POLL: In what order should we exterminate the Islamic Terrorists?

Islamic Terrorists are currently sweeping the planet and are a clear and present danger to Civilization.

The time has come to take action; such action must terminate the Terror of Islamic Extremism.

What order though?

I voted for the first option, since Iran is an existential threat to civilized humanity, as it has nukes. Hamas is being supplied weapons of Terror by Iran, to target our heroic ally, Israel.

God bless Israel and USA.

 

Do you know the meaning of "existential" or have you just heard Bibi say it 100 times?

 

BS thread from a BS'g poster.

 

If by "WE" you mean Israel....I really don't care what you do, or who you guys decide to kill first.

If you refer to the U.S. as this WE.....then none of the above, it is your problem not ours.

 

I would rather go after the Zionist terrorist state first, they were the cowardly scum who attacked my country whilst we were fighting the Nazis, and the latest attacks in my country have been made by zioscum.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...n-antiisrael-orthodox-rabbis-car-9749404.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28992601
The zionists must be hunted down wherever their racist creed shows its ugly head, then the brave Palestinians will understand that we will not allow Israeli baby killers to kill innocent women and children.

 

Iran is a clear and present danger to the USA. Obama might not realize it, but an incoming GOP will.

- - - Updated - - -

War is not up to you, it is up to the USA. Britain will do what the USA orders, which is the right thing. Should the Paleos attempt more Islamic Terror, I have every confidence in Israel's terrorist extermination policy.

 

Iran is of no tangible threat to the United States in any reality based scenario. Your understanding seems based upon right wing talking points exclusively and does not fit into factual evidence. It is certainly possible Iran may some day develop nuclear technology and the means to use it outside the Middle Eastern region...this would be relatively unlikely within the next decade.
It is also possible we will be annihilated by advanced space faring slug creatures intent on using our females as slipper retrievers for the feet they do not have....this is also unlikely.

 

To say that Iran is not a danger to humanity is to live in cloud cuckoo land.

God bless USA and Israel in any war against Iran.

 

The internet is your enemy, no longer will the truth be censored by Zionist owned media, the good people of America will see who their real enemies are, when they realise how much american blood has been spilt for the ungrateful Israelis and how much money has been spent on supporting the racist state they will root out the traitors in their midst.

Israel is a "disaster" a “festering sore that goes back 100 years”.
Rabbi Cohen

 

Interesting question, may be [one never knows] it's already matter of discussion in Western capitals.

Among the available options I would chose the one which would face the highest danger first and then the other threats following a decreasing scale [it's like an analysis of distribution ABC, if we want].

Focusing the attention on the available offensive potential and the hostile attitude, we should attack first those entities which haven't fought battles or wars [low or high intensity] in the last years. They have had all the time to prepare any eventual large scale hostile activity.

The entities already engaged in conflict have got less room for "surprises" so that they are theoretically less dangerous in perspective.

So, my option is the second one.

 

In the voice of the Wicked Witch of The West: " what difference does it make...?...."

 

It makes difference about managing our "war budget" ...

 

I didn't vote because I didn't agree with the order expressed in any of the choices.

First and foremost, we should exterminate ISIS. We could do this fairly effortlessly (if Obama would wake up and pull his stupid head out of his ass), because there would be no friction with either Iran or Iraq. Both of these counties have Shi'a ruling majorities, and while they wouldn't help us necessarily, they would stand idly by and not interfere while we bomb ISIS into the past-tense. But that, too, assumes that Obama would be smart enough to realize that saturation carpet-bombing in a desert battle theater could destroy ISIS very quickly. Instead, Obama will continue to piddle around with little pissant "surgical strikes", which are next to worthless....

Turkey isn't going to do anything to help to any real extent, or hinder. They hate the Kurds, they hate the Syrians (all of them), they're scared ****less of the Russians, and their economy is on the rocks. All they want is to maintain stability inside their borders, and to keep the Kurds in line.

After we destroyed ISIS, we could work with the Israelis to get rid of Hamas' power and influence throughout the area. And that would leave Iran.

We're playing a waiting game with Iran that probably won't end well. Obama and his hopey-dopey bunch of "intelligence agencies" and "think tanks" have the idea that Iranian twenty-somethings are going to kick out the old *******, religious, über-zealot mullahs and everybody will just smile, and be cool while spending all of their time like our American twenty-somethings do -- farting around all day on smartphones and tablets. I don't think so.

The Iranians will probably detonate a nuclear device much like that first one that North Korea did several years ago, and they'll do it before the next American president is sworn in. They know that as long as Obama is in the White House, nothing will be done to actually hinder Iranian nuclear ambitions, so they'll press on and make nuclear weapons their big "fait accompli" by the time somebody with a hell of a lot more sense and ability than Barack Obama finally does take over.

 

False, hysterical premise.

(Willard Romney declared Russia to be the big meanie, remember?)

Merely eliminating the terrorist organisations may have the naïve and bravado spouters waving their pom poms, but that would just create another power vacuum that would be readily filled by other terrorist organisations. Basic reforms are desperately needed to stabilize the region - that includes the Saudis no longer supporting the indoctrination of radicals and their financing.

Mewling about the regional suzerainty conferred upon Iran by the US eliminating their counterbalance, Iraq, is crying over spilt milk. Tough negotiations with them is now unavoidable.

Presently, the American people supports air strikes against ISIL, and opposes the use of ground troops - what we're doing.

 

Sooner or later, even the Obama soothsayers will have to agree that World War III will be the West and its allies against Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic State and all other memes of the religion of peace. First I say that Iran's nuclear capabilities should be eliminated and I totally agree that Israel can do this in one night. That way the cowards will be just like the big bad Republican Guard that Saddams army were feared to be. They will be surrendering by the truckload. However, Baghdad Bob will issue his propaganda that the roads of Iran will run red with Coalition forces! Oops, wait a minute, Baghdad Bob is dead isn't he? Who will fill the shoes? Perhaps The Shahs of Sunset can offer some insight.


God Bless the USA and Israel.

 

Iran is no threat to the US or Israel.. If they do get nuclear power it will be to expand their electrical grid which they have needed since the 1960s and which was approved by the US under the Eisenhower program called Atoms for Peace.

 

What an idiotic statement.

 

Inasmuch as the Islamic extremists are insane with no hope of recovery, and being a threat to the world they should be exterminated one by one if necessary, but not at the expense of innocent lives.

 

I don't think Israel has an "extermination policy", at least, considering how they came about I'd be damned surprised.

Which is just one more of the many good reasons there will not be an "incoming GOP" (President) for quite some time

I'd like to start a poll about, "When Will the Mods Finally Put in a Policy Forbidding Troll Polls, Like 'When Will The US Outlaw All This Pansy Democracy and Nuke the World?'" But I think I might get in trouble myself

Uh...we haven't carpet bombed anyone since WWII. Nukes are way cheaper. Also, we're trying to SAVE the people of Iraq FROM the ISIS. I do have to agree that killing all of them together might save them after a fashion but I don't think that's the original idea.

The Iranian "twenty-somethings" (of whom you must not be one, careful to date yourself that way) would probably already have overthrown the mullahs if we had not been so consistently keeping them in power with our saber rattling.

Let's have a war and not kill anybody. And conservatives call liberals unrealistic.

 

So killing tens of thousands to get the thousands of target people is OK with you?

 

If religion leads to terrorism, why do not all believers of a religion become terrorists?

If ISIS says it is defending islam and using terror, ISIS cannot be islamic, because terror does not safe a religion or nation or people.

Terrorism and tyranny always lead to their own destruction (history shows, empires existed)

Terrorism and tyranny are the same in nature, same 'blueprints'.

 

The people who live in cuckoo land are those who are not smart enough to realize the US will continue to be a recruitment tool for these Islamic groups.

The GOP won't be satisfied until they get many more young americans killed, which of course are mostly the children of peons, not the elite chicken hawks.

The GOP won't be satisfied until they can funnel all tax revenues into The War Machine, known improperly as the defense department.

I think the People are fed up with these wars, even as MSM on the behalf of the war mongers serves the interest of those who cannot be happy unless they have America in another war. We learned during the Vietnam war if these men want to wage never ending wars, we had to get rid of the draft, so that we could say our soldiers volunteered to go and die. This also kept the more well to do from having to lose their kids in unnecessary wars, and we could just use up the have nots as they don't matter anyways.

 

As an ally of Israel, the USA needs to send troops over to defend us.

 

Well, wouldn't it be smarter to ally with Iran against ISIS, then destroy Iran?

 

The problem with your polls, rangecontraction, is that they promote only your opinions and do not allow for alternative viewpoints.