The Threat Of Isis? Don't Let "facts" Get In The Way.

[FA_Q2]

Is ISIS a serious threat to U.S. national security? Honest question. Is there any serious threat that ISIS will come blow up the U.S.? I really don't think so. They don't have that capability. Furthermore, the regional powers are against ISIS, and would likely take care of the problem without U.S. interference.

The U.S. has historically made things worse when interfering like this.

Yes, it is. The fact that is not crystal clear makes no sense whatsoever. They are a terrorist organization and they hate America. There really is no way around that. Would they attack us - that is a resounding yes. There certainly is a debate to be had as to the best way to deal with that threat and/or what military actions will help or exacerbate the problem but there is no question that they do pose a threat.

The existence of a terrorist organization that hates America does not automatically make that organization a threat to national security.

You are asking the wrong question. The question is not would they attack us, it is can they attack us. Do they have the capabilities? Is there a reasonable chance that this will happen? The answer to that is a resounding no.

The fact that nearly every country in the region is against them - countries with military capabilities of taking them out without U.S. help, by the way - makes the threat even less serious. Is Isis a horrible group? Yes. But a horrible group does not a national security threat make.

Really? You think that is a no?

You are sorely mistaken about what a modern day 'attack' is then. It is no longer about missiles and ground forces. Its about men with briefcases.

Or did you miss the fact that the last attack was accomplished with box cutters?

 

[ShackledNation]

Is ISIS a serious threat to U.S. national security? Honest question. Is there any serious threat that ISIS will come blow up the U.S.? I really don't think so. They don't have that capability. Furthermore, the regional powers are against ISIS, and would likely take care of the problem without U.S. interference.

The U.S. has historically made things worse when interfering like this.

Yes, it is. The fact that is not crystal clear makes no sense whatsoever. They are a terrorist organization and they hate America. There really is no way around that. Would they attack us - that is a resounding yes. There certainly is a debate to be had as to the best way to deal with that threat and/or what military actions will help or exacerbate the problem but there is no question that they do pose a threat.

The existence of a terrorist organization that hates America does not automatically make that organization a threat to national security.

You are asking the wrong question. The question is not would they attack us, it is can they attack us. Do they have the capabilities? Is there a reasonable chance that this will happen? The answer to that is a resounding no.

The fact that nearly every country in the region is against them - countries with military capabilities of taking them out without U.S. help, by the way - makes the threat even less serious. Is Isis a horrible group? Yes. But a horrible group does not a national security threat make.

Really? You think that is a no?

You are sorely mistaken about what a modern day 'attack' is then. It is no longer about missiles and ground forces. Its about men with briefcases.

Or did you miss the fact that the last attack was accomplished with box cutters?

Yes, I think it is a no. Burden of proof is on you to prove that there is
(1) a serious threat that Isis will successfully attack the U.S. with men with briefcases, or any other way
(2) that U.S. involvement by means of attacking Isis will reduce that threat

So far you have just assumed that if we don't attack ISIS will destroy us is a threat to national security. You prove that for many it is too easy to be gulled into war.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes, I think it is a no. Burden of proof is on you to prove that there is
(1) a serious threat that Isis will successfully attack the U.S. with men with briefcases, or any other way
(2) that U.S. involvement by means of attacking Isis will reduce that threat

So far you have just assumed that if we don't attack ISIS will destroy us is a threat to national security. You prove that for many it is too easy to be gulled into war.

1 - I think that is clear considering that they are beheading journalists over there as we speak. Or is the fact they dislike America not clear to you?

2 - I have directly stated that HOW we deal with this threat is certainly open for debate. IOW, attacking them might not be the answer at all BUT that does not mean we are going to ignore the FACT that they are a clear threat.

 

[Mindful]

Yes, I think it is a no. Burden of proof is on you to prove that there is
(1) a serious threat that Isis will successfully attack the U.S. with men with briefcases, or any other way
(2) that U.S. involvement by means of attacking Isis will reduce that threat

So far you have just assumed that if we don't attack ISIS will destroy us is a threat to national security. You prove that for many it is too easy to be gulled into war.

1 - I think that is clear considering that they are beheading journalists over there as we speak. Or is the fact they dislike America not clear to you?

2 - I have directly stated that HOW we deal with this threat is certainly open for debate. IOW, attacking them might not be the answer at all BUT that does not mean we are going to ignore the FACT that they are a clear threat.

Not only dislike of America.They've just beheaded a Briton. And he was an aid worker. Europe pays ransoms, if not we might well be seeing Germans, French etc having their heads chopped off.

 

[Plasmaball]

How many did it take to pull off 911? It also didn't help that most of the planning was done while the commander in chief was getting a blow job.

And the execution of the plan while the commander in chief was reading "My Pet Goat".

Lol, it has taken your commander in chief over three weeks to get a against isis.

Weeks?

He barely understands ISIS...and it's about a tenth of the total problem...if that.

Most people barely understand isil since they are mostly Made up of groups and their policies tend to change on the fly.
Yeah it may have taken Obama some time to form a strategy, but then it would for anyone. Not really something people should be crying about. This isn't a simple, rain death from above solution.

 

[Plasmaball]

Yes, I think it is a no. Burden of proof is on you to prove that there is
(1) a serious threat that Isis will successfully attack the U.S. with men with briefcases, or any other way
(2) that U.S. involvement by means of attacking Isis will reduce that threat

So far you have just assumed that if we don't attack ISIS will destroy us is a threat to national security. You prove that for many it is too easy to be gulled into war.

1 - I think that is clear considering that they are beheading journalists over there as we speak. Or is the fact they dislike America not clear to you?

2 - I have directly stated that HOW we deal with this threat is certainly open for debate. IOW, attacking them might not be the answer at all BUT that does not mean we are going to ignore the FACT that they are a clear threat.

Not only dislike of America.They've just beheaded a Briton. And he was an aid worker. Europe pays ransoms, if not we might well be seeing Germans, French etc having their heads chopped off.

Weeping over one man is not the best strategy. People crying over it should not be in charge. It's lazy finger pointing and nothing more.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

You know, civilians who don't need to be there, who're perfectly cognizant of the dangers involved, get no sympathy from me. There's almost a missionary mentality in a lot of them. And war zone stringers? I've known a few of them in my life. Most of them are nuts...and serious substance abusers to boot. Combat takes no less a mental toll on them than it does on anyone else.

 

[Mindful]

You know, civilians who don't need to be there, who're perfectly cognizant of the dangers involved, get no sympathy from me. There's almost a missionary mentality in a lot of them. And war zone stringers? I've known a few of them in my life. Most of them are nuts...and serious substance abusers to boot. Combat takes no less a mental toll on them than it does on anyone else.

I tend to see it that way too. Why do they go there? Do they think they are invincible, and their noble intentions will protect them from such murderous activities?

 

[jon_berzerk]

You know, civilians who don't need to be there, who're perfectly cognizant of the dangers involved, get no sympathy from me. There's almost a missionary mentality in a lot of them. And war zone stringers? I've known a few of them in my life. Most of them are nuts...and serious substance abusers to boot. Combat takes no less a mental toll on them than it does on anyone else.

I tend to see it that way too. Why do they go there? Do they think they are invincible, and their noble intentions will protect them from such murderous activities?

i call it Timothy Treadwell syndrome

he thought he could make friends with the grizzly bears

 

[Mindful]

Almost Fiskian. Robert Fisk commiserated with his attackers as he staggered battered and bleeding out of Kabul.

He'd probably do the same as they, if he were in their position he said. Whatever their position was.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

I tend to see it that way too. Why do they go there? Do they think they are invincible, and their noble intentions will protect them from such murderous activities?

I think they go for reasons that were scripted in them long before they died, back in childhood. In fact I think they go to such places to die. I know a guy very well, who went to Baghdad to train paramilitary police. There were six car bombings against the barracks/training facilities in the year he was there that killed dozens of people, and three attempts on his life specifically. He's been trying to kill himself all his life, he just hasn't gotten to the point where he's ready to stick a gun in his mouth. Russian roulette players, that's what such people are.

 

[Mindful]

ISIS don't even have the decency to return the bodies.

 

[Mindful]

ISIS’s Cruelty Toward Women Gets Scant Attention.

ISIS 8217 s Cruelty Toward Women Gets Scant Attention - Washington Wire - WSJ

 

[ShackledNation]

Yes, I think it is a no. Burden of proof is on you to prove that there is
(1) a serious threat that Isis will successfully attack the U.S. with men with briefcases, or any other way
(2) that U.S. involvement by means of attacking Isis will reduce that threat

So far you have just assumed that if we don't attack ISIS will destroy us is a threat to national security. You prove that for many it is too easy to be gulled into war.

1 - I think that is clear considering that they are beheading journalists over there as we speak. Or is the fact they dislike America not clear to you?

Disliking America does not equate to a national security threat. Try again.

2 - I have directly stated that HOW we deal with this threat is certainly open for debate. IOW, attacking them might not be the answer at all BUT that does not mean we are going to ignore the FACT that they are a clear threat.

Burden is still on you to prove they are any kind of serious threat to national security.

 

[ShackledNation]

Yes, I think it is a no. Burden of proof is on you to prove that there is
(1) a serious threat that Isis will successfully attack the U.S. with men with briefcases, or any other way
(2) that U.S. involvement by means of attacking Isis will reduce that threat

So far you have just assumed that if we don't attack ISIS will destroy us is a threat to national security. You prove that for many it is too easy to be gulled into war.

1 - I think that is clear considering that they are beheading journalists over there as we speak. Or is the fact they dislike America not clear to you?

2 - I have directly stated that HOW we deal with this threat is certainly open for debate. IOW, attacking them might not be the answer at all BUT that does not mean we are going to ignore the FACT that they are a clear threat.

Not only dislike of America.They've just beheaded a Briton. And he was an aid worker. Europe pays ransoms, if not we might well be seeing Germans, French etc having their heads chopped off.

It is horrible. Please explain how any of what you said constitutes a threat to the national security of the United States.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Yeah, bin laden is dead...and AQ is no more. That fallacy worked didn't it?

Actually, AQ isn't a single organization. Worse, Isis is made up of Saddam's old military. If the Republicans hadn't led this country into that fiasco, there wouldn't be an Isis. Even you have to admit that? Right? You admit that, right? Tell me you admit that.

You slipped up and called ISIS, ISIS instead of ISIL.

Report promptly for reprogramming