *shall be the supreme law of the land*_; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding._"


Except Mr. Boogieman killer, you just proved how much you know about the Constitution.  Article *6* of the Constitution has *NO* section *2*

Your insinuation that Islam is a supremacist ideology is nothing more than YOUR opinion and theres no mention in the Constitution of supremacist ideologies. 

And you left this part out, 

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; *but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.*






> Furthermore, your silly post of the first Amendment is irrelevant, since > 1. Islam is not a religion,


Well boogieman killer, keep reaching for straws and posting bullshit, youre a funny dude!  Youre the only person on earth aside from total morons and liars that knows that Islam isnt a religion.




> and, 2. it wouldn't matter if it was. The 1st Amendment is perhaps the weakest part of the Constitution, as evidenced by the many exceptions to it, as opposed to the Supremacy Clause, which is the strongest part of the Constitution, and has NO EXCEPTIONS to it, including the 1st Amendment.


Well boogieman killer, according to your arguments, Article 6 and the entire Constitution is nothing less than toilet paper since nearly nobody gives a flying shit about it and the fact that the federal government violates it regularly.  So show me the *religious exceptions* to the 1st amendment.  Ill wait!






> As for whether the War Powers Act is constitutional or not, you can call it UNconstitutional, DISconstitutional, DEconstitutional, or anything that suits your fancy. It is still US LAW. Period.


Like I said boogieman killer, there are thousands of laws that are *UNCONSTITUTIONAL.*

The Constitution is supposed to be the *SUPREME* law of the land.  So if a law is unconstitutional, its a *CRIMINALLY INVALID PIECE OF SHIT.*  therefore any of your arguments that dont meet constitutional muster are invalid pieces of shit that are only valid to liars and criminal types.

----------


## Robo

> No need to prove anything. Only thing keeping the Pakistani nukes from falling to the loons is the presence of US troops. ONly thing Keeping their fragile govt intact is US troops too. You've gone 13 years since 9-11-01, and haven't known this ? [IMG]file:///C:\Users\Owner\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\  clip_image001.gif[/IMG] And then you come in here and show off this ignorance. Sad, How truly sad. Bwa ha ha ha ha.


And WHO’S word are folks supposed to take for your total loads of bullshit?  YOURS?  Let’s see you prove that the U.S. military in Afghanistan is the reason Pakistan nukes are still secure and the fragile government is still intact.  Let’s see you even prove that Pakistan’s nukes are actually secure.  How the hell do you know that?  How do you know that North Korea didn’t get its nukes from Pakistan?  Would you call that “secure?”  All of your bullshit is purely your opinion and the “cut and paste” opinions of the boogieman hunters on your propaganda sites.




> Not only are the nukes the # 1 threat to America (before ISIS arose), but they way the Pakis store them is hazardous too. They drive them around in ordinary cargo vans to try to keep them away from the jihadists who have raided them repeatedly. You didn't know all this ?


But you just said that the u.s. military being in Afghanistan is the reason those nukes were *”SECURE.”*  Make up your mind!  Are they secure or not boogieman killer?




> Click the links and learn. READ BABY! READ!
> http://www.wired.com/2011/11/pakista...delivery-vans/
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...nuclear-threat
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1079630.html
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/...r-top-concern/
> 
> ...


Freggin propaganda written by  frightened morons with imaginations the size of the moon they worship and bark at.




> BTW, you have no excuse for not knowing this. I posted these very links TO YOU last June, in another thread. So you didn't do your homework, you bad boy. [IMG]file:///C:\Users\Owner\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\  clip_image002.gif[/IMG]


I don’t consider reading bullshit propaganda designed to promote unnecessary unconstitutional wars as “home work.”  I consider it for what it is and delete it!




> As for your incredibly naive statement about delivery systems, yeah they could use suitcase bombs. [IMG]file:///C:\Users\Owner\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\  clip_image003.gif[/IMG] Why not ? They been around for 60 years now, didn't you know ? And firing missles from cargo vans ? Got any evidence they couldn't ? If so, let's hear it. And lastly, how does delivering the warheads become a difficult task in your perception ? You find something difficult about simply shipping them to the US in ordinary shipping containers ? Last I heard, they were only inspecting 5% of shipping containers at US ports. That gives the shippers > 95% chance of success.  Got any new information about port security inspection ? If so, let's hear it.  [IMG]file:///C:\Users\Owner\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\  clip_image005.png[/IMG]


For your information boogieman killer, it’s a dangerous world out there.  It always has been and always will be.  Your hysteria and vivid irrational imagination won’t make it any safer, but likely would make it even more dangerous if enough morons paid any attention to you.

----------


## Trinnity

*<<Civility must be maintained or there will be consequences. Fair warning>>*

----------


## johnson

> I don't NEED to prove you wrong.  You need to prove you right. Just like in American law.  Burden of proof is on the person stating the claim.  In this case, that's you.


Like he said, take it or leave it,,, so get over it, move on.

----------


## johnson

> *<<Civility must be maintained or there will be consequences. Fair warning>>*


Some control freak like to nitpick.

----------


## protectionist

> On the contrary Boogieman killer, you're the one insinuating that anything that doesn't have an internet verification link is a lie.  The burden of proof is on you!  For your information, much of what's on the net is bullshit propaganda.  So, just because you can "link" to your horseshit, doesn't mean squat.  *<<removed>>*


That shows how little you know. "Insinuating"  HA.  I NEVER insinuate, infer, or imply ANYTHING, ever.  If I want to say something, I just say it, You ought to know that by now.  And I'm not even bothering to read your link talk, whatever the hell it said.

As for your _"boogieman killer"_ moniker you assigned to 90% of the American people, we couldn't care less what you and your 5% (another 5% have no opinion) foolishly believe.  There will always be a tiny minority, who even when presented with the obvious, still just can't quite get it. 

And now I'm just waiting for you to demand a LINK for the 90% statistic. :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## protectionist

> ISIS blends into the population and offers no clear target for massive firepower.
> (Same trick the VC used in Vietnam to great effect.)


They wear uniforms.  And they could change out of them, but so could the Nazis in the German cities.  They still got defeated.

----------


## protectionist

> Except Mr. Boogieman killer, you just proved how much you know about the Constitution.  Article *”6”* of the Constitution has *NO* section *”2”*
> 
> Your insinuation that Islam is a “supremacist ideology” is nothing more than YOUR opinion and there’s no mention in the Constitution of “supremacist ideologies.” 
> 
> And you left this part out, 
> 
> “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; *but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.*
> 
> 
> ...


HA HA HA!!  So Mr Constitution doesn't understand the Supremacy Clause (Article 6, Section 2) This is even after I went to the trouble of enlarging with red, bold print, the anti-supremacist jist of it for him.  Way to go, Mr Constitution.  

As for exceptions to the 1st amendment, I didn't say anything about religious exceptions.  But as I already told you, it wouldn't matter if Islam was a religion, it still would be unconstitutional due to its supremacy.  Some people have to be told twice.  :Geez: 

So talking about the exceptions there are to the 1st amendment, there are many.  But you're the guy who talks about the constitution all the time.  Don't you know what the various 1st amendment exceptions are ?List them here >> _____________________________________.
And if you can't think of any, don't worry.  I'll fill in the blank for you.

Lastly, you saying that Islam being a supremacist ideology is just my opinion, puts you in firmly in the laughingstock gallery.  Who in the world does not know that Islam is supremacist ?  Pheeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle, eyes rolling around in head)  Well, I'd give you the links, but you said you're not a link kind of guy, right ?   :Rolleyes20:

----------

