Obama's address to the Nation

[vy65]

If you think that everyone who says mean things about the US and has a gun is a threat, you're going to have to bomb the entire planet ...

[Th'Pusher]

I don't think it's [IS] a threat. Period. Short term or long term. Not a threat.

Lol.

Talk about presumption.

[vy65]

Lol.

Talk about presumption.

As always, awesome contribution to the conversation. Keep up the good work

[TheSanityAnnex]

As always, awesome contribution to the conversation. Keep up the good work

Why are you so emotional?

[Th'Pusher]

As always, awesome contribution to the conversation. Keep up the good work

My contribution to the conversation was to get you to paint yourself into a ridiculous corner claiming that IS will never pose a threat to the US.

[Th'Pusher]

Calculated bombs tbh

[vy65]

Lol you truly are the Bobby Fischer of this board. Masterful, bravo

[vy65]

My contribution to the conversation was to get you to paint yourself into a ridiculous corner claiming that IS will never pose a threat to the US.

It won't, btw, and you're not smart.

[Th'Pusher]

Lol you truly are the Bobby Fischer of this board. Masterful, bravo

Seriously dude. Your claim was ridiculous and you abandoned it as soon as I called you on it. Stop being an internet pussy and admit you ed up in your eagerness to argue.

[Th'Pusher]

It won't, btw, and you're not smart.

Lol. Doubling down. WC style.

[vy65]

Seriously dude. Your claim was ridiculous and you abandoned it as soon as I called you on it. Stop being an internet pussy and admit you ed up in your eagerness to argue.

I never abandoned it. They're not a threat to the us now or in the future. For all your celebratory mental masterbation, I dunno how you're not getting this. You truly are re ed, like product of incest re ed

[Th'Pusher]

I never abandoned it. They're not a threat to the us now or in the future. For all your celebratory mental masterbation, I dunno how you're not getting this. You truly are re ed, like product of incest re ed

Doubling down followed by personal attacks. Just call me a Lib and complete your devolution into WC.

[vy65]

Doubling down followed by personal attacks. Just call me a Lib and complete your devolution into WC.

Sorry did you have a point in all of this? Or are you just wanting to contribute nothing per the par?

[Th'Pusher]

Sorry did you have a point in all of this? Or are you just wanting to contribute nothing per the par?

IS, while not an immediate threat to the US, if left unchecked, can become a threat to the US. To claim otherwise (like you) is ing presumptuous, naive and stupid.

Now if you want to discuss whether Obama's proposed strategy to address the potential threat will be effective, we can go down that road and we'll likely find more common ground. But, presuming IS will never be a threat to the US is stupid. You know it, I know it and anyone reading this tread knows it.

[cheguevara]

IS, while not an immediate threat to the US, if left unchecked, can become a threat to the US. To claim otherwise (like you) is ing presumptuous, naive and stupid.

Everything "could" potentially become a threat. Does that mean we should bomb everything?

Now if you want to discuss whether Obama's proposed strategy to address the potential threat will be effective, we can go down that road and we'll likely find more common ground. But, presuming IS will never be a threat to the US is stupid. You know it, I know it and anyone reading this tread knows it.

I dont see IS becoming athreat in the next 50 years.

north korea is not even a threat and they possess nuclear weapons and have vowed to kill all of us

howcome we have not blown up NK??? Or even better question howcome they have not blown us up???

This IsIS boogeyman witchunt is one of the most laughable bull lies in recent history. Remember the Iraq WMDs bull ? This is worse

[RandomGuy]

You're just taking them at their word and asserting that eventually they'll do something bad. Where's your evidence?

Oh and lol stability. Because the region is known for its stability and we wouldn't want to do anything to destabilize it.

Australia raids foil reported ISIS beheading plots
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/09...lling-pm-says/

I take them at their word, because they do what they say, and have had a pretty clear pattern of doing so.

As I said, to think otherwise is naive.

[RandomGuy]

That same dynamic will see regional actors (i.e., Turkey) check whatever progress the Caliphate makes



Not saying there's no violence - or that ISIS doesn't represent a threat to certain groups in the region. But you still haven't shown why ISIS threatens the US outside of making numerous large inferences and assumptions of how geopolitics will play out.



While true, they're not storming our shores. If anything, the fact that the most "shock-value" strike they've done -- beheadings -- are localized to Syria should tell you about the threat level they represent. If they're so well funded and sophisticated, why chop off 3 journalists heads instead of attacking the US directly?



The Taliban were also sheltered by the Afghani government at the time (they were kinda the government at the time). Assad is trying to bomb ISIS out of his country, as are the Kurds, so I don't see the "slippery slope" analogy there. Moreover, What evidence do you have that ISIS is anywhere near the level of AQ such that they could take advantage of a failed state and do some bad ?



No its not. It's a different iteration of regional theo-nationalism mixed in with some terrorism. What's so novel beyond its claims of creating a caliphate (which, you know, are just words and don't hurt)?

What is novel about it, is that it holds territory and has a monthly income in the eight figure range. Something you might be aware of, if you dug a little.

[RandomGuy]

He was cited for the proposition that ISIS does not pose the same threat that AQ once did. I was responding to this gem:

So he didn't actually say it posed NO threat now, or no threat in the future?

What were his exact words per the article?

[RandomGuy]

In this case it is far clearer that ISIS is a threat, and a far more serious one than Al Qaeda ever was as it was sheltered by the Taliban in Afghanistan, or than Saddam was.

[Here is a guy saying it isn't an immediate threat]
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/wo...-act.html?_r=1

Again, it is a correct assessment. No "immediate" threat. Hagel was utilizing a bit of hyperbole, and they rightfully called him on it.

I know what it is, and isn't, and have a far more nuanced view.

It is a threat.

Do you think it isn't?

[repost of article]Not just Hagel's hyperbole now is it?

Lunch hour is up, but hold me to it, I will be happy to fill in the blanks, as I should. Will have to wait until weekend, or possibly later tonight.

I noticed you didn't answer my question.

Do you think ISIS is not a threat?

I'd have thought it was obvious that I don't think they threaten the US. Hence all the articles about ISIS not being a threat to the US.

Re-posting the same quote won't get you where you need to go, counselor.

Missing the point, per the par.

I went back through the article, and read through it.

Can you tell me where exactly Mr. Olsen said ISIS poses no threat at all?

He was cited for the proposition that ISIS does not pose the same threat that AQ once did. I was responding to this gem:
"In this case it is far clearer that ISIS is a threat, and a far more serious one than Al Qaeda ever was as it was sheltered by the Taliban in Afghanistan, or than Saddam was."[-RG]

T
The articles you posted to support your position never really said that this group isn't a threat. While some will exaggerate the current threat, I couldn't find many, even Mr. Olsen, who seems to credibily imply, as you seem to here that they are NO threat.


If you can't see that, you obviously have not been paying attention.

I get what you are driving at, and again, Mr. Olsen is correct.

ISIS is not now, the same level of threat as Al Qaeda was pre-9-11

My ultimate point was that they will be, if left unchecked, and that is patently obvious for a host of factors, as I have pointed out.

Be happy to walk back the unqualified "ever was" since ISIS currently does not pose the same level of threat that Al Qaeda did for the decade or so that we somewhat ignored them. That was inaccurate.

Lets try something a bit more accurate:

In this case it is far clearer that ISIS is a threat, and will become a far more serious one than Al Qaeda ever was as it was sheltered by the Taliban in Afghanistan, or than Saddam was.

Again, to think otherwise is naive, and a bit ignorant of who/what composes and motivates this group, and how they are financed.

[vy65]

I get what you are driving at, and again, Mr. Olsen is correct.

ISIS is not now, the same level of threat as Al Qaeda was pre-9-11

Ok. Glad you've backed off your initial IS>AQ claim.

My ultimate point was that they will be, if left unchecked, and that is patently obvious for a host of factors, as I have pointed out.

I disagree. In a vacuum, I don't think they threaten us. At all, now or in the future. Call me naive, but we disagree here.

But ISIS operates in the real world, not a vacuum. And in the real world, a number of regional actors, e.g., Turkey, the Kurds, President Assad, all check ISIS aggression. Point being a) they're not a threat now b) they won't be threat in the future and c) we should leave the region the a

Be happy to walk back the unqualified "ever was" since ISIS currently does not pose the same level of threat that Al Qaeda did for the decade or so that we somewhat ignored them. That was inaccurate.

Lets try something a bit more accurate:

In this case it is far clearer that ISIS is a threat, and will become a far more serious one than Al Qaeda ever was as it was sheltered by the Taliban in Afghanistan, or than Saddam was.

Again, to think otherwise is naive, and a bit ignorant of who/what composes and motivates this group, and how they are financed.

This is just reading tea-leaves, and a reading that leaves out the interplay of other regional forces. See above.

Getting more involved in the region, arming rebels who may or may not be allied with ISIS, and further destabilizing another government in the region is a failed strategy. It is exactly how en ies like ISIS come about in the first place. And its a waste of lives and money and resources to get involved in a region to combat an actor that poses no threat to us. I don't see a winning way out here, do you?

[vy65]

So he didn't actually say it posed NO threat now, or no threat in the future?

What were his exact words per the article?

Correct, he claims they may be a threat in the future. He was cited only for the IS>AQ proposition.

[vy65]

What is novel about it, is that it holds territory and has a monthly income in the eight figure range. Something you might be aware of, if you dug a little.

AQ was also strongly financially backed and held large swaths of territory in Afghanistan.

[RandomGuy]

AQ was also strongly financially backed and held large swaths of territory in Afghanistan.

AQ never really "held" territory in Afhganistan. They were allowed to be there, and were certainly buddy-buddy with the ignorant s that ran that country, but I can't recall them ever really holding territory in the conventional sense.

[vy65]

AQ never really "held" territory in Afhganistan. They were allowed to be there, and were certainly buddy-buddy with the ignorant s that ran that country, but I can't recall them ever really holding territory in the conventional sense.

What difference does it make?

[SnakeBoy]

ISIS is not now, the same level of threat as Al Qaeda was pre-9-11

My ultimate point was that they will be, if left unchecked, and that is patently obvious for a host of factors, as I have pointed out.

smh