United States Counterterrorism Chief Says Islamic State Is Not Planning an Attack on the U.S.
Source: Foreign Policy
United States Counterterrorism Chief Says Islamic State Is Not Planning an Attack on the U.S.
BY SHANE HARRIS SEPTEMBER 3, 2014 - 04:13 PM
The United States' senior counterterrorism official said on Wednesday that there is "no credible information" that the militants of the Islamic State, who have reigned terror on Iraq and Syria, are planning to attack the U.S. homeland. Although the group could pose a threat to the U.S. if left unchecked, any plot it tried launching today would be "limited in scope" and "nothing like a 9/11-scale attack."
Read more: http://complex.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/09/03/counterterrorism_chief_says_islamic_state_is_not_planning_an_attack_on_america
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)The Islamic State has "reigned [sic] terror" on Iraq and Syria, as opposed to "Shock and Awe" (which didn't apparently "reign" any "terror" on Iraq).
"Terror," "Terrorism," and "Terrorist" continue to lose any real meaning, and are instead simply pejoratives used to describe people we don't like. Bonus points for cowing an American populace lacking critical thinking skills and courage.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)the counterterrorism chief also says that rattlesnakes have decided to no longer bite humans.
PeoViejo
(2,178 posts)elias49
(4,259 posts)It always amazes how many "senior officials" there are when the shit hits the fan about something/
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It's a lot like the Lenin/Trotsky argument, with AQ as Trotsky and IS as Lenin. IS and other "near enemy" fighters think priority 1 is establishing an independent state; the "far enemy" contingent thinks that can't happen while the US and Russia maintain interests in the region.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)and this is a nice counterbalance.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Sad.
samsingh
(17,598 posts)beheading our journalists is a threat to us immediately
yurbud
(39,405 posts)samsingh
(17,598 posts)try for
yurbud
(39,405 posts)Or do you think those were a good idea?
samsingh
(17,598 posts)were tens of thousands of people being slaughtered in those countries when the bush regime went into Iraq?
we needed to go into Afghanistan after the bush morons allowed 911 to happen under their watch - bush had a memo in this hand warning of an upcoming attack when he went on vacation to clear shrubbery.
do you care about the 12 year old girls being raped by ISIS? go to the huffington post.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)samsingh
(17,598 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)Going after al Qaeda there and to a lesser extent, the Taliban leadership was an acceptable response, but letting Pakistan evac top leaders from both groups from Tora Bora undercut that legitimate excuse, and staying an extra decade after that was indefensible.
samsingh
(17,598 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)from those sources, al Qaeda would have been no more of a threat than a crazy homeless person waving a plastic knife.
that our government didn't do so, and in fact tried to cover up the Saudi role, should tell you that something is going on here other than just fighting terrorism or liberating Afghans from the Taliban by killing them.
samsingh
(17,598 posts)our blunder and stupidity was invading Iraq. many atrocities were committed there by the bush admin.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)By Frank Davies, Knight Ridder | September 5, 2004
WASHINGTON -- Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that relationship, Senator Bob Graham wrote in a book to be released Tuesday.
The discovery of the financial backing of the two hijackers "would draw a direct line between the terrorists and the government of Saudi Arabia, and trigger an attempted coverup by the Bush administration," the Florida Democrat wrote.
And in Graham's book, "Intelligence Matters," obtained by The Miami Herald yesterday, he makes clear that some details of that financial support from Saudi Arabia were in the 27 pages of the congressional inquiry's final report that were blocked from release by the administration, despite the pleas of leaders of both parties on the House and Senate intelligence committees.
https://web.archive.org/web/20040928224801/http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/05/911_hijackers_tied_to_saudi_government_graham_says_in_book?mode=PF
yurbud
(39,405 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)and that makes it harder to trust them when t hey are selling a similar enterprise.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)samsingh
(17,598 posts)and some believed planes could not be used as weapons
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Jesus...
Journalists have been being killed in increasing numbers for quite some time now.
Beheadings were going on ten years ago.
Give me a goddamned break.
It's amazing to see people pushing the war bullshit at what used to be one of the smartest anti-war sites on the web.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025487980
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Olsen's point was that since ISIS does not have the operational capabilities of Al-Qaeda, a 9/11 type attack was unlikely.
What was more likely are smaller scale attacks on high-value targets. This therefore necessitates close monitoring of chatter, networks, and travel patterns.
Think, Boston Marathon as opposed to 9/11.
candelista
(1,986 posts)President Obama will need to do this tomorrow (Weds.) on teevee.