• 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!

Could America face major ISIS attacks soon?

Could America face a major terrorist attack from ISIS in the next year?

  • Im not American, yes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    33
Under the leadership of the current President, America will not be able to face a threat from any source, unless that force attacks a golf coarse.

He has set up elaborate defenses to kill that gopher from caddyshack because it was on his golf course. That gopher learned arabic and became fundamentalist. Last week, that gopher captured an beheaded a pigeon.
gopher01_o.jpg

caddyshack-gopher.jpg
 
History has recorded a different result.

http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/jan-20-1981-iran-releases-american-hostages-as-reagan-takes-office/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

On Jan. 20, 1981, Iran released 52 Americans who had been held hostage for 444 days, minutes after the presidency had passed from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan. The hostages were placed on a plane in Tehran as Reagan delivered his inaugural address.

Interesting how the movie argo didn't really address that. The world respects power and resolve, and openly mocks weakness like Obama.
 
I would be surprised at a "major" attack, but would not be surprised at various homegrown boys stirring up ****, and getting people worried and upset.

Don't you think various homegrown boys can do the same kind of damage and kill the same amount of people as a major attack?

This group has more money than they know what to do with, so I would say that makes them a bigger threat.

They can finance their own attacks.
 
All of our military interventions have virtually guaranteed a future attack by ISIS against us. It doesnt matter how many terrorists we kill, there will be more simply because killing them isnt the answer, all it does is further antagonize people and make them hate us, therefore more terrorists are recruited into their ranks. James Foley was simply the first and as long as we keep doing the same things over and over then the so-called war on terror will never end.

If the US truly wants to stop terror attacks against its own citizens then they have to adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy. Other people dont hate us because of our freedoms- thats bull**** neocon propaganda, they hate us because we meddle in other countries. We need to stop minding other people's business. We create our own Frankenstein monsters- and Americans are dying for nothing because of it.

What you are saying is that not only should the US kill the actual terrorists but the people that might become terrorists in the future.

I can get behind that, go for it.
 
There will always be a boogie man at the door.

A very rich boogie man that has the capabilities to carry out the threats.

If the group is saying they will kill as many Americans, or other people, as they can, take them at their word and attack them first.

Do not say "I don't believe them, you can't take them seriously"

That would be a mistake.
 
What you are saying is that not only should the US kill the actual terrorists but the people that might become terrorists in the future.

I can get behind that, go for it.


Can we all stop pretending we can have a war against a tactic?

A war on 'terrorism' is just a stupid term - and should be eliminated from the conversation. One cant even define terror appropriately - why is an IED a terror weapon yet a drone strike isnt?

The continued use of this terrible phrase is leading us to an unending war against anything that we dont like and can successfully label 'terror'. And by calling people 'terrorists' you reduce them to a person carrying out a tactic... that is undefined to the point where someone can certainly call anyone in the world a 'terrorist'.
 
Can we all stop pretending we can have a war against a tactic?

A war on 'terrorism' is just a stupid term - and should be eliminated from the conversation. One cant even define terror appropriately - why is an IED a terror weapon yet a drone strike isnt?

The continued use of this terrible phrase is leading us to an unending war against anything that we dont like and can successfully label 'terror'. And by calling people 'terrorists' you reduce them to a person carrying out a tactic... that is undefined to the point where someone can certainly call anyone in the world a 'terrorist'.

Are you trying to equate the two sides?

Do you not see a difference between people killing other people for no reason and the other side killing those people for the first killings?
 
A war on 'terrorism' is just a stupid term - and should be eliminated from the conversation. One cant even define terror appropriately - why is an IED a terror weapon yet a drone strike isnt?

If you dont understand the difference I dont think explaining it further will help.

Nothing is being eliminated from conversation, so make yourself comfie.
 
Are you trying to equate the two sides?

Do you not see a difference between people killing other people for no reason and the other side killing those people for the first killings?

There are actually one hundred sides. Do you only think there are two?

And who has killed people for no reason? The 911 hijackers? No. They were quite clear about their reasons - they want the US troops out of Arab nations.

You think the US has not killed people for no reason? Explain the 100K Iraqis that died in the last war.... was every single one of those a combatant? Were they all happy to see the US come 'liberate' them? And what did Iraq have to do with anything anyway? We still are arguing that point and dont seem to have a great answer, yet I know Iraqi refugees here in the US who've lost most of their family (and who were apolitical and innocent victims), but you are offended that I dont see a difference between THEIR terror and OUR non-terror?
 
What you are saying is that not only should the US kill the actual terrorists but the people that might become terrorists in the future.

I can get behind that, go for it.

Uh, Im not saying that at all...
 
Can we all stop pretending we can have a war against a tactic?

A war on 'terrorism' is just a stupid term - and should be eliminated from the conversation. One cant even define terror appropriately - why is an IED a terror weapon yet a drone strike isnt?

The continued use of this terrible phrase is leading us to an unending war against anything that we dont like and can successfully label 'terror'. And by calling people 'terrorists' you reduce them to a person carrying out a tactic... that is undefined to the point where
someone can certainly call anyone in the world a 'terrorist'.




I call anyone who tries to eliminate certain words from conversation a conversation terrorist.

Are you down with that idea?




"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen." ~ Tommy Smothers
 
I call anyone who tries to eliminate certain words from conversation a conversation terrorist.

Are you down with that idea?




"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen." ~ Tommy Smothers

You apparently dont get the point at all.

Definitions matter. Nebulous terms often turn into nebulous action.
 
You apparently dont get the point at all.
Definitions matter. Nebulous terms often turn into nebulous action.




I get your point perfectly.

You're a control freak who wants to tell everyone what they can and can't say.

I'm not buying into that BS.

I'm going to say whatever I want to say whether you like the words that I use or not.
 
Uh, Im not saying that at all...

Aren't you?

You said we shouldn't go after the terrorists because that just makes more terrorists.

If there are no more people to convert, then thee can be no more terrorists, right?
 
I get your point perfectly.

You're a control freak who wants to tell everyone what they can and can't say.

I'm not buying into that BS.

I'm going to say whatever I want to say whether you like the words that I use or not.

A 'control freak'! LOL.


All I'm saying is that the terminology of telling someone we need to declare a war on a tactic is stupid and self-defeating. It seems pretty obvious to me.


You are free to say whatever you want to say, and use whatever words you want to. But if you want to make sense, you might want to stick to the rules of grammar.
 
A 'control freak'! LOL.


All I'm saying is that the terminology of telling someone we need to declare a war on a tactic is stupid and self-defeating. It seems pretty obvious to me.


You are free to say whatever you want to say, and use whatever words you want to.
But if you want to make sense, you might want to stick to the rules of grammar.




Glad to hear that.

So you're not opposed to the 1st Amendment, eh?
 
The news gets worse and worse, and now it appears that ISIS has posted ominous photos as threats to Americans.


Does the US face an attack from ISIS, and if so why?


I think we DO-they wont play nice when they are being defeated in Iraq, and tragically I expect we WILL experience a major attack. I think we should never have pulled out of Iraq and allowed this movement of evil to threaten the USA. The war on terror is not over, and we must remain vigilant.



Heya USC. :2wave: There is more than just a 60-40 chance they will do something to the US. On US soil.....less than 10%. But that's not changing their mind on wishing they could. They themselves don't even think they are ready for anything overseas. So its in their mindset.

This might interest you.....now take a look at what BO peep did with the Saudi Bank. How that just don't sit to well with victims of 911 as well as the other global issue the Saud has.




Terrorism Flourishes During Obama Years......
RAND Documents Rise of Terrorism Under Obama.

Seth Jones, the associate director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the RAND Corp., released a report yesterday called "A Persistent Threat: The Evolution of al Qa'ida and Other Salafi-Jihadists." In a WSJ op-ed yesterday about the report, Jones reports, without mentioning Obama's repeated claims of having al Qaeda "on the run," that "The number of al Qaeda and other jihadist groups and fighters are growing, not shrinking.... From 2010 to 2013 the number of jihadist groups world-wide has grown by 58%, to 49 from 31; the number of jihadist fighters has doubled to a high estimate of 100,000; and the number of attacks by al Qaeda affiliates has increased to roughly 1,000 from 392."

He identifies the threats to the US, itself, as coming primarily from groups operating in Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Syria, referencing Moner Mohammad Abusalha, an American who was a member of the al Qaeda affiliate organization al-Nusra, who blew himself up in a suicide bombing in Syria on March 29. He points to a second category of terrorist groups — particularly in Somalia, Iraq, Libya and Nigeria — which is bent on hitting U.S. and other Western targets overseas, though not necessarily in the U.S. homeland, and a third category with little current interest and ability to strike the U.S. or U.S. targets overseas, such as the East Turkestan Islamic Movement in the Uighur Autonomous region of China.....snip~

Terrorism Flourishes During Obama Years
 
Don't you think various homegrown boys can do the same kind of damage and kill the same amount of people as a major attack?
This group has more money than they know what to do with, so I would say that makes them a bigger threat.

They can finance their own attacks.

THe difference is in security here now, as compared to pre-911. We can't hardly take a **** without the government watching these days.
 
Heya USC. :2wave: There is more than just a 60-40 chance they will do something to the US. On US soil.....less than 10%. But that's not changing their mind on wishing they could. They themselves don't even think they are ready for anything overseas. So its in their mindset.

This might interest you.....now take a look at what BO peep did with the Saudi Bank. How that just don't sit to well with victims of 911 as well as the other global issue the Saud has.




Terrorism Flourishes During Obama Years......
RAND Documents Rise of Terrorism Under Obama.

Seth Jones, the associate director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the RAND Corp., released a report yesterday called "A Persistent Threat: The Evolution of al Qa'ida and Other Salafi-Jihadists." In a WSJ op-ed yesterday about the report, Jones reports, without mentioning Obama's repeated claims of having al Qaeda "on the run," that "The number of al Qaeda and other jihadist groups and fighters are growing, not shrinking.... From 2010 to 2013 the number of jihadist groups world-wide has grown by 58%, to 49 from 31; the number of jihadist fighters has doubled to a high estimate of 100,000; and the number of attacks by al Qaeda affiliates has increased to roughly 1,000 from 392."

He identifies the threats to the US, itself, as coming primarily from groups operating in Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Syria, referencing Moner Mohammad Abusalha, an American who was a member of the al Qaeda affiliate organization al-Nusra, who blew himself up in a suicide bombing in Syria on March 29. He points to a second category of terrorist groups — particularly in Somalia, Iraq, Libya and Nigeria — which is bent on hitting U.S. and other Western targets overseas, though not necessarily in the U.S. homeland, and a third category with little current interest and ability to strike the U.S. or U.S. targets overseas, such as the East Turkestan Islamic Movement in the Uighur Autonomous region of China.....snip~

Terrorism Flourishes During Obama Years


Obama said terrorists were on the run-he lied.
 
Back
Top Bottom