• 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!

America Is 'Less Safe' Than 2 Years Ago, Intelligence Committee Chairs Say

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
The lawmakers who lead the House and Senate intelligence committees both said on Sunday that they believe the United States is less safe from a terror attack than it was two years ago.Interviewed on CNN's "State of the Union," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she believed that there are now more terrorists with the technological means to carry out a bombing in the U.S.
"I think terror is up worldwide," said Feinstein, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee. "There are new bombs, very big bombs, trucks being reinforced for those bombs. There are bombs that go through magnetometers. The bomb-maker is still alive. There are more groups than ever. And there is huge malevolence out there."
Feinstein added that there was "a real displaced aggression in this very fundamentalist jihadist Islamic community, and that is that the West is responsible for everything that goes wrong and that the only thing that's going to solve this is Islamic Sharia law."
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chair of the House Intelligence Committee, said he agreed with Feinstein's assessment.


Read more @: America Is 'Less Safe' Than 2 Years Ago, Intelligence Committee Chairs Say

So much for that Patriot Act, the NSA, and Homeland Security doing a lot of good.. Sounds like all this **** was a giant waste of money.
 
One cannot continue whacking the hornets nest with a stick and wondering why they keep getting stung. Stirring up the Jihad crew with the occasional zapping of their #2 guy (seems we do that quite often) is not the "git 'r done" plan that we were assured would work. They, Muslims and their nation states, need to be convinced that controlling these international terror groups is their job.

Fighting wars on conditions, the war on "poverty", the war on "drugs" and the war on "terror" are, as we fight them now, endless efforts.

I propose this "red line" policy on the Jihad; the next major (as defined by the POTUS, and agreed to by congress) Jihad attack on US personnel will result in the complete destruction of Mecca with nuclear devices. If the "good Muslims", that we are assured can govern their masses, will not control their own crime problem directed at us then we, the people of the USA, will acknowledge the Jihad as being the official policy of Islam, and its supporting nation states, and will react accordingly.
 
I propose this "red line" policy on the Jihad; the next major (as defined by the POTUS, and agreed to by congress) Jihad attack on US personnel will result in the complete destruction of Mecca with nuclear devices.

I didn't figure you for this extremist crap.
 
Not exactly the most astute analysis. Gutting the programs that seek to stay ahead of the curve and inform us of the advances in our enemies capabilities and tactics in response to the revelation that they're becoming both more capable and cunning is the very definition of self defeating.
 
I didn't figure you for this extremist crap.

It sure beats pumping billions of aid to gov'ts doing absolutely nothing of consequence, or "nation building". If we are going to use the military then use it as designed, not try to turn them into a global police force.
 
This isn't new news. Back in early 2012 some Senators on the Intelligence Committee were informed by the CIA the same time Barack Obama was informed that Al Qaeda has expanded it's base of operations and is larger and more dangerous than back in 2008. The Senators were shaking their heads when Obama was on the campaign trail, even after the Benghazi attacks telling the American people that "Al Qaeda is being decimated" and "was on the run." As if Obama was never informed by the CIA.

Why has it taken over a year for a Senator to speak out and tell the truth ? And it was a Democrat, Sen. Feinstein.

Back in 2012 all anyone had to do is watch news videos streaming in from the Middle East and Africa and see the Al Qaeda black flag flying all over the Middle East and North Africa.

Glad to see there's one Senator who has cajones.
 
It sure beats pumping billions of aid to gov'ts doing absolutely nothing of consequence, or "nation building". If we are going to use the military then use it as designed, not try to turn them into a global police force.

Yeah because nuking Mecca will stop those Jihads alright. :roll:
 
One cannot continue whacking the hornets nest with a stick and wondering why they keep getting stung. Stirring up the Jihad crew with the occasional zapping of their #2 guy (seems we do that quite often) is not the "git 'r done" plan that we were assured would work. They, Muslims and their nation states, need to be convinced that controlling these international terror groups is their job.

Fighting wars on conditions, the war on "poverty", the war on "drugs" and the war on "terror" are, as we fight them now, endless efforts.

I propose this "red line" policy on the Jihad; the next major (as defined by the POTUS, and agreed to by congress) Jihad attack on US personnel will result in the complete destruction of Mecca with nuclear devices. If the "good Muslims", that we are assured can govern their masses, will not control their own crime problem directed at us then we, the people of the USA, will acknowledge the Jihad as being the official policy of Islam, and its supporting nation states, and will react accordingly.

I trust you're kidding ...
 
This isn't new news. Back in early 2012 some Senators on the Intelligence Committee were informed by the CIA the same time Barack Obama was informed that Al Qaeda has expanded it's base of operations and is larger and more dangerous than back in 2008. The Senators were shaking their heads when Obama was on the campaign trail, even after the Benghazi attacks telling the American people that "Al Qaeda is being decimated" and "was on the run." As if Obama was never informed by the CIA.

Why has it taken over a year for a Senator to speak out and tell the truth ? And it was a Democrat, Sen. Feinstein.

Back in 2012 all anyone had to do is watch news videos streaming in from the Middle East and Africa and see the Al Qaeda black flag flying all over the Middle East and North Africa.

Glad to see there's one Senator who has cajones.

it's cojones ... everybody has cajones (dresser drawers) ... the problem is that we think it's only Al-Quaeda (when there are many other groups), and as long as we try to impose our view on the rest of the world, there are consequences, and I can't see us stopping, because capitalism requires more and more markets and more and more consumers ... as Benjamin Barber put it in his seminal article Jihad versus McWorld ... these two forces are in opposition to one another, but what they have in common with each other is that neither is democratic ...
 
Yeah because nuking Mecca will stop those Jihads alright. :roll:

The only thing that will stop them is pressure from "good Muslims" and the actions of their gov'ts. Sending them gobs of money and troops is not working. Pretending that these terrorists are able to work in a vacuum is rediculous. We have found that in over a decade of handholding, bribing all the right folks and with a fair amount of US military assistance, that we are still playing an endless game of whack-a-mole in Afghanistan. If we cannot secure our own border then we will certainly not secure theirs.
 
I trust you're kidding ...

The plan of bribing their gov't officials, sending them gobs of aid and even deploying our troops for over a decade are not working. They laugh at us while spending the cash we give them, increase their heroin production and continue to pretend not to know how to identify terrorists. Afghanistan is a nation that has but one paved road and we trust their gov't? The 911 participants were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen, UBL was killed in his safe house in Pakistan and we pay their gov'ts billions. I trust that you are kidding if you support our current "war on terror" battle plan.
 
The plan of bribing their gov't officials, sending them gobs of aid and even deploying our troops for over a decade are not working. They laugh at us while spending the cash we give them, increase their heroin production and continue to pretend not to know how to identify terrorists. Afghanistan is a nation that has but one paved road and we trust their gov't? The 911 participants were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen, UBL was killed in his safe house in Pakistan and we pay their gov'ts billions. I trust that you are kidding if you support our current "war on terror" battle plan.

I asked you if you were serious about nuking thousands of people ... I didn't say what I thought about the war on terror ... I just wanted to gauge just how sick you are ...
 
The only thing that will stop them is pressure from "good Muslims" and the actions of their gov'ts. Sending them gobs of money and troops is not working. Pretending that these terrorists are able to work in a vacuum is rediculous. We have found that in over a decade of handholding, bribing all the right folks and with a fair amount of US military assistance, that we are still playing an endless game of whack-a-mole in Afghanistan. If we cannot secure our own border then we will certainly not secure theirs.

I agree that the current strategy is not working, I'm just commented that your solution of "nuke mecca" would not either.
 
The only thing that will stop them is pressure from "good Muslims" and the actions of their gov'ts. Sending them gobs of money and troops is not working. Pretending that these terrorists are able to work in a vacuum is rediculous. We have found that in over a decade of handholding, bribing all the right folks and with a fair amount of US military assistance, that we are still playing an endless game of whack-a-mole in Afghanistan. If we cannot secure our own border then we will certainly not secure theirs.

Nuking Mecca would cause far more problems than it would solve. For starters, a nuclear strike on Saudi soil would assuredly spell the end of Israel, not to mention potential nuclear retaliation from other states dependent on Saudi oil. So sure, if you want to start World War III with a gesture that would only piss off the Jihadists even more, have at it.

The plan of bribing their gov't officials, sending them gobs of aid and even deploying our troops for over a decade are not working. They laugh at us while spending the cash we give them, increase their heroin production and continue to pretend not to know how to identify terrorists. Afghanistan is a nation that has but one paved road and we trust their gov't? The 911 participants were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen, UBL was killed in his safe house in Pakistan and we pay their gov'ts billions. I trust that you are kidding if you support our current "war on terror" battle plan.

Mind you, I don't think our current "War on Terror" plan is a particularly good one. But I don't think nuking Mecca is a reasonable alternative; in fact, I think it would be a disastrous one.
 
Yeah because nuking Mecca will stop those Jihads alright. :roll:

only those who achieve 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit in less than a quarter of a second
 
I agree that the current strategy is not working, I'm just commented that your solution of "nuke mecca" would not either.

I did qualify that action, as being only after a significant attack on the US. My point is that we apply no pressure to force these Muslim morons to clean up their act, in fact, we actually pay some of them to sit back and watch us deal with terrorists inside their nations. That is simply nuts.
 
Nuking Mecca would cause far more problems than it would solve. For starters, a nuclear strike on Saudi soil would assuredly spell the end of Israel, not to mention potential nuclear retaliation from other states dependent on Saudi oil. So sure, if you want to start World War III with a gesture that would only piss off the Jihadists even more, have at it.



Mind you, I don't think our current "War on Terror" plan is a particularly good one. But I don't think nuking Mecca is a reasonable alternative; in fact, I think it would be a disastrous one.

The idea is not to have to nuke anything, or keep fighting crazy Jihadists, but to apply pressure on Saudi Arabia and other "good Muslim" states to take care of this nonsense. They now take our money and sit back and watch (or cheer?) the Jihadists.
 
Read more @: America Is 'Less Safe' Than 2 Years Ago, Intelligence Committee Chairs Say

So much for that Patriot Act, the NSA, and Homeland Security doing a lot of good.. Sounds like all this **** was a giant waste of money. [/FONT][/COLOR]

This is an immensely ignorant presentation of an argument.

The Patriot Act, NSA, and Homeland Security didn't come into creation 2 years ago. Thus simply pointing out an assertion we're less safe than we were 2 years ago in no way, shape, or form indicates that it's in spite of those things you posted. Rather, there's as much of an argument to be made that it would be worse if those things were removed as there is to suggest that they've simply been a "waste of money".

At the very least, one would need to look at the situation prior to their creation and post their creation to even get something CLOSE to a reasonable amount of evidence to make a claim such as you made.

Furthermore, there's plenty of supporting evidence that a counter position could point at to suggest that it was actually attempts to undermine some of those things...such as the various leaks regarding the NSA...that has helped to lead to such problems rather than them itself.

The stories an interesting one and worthy of conversation. Your immensely ridiculous, unsubstantiated, stereotypical response in relation to the story is however worthy only of condemnation and ridicule for it's incredibly lack of substance.

What I find rather interesting here is Feinstein's stance and even focused conversation regarding extremist islamic Jihad, and that there was clear agreement between both Roger's and Feinstein.
 
I agree that the current strategy is not working, I'm just commented that your solution of "nuke mecca" would not either.

Agree completely.

First, it's only use would be as a threat. ACTUALLY doing it would be disasterous. And given our current track record in terms of threats ("Red Line" in Syria, years of "sanctions" with a threat of action in SK, Iran, Iraq, etc) I don't think the threat would prove all that threatening.

Which would then mean we'd be faced with a situation to carry out said threat. That would be HORRIBLE. You would garner the ire of every moderate muslim in the world most likely for taking an extremely disproportionate action in response to whatever attack occured. You would provide the largest possible fuel to the fire for those who utilize American actions to "call to arms" and radicalize muslims. And you'd galvanize the international community over such an action.

I agree as well that our current strategies are hardly the prime methods to use...but such action as was suggested would just be massively problematic imho.
 
One cannot continue whacking the hornets nest with a stick and wondering why they keep getting stung. Stirring up the Jihad crew with the occasional zapping of their #2 guy (seems we do that quite often) is not the "git 'r done" plan that we were assured would work. They, Muslims and their nation states, need to be convinced that controlling these international terror groups is their job.

Fighting wars on conditions, the war on "poverty", the war on "drugs" and the war on "terror" are, as we fight them now, endless efforts.

I propose this "red line" policy on the Jihad; the next major (as defined by the POTUS, and agreed to by congress) Jihad attack on US personnel will result in the complete destruction of Mecca with nuclear devices. If the "good Muslims", that we are assured can govern their masses, will not control their own crime problem directed at us then we, the people of the USA, will acknowledge the Jihad as being the official policy of Islam, and its supporting nation states, and will react accordingly.

lol. right.

there are 1.6 billion followers of Islam. even though there is absolutely no chance that anyone in power will propose this idea, doing so would have horrifyingly awful consequences. this kind of crap is why i will never vote for another hawk again.
 
lol. right.

there are 1.6 billion followers of Islam. even though there is absolutely no chance that anyone in power will propose this idea, doing so would have horrifyingly awful consequences. this kind of crap is why i will never vote for another hawk again.

Yep. The plan to have our military wander around Afghanistan, for a couple of decades, getting body parts blown off is working much better. We rebuilt Iraq into a democratic paradise, peace and prosperity abound there now.
 
Yep. The plan to have our military wander around Afghanistan, for a couple of decades, getting body parts blown off is working much better. We rebuilt Iraq into a democratic paradise, peace and prosperity abound there now.

get all of them out of there and bring them home.
 
Back
Top Bottom