• 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!

ISIS seen building capacity for mass casualty attacks

US Conservative

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2013
Messages
33,522
Reaction score
10,826
Location
Between Athens and Jerusalem
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Washington (CNN)Some in the U.S. intelligence community warn that ISIS may be working to build the capability to carry out mass casualty attacks, a significant departure from the terror group's current focus on encouraging lone wolf attacks, a senior U.S. intelligence official told CNN on Friday.

To date, the intelligence view has been that ISIS is focused on less ambitious attacks, involving one or a small group of attackers armed with simple weapons. In contrast, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, has been viewed as both more focused on -- and more capable of -- mass casualty attacks, such as plots on commercial aviation. Now the intelligence community is divided.

Meanwhile, the U.S. effort to train rebels in Syria to fight ISIS is having trouble. The few rebels that the U.S. has put through training are already in disarray, with defense officials telling CNN that up to half are missing, having deserted soon after training or having been captured after last week's attack by the al-Qaeda-affiliated Nusra Front attack on a rebel site.

150807153316-05-isis-syria-0806-exlarge-169.jpg


ISIS seen building capacity for mass casualty attacks - CNNPolitics.com

How long until Obama gets serious about ISIS? The left is incapable of addressing threats.
 
Washington (CNN)Some in the U.S. intelligence community warn that ISIS may be working to build the capability to carry out mass casualty attacks, a significant departure from the terror group's current focus on encouraging lone wolf attacks, a senior U.S. intelligence official told CNN on Friday.

To date, the intelligence view has been that ISIS is focused on less ambitious attacks, involving one or a small group of attackers armed with simple weapons. In contrast, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, has been viewed as both more focused on -- and more capable of -- mass casualty attacks, such as plots on commercial aviation. Now the intelligence community is divided.

Meanwhile, the U.S. effort to train rebels in Syria to fight ISIS is having trouble. The few rebels that the U.S. has put through training are already in disarray, with defense officials telling CNN that up to half are missing, having deserted soon after training or having been captured after last week's attack by the al-Qaeda-affiliated Nusra Front attack on a rebel site.

150807153316-05-isis-syria-0806-exlarge-169.jpg


ISIS seen building capacity for mass casualty attacks - CNNPolitics.com

How long until Obama gets serious about ISIS? The left is incapable of addressing threats.

You want us to reoccupy Iraq?
 
You want us to reoccupy Iraq?


Nope, I'd rather turn it into a glass covered glow in the dark self heated parking lot. Let the cockroaches rule the land there. They will be better neighbors.
 
You want us to reoccupy Iraq?

Considering we're done the great lion's share of attacking ISIS, not sure what more is beyond a full-blown invasion.

Why don't the surrounding nations do more, ISIS is actually much more of a threat to them.
 
Considering we're done the great lion's share of attacking ISIS, not sure what more is beyond a full-blown invasion.

Why don't the surrounding nations do more, ISIS is actually much more of a threat to them.

Because we have allowed them to develop dependency. It is funny how right wingers worry about the dependency on welfare but think nothing of us doing the much more expensive and deadly jobs for other nations. And what do we get for it? Hatred and even more unrest because as soon as we leave there is a vacuum that gets filled by bad guys. If we invade again we need to announce in advance that we are annexing the country in perpetuity and making it the 51st State otherwise we are just making things worse.
 
Last edited:
Considering we're done the great lion's share of attacking ISIS, not sure what more is beyond a full-blown invasion.

Why don't the surrounding nations do more, ISIS is actually much more of a threat to them.

Good point.
Wasn't King Abdullah of Jordan going to personally attack IS until "..we run out of fuel and bullets..."?
Haven't heard much about him lately.......
Running out of fuel and bullets in an area awash with weaponry would seem to be a difficult task.
Maybe the king just got tired.
 
You want us to reoccupy Iraq?

LOL This is the only rebuttal the radical left has. There are ways of fighting ISIS without reoccupying Iraq to levels we did previously. Or maybe we can go back in time and listen to our Generals advice to actually leave a couple thousand troops in Iraq to prevent an ISIS type group from growing.

But Obama had to keep his stupid promises. Putting ideology over country once again.
 
LOL This is the only rebuttal the radical left has. There are ways of fighting ISIS without reoccupying Iraq to levels we did previously. Or maybe we can go back in time and listen to our Generals advice to actually leave a couple thousand troops in Iraq to prevent an ISIS type group from growing.

But Obama had to keep his stupid promises. Putting ideology over country once again.

So. What should we be doing that we are not doing now in your opinion?
 
I want us to occupy what is the defacto state known as ISIS, and in doing so-critically destroy what is obviously a threat.

So you want use to occupy Northern Iraq and Eastern Syria?
 
I want us to occupy what is the defacto state known as ISIS, and in doing so-critically destroy what is obviously a threat.

And make Iraq our 51st State? That is the only way we are going to do any good there. Make it a part of America. The same goes for any other countries we want to "fix". I think you should be among the first to emigrate there too
 
Obama's more concerned about Climate Change then ISIS.
 
Why is it, that those that do not want military action, feel that a full blown land occupation is the only alternative to doing nothing (air strikes without Combat Controllers on the ground - which is the current situation - is doing nothing)?

There are a multitude of options for differing levels of military actions that could be taken. All useful and productive options, to one level or another, require personnel on the ground, in the area, and at some point in close contact with the enemy... ALL of them. Unless we want to just throw billions of dollars away blowing up sand.

We are at war with ISIS, and anyone that refuses to acknowledge that is deluding themselves.
 
Washington (CNN)Some in the U.S. intelligence community warn that ISIS may be working to build the capability to carry out mass casualty attacks, a significant departure from the terror group's current focus on encouraging lone wolf attacks, a senior U.S. intelligence official told CNN on Friday.

To date, the intelligence view has been that ISIS is focused on less ambitious attacks, involving one or a small group of attackers armed with simple weapons. In contrast, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, has been viewed as both more focused on -- and more capable of -- mass casualty attacks, such as plots on commercial aviation. Now the intelligence community is divided.

Meanwhile, the U.S. effort to train rebels in Syria to fight ISIS is having trouble. The few rebels that the U.S. has put through training are already in disarray, with defense officials telling CNN that up to half are missing, having deserted soon after training or having been captured after last week's attack by the al-Qaeda-affiliated Nusra Front attack on a rebel site.

150807153316-05-isis-syria-0806-exlarge-169.jpg


ISIS seen building capacity for mass casualty attacks - CNNPolitics.com

How long until Obama gets serious about ISIS? The left is incapable of addressing threats.

And the right is quite adept at creating them.

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat

Published: September 24, 2006
WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
 
And right on time, Montecresto opines with his cut & paste.
 
And remove the terrorist threat to both us and Iraq.

And after we annex Iraq we can take Iran as our 52nd State too. We just need to get rid of all those foreigners who live there now. No more doing all the work and leaving, this time the Iraqi's will be doing the leaving. We break it, we own it is our new motto. If the rest of the world doesn't like it we will annex them too. It is the only way we can be "safe".
 
Last edited:
So you want use to occupy Northern Iraq and Eastern Syria?

I want to let the generals loose, to destroy ISIS by whatever means they think is best.

They're a lot smarter than me, when it comes to things like "occupation".

What I want is, ISIS gone. Destroyed. Completely eliminated. Wiped out.
 
I want to let the generals loose, to destroy ISIS by whatever means they think is best.

They're a lot smarter than me, when it comes to things like "occupation".

What I want is, ISIS gone. Destroyed. Completely eliminated. Wiped out.

Sooo.... You want them gone, and have no opinion on anything else? You know, actually how to do it?
 
They were minor characters until Obama ceded Iraq to them, dismissing them as "the jv team".

Obama acted stupidly when he said this, didn't he?

Not according to a consensus report by our intelligence services with infinitely more knowledge than a random conservative posting up criticisms of the OA.
 
Back
Top Bottom