[niknik]

Originally Posted by Kanda444 ↗

again, im not saying to be complacent. im saying that arbitrary claims based on hypothetical terror attacks and fear mongering based on no credible evidence (yes, that we know of) is in no way conducive to a positive dialogue on the topic.

as an example, let's say i were to make the claim that 'NOAA says the ice caps melting and flooding of the world in the near future is imminent'....now, NOAA hasnt said that (that im aware of) and they would likely deny any claims that the world is in 'imminent' danger of 'flooding' in the near future. would it be fair for me to say 'well... it's not a threat now, as far as we know, but that doesnt mean we souldnt take active steps to stop them from melting and potentially flooding the earth in the future'? you would say that was what kind of tactic? a nonsense one based on no substantial data and one based on based on a un-cited, not credible claim that appears to counter what NOAA is actually saying. explain to me why an argument based on no evidence is credible, please.

border security is an issue that needs to be honestly talked about. that cant happen if unsupported claims and scare tactics are used as evidence.

I completely understand your point. But i don't see it as fear mongering. I'm willing to bet we will be attacked. Or a attack will be uncovered and stopped. What worries me like I previously stated. They know our FBI, CIA, ATF are actively trying to recruit terrorist. They know our law enforcement agencies are trying to sell them guns and bombs. Of course all this is just to get them to stick their heads up so we can chop them off figuratively. So they are more careful, and less likely to make the mistake that have already been made.
Isn't the fact that they have threatened us kinda a credible threat? And do you believe it would be very difficult for them to send fifty or so men? Send them separately into South or Central America, then work their way up through our border. Or, since they have millions of dollars. Pay the cartels to get them in.

[niknik]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

Its the world that we live in

In a place with millions of undocumented illegal aliens, many of which have very limited education, what stops a trained terrorist from crossing the same borders

The war on terror isn't winnable. There's always going to be the guy that got lucky, gets through all the security checks, and kills innocent people.
We've already spent hundreds of billions on added security since 9'11, and there's still gaping holes in security........ The worst case scenario is there's another attack, and we lose all of our civil liberties in the name of security....... Look at how much we've lost due to 9'11, the Patriot Act, the NSA etc etc........ I'm almost more scared of how our Governments will react to another terror attack, than the attack itself.

I completely agree with this as well. Which is why I'm blown away that our borders are not secure. I'm certain our agencies have stopped countless plans. But then they leave the gate open and refuse to close it. It's insanity. Doesn't Obama understand or even care that if a attack happens. And it's established that the attackers infiltrated through the southern border. His presidency is over. And he will go down as the worst president for allowing it to happen. No one can argue that he's not allowing the border to be infiltrated, he absolutely is. All for political purposes. He's gambling with our security, and I find it disgusting.
As you stated the stakes are much higher than just losing lives. Our freedoms are on the line as well. If the scenario I mentioned earlier was to play out. Say it happened on multiple occasions. The second amendment could be in jeopardy. Who knows how far the government would take it in the name of security. But those of us who pay attention will know they left the door open. And then the question becomes why would they do that?

[niknik]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

Seems that all of a sudden, caring about the border's security, would raise some unwanted attention.

Very true. Not to mention I think it's Obama's vision to allow immigration of minorities. Possibly as a larger plan to secure power. Minorities as of now tend to vote democrat. Obama is loading us up with minorities. And trying to find a way to make them citizens and get them registered.
If that's not the case. . Then what is?

[TheVrist]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

Very true. Not to mention I think it's Obama's vision to allow immigration of minorities. Possibly as a larger plan to secure power. Minorities as of now tend to vote democrat. Obama is loading us up with minorities. And trying to find a way to make them citizens and get them registered.
If that's not the case. . Then what is?

Well, if I was heavy into conspiracy theories, I am certain my red flag alert would sky rocket.

It could all be hearsay, as the far leaning leftys want to press upon, but if an attack does happen from southerly border, there would need to be some serious investigations here at home.....starting from the dog capture to the white house.

[Sharon]

Here in the UK all the papers are stating the threat level has been raised and the increased police presence can't be for nothing. Pretty tense.

[niknik]

Originally Posted by shoelessjojackson ↗

The boarder? You fools, the terrorist are already here.

A possible scenario. It's been reported that Americans have went to join isis. What if they join isis, but they don't go anywhere. They just stay here and carry out a attack, or help carry out attacks.
Before 9-11 we were aware they were trying to attack us. But we didn't have the credible evidence we needed to stop it. It's very similar to now. If a attack happens much of America will be asking why didn't we stop it. But those same people won't support the measures needed to defeat our enemies. So we will be vulnerable until we wake up and realize we are at war. And we must fight, and we must finish the fight. But sadly it will take another attack for us to fully understand we can't apologize our way out of this. We must understand it's no longer what we're doing or not doing to these people. They disagree with our very existence, much like what Israel is facing. Israel can do nothing to stop the attacks against them. Except fight. And this is true for England and America. We must fight.

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by Metal Mike ↗

No, I know that the U.S./Mexico border is porous enough to allow fanatical elements relatively easy entrance into the U.S., and the current rate at which northbound immigrants are crossing that border provides a good cover of individuals with which to blend in. When Border Patrol is dealing with a high rate of immigrants and amnesty and safe passage of varying degrees are being promised by our government, then how exactly should any agency be expected to distinguish one immigrant from another? There's no way to check identities or nationalities, so just because they're heading north ostensibly from Central or South America does not necessarily mean that either of those regions is their point of initial origin. The border would be the least of their concerns, but it would be an easy line to cross on their way to their primary targets in larger and more densely populated areas.

again, regardless of if that is true or not, it's not justification for releasing blantaly unsupported claims in an attempt to raise awareness of a situation. it's a silly and irresponsible tactic.

While I'm not vouching for the article in the OP of this thread, it's not as if one need believe it above any credible sources of information to get an accurate picture of just how open the southern border is right now. Under the current yet still unofficial federal guidelines, all it takes for a few sleeper cells to bypass watch lists and no-fly lists is a few kids dropped off at the border and some forged papers and identification.

im specifically talking about the claim of an imminent attack. im not debating border security as i feel it's an issue that does require addressing. my issue is with the use of sensationalist propaganda to spurn conversation.

I wasn't talking about the media; I was talking about federal intelligence agencies. They all have certain criteria that must be met before they'll even consider issuing a warning to the public. And unfortunately, as with all federal bureaucracies, those agencies are run by individuals who are subject to administrative and political pressures which have at least some degree of bearing on whether or not certain statements are made or certain information is made available. Such pressures often and with increasing regularity as of late outweigh the interests of public safety and national security.

fair enough. i was referring to the article, however, and the lack

It was for months ahead of time painfully obvious to many of us rank-and-file citizens that an organization such as ISIS was primed to flood into Iraq the second our troops were pulled out of there; yet the mainstream media -- "credible" sources, some would say -- had nothing to say on the subject until ISIS started "beheading its way to Baghdad." Our "elected leaders" had similarly little to say in public, and what they did have to say was grossly and consistently out of touch with reality until such point at which said reality became far too obvious to ignore, gloss over, downplay, misjudge, or conceal.

And really, Kanda, who in their right mind in modern-day America would consider "journalistic integrity" to be within the purview of the most widely-heard media outlets? They can't even get the facts straight or restrain themselves from wild and idle speculation when a white cop shoots a black thug in broad daylight, so it's a sucker's bet that they'd be capable of cracking the code regarding things such as the intelligence community or international jihad.

that's true but it doesnt mean that the priciple of journalistic inegrity should be abondoned just because it isnt readily displayed by the media on a consistant basis. that's about like saying " who in their right mind in modern-day America would consider "moral integrity" to be within the purview of the most politicians". simply because they dont seem to have morality in te forefront of their minds when they act doesnt mean we still should aim to preserve that kind of ideal.

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

I completely understand your point. But i don't see it as fear mongering. I'm willing to bet we will be attacked. Or a attack will be uncovered and stopped. What worries me like I previously stated. They know our FBI, CIA, ATF are actively trying to recruit terrorist. They know our law enforcement agencies are trying to sell them guns and bombs. Of course all this is just to get them to stick their heads up so we can chop them off figuratively. So they are more careful, and less likely to make the mistake that have already been made.
Isn't the fact that they have threatened us kinda a credible threat? And do you believe it would be very difficult for them to send fifty or so men? Send them separately into South or Central America, then work their way up through our border. Or, since they have millions of dollars. Pay the cartels to get them in.

the issue is the article, the claims it's making, and using those claims (which have no credibility) as justification for action. the fact of the matter is, the Canadian border is also similarly unsecured (there are huge swaths of land up north from where i live where you can walk through the woods and never realize you crossed the border. its the route locals used and still use for smuggling weed from BC) and the threat of a terror attack from the canadian border is just as 'imminent'.. that is to say, there is no credible evidence to support that claim either.

there is, as you know, a huge deal of space between an 'imminent' attack threat and the potential for an attack in the future. while the latter is a serious issue that needs to be addressed, i dont think sensationalist claims unsupported by any evidence does anybody any good at all.

in my opinion, the tactic is similar to what we saw the left doing during the proposed 'assault weapon' ban. they showed sensationalist reports of gun violence, acted like gun violence had never existed before in the nation, and tried to use it as political grounds to pass legislation that dealt with 'assault rifles' when really, the issue was a handgun issue.... in other words, sensationalism led to unwarranted panic, which led to political inaction. now, in the case of guns, im fine with political inaction, honestly... im not fine with political inaction when it comes to border security. thus, i feel that only honest arguments based on sound proof should be used to keep the conversation credible. sensationalism and unwarranted panic will likely, again, result in political inaction and that, i feel, we cant afford.

ISIS is a serious threat and need to be dealt with. i completely agree with this. the speed at which they accomplished what they have is simply staggering to me and should be used as an indication of their potential danger. however, it's hard to clearly understand he situation and to act when unsubstantiated claims permeate the conversation... or at least, thats how i feel.

[Pyramid_Head]

I'm not really surprised considering all the shit going on right now.

[OhJstFkOffAlrdy]

Good Lord, Kanda, start split-quoting when you respond.

Originally Posted by Kanda444 ↗

again, regardless of if that is true or not, it's not justification for releasing blantaly unsupported claims in an attempt to raise awareness of a situation. it's a silly and irresponsible tactic.

It depends on the source. If it's not a "credible" or popular news outlet to begin with, then I say let 'em run whatever they want. Either most people won't believe it, or they won't hear about it in the first place. Collectively, we're not as prone to mass hysteria as some would have us believe; and a heightened awareness of the "border crisis" -- even if that awareness is brought about through dubious means -- is, in my book, better than a lowered awareness. The scenario I outlined in my previous post is an incredibly plausible one, and it's smarter to plan for the worst than it is to hope for the best.

Originally Posted by Kanda444 ↗

im specifically talking about the claim of an imminent attack. im not debating border security as i feel it's an issue that does require addressing. my issue is with the use of sensationalist propaganda to spurn conversation.

Or to increase readership/viewership/web traffic. It's a dirty media tactic, but it's nothing new. Even in the days of Cronkite, it was common (although much less so then than it is now). In my opinion, the media and the government need not say shit for me to know that future attacks on this country are imminent; the enemy by his very nature ensures that.

Originally Posted by Kanda444 ↗

fair enough. i was referring to the article, however, and the lack

Meh.

Originally Posted by Kanda444 ↗

that's true but it doesnt mean that the priciple of journalistic inegrity should be abondoned just because it isnt readily displayed by the media on a consistant basis. that's about like saying " who in their right mind in modern-day America would consider "moral integrity" to be within the purview of the most politicians". simply because they dont seem to have morality in te forefront of their minds when they act doesnt mean we still should aim to preserve that kind of ideal.

I won't argue against you there; but the point I was making was that either the media will conceal or outright lie just as much if not more than the federal government out of whose hand they are currently eating, or they'll just be too dense to connect the dots. Either way, we are for the most part on our own when it comes to discerning between various threats to our own safety and the security of the country. No one source by itself can in this day and age be trusted, regardless of whether or not the news of the day happens to be good or bad or even absent entirely.