• 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!

Pentagon: No evidence of ISIS at border

When people with partisan views want to :spin: a yarn to support a specific narrative, they really go all out! A closer look at the leaked CBP report puts things a little more in focus:



In other words, there's NO concrete evidence to support Gov. Perry's accusation that members from the Syrian/Iraqi/Iranian terrorist group ISIS/ISIL are entering the U.S. via the U.S./Mexico border.

You keep believing that. 8)
 
While Rick Perry is full of **** most of the time, THIS time he makes a valid point (Valid in that ISIS COULD or maybe even has entered the country). How do we know there hasn't been? I mean if we can't stop THOUSANDS from entereing the U.S. illegally how do we know NONE of them are ISIS or for that matter any other terrorist, cartel, drug runner group?

Indeed. Since only a portion of the actual number of illegals are detained and many are not even vetted or processed, we have no clear picture of who is what.
 
When people with partisan views want to :spin: a yarn to support a specific narrative, they really go all out! A closer look at the leaked CBP report puts things a little more in focus:



In other words, there's NO concrete evidence to support Gov. Perry's accusation that members from the Syrian/Iraqi/Iranian terrorist group ISIS/ISIL are entering the U.S. via the U.S./Mexico border.

There's also no concrete evidence to say they haven't or won't either. I don't think Perry can definitively say ISIS has entered the country, but I will agree with him that there is a serious vulnerability in the southern border for ISIS (or any other terrorists group) to enter the country.
 
Indeed. Since only a portion of the actual number of illegals are detained and many are not even vetted or processed, we have no clear picture of who is what.

And we may not know for years if they entered. Al-Qaeda proved one thing with the 9/11 attacks and that is they are VERY patient and will wait years to attack when they get to a place.
 
Not they're job. However, in a broader scope as part of defensive strategy, DoD is kept abreast of threats to the U.S. both foreign and domestic via our intelligence agencies, i.e., FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS which CBP is under. (See CBP's Organization chart; and for those who doubt the connection between CBP, DHS and DoD, see DHS' Organization chart.)

Ok, so no one from the Pentagon has actually been to the border? See the credibility issue?
 
And we may not know for years if they entered. Al-Qaeda proved one thing with the 9/11 attacks and that is they are VERY patient and will wait years to attack when they get to a place.
IIRC most of them over-stayed their visas. I believe OS are responsible for about 40% of the illegal population.

These are groups known to be in the US prior to 2007.

Terrorist.network.map.gif
 
IIRC most of them over-stayed their visas. I believe OS are responsible for about 40% of the illegal population.

These are groups known to be in the US prior to 2007.

Terrorist.network.map.gif

I question maps like that though. I would have to see how they determined they were terrorist groups. IF they are using watch list data that is incredibly inaccurate because lost of groups are on watch lists, however, haven't proven to be terrorist cells. Also, if they are considering groups to consist of people as far down to 3 people, that can skew data as well. I'm well aware that it only took 12, but I wouldn't take the map data and them militerize the U.S. over it is all I'm saying.
 
I question maps like that though. I would have to see how they determined they were terrorist groups. IF they are using watch list data that is incredibly inaccurate because lost of groups are on watch lists, however, haven't proven to be terrorist cells. Also, if they are considering groups to consist of people as far down to 3 people, that can skew data as well. I'm well aware that it only took 12, but I wouldn't take the map data and them militerize the U.S. over it is all I'm saying.

Small groups or a lone wolf can cause a lot of havoc.

We should heed their warnings.

FBI warns police to be on lookout for ISIS threats in US | Mail Online
 
Small groups or a lone wolf can cause a lot of havoc.

We should heed their warnings.

FBI warns police to be on lookout for ISIS threats in US | Mail Online

As I said before, I recognize the border situation is unacceptable and I don't condone just "blowing it off". I was just saying we have to be careful also when evaluating such data so that people don't freak out and then give the federal government more "Patriot Act" type powers in response to fear is all. Someone could evaluate that map and go "OMG the terrorists are here, we need to give the Federal Government MORE power to act NOW!!!" which would be totally overblown.

We need to remain diligent no matter what, but we need to temper that with reason as well.
 
You are welcome to argue that. But it's still equivocation.

No, it's not. I'm not attempting to *****foot around anything. That is my experience in life, first hand, no more and no less.

As I noted before one could make the case in much the same way as you have above that al Qaeda is a tea drinking social club
But calling aQ a tea society is stupid, useless, and wrong.
It's also equivocation.

So...Dod official = politician -- like al Qaeda = tea drinking social club?
Is that your final answer?
Mmmmkay... :roll:

Equivocation is an effective seducer of netizens who are motivated to believe.

The flip side of that coin, simply put, is "ignorance is bliss."

As an fyi for everyone
Pretty much any time you have to resort to citing a dictionary to show that two different things are actually the same, you're using equivocation.

I only cite the dictionary when it's painfully obvious the other person has no clue what they're talking about.

You stated:
My office has politics, but we're not politicians.
The DoD is not a politician. [What a wierd-ass thing to have to say]

If you sincerely believe the upper echelons in the DoD are not politicians first, you'd be mistaken. The higher the rank, the more politics involved in the position. When you consider the various Department heads, including DoD, are *appointed*by the President, and *confirmed* by Congress... that fits the definition of a politician. In other words, there's a world of difference between the "politics" involved when one guy has his hand on the "red button," and the "politics" involved when Joe gets promoted over Jim because he has happy hour with the boss.


It's an empty rhetorical device to segue into any bat**** **** without having to take ownership of saying something bat****--weasel words. Politicians do that crap all the time--words loaded with connotation but empty of denotation. It's a low-risk easy way to get people fired up.

True. It's also a simple way of getting people to simmer down and shut up. Much like the DoD's "announcement" of "evidence." Or lack there of...


Possible don't mean squat.
A zillion and one things are possible.

We cannot effectively plan for all possibilities--it'd be a stupid waste.
Given that resources in the real world are limited, we have to plan for what is probable.

Exactly. That's why the top officials get paid top $. They are paid to make an educated guess. Unfortunately, too many of them play party politics and maintain the status quo. But really, what do you expect from a politician? :mrgreen:
 
As I said before, I recognize the border situation is unacceptable and I don't condone just "blowing it off". I was just saying we have to be careful also when evaluating such data so that people don't freak out and then give the federal government more "Patriot Act" type powers in response to fear is all. Someone could evaluate that map and go "OMG the terrorists are here, we need to give the Federal Government MORE power to act NOW!!!" which would be totally overblown.

We need to remain diligent no matter what, but we need to temper that with reason as well.

I agree. people will and do freak out for no reason.

Most people I know and myself choose to protect *ourselves and not rely on the government regardless.
 
So...Dod official = politician -- like al Qaeda = tea drinking social club?
Is that your final answer?
Mmmmkay...
Unless you're going to say that the spokesman is speaking on his own behalf about he himself has determined, then the charge actually is that the DOD is a politician.
 
It's a catch 22 here IMO. If the DoD can monitor people to KNOW they are not from ISIS, then they are intentially letting illegals into this country which should be a felony. If they can't monitor illegals coming into the country, then they cannot confirm that ISIS or any other terrorist, cartel, drug runner, etc. has entered the country which would make Perry's comments valid. Well valid in the sense we don't know if ISIS has entered or not.

That isn't what is being said. According to the OP, the DoD is saying that it has seen no evidence that ISIS has come in through the border. I'm not aware of any reason why any evidence would be presented to the DoD. For all I know, Stevie Wonder hasn't seen any evidence of buildings coming down on 9/11/2001. It is such a week expression: seen no evidence.
 
Unless you're going to say that the spokesman is speaking on his own behalf about he himself has determined, then the charge actually is that the DOD is a politician.

The DoD is an organization. Congress is an organization.

These organizations are made up of *individuals.*

Yes, the ruling ranks at the DoD, Pentagon, DIA, CIA, etc are, in fact, politicians. I stand by that statement.
 
For all I know, Stevie Wonder hasn't seen any evidence of buildings coming down on 9/11/2001. It is such a week expression: seen no evidence.

:2rofll:

Said it before, I'll say it again... plausible deniablity. ;)

Like mice, they will always leave a hole to scurry out of in a pinch... Better not to box yourself in with specifics, and all... :roll:
 
HTF would the DOD know anything about that?

Remember this is the same bunch that unsuccessfully raided camps in Syria looking for hostages on BAD intelligence.

Not all missions are successful. You win some you lose some. And considering how scare intelligence in that area of the world is...

I'd believe the pentagon over governor oops anyday.
 
I think on this subject, i'll take Perry's word over the Pentagon.

I wouldn't be surprised either if ISIS has a cell or 2 in the US already.

My God! Sure glad that moron has no chance at the presidency. He makes Bush look like a genius.
 
So the Pentagon has checked and identified every individual that has crossed the border, including those that made it through without any detention or border patrol interaction?


Nooooo they said they have no evidence. Jeez!
 
Since the border is absolutely NOT secure, it's a perfectly logical conclusion. Glad you're not in charge of US security. I just hope Homeland Security is smarter than you.

Let's all pee our panties! The rag tag over rated ISIS or iSIL is coming! They're going to kill us, rape us, and force us to be Muslims! Do you people have any idea how hard it is to bring down a country that is this big?

ISIS or whatever you call them has made gains in Syria and Iraq because the countries are disfunctional, part of their populace either sympathizes with them or has joined them, they have been well financed, and have captured arms.

Right now many of their body parts are scattered in burned out vehicles, tanks, and artillery pieces enplacenents. There are also efforts to cut their funding and if The Iraqi government gets their sheet together they won't have as easy going.

Unlike those countries, except for a handful of idiots, this country is united against them and the worst they can do is set off a few bombs. The odds of you and I being directly affected by these losers is worse than winning the lottery.
 
Last edited:
When Rear Adm. John Kirby shows us proof, I'll believe him.
Until then the Pentagon can start building a fence on the border while they watch for ISIS members.

Yeah fences out in the middle of nowhere are so effective. Even the VC got over barbed wire fences while under fire by just throwing a homemade ladder over them. Even easier to do out in the middle of the desert or just cut your way through when no one is around. What a waste of money and steel.
 
ISIS is overrated. The media is sensationalizing them. They're mostly rag tag fanatic amateurs that are making gains on weakened and disfunctional governments.

I don't think "rag tag fanatic amateurs" would be able to impact a map this way.

The Many Ways to Map the Islamic 'State' - The Atlantic


While I won't run screaming for the hills just yet, it's clear their control is spreading. I wouldn't call that overrated...
 
Back
Top Bottom