2) The more we tighten domestic anti-terrorist security, the more the wide open southern border becomes the best option for entry.

3) The concept of ‘sleeper cells’ is an old one, because they work.

4) There could be zero terrorists already here, there could be thousands. “But we haven’t found any!” See #1

5) My suggestion to the GOP is a political strategy, not a scientific paper.

To GOP: Point out that leaving the southern border with Mexico unsecure is like a family going to bed and leaving the back door wide open. A burglar or serial killer may or may not slip in the door, but gee, if you close it and lock it….

Really? You know this HOW?

Please put up links proving this assertion.

“Terrorist groups want to control their members. They don’t want them to drop out, or get caught before they do whatever they intende for them to do.”

I’ll just call bullshit on that one. Seems to me the 9/11 operators were quite autonomous. They ALWAYS COULD have been caught. What are the percentages? Were the 9/11 guys “caught”? Only in doing the “after action” reports.

You seem to think that because you don’t know about it, it isn’t happening. Why would it NOT be happening?

Of course, this entire discussion overlooks the “organic” ISIS members who radicalized here and never go overseas, or are American, Canadian, or European citizens and don’t need to illegally invade the U.S.

I will.

This is one of those things that superficially maybe sounds logical, but isn’t.

No terrorist group has ever sent anybody across the border that way. Not in this country, not in any other stable country. Not at least when the plots are few and far between.

This is not an oversight – there is a reason for that.

Terrorist groups want to control their members. They don’t want them to drop out, or get caught before they do whatever they intende for them to do.

Sending someone across a border that way carries a reasonably high probability they will get caught – and spill the beans.

Only when them getting caught does not lead to the end of the plotting, as was the case of the Syrian-Iraqi border, when they were sending people over, who were gewtting caught, but they sent more, and what they intended to do was no secret, and they had people already inside, and a place for them to go.

You know when there will be an occasaion to worry? When they are actally sending people across the border that way, and some are getting caught, but the nature of the plotting is such that they don’t need all of them to get through.

Right now, any terrorist plotting is based on us not becoming aware of the plot.

The question is whether it is necessary to our national security and/or interests to engage them militarily. My answer is YES.

The GOP and conservatives are missing a big opportunity here. We have had little success getting the federal government to secure the southern border with Mexico, largely because neither party wants to alienate the fastest growing voting bloc in the nation. As regards our unguarded border, it’s been all about immigration and amnesty, pro or con.

However, analysis of research as to why Americans are growing increasingly fearful of homeland terrorist attacks shows the fears are based on (1) active, capable Islamic terrorists daily telling us they’re coming to kill us, coupled with (2) a wide open, anyone can cross, southern US border. James O’Keefe crossed on foot unchecked, wearing a middle eastern beard, turban, and robe to boot.

GOP: Make securing the southern border about national security, not immigration. Do in NOW, as in iron, hot, strike.

The argument is completely sound, something that astounds me isn’t a 100% obvious immediate need already. Who is going to argue that no, we needn’t worry about terrorists crossing the open border. Who can defend that? The primary Democrat voting target is women. Do women care about safety and security for themselves and families? I believe they do. Are they dumb enough to be convinced that an unsecured or partially secured border is worth the risk to American lives? I believe they are not.

Would the Democrat Party want to paint themselves as the party that will save women from white male corporate America, but as for terrorists in your towns and on your block, well, hey, you’re on your own? Probably not. As long as that border is wide-ass open, that’s the way it is.

If opponents complain you’re just tying the border to nat’l security to stop illegals, you look to your voters, wink, and
say, “twofer!”

Repeat:

GOP: Make securing the southern border about national security, not immigration. Do it NOW.

Then: “War on Terror” is an oxymoron.

They are all political types at best now…

We had Pacifists and Isolationists navel gazing the same question during the late 1930s. Is the growing influence of the National Socialists in Europe or Japan’s creeping expansionism in Manchuria any of our business?

In asymmetrical warfare this could be a HUGE fighting force. Not that they’d stand a chance fighting a Russian (Soviet) war doctrine against us. They just would not. But they aren’t pretending to do that, either.

These people are smart, hardened, mobile fighters who do NOT play by ANY rules. They have shown they are adaptive and very efficient. They are specifically NOT afraid of dying, as a general rule. They can and have blended with civilian populations to learn who to hit, and where their vulnerabilities are. This is something Western troops simply cannot do…and won’t do. We are not going to kidnap, rape and torture family members of local leaders. ISIS does and will.

Have you see a single “No Blood for Oil” sign in Cambridge?

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/howie_carr/2014/09/carr_anti_war_crowd_stunningly_silent_now

I’m NOT holding my breath…

But then again Mohamed knew how to keep people in line, and the imams haven’t forgotten.

That WAS a dirty joke…right…???

This is the guy who wants to “continue” what we’ve been doing in Yemen and Somalia. Which he was actually trying to sell as a “success”.

Anybody planning a vacay to either of those places with the family…???