• 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

Fearandloathing said:
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
Click to expand...

Why can't terrorists arrive in the USA, or an western nation, legally?
 
Grant said:
The Muslims have already arrived.
Click to expand...

Again, the bulk of conservative voters don't know that (unless they happen to see someone wearing a turban in their mostly White neighborhoods, in which case they will think he is a "mulsum")
 
solletica said:
Again, the bulk of conservative voters don't know that (unless they happen to see someone wearing a turban in their mostly White neighborhoods, in which case they will think he is a "mulsum")
Click to expand...

Most people understand that Muslims have arrived in every western democracy. Perhaps you can name anyone who doesn't know that.
 
Fearandloathing said:
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
Click to expand...

1) Yes, I don't have any doubt our security measures are largely a PR show.

2) Why are they stupid? We have about a million visitors per year from the Middle East. Another 10 million from Asia and 500,000 from Africa, and about (edit) 80 million foreign visitors per year total. Unless we've identified a person as a threat they can travel here easily enough because we're a free country that is lenient on travel to and from here for all kinds of good reasons. And the ALERT!! said this twitter traffic was coming from around the world, and so the sympathizers could be any of those 80 million per year flying here.

I would expect that any serious terrorist threat to the U.S. would be well financed and well planned, and I expect that they can find individuals not on the U.S. radar easily enough.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
Most people understand that Muslims have arrived in every western democracy. Perhaps you can name anyone who doesn't know that.
Click to expand...

But right wingers (esp. in the Deep South) still think they're far and few, since they haven't seen too many turbans. Turbans make conservatives go bonkers.
 
JasperL said:
1) Yes, I don't have any doubt our security measures are largely a PR show.

2) Why are they stupid? We have about a million visitors per year from the Middle East. Another 10 million from Asia and 500,000 from Africa, and about 800 million foreign visitors per year total. Unless we've identified a person as a threat they can travel here easily enough because we're a free country that is lenient on travel to and from here for all kinds of good reasons. And the ALERT!! said this twitter traffic was coming from around the world, and so the sympathizers could be any of those 800 million per year flying here.

I would expect that any serious terrorist threat to the U.S. would be well financed and well planned, and I expect that they can find individuals not on the U.S. radar easily enough.
Click to expand...
That should be very clear. Muslims already living in the US have committed terrorism, or tried to. They don't need to wear black outfits or carry the ISL flag in order to murder innocent people in any western democracy. The Geneva Convention holds little interest for them.
 
JasperL said:
1) Yes, I don't have any doubt our security measures are largely a PR show.

2) Why are they stupid? We have about a million visitors per year from the Middle East. Another 10 million from Asia and 500,000 from Africa, and about (edit) 80 million foreign visitors per year total. Unless we've identified a person as a threat they can travel here easily enough because we're a free country that is lenient on travel to and from here for all kinds of good reasons. And the ALERT!! said this twitter traffic was coming from around the world, and so the sympathizers could be any of those 80 million per year flying here.

I would expect that any serious terrorist threat to the U.S. would be well financed and well planned, and I expect that they can find individuals not on the U.S. radar easily enough.
Click to expand...



So terrorists are getting through your airports?

I think we're done here
 
WCH said:
And you *insinuated* that I ramble on about Barry to the point of nausea? No?
Click to expand...

Insinuated? Oh no it's factual to anyone who reads your posts.

And the fact that you refer to the president of the United States by his first name makes my case.
 
j-mac said:
Another threat we will ignore until thousands die.
Click to expand...

Or we could put boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria and loose more people than we did on 911 just like we did last time.
 
Fearandloathing said:
So terrorists are getting through your airports?

I think we're done here
Click to expand...

Do you have anything to back up the implicit claim that they are not getting through our airports or cannot do so easily?

For example, do you think our intelligence operatives have identified 100% of ISIS sympathizers? 90%? 30%? 10%? I have no idea, but my guess is the number identified by name and country of origin sufficient to put them on the no-fly list is far closer to 10% than 90%. And it would be FAR easier to move around the U.S. without suspicion if the terrorists arrived legally. Seems like the obvious PREFERRED method of arriving here for all kinds of good reasons, which is probably why ALL NINETEEN of the 9/11 attackers got here on visas of various sorts.

BTW, it should also be obvious that if we did have a Berlin Wall kind of southern border that we would only very slightly reduce our risk of terrorist attack in the U.S. A free country just cannot control its borders sufficient to eliminate the risk. We WANT free travel to and from here, and that free travel means bad guys can very likely find a way in if they are determined to do so. If the bad guys can't, they'll find someone to act in their place, and come in as a dozen or two of the 80,000,000 travelers here per year.
 
Last edited:
Fearandloathing said:
So terrorists are getting through your airports?

I think we're done here
Click to expand...

When terrorists pass through airports it's unlikely they would list 'terrorist' as their occupation. While Black maybe the color of fashion in the Middle East they tend to be less obtrusive when entering western countries.
 
JasperL said:
Do you have anything to back up the implicit claim that they are not getting through our airports or cannot do so easily?

For example, do you think our intelligence operatives have identified 100% of ISIS sympathizers? 90%? 30%? 10%? I have no idea, but my guess is the number identified by name and country of origin sufficient to put them on the no-fly list is far closer to 10% than 90%. And it would be FAR easier to move around the U.S. without suspicion if the terrorists arrived legally. Seems like the obvious PREFERRED method of arriving here for all kinds of good reasons, which is probably why ALL NINETEEN of the 9/11 attackers got here on visas of various sorts.

BTW, it should also be obvious that if we did have a Berlin Wall kind of southern border that we would only very slightly reduce our risk of terrorist attack in the U.S. A free country just cannot control its borders sufficient to eliminate the risk. We WANT free travel to and from here, and that free travel means bad guys can very likely find a way in if they are determined to do so. If the bad guys can't, they'll find someone to act in their place, and come in as a dozen or two of the 80,000,000 travelers here per year.
Click to expand...

Israel has enjoyed a great deal of success with their fence, and its design, but of course they are dealing with far less distance.
 
Grant said:
Israel has enjoyed a great deal of success with their fence, and its design, but of course they are dealing with far less distance.
Click to expand...

Right. We COULD do it here, but it would come at an immense cost for the border control measures, and at the points of legal entry lots of inconvenience for all the 79,999,980 non-terrorists wanting to travel legally here/year and all U.S. travelers going abroad.

It's my own view that if terrorist groups want to attack us in the U.S. that they can find a way to get people here to do it.
 
Montecresto said:
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?
Click to expand...

The "mujaheddin" in Afghanistan was not a single unified force. The US supported the moderate, pro western Afghan resistance in the conflict whereas Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations formed the "Afghan Arab" brigades that would go on to form the Taliban after the conflict. The faction supported by the US later became the Northern Alliance which was a moderate Muslim resistance to the Taliban. The error in Afghanistan for the US was not in the support for the Afghanistan resistance, but in dropping support for them once the Soviets left. The pro-western forces left in Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal were the only forces left out to dry.

Can you give me an idea of who the radical Islamists are that the US supposedly supported? You seem to think there are several.
 
jmotivator said:
The "mujaheddin" in Afghanistan was not a single unified force. The US supported the moderate, pro western Afghan resistance in the conflict whereas Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations formed the "Afghan Arab" brigades that would go on to form the Taliban after the conflict. The faction supported by the US later became the Northern Alliance which was a moderate Muslim resistance to the Taliban. The error in Afghanistan for the US was not in the support for the Afghanistan resistance, but in dropping support for them once the Soviets left. The pro-western forces left in Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal were the only forces left out to dry.

Can you give me an idea of who the radical Islamists are that the US supposedly supported? You seem to think there are several.
Click to expand...

Pakistan recomended that we support this guy

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And that guy later became a terrorist fighting againist us.
 
JasperL said:
Right. We COULD do it here, but it would come at an immense cost for the border control measures, and at the points of legal entry lots of inconvenience for all the 79,999,980 non-terrorists wanting to travel legally here/year and all U.S. travelers going abroad. It's my own view that if terrorist groups want to attack us in the U.S. that they can find a way to get people here to do it.
Click to expand...
A border fence would be expensive but the 'inconvenience' you mention is already there.. I don;t know how a proper border would inconvenience anyone.
 
jmotivator said:
The "mujaheddin" in Afghanistan was not a single unified force. The US supported the moderate, pro western Afghan resistance in the conflict whereas Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations formed the "Afghan Arab" brigades that would go on to form the Taliban after the conflict. The faction supported by the US later became the Northern Alliance which was a moderate Muslim resistance to the Taliban. The error in Afghanistan for the US was not in the support for the Afghanistan resistance, but in dropping support for them once the Soviets left. The pro-western forces left in Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal were the only forces left out to dry.

Can you give me an idea of who the radical Islamists are that the US supposedly supported? You seem to think there are several.
Click to expand...

Sorry, they were not moderates.

Mujahideen (Arabic: مجاهد‎ muǧāhid, nominative plural مجاهدون muǧāhidūn, oblique plural مجاهدين muǧāhidīn "strugglers" or "people doing jihad") is a term that Muslims use to describe those they see as Muslims who struggle in the path of Allah.[1][2] The word is from the same Arabic triliteral root as jihad ("struggle"). In recent years, Mujahideen has been most closely associated by the west with radical Islam, encompassing several militant groups and struggles.

Mujahideen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Grant said:
Pakistan is neither a friend or an ally.
Click to expand...

Lol, seems Bush didn't know that.

Mr. Bush has repeatedly called Gen. Musharraf “a friend.” In 2003, the president invited the general to Camp David, a presidential perk reserved for the closest of allies. Last year, at the general’s insistence, Mr. Bush risked a trip to Pakistan, jangling the nerves of the Secret Service by spending the night in the country presumed to be home to Osama bin Laden.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/washington/18prexy.html?_r=0
 
solletica said:
Again, the bulk of conservative voters don't know that (unless they happen to see someone wearing a turban in their mostly White neighborhoods, in which case they will think he is a "mulsum")
Click to expand...

And Libertarians don't want to impede anyone's freedom...coming or going.

Why don't you rag on Libertarians for a while?
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Insinuated? Oh no it's factual to anyone who reads your posts.

And the fact that you refer to the president of the United States by his first name makes my case.
Click to expand...

So you admit that is his first name? ;)

I can't wait for his tenure to end.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Pakistan recomended that we support this guy

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And that guy later became a terrorist fighting againist us.
Click to expand...

Well, he was exiled by the Taliban in 1996, and even Pakistan dumped him in 1994, so it seems rather silly to blame the US.

So it is safe to say that the US supplied him through ISI during the war in Afghanistan, but the claim that the war in Afghanistan made Hekmatyar is a stretch.
 
Montecresto said:
Lol, seems Bush didn't know that.

Mr. Bush has repeatedly called Gen. Musharraf “a friend.” In 2003, the president invited the general to Camp David, a presidential perk reserved for the closest of allies. Last year, at the general’s insistence, Mr. Bush risked a trip to Pakistan, jangling the nerves of the Secret Service by spending the night in the country presumed to be home to Osama bin Laden.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/washington/18prexy.html?_r=0
Click to expand...
Do you get all your insights from the NYTimes op eds? But in any case, as I said, Pakistan is no one's friend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom