• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. confirms Islamic State planning infiltration of southern border

I think there could be a low cost option to keep ISIS from coming in through Mexico.
Any person who reports ISIS related activity, that is validated.
Them and their entire family will be granted permanent worker status in the US.

Cheaper to just enforce our laws and stop this nonsense. Instead of sending money and troops to just about everywhere in the world, spend the money here and secure the border. A soldier every half mile or so would do wonders.
Next we have to fix all the bureaucratic nonsense.
 
A senior Homeland Security (DHS) official confirmed to Congress on Wednesday that militants associated with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS) are planning to enter the United States via the porous southern border.

Francis Taylor, under secretary for intelligence and analysis at DHS, told senators during a hearing that ISIL supporters are known to be plotting ways to infiltrate the United States through the border.

“There have been Twitter, social media exchanges among ISIL adherents across the globe speaking about that as a possibility,” Taylor told Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) in response to a question about “recent reports on Twitter and Facebook of messages that would urge infiltration into the U.S. across our southwestern border.”



Read more: U.S. confirms Islamic State planning infiltration of border with Mexico - Washington Times

BUT we've been assured that the border is protected more than ever and there is absolutely no foreseeable threat from IS here in the homeland.

The GOP has found its cause celebre for 2016. . .

"The muslums are coming!"
"The muslums are coming!"
"The muslums are coming!"
"The muslums are coming!"
"The muslums are coming!"
"The muslums are coming!" *

(* the old GOP rally point, "the faggots are coming!" may need to be retired)
 
It's not difficult but, nowhere near the grief that Bush took.

Maybe you guys can come up with someone who's not lame.

So you automatically ASSume that I posted hateful posts ad nauseam about Bush when he was president?
 
The GOP has found its cause celebre for 2016. . .

"The muslums are coming!"
"The muslums are coming!"
"The muslums are coming!"
"The muslums are coming!"
"The muslums are coming!"
"The muslums are coming!" *

(* the old GOP rally point, "the faggots are coming!" may need to be retired)

71% of those polled and the POTUS are on board.
 
They don't have to do any of that. Just blend in with groups that avoid capture.

You really don't know squat about the border or illegal immigration do you?

And you're a self proclaimed expert?

During a tour of Europe just before 911, with a group of high school students and teachers I was amazed the locals could tell we were Americans right off the bat before we opened our mouths just by subtle differences of appearance.

To an hispanic a middle easterner would stick out like a sore thumb and their authorities would be notified. Blending in is not as easy as you think. Operatives go through extensive training to learn the trade.

I can assure you we have feelers out to aquire any information about any middle easterners showing up in Mexico. And furthermore sneaking in is not the most difficult part. It's trying to stay underground once here that is more difficult.
 
Last edited:
A senior Homeland Security (DHS) official confirmed to Congress on Wednesday that militants associated with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS) are planning to enter the United States via the porous southern border.

Francis Taylor, under secretary for intelligence and analysis at DHS, told senators during a hearing that ISIL supporters are known to be plotting ways to infiltrate the United States through the border.

“There have been Twitter, social media exchanges among ISIL adherents across the globe speaking about that as a possibility,” Taylor told Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) in response to a question about “recent reports on Twitter and Facebook of messages that would urge infiltration into the U.S. across our southwestern border.”



Read more: U.S. confirms Islamic State planning infiltration of border with Mexico - Washington Times

BUT we've been assured that the border is protected more than ever and there is absolutely no foreseeable threat from IS here in the homeland.

Doooooooooooooooooooooooooomed
 
So you automatically ASSume that I posted hateful posts ad nauseam about Bush when he was president?
And you *insinuated* that I ramble on about Barry to the point of nausea? No?
 
Right up until 8:48 AM on 9/11 we had no direct evidence Al Qaida was a threat to the US.

At some point, all we can really do is take them at their word.

That's not correct, you may not have though. And who are you talking about taking at their word?
 
A senior Homeland Security (DHS) official confirmed to Congress on Wednesday that militants associated with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS) are planning to enter the United States via the porous southern border.
Do we really need a Washington bureaucrat to confirm? My first reaction to this DHS statement is: "No **** Sherlock". What's next.... are we going to get an official confirmation that water is wet and deserts are dry? :roll:
 
You probably have missed it but I have stated numerous times that in 2011 Obama was 'kinda' correct. Al Qaida WAS on the run. ISIS WAS for all intent and purposes a non-entity. And then, something happened.

We left.

I see, because you had never heard of ISIS, they were a non entity. Have you noticed the condition of Libya lately, I understand if you'd prefer not to look at Libya, but the puppet government installed by the West hasn't perfect control. That's another thing that happened in 2011. Again, and again, Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad didn't allow these groups operational room. It's US policy for years that has delivered us the fine mess we have, and you want it to be ONLY Obama's fault.
 
And you're a self proclaimed expert?

During a tour of Europe just before 911, with a group of high school students and teachers, I was amazed the locals could tell we were Americans right off the bat before we opened our mouths just by subtle differences of appearance.

To an hispanic a middle easterner would stick out like a sore thumb and their authorities would be notified. Blending in is not as easy as you think. Operatives go through extensive training to learn the trade.

I'm White and because I work outdoors, I'm actually spoken to in Spanish assuming I know the language. People ask my Wife constantly if I'm Hispanic.

USBP agents might notice if someone looks out of place but, the coyotes don't normally parade their good paying customers past the gates.

People come from dozens of countries...not all Hispanic. Blending in is easier than you think.

Demographics of Immigrants in the United States Illegally - Illegal Immigration Solutions - ProCon.org
 
They are not a direct threat to the US mainland and never will be, but you are forgetting that this war is based on terrifying the enemy. That's why the decapitations, the rape of women, etc.

Terror attacks have been happening repeatedly in the US with the DC snipers, Fort Hood murders and the Boston Marathon killings getting the most publicity. There have also been several unsuccessful attempts. This is how the jihadists will attack. One person will kill one, three or thirty, it doesn't really matter. We have seen the same thing happening in the UK as well. And each time this happens, if the media reports it, we call them temporarily insane, or workplace violence, etc. But of course there will be more of this and, I believe, it will increase.

You have to think like a terrorist in order to understand how they can defeat their enemies. They certainly aren't going to try it through traditional means.

Here's a list of some of the killings in the US since 9/11, though I don't think honor killings should be included. Nonetheless you get the idea. List of Islamic Terror Attacks in America

Ok, so IS isn't a direct threat to the US mainland and the shootings we've had at schools, church's, malls and theatres are really being carried out by militant Islamic groups. Ok.
 
Another threat we will ignore until thousands die.
 
I see, because you had never heard of ISIS, they were a non entity. Have you noticed the condition of Libya lately, I understand if you'd prefer not to look at Libya, but the puppet government installed by the West hasn't perfect control. That's another thing that happened in 2011. Again, and again, Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad didn't allow these groups operational room. It's US policy for years that has delivered us the fine mess we have, and you want it to be ONLY Obama's fault.

Your statement is amazingly self contradictory, Montecresto. On the one hand you credit US policy support for Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad because these leaders denied these groups "operational room", and then blame this same policy for the "Fine mess we have". Which is it? Seems to me that the support for these dictators, by your argument, was responsible for the lack of Islamic Radical proliferation in those states...

But then we come to your statement that it isn't all Obama's fault... OK, well, let's look at that. By your argument you can blame Bush for removing Hussein, sure, but then we had it under control there when we had troops in place... who took all the troops out of Iraq? And Mubarack, Gaddafi? Surely you aren't blaming their ouster on anyone but Obama, right? Assad is the next Obama target.. and he is choosing to fight ISIS, a group that was born of the US armed Syrian rebellion, by... arming the Syrian rebellion.
 
Your statement is amazingly self contradictory, Montecresto. On the one hand you credit US policy support for Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad because these leaders denied these groups "operational room", and then blame this same policy for the "Fine mess we have". Which is it? Seems to me that the support for these dictators, by your argument, was responsible for the lack of Islamic Radical proliferation in those states...

But then we come to your statement that it isn't all Obama's fault... OK, well, let's look at that. By your argument you can blame Bush for removing Hussein, sure, but then we had it under control there when we had troops in place... who took all the troops out of Iraq? And Mubarack, Gaddafi? Surely you aren't blaming their ouster on anyone but Obama, right? Assad is the next Obama target.. and he is choosing to fight ISIS, a group that was born of the US armed Syrian rebellion, by... arming the Syrian rebellion.

What the hell? Where did I credit US policy for support of Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad? And Bush is the one responsible for removing Hussein and the troubles we have there now, did I try to blame the other three on Bush?
 
What the hell? Where did I credit US policy for support of Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad? And Bush is the one responsible for removing Hussein and the troubles we have there now, did I try to blame the other three on Bush?

You are crediting Hussein, Asad, Mubarak and Gaddafi for keeping Islamic radicals under control AND blaming the US for years of propping up Hussein, Asad, Mubarak and Gaddafi. It's a self defeating theory.

And Iraq was under control before Obama removed all of the troops and started arming Syrian rebels.

And Obama was duped badly by Al Qaeda in Libya into supporting their takeover of the country.

The only reason that Egypt hasn't gone the way of Libya is because the US backed Egyptian Military took over after Obama's bungling that handed the government of Egypt to the Muslim frickin' Brotherhood.

Obama is entirely responsible for the Clusterboink that is the Middle East today. In every aspect the Middle East and Eastern Europe are now a reflection of Obama's projected weakness.
 
You are crediting Hussein, Asad, Mubarak and Gaddafi for keeping Islamic radicals under control AND blaming the US for years of propping up Hussein, Asad, Mubarak and Gaddafi. It's a self defeating theory.

And Iraq was under control before Obama removed all of the troops and started arming Syrian rebels.

And Obama was duped badly by Al Qaeda in Libya into supporting their takeover of the country.

The only reason that Egypt hasn't gone the way of Libya is because the US backed Egyptian Military took over after Obama's bungling that handed the government of Egypt to the Muslim frickin' Brotherhood.

Obama is entirely responsible for the Clusterboink that is the Middle East today. In every aspect the Middle East and Eastern Europe are now a reflection of Obama's projected weakness.

Totally, totally misrepresenting my position on this jm. I have never criticised the US for propping up Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad. I've always believed that those guys in power were a better alternative to what we have with them now gone. If you'd only pay closer attention to what I actually say, if you want to criticise me, I have complained of US policies in the ME of supporting militant Islamic groups. A huge difference from what you present.

And furthermore, why are you repeating what I have been saying all along as though it's something different? I point out regularly that Obama has failed in Egypt, Libya and Syria.

Otherwise, Obama is responsible for the destabilisation that he committed, and Bush his. Oh, and Reagan his.
 
Last edited:
Totally, totally misrepresenting my position on this jm. I have never criticised the US for propping up Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad. I've always believed that those guys in power were a better alternative to what we have with them now gone. If you'd only pay closer attention to what I actually say, if you want to criticise me, I have complained of US policies in the ME of supporting militant Islamic groups. A huge difference from what you present.

And furthermore, why are you repeating what I have been saying all along as though it's something different? I point out regularly that Obama has failed in Egypt, Libya and Syria.

Otherwise, Obama is responsible for the destabilisation that he committed, and Bush his. Oh, and Reagan his.

It's not hard to "misrepresent" you when you make statements like this:

"Again, and again, Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad didn't allow these groups operational room. It's US policy for years that has delivered us the fine mess we have, and you want it to be ONLY Obama's fault."

It is more in line with your whole body of work on this forum which amounts to blaming the US for everything while trying to absolve Obama for the state of the world 6 years into his hapless presidency.

So tell me, when Obama took office we had an Iraqi leader in place that we were propping up and protecting from his rivals.... how was that different than your supported policy?
 
This assumes that getting to Mexico is easy for ISIS. It is getting to USA from there that may be a problem.

I do not think too much of of the southern border illegal crossing of ISIS. This to the degree that I think it may be used as means for pro-Border people to have their ways.
 
A senior Homeland Security (DHS) official confirmed to Congress on Wednesday that militants associated with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS) are planning to enter the United States via the porous southern border.

Well, they're not very bright, I wouldn't think. Probably easier to enter as a visitor or obtain a student visas, like all those who attacked us on 9/11. It's not that difficult to get here legally. Or go through Canada and the more porous and lightly guarded northern border.

No doubt not having a Berlin Wall type of border with 10s of thousands of troops on border patrol with shoot to kill orders is a risk, but so is not living in a police state which is far better in terms of minimizing the risk of bad guys coming into the country and doing bad things while here. Also, too, we've all been through the 2000s and I'm sorry but I can only react to so many "WOLF!!!" cries before I become a bit jaded. Yes, we need to be vigilant, but we've lived with these risks for 200 years.

BUT we've been assured that the border is protected more than ever and there is absolutely no foreseeable threat from IS here in the homeland.

I don't think anyone claims the risk is zero, and we will always have to endure some risk of a bad guy coming here legally on a plane or boat or illegally across the hundreds of miles of our land borders to the north and south.
 
Well, lets see....

Approximately 500,000 people sneak into the US annually, and about 85% across the US-Mexican border.

Now, if I am a terrorist do I:

1] try to sneak in aboard a container?
2] try to fly in?
or 3] walk across with a few dozen Mexicans.

I'll go with door number 3 Alex!

The 19 terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 all arrived here legally on student or visitor or business visas. So all 19 of them chose door number 2.
 
71% of those polled and the POTUS are on board.

Conservatives don't know numbers, stats, and facts. Therefore, "the muslums are coming" should still work as a slogan.
 
The 19 terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 all arrived here legally on student or visitor or business visas. So all 19 of them chose door number 2.

Oh.....

So, you're saying that would be the choice NOW...

Now that the airports have been turned into battle zones, that is still the choice of terrorists?

If you are correct, either terrorists are the stupidest people on the planet, or your security measure are a public relations show.

Awesome though....truly awesome thinking
 
It's not hard to "misrepresent" you when you make statements like this:

"Again, and again, Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad didn't allow these groups operational room. It's US policy for years that has delivered us the fine mess we have, and you want it to be ONLY Obama's fault."

It is more in line with your whole body of work on this forum which amounts to blaming the US for everything while trying to absolve Obama for the state of the world 6 years into his hapless presidency.

So tell me, when Obama took office we had an Iraqi leader in place that we were propping up and protecting from his rivals.... how was that different than your supported policy?

Exactly, Hussein, was removed eleven years ago, the others more recently, where is the conflict. It's their removal that has caused the trouble in the ME, along with decades of support for militant Islamic groups, beginning (at least) with the Mujahideen. And your simply being dishonest about my representation of Obama. I've pointed out endlessly that he has supported militant Islamic groups, MB, in Egypt, AQ in Syria and Libya, abused the UN resolution for use of force in Libya, by overthrowing Gaddafi, leaving Libya in a terrible state, has interfered in Ukrainian economic negotiations with Russia causing a cluster**** up there, and has succeeded in pushing Russia and China closer together. So how is it exactly that I'm defending Obama?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom