"Source: Female gunman pledged allegiance to ISIS."
So Beav, is it ok now to have the military involved overseas?
So Beav, is it ok now to have the military involved overseas?
OT - So it IS happening here
- Thread starter Lincoln100
- Start date
- Status
Maybe if they would've had the Memorial Stadium Senior Citizen security guarding their doors this wouldn't have happened.
There is virtually nothing anyone can do to stop a maniac(s) if they wants to do this. Sucks, but it's the new world we live in.
I disagree, I think most people could do more to prepare themselves to significantly minimize the risk of being a victim.
Kind of old news? The article was posted 25 minutes ago. The article talks of recent shooting in San Bernardino.
I understand, but in a prior thread on this issue, Beav asked why the US needed to be involved since "it isn't happening here." Looks like (again) that it is, so I have directed a question to Beav who, before, apparently didn't believe it.
"ISIL will not pose an existential threat to us. They are a dangerous organization like al Qaeda was, but we have hardened our defenses," Obama told CBS. "The American people should feel confident that, you know, we are going to be able to defend ourselves and make sure that, you know, we have a good holiday and go about our lives."
--Barack Obama, 21 hours ago.
--Barack Obama, 21 hours ago.
Well its a bit of a false dichotomy. I'm all for aggressive military action, but the rate of incidents will never be zero. AQ had enough in the tank to fight us in several countries and still pull terrorist attacks in Europe and attempted attacks here like the underwear bomber and the Times Square bomber and so forth.
The President is right that ISIL is not an existential threat. We're going to have to be vigilant though.
I'll go over this for you again because evidently this is the class for slow kids: I don't have any problem with killing ISIS. The problem is that trying to wage war with terrorism is like trying to punch a river. You can get some great shots in, but that river is gonna keep right on flowing, and all the water you punch upstream is just gonna come flowing right back down to you. So once you are tired and soaked and you step out of the river, what exactly did you accomplish?
Let's assume this turns out to be more accurate than the previous claims on this board that Mizzou students were mad at Paris stealing their thunder (turned out to be random trolls on twitter) and that one of the Paris people was a Syrian refugee (turns out that no, that actually wasn't a thing). IF this holds up, then that does it, you've convinced me.
Nuke Saudi Arabia. Oh, she's from Pakistan? Nuke Pakistan. But she was living in Saudi Arabia? Yeah, gotta nuke 'em both then. Then once the radioactivity dies down, we build East America and the people who move in will love it.
I notice you glossed over the U.S.-born-and-raised husband who had no record of any weird shit that would suggest any danger other than...ahem...a collection of high-powered firearms. Which U.S. state do you think we should bomb/invade first so that U.S. citizens know they have to fear the retaliation from the military?
I also noticed nobody seemed to have thoughts on that Black Friday shooting. Safe to assume you are also in favor of the Marines going house-to-house to sweep up all the weird, old white guys around here? You know, after they finish rounding up all the creepy dudes from college campuses?
Let's assume this turns out to be more accurate than the previous claims on this board that Mizzou students were mad at Paris stealing their thunder (turned out to be random trolls on twitter) and that one of the Paris people was a Syrian refugee (turns out that no, that actually wasn't a thing). IF this holds up, then that does it, you've convinced me.
Nuke Saudi Arabia. Oh, she's from Pakistan? Nuke Pakistan. But she was living in Saudi Arabia? Yeah, gotta nuke 'em both then. Then once the radioactivity dies down, we build East America and the people who move in will love it.
I notice you glossed over the U.S.-born-and-raised husband who had no record of any weird shit that would suggest any danger other than...ahem...a collection of high-powered firearms. Which U.S. state do you think we should bomb/invade first so that U.S. citizens know they have to fear the retaliation from the military?
I also noticed nobody seemed to have thoughts on that Black Friday shooting. Safe to assume you are also in favor of the Marines going house-to-house to sweep up all the weird, old white guys around here? You know, after they finish rounding up all the creepy dudes from college campuses?
Follow-up question, which vigilante citizen with a CCP was it who finally shot her to stop the whole thing?
"I notice you glossed over the U.S.-born-and-raised husband who had no record of any weird shit that would suggest any danger other than...ahem...a collection of high-powered firearms. Which U.S. state do you think we should bomb/invade first so that U.S. citizens know they have to fear the retaliation from the military?"
The particular challenge in new age terrorism is precisely this.
Security forces, be it the military or local police or whatever, can't protect everywhere all the time. The US has been *lucky*, damn lucky, that terrorists have a stubbornness about them for the spectacular attack.
Pulling off a 9/11 requires resources and collaboration and some sort of trail. A trail that security forces can pick up on. An old white guy or a young Islamic radical, just deciding to pop off and shoot up a bus full of kids or a school or a mall or a clinic, there's virtually no chance of pre-empting that by security forces. It would be insanely easy to embarrass any security forces for not being able to keep the peace. As operations in various countries have shown, and even our occupation of Iraq/Afghan.
If terrorism ever makes the shift from the spectacular to the mundane, people are going to be a hell of lot more uncomfortable than they are now.
The particular challenge in new age terrorism is precisely this.
Security forces, be it the military or local police or whatever, can't protect everywhere all the time. The US has been *lucky*, damn lucky, that terrorists have a stubbornness about them for the spectacular attack.
Pulling off a 9/11 requires resources and collaboration and some sort of trail. A trail that security forces can pick up on. An old white guy or a young Islamic radical, just deciding to pop off and shoot up a bus full of kids or a school or a mall or a clinic, there's virtually no chance of pre-empting that by security forces. It would be insanely easy to embarrass any security forces for not being able to keep the peace. As operations in various countries have shown, and even our occupation of Iraq/Afghan.
If terrorism ever makes the shift from the spectacular to the mundane, people are going to be a hell of lot more uncomfortable than they are now.
Well a smart man wouldn't punch a river, he'd build a dam and slow it's flow.
So let's not punch a river, let's build a giant damn Dam.
Who are you talking to, and what are you talking about? You've got a lot of pent-up energy / frustrations. Your response on this issue, previously, was that the US shouldn't be involved because "it isn't happening here." We have yet another example of it "happening here." So, since there has been an "it" since the time of your it-isn't-happening-here post, are you now ok with military intervention overseas? That's all. You say that you don't have any problem with killing ISIS, but based upon your previous statement, it sounds like they have to be on US soil?
That's pretty much all you can do. Still gonna be water, you're just trying to manage it.
Don't worry about Islamic terrorists !
Global warming is causing this!
Global warming is causing this!
Let me flip that logic on you. Since that conversation, the U.S. has been attacking and bombing ISIS more vigorously than ever, and yet "it" still happened. So...
Starting with eliminating student visas for certain groups of people and getting our borders under control. A retired CIA op that went to my church told me a year or so ago that they knew that there was a Muslim business man in TX that was dispatching vans to pick up young Middle Eastern men crossing the border from Mexico but the Obama admin wouldn't let them do anything.
I've interepreted Beav's statements as basically...
"lets set the expectation level."
Folks selling the war are tieing it to seemingly a correlation with having zero incidents here. I think all Beav is getting at is, kill the people who need to be killed, but lets not pretend that its an easy button for the situation we now face.
History does indeed bear this out, we can fight terrorism, but they do fight back. And they haven't gone away.
My cousin's buddy's nephew who worked at Area 51 told me the same thing.
That's correct. People act like the U.S. hasn't been trying to eliminate terror cells for the last 14+ years. Like nobody thought of that yet.
It's the policy equivalent of people who think the difference between giving up 50 or getting a shutout in the bowl game is whether they have Jason Peter come scream at the kids in the locker room before the game...
Its also worth noting that Putin is rapidly trying to save face for all his tough talk, ISIS isn't "laying down and dying" or "scurrying away". He's going to need to escalate to sustain.
Don't be a jackass. The guy had over 20 years of foreign service including many deployments in Afghanistan and the Middle East. He wasn't just making shit up and he had only recently retired.
This is complete and utter bullshit, for as much as I like dingle as a poster.
My uncle is an FBI agent/SWAT member down in Oklahoma, and the only god damn thing they do is address situations like this. We can ping on Obama because we don't like him or he won't nuke Syria or whatever, but he's not selling out the country like that.
Not to mention all the former Soviet groups that were already terrorizing them.
Call me a bad child of the cold war, but I'd be 100% fine with letting Russia be the ones to try their hand at occupying every Muslim country and dealing with the blowback. Hell, they can even keep what they can hold. Maybe in a couple generations it can all be their problem.
I don't get what's so hard to grasp about how running off every 6 months to get in a guerilla war in some 3rd world country is rolling in the shit with the proverbial hog. Only the hog likes it...
He probably wasn't being totally truthful with you though.
A radical man in Texas is the purview of the FBI, CIA's role is the tipoff.
If the CIA wanted to do some sketchy stuff in Mexico to get at the other end, well, Obama may well have canxed that. He doesn't have to lie to you, just let your ignorance of the subject take you to the conclusion.
I think we should shut down the internet in order to stop this global radicalization. <----- crazy idea
I think we should bomb the crap out of another country to kill some ISIS fighters and I'm willing to accept killing thousands of people who aren't involved with ISIS. I'm also cool with destroying their homes and infrastructure in the process. <--- socially acceptable idea
Game performance is directly proportional to the numbers of times "bro" is uttered before the Huskers take the field.
Between the sales they did on Friday and how I just learned there are people who will pay to have somebody else come and scoop the dog shit from their yard for them, I am HORRIBLE and understanding what people will consider a justifiable expense.
Huh. I didn't take anything to any conclusion. That was his exact statement. Do you not remember just a few weeks ago the Syrians arrested in Mexico with stolen passports? Its been going on for years. The problem is that doesn't fit the pro-illegal immigration narrative. Its only hard working Mexican families crossing the border according to some people.
So the raids that my uncle is risking his life on to protect this country aren't happening?
I'm not saying there is no problem with the border , I am saying its bullshit that Obama is willingly let a known, actionable target sit around in Dallas and plot.
Let's just say hypothetically ... a guy had worked for a three letter agency for a number of years. I'm going to share something that isn't a secret -- any clandestine activity he was involved with or had ACTUAL knowledge of would be covered by a classified non-disclosure agreement. The NDA would still be binding even AFTER retirement. So the idea that random guy (neighbor, barber, etc) has access to nefarious information is beyond hilarious.
I know I'd probably have to be a major donkey to think it was worth possibly spending decades in prison in order to gain cool points with my neighbor.
I know I'd probably have to be a major donkey to think it was worth possibly spending decades in prison in order to gain cool points with my neighbor.
No matter what party is in charge, you cannot stop nut jobs. There will be more, some right or left winger, black, white, yellow, red, brown, religious zealot or atheist. If someone is hellbent on destruction, they will slip through.
Watching the news, it's showing moderate Muslims calling out the radicals. That's a big step in the right direction.
Watching the news, it's showing moderate Muslims calling out the radicals. That's a big step in the right direction.
Did I say that Obama is letting a person do that? A US citizen contributing to political campaigns isn't an "actionable target". You would have to actually intercept the people and tie it all together. Catching a half dozen Middle Eastern men at a time among thousands of Mexicans crossing the border is like finding a needle in a haystack.
- Status
Similar threads
