KenDckey
Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
http://www.kpho.com/story/30522357/isis-unable-to-attack-us-officials-say
quote:
ISIS unable to attack US, officials say
The Obama administration is trying to calm fears of an ISIS attack in the United States like the one in Paris on Friday.
Officials say ISIS would like to launch similar attacks on U.S. soil, but their ability to do so is limited.
Deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said a key difference is that thousands of fighters returned to Europe after going to Syria.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said earlier this year that the number being tracked in the U.S. is around 40. Clapper also said he wasn't aware of any that had been involved in terror plots since returning to the U.S.
The success of ISIS in America has come mostly from recruiting and motivating sympathizers online, according to officials.
Seriously?
Seriously lucy A guys makes a one word question and that is challenged. Is the Left so paranoid that their own media outlets aren't subject to question? Are you so short sighted that questioning the left's media outlet now reason for attack? One word. Just one, formulated as a question. Not a comment of acceptance or non-acceptance, but a question? Must we blindly follow whatever the media says because and not questioning what is going on?
quote:
ORIGINAL: KenDckey
Lucy I don't deny that the situation in Iraq and Syria has changed since 2011. My question is why are we in there if the 2001 authorization was terminated by POTUS. Additionally, With the borders as porous as they are, how can they say that we can't come under attack? This was reported by CBS based upon what was said on CNN. I don't deny the number of people that have been and returned, but who is to stop them from infiltrating across the border. And as demonstrated in 9/11 and Paris both, we don't need large numbers to come up with this type of attack.
It wasn’t a very good reporting by CBS in actual fact it was bloody shitty reporting.
But you bought it...
without checking it out.
And please explain how asking a one word question is buying into the story? I questioned the story. I question what CNN says. I question the NSA. I question the whole media. I question POTUS. I question just about everything. I am not willing to accept less from myself or anyone else. It is OK to disagree. It is OK to voice one’s opinion. It is OK but you have made a statement of fact “you bought it...” Now prove how a one word question is buying it please.
quote:
ORIGINAL: KenDckey
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/10/21/141590282/obama-to-address-iraq-troop-withdrawal
quote:
October 21, 2011
President Obama announced today that the war in Iraq was over.
"After nearly nine years, the long war in Iraq will come to an end by the end of this year," the president said. President Obama said he talked to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki earlier today and they were both in complete agreement about how to proceed. Obama said that "as promised" by the end of the year all troops will withdraw from the country.
He said that this means the relationship between Iraq and the United States will now be a normal one "between sovereign nations. An equal partnership based on mutual interests and mutual respect."
He added: "Our troops in Iraq will definitely be home for the holidays."
If the War in Iraq is over why do we have troops there and are droping bombs on their turf and under what authority?
And nothing from you about the second part of the thread (I put them in separate comments for a reason - they are separately related) If the War in Iraq is over then under what authority are we fighting and sending troops to Iraq. If you say the 2001 authorization, that was ended by Obama in 2011. if you say it wasn't then based upon that we could invade Canada under the Declaraton of War issued for the War of 1812 (at least theoretically). Once a war is over and we have withdrawn, unless I am mistaken someplace in international law, the authorization to conduct that war expires. Now if the contention of the law is the eradication of terrorists worldwide (not sure who gets to define terrorist if it isn’t the current POTUS) then why aren’t we bombing every country in the world that has a cell of something or another and cutting our ability to defend ourselves when we piss off the host country? Instead we have pretty much opened our borders, not in a legal sense, but in a more practical sense, to allowing those same terrorists into the US under the guise of looking for a better way of life. Some I am sure are. For whatever reason they choose not to follow the law (the ones that closed our borders to all except those that go through the process). Some may well be here for more nefarious reasons. But, we don’t secure the border so we can’t vet them and yet there are those of us who think we should reward them with being allowed to stay. And in the mean time, while going through some vetting if found we should allow them to wonder our streets without restriction. And this appears to basically and overly simplified the way it appears.
It also appears that questioning authority (POTUS, Administration, Media, Free Thought, God, The Winds Willing, Science, etc) is grounds for name calling, put downs, and other such stuff by mainly those of the tolerant left. That in itself is terrorism, at least in my opinion, because it seeks to prevent the very foundation of our government.
I, as you have opinions. I ask questions. I express my opinions. I am allowed my questions and opinions. Please address them. Not what you seem but the simple words. But tolerance by attack and ignoring the question isn’t tolerance and is non-productive in a debate I believe.
|
ISIS can't attack the US - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread