U.S. Pushes Back Against Warnings That ISIS Plans to Enter From Mexico

rocket88 said:

Maybe ISIS will come from Canada. It's possible.

There's really no way to keep them out unless we close the borders entirely. The Sept. 11 hijackers entered the country legally. Presumably they answered "no" when asked if they were terrorists.

Click to expand...

That would be my guess as well.

If I were a terrorist wanting to get into the US today, I'd definitely come through Canada. The US/Canada border in the northern part of NH is just a vast mass of forest. There is a border crossing but last time I was there this winter they had 1 guy working it, and he looked like we has just woken him up from a nap when we came back in.

Hamster Buddha said:

Two major issues I have with this list that I believe should be pointed out.

First off, I'm curious when they say Al Qaeda, how many per group are they referring to? In the case of Boston, I'm assuming that they are just referring to those two guys that were responsible for the Marathon Bombing. If that is the case, that issue has been resolved. In fact, It's important to note that this list contains not just current groups, but "recent". And by recent, we mean they've already been caught and dealt with. And by the way, those two kids with the Marathon thing, didn't come from Mexico.

Second, Over half the list deals with organizations that as well as having a militant arm, also have a political wing as well; that being Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood. The people involved in these organizations, at least in the US, have never been connected with a terrorist attack on the mainland, and thus it's unfair to label them as "militant". There are many things that these organizations, namely bring light to the Arab side of the story in the Israeli conflict, which make no mistake, their are villains on both side. As long as they remain peaceful in the US, they have just as much right to protest and bring light to issues people in the West Bank and elsewhere face.



Emerson is a well-known Islamaphob.... I mean author on Islamic extremism. He's written like five books on the subject.

Click to expand...

Mornin' H.Buddha. <<<<< Hits gong. :2wave:



Well.....they may have political wings. But if they are MB or Hamas. Then they are Terrorists and support terrorism. The American people should be about running these clowns out of the country. Uhm.....I mean, does not the horse know where to find water. Yet None can make it drink any.

Erod said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/u...ngs-that-isis-plans-to-enter-from-mexico.html



Very odd headline from the New York Times. The "U.S." is not pushing back against the warnings. Democrats are. And the first paragraph states that ISIS has travelled across the border as fact, with no attribution.

I suppose the NY Times does not want to appear in contrast with its beloved president and party, but obviously, their information contradicts what Democrats are saying.

Nevertheless, this is concerning to say the least.

Click to expand...

Like any type of criminal the ISIS can rent an office in most countries, if it puts an other name on the plate. There are lots of these guys in the USA, France or Indonesia and anywhere else they find help. Mexico has never seemed a home to radical Islam to me, though. I would think the infrastructure was poor. But their law enforcement might be bad enough to compensate.

Hamster Buddha said:

Two major issues I have with this list that I believe should be pointed out.

First off, I'm curious when they say Al Qaeda, how many per group are they referring to? In the case of Boston, I'm assuming that they are just referring to those two guys that were responsible for the Marathon Bombing. If that is the case, that issue has been resolved. In fact, It's important to note that this list contains not just current groups, but "recent". And by recent, we mean they've already been caught and dealt with. And by the way, those two kids with the Marathon thing, didn't come from Mexico.

Second, Over half the list deals with organizations that as well as having a militant arm, also have a political wing as well; that being Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood. The people involved in these organizations, at least in the US, have never been connected with a terrorist attack on the mainland, and thus it's unfair to label them as "militant". There are many things that these organizations, namely bring light to the Arab side of the story in the Israeli conflict, which make no mistake, their are villains on both side. As long as they remain peaceful in the US, they have just as much right to protest and bring light to issues people in the West Bank and elsewhere face.



Emerson is a well-known Islamaphob.... I mean author on Islamic extremism. He's written like five books on the subject.

Click to expand...

My point is, as with anyone else wanting to enter this country illegally, there are already people/groups here to expedite the procedure. There are already those people here who have connections with and support foreign terrorists organizations.

As we know [from our government] there are at least 500 or more American citizens (with passports) who are fighting in the ME.

If we don't remain vigilant, strikes here on our soil are inevitable.

ISIS is already exhorting it's supporters here in the US to bomb Times Sq. etc.

ISIS threatens to attack U.S. tourist destinations like New York's Times Square | Mail Online

MMC said:

Mornin' H.Buddha. <<<<< Hits gong. :2wave:

Well.....they may have political wings. But if they are MB or Hamas. Then they are Terrorists and support terrorism. The American people should be about running these clowns out of the country. Uhm.....I mean, does not the horse know where to find water. Yet None can make it drink any.

Click to expand...

I think we have to do a better job of defining just who our enemies are in this case. Say what you will for MB, Hamas or Hezbollah, they have for confined their violence to the ME and not gone international like other outfits (Al Qaeda). Those three organization maybe defined as terrorist as they do attack civilian targets, but arbitrarily making them an enemy is only going to add more fuel to the fire, and if we start going after them, puts us in the potential firing line. We already have enough enemies on this planet, I say we let these guys do as they may. After all, in the later two cases, they've been around for over 30 years and haven't attacked us have they? If it was really part of their plans, I think they would of done so before now...

WCH said:

My point is, as with anyone else wanting to enter this country illegally, there are already people/groups here to expedite the procedure. There are already those people here who have connections with and support foreign terrorists organizations.

As we know [from our government] there are at least 500 or more American citizens (with passports) who are fighting in the ME.

If we don't remain vigilant, strikes here on our soil are inevitable.

ISIS is already exhorting it's supporters here in the US to bomb Times Sq. etc.

ISIS threatens to attack U.S. tourist destinations like New York's Times Square | Mail Online

Click to expand...

Like I said above, if they are not our enemy, then we shouldn't go around kicking over hornet nests when we don't need to. Besides, terrorism has evolved today to the point where these organizations are meaningless. The last several attacks on the homeland (Boston and Ft. Hood come to mind) were carried out by individuals who weren't affiliated with any organization. The sad truth of the matter is, that the next terrorist attack will come without warning, and from someone who's only commonality with previous terrorist attacks is that their Muslim. Short of rounding up all Muslims, I don't see anything we can do to stop it.

Hamster Buddha said:

I think we have to do a better job of defining just who our enemies are in this case. Say what you will for MB, Hamas or Hezbollah, they have for confined their violence to the ME and not gone international like other outfits (Al Qaeda). Those three organization maybe defined as terrorist as they do attack civilian targets, but arbitrarily making them an enemy is only going to add more fuel to the fire, and if we start going after them, puts us in the potential firing line. We already have enough enemies on this planet, I say we let these guys do as they may. After all, in the later two cases, they've been around for over 30 years and haven't attacked us have they? If it was really part of their plans, I think they would of done so before now...



Like I said above, if they are not our enemy, then we shouldn't go around kicking over hornet nests when we don't need to. Besides, terrorism has evolved today to the point where these organizations are meaningless. The last several attacks on the homeland (Boston and Ft. Hood come to mind) were carried out by individuals who weren't affiliated with any organization. The sad truth of the matter is, that the next terrorist attack will come without warning, and from someone who's only commonality with previous terrorist attacks is that their Muslim. Short of rounding up all Muslims, I don't see anything we can do to stop it.

Click to expand...

Well the MB has caused us several problems. They understand what will happen to them if they attacked us. Same with Hamas and Hezbollah.

AQ and some others haven't learned that lesson.....yet. Some Napalm will help them to see the Light. Just sayin.

MMC said:

Well the MB has caused us several problems. They understand what will happen to them if they attacked us. Same with Hamas and Hezbollah.

AQ and some others haven't learned that lesson.....yet. Some Napalm will help them to see the Light. Just sayin.

Click to expand...

You want to start bombing Muslims in the US with Napalm? I know that's not what you meant but, considering my last sentence was "Short of rounding up all Muslims, I don't see anything we can do to stop it", it doesn't look quite right...

Hamster Buddha said:

You want to start bombing Muslims in the US with Napalm? I know that's not what you meant but, considering my last sentence was "Short of rounding up all Muslims, I don't see anything we can do to stop it", it doesn't look quite right...

Click to expand...

Well not the ones in the US.....and not just Muslims. Terrorists, and those affiliated with them. Those in the US can be dealt with in many different ways. Those overseas....need to be hunted down. Requires the will and working with Card Blanche from Governments. Or from certain governments.

So, why are State governors getting a free pass as commanders in chief of what is necessary to the security of a free State?

MMC said:

Well not the ones in the US.....and not just Muslims. Terrorists, and those affiliated with them. Those in the US can be dealt with in many different ways. Those overseas....need to be hunted down. Requires the will and working with Card Blanche from Governments. Or from certain governments.

Click to expand...

If the problem could be solved with explosives, then don't you think the approximate 80,000 tonnes of explosives would of done the trick (That's the approximate amount used during the entirety of the Iraq War)

Simon W. Moon said:

The NYT did not say so.
The NYT said that "conservative groups and leading Republicans" said so.

As the Obama administration and the American public have focused their attention on ISIS in recent weeks, conservative groups and leading Republicans have issued stark warnings like those that ISIS and other extremists from Syria are planning to enter the country illegally from Mexico.
​

helping is what I do

Click to expand...

Read the first paragraph of the story. It attributes no one.

apdst said:

It's stupid to assume that jihadist won't cross the border illegally. It's an obvious avenue of approach.

Click to expand...

Probably been doing it since we began the "war on terror"

Erod said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/u...ngs-that-isis-plans-to-enter-from-mexico.html



Very odd headline from the New York Times. The "U.S." is not pushing back against the warnings. Democrats are. And the first paragraph states that ISIS has travelled across the border as fact, with no attribution.

I suppose the NY Times does not want to appear in contrast with its beloved president and party, but obviously, their information contradicts what Democrats are saying.

Nevertheless, this is concerning to say the least.

Click to expand...

Why is it odd coming from NYT?

That is the same outfit that covered up the NSA dirty work being performed by telecoms back in 2003, and that coverup allowed Bush to be re-elected.

NYT is just another mouthpiece for the neocons that still control the government. Their role is to fear monger, and that's what this story is.

Hamster Buddha said:

If the problem could be solved with explosives, then don't you think the approximate 80,000 tonnes of explosives would of done the trick (That's the approximate amount used during the entirety of the Iraq War)

Click to expand...

I never said the Problem could be solved with explosives now HBuddha.....much needs to be done up close and personal. In the dark.....and with what the terrorists fear most. Also this is not just a US problem.....this is everyones problem. So Hunting them down.....is key to destroying them.

WCH said:

Yep...no need for concern.

Click to expand...

Are these Islamic State centers, or are we at the point that all Muslims are terrorists?

MMC said:

I never said the Problem could be solved with explosives now HBuddha.....much needs to be done up close and personal. In the dark.....and with what the terrorists fear most. Also this is not just a US problem.....this is everyones problem. So Hunting them down.....is key to destroying them.

Click to expand...

To your point, the problem with Radical Islam is that it's not a problem with one unifying agenda. In fact, the only thing the jihadist in Indonesia, China, Europe, ME, Africa all agree upon, is that Allah is God and they must kill in his name.

Montecresto said:

Are these Islamic State centers, or are we at the point that all Muslims are terrorists?

Click to expand...

Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda have all carried out terrorist attacks against civilian targets... so that's why there labeled as such. And I'm assuming a group called "Algerian ARMED Islamic Group" isn't formed to carry out Tupperware parties.

Erod said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/u...ngs-that-isis-plans-to-enter-from-mexico.html



Very odd headline from the New York Times. The "U.S." is not pushing back against the warnings. Democrats are. And the first paragraph states that ISIS has travelled across the border as fact, with no attribution.

I suppose the NY Times does not want to appear in contrast with its beloved president and party, but obviously, their information contradicts what Democrats are saying.

Nevertheless, this is concerning to say the least.

Click to expand...

Perhaps one should throw all the rhetoric aside coming from the two parties. Listen to what exactly ISIS is saying they are going to do. Then assess in your own mind if it is feasible, possible. Keep in mind the rhetoric coming from the two parties are usually polar opposite and on the other side of the spectrum from each other. That usually the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Personally I would say if ISIS or any other terrorist wanted to enter the U.S. illegally they could do so rather easily. The border with Mexico is just one avenue, there is also the border to the north and entering by sea is also fairly easy. Keep in mind that if there is the will, they is always a way. Even entering legally through student visas, tourist visas, etc.

Montecresto said:

Are these Islamic State centers, or are we at the point that all Muslims are terrorists?

Click to expand...

When a few extremists carried out murder and terrorism on abortion doctors, followers of many Christian faiths were quick to condemn their actions. This condemnation, as I recall, was long and concentrated, despite efforts by some to paint all Christian religions as supporting those actions.

In the case of Terrorism and Muslims, I think their religious leaders are displaying some of the worst PR efforts in History. For some reason, they have, by and large, chosen to go silent on the issue of terrorism and their faith. To many this speaks volumes. I hope someone steps up and demonstrates to the world that they are prepared to destroy those who are defaming their religion, and that thousands of it's faithful rally in support.

At this point, the world is poised to deal with the issue, and it could get very ugly, fast.

Montecresto said:

Are these Islamic State centers, or are we at the point that all Muslims are terrorists?

Click to expand...

All Germans were not Nazi's and yet we chose to fight Germany in WWII. When a genocidal movement reaches critical mass inside a nation, with or without its official government sanction, it becomes worthy of outside opposition.

Henry David said:

Why is it odd coming from NYT?

That is the same outfit that covered up the NSA dirty work being performed by telecoms back in 2003, and that coverup allowed Bush to be re-elected.

NYT is just another mouthpiece for the neocons that still control the government. Their role is to fear monger, and that's what this story is.

Click to expand...

HD, you have some really ..... interesting views on the world. Calling the NYT, the same newspaper that ran with the ad "General Petraeus or General Betray US?"

MMC said:

Well not the ones in the US.....and not just Muslims. Terrorists, and those affiliated with them. Those in the US can be dealt with in many different ways. Those overseas....need to be hunted down. Requires the will and working with Card Blanche from Governments. Or from certain governments.

Click to expand...

He bud, We won't be hunting down and killing them, they are our ally's. As I've been pointing out all along, decades of support of militant Islamic groups has produced the ME we see today.

The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups that were favored by neighboring Pakistan, rather than other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups.

Operation Cyclone

Perotista said:

Perhaps one should throw all the rhetoric aside coming from the two parties. Listen to what exactly ISIS is saying they are going to do. Then assess in your own mind if it is feasible, possible. Keep in mind the rhetoric coming from the two parties are usually polar opposite and on the other side of the spectrum from each other. That usually the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Personally I would say if ISIS or any other terrorist wanted to enter the U.S. illegally they could do so rather easily. The border with Mexico is just one avenue, there is also the border to the north and entering by sea is also fairly easy. Keep in mind that if there is the will, they is always a way. Even entering legally through student visas, tourist visas, etc.

Click to expand...

Too true, how many of the 9/11 terrorist had expired visas?

Montecresto said:

He bud, We won't be hunting down and killing them, they are our ally's. As I've been pointing out all along, decades of support of militant Islamic groups has produced the ME we see today.

The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups that were favored by neighboring Pakistan, rather than other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups.

Operation Cyclone

Click to expand...

Why do people keep bringing this up? Is the fact that we supported them 30 years ago suppose to excuse what they are doing now? Are we just suppose to roll over and take whatever attacks they commit without retaliation?

Hamster Buddha said:

Too true, how many of the 9/11 terrorist had expired visas?

Click to expand...

I am not sure, but from what I read all of them were here legally. Either their visa were still valid or they had expired.

Perotista said:

I am not sure, but from what I read all of them were here legally. Either their visa were still valid or they had expired.

Click to expand...

State Dept. Lapses Aided 9/11 Hijackers

"This is a systemic problem," said Nikolai Wenzel, a former U.S. consular officer. "It's a problem of sloppiness, it's a problem of negligence which I would call criminal negligence because obviously, having reviewed all these applications, there is a pattern here."

The pattern? None of the 15 applications reviewed was filled out properly.

Brothers Wail and Waleed al Shehri applied together in October 2000. Under "occupation" Wail wrote "teater;" brother Waleed claimed "student." The name and address of alleged employer and school was listed as "South City," and the questionable U.S. destination named as "Wasantwn."

Visas approved.

Abdulaziz Alomari claimed to be a student but didn't name a school; claimed to be married but didn't name a spouse; under nationality and gender, he didn't list anything.

Visa approved.

Three months later, Alomari followed his friend Mohamed Atta through airport security … heading for the World Trade Center.

Khalid Al Mihdhar, who helped crash the plane into the Pentagon, simply listed "Hotel" as his U.S. destination — no name, no city, no state — but no problem getting a visa.

Just One Had a Slight Delay

Hani Hanjour, who also was on the plane that hit the Pentagon, had only a slight delay in acquiring his visa. A consulate employee flagged Hanjour's first application, noting that Hanjour wanted to "visit" for three years, although the legal limit is two. When Hanjour returned two weeks later, he simply changed the form to read "one year".

Visa approved.