Do you agree with the Obama administration that ISIS is an "imminent threat"?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	28 (44%)
	No
	36 (56%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Smarmie Doofus]

1. Probably not; but how could I know? n/t

[whathehell]

45. Good question..I can't believe the 'ho hum" attitude of many here

I don't think Obama would bullshit us on this, and I can't help

but remember how Dubya ignored those "imminent threats"

of Bin Laden's plan to fly planes into the US.

[FrodosPet]

121. But Alex Jones says it was a conspiracy or something

Whatever happens, whoever does it, it's all the responsibility of the CFR and Bilderbergers and the folks at the Bohemian Grove.

[whathehell]

125. Yeah, whatever..

[JoePhilly]

2. No. And we still won't be invading Iraq again.

Although an invasion and occupation is what much of DU will be sure is going to happen any day now.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. No, although the administration might have info they're not sharing

that makes them say so. If that's the case, 'Just trust us' is a lousy sort of attitude to present to the the public.

[Maedhros]

55. I have learned that the United States Government is not to be trusted in matters of military force.

They have lied to their own citizens, over and over and over again.

[Boom Sound 416]

4. Yes, the last thing in the world

This administration wants to do is be at war in Iraq. So if they so, it's good enough for me.

[NYC_SKP]

5. No reply, I don't have the data set he and his team has. nt

[Adsos Letter]

153. I agree, which is why I voted "pass."

[lunatica]

6. They're already recruiting citizens from many other countries

who will quite legally go back to their countries and visit death and destruction on them.

[whathehell]

30. I know, and the prospect scares me greatly, especially

since I have a ten day trip planned to middle Europe next month.

I have only one question -- How can they "legally" go back to their own countries if those same countries know they've been fighting with a terrorist group?...I understand that, in many nations, fighting with a
foreign military -- not to mention these maniacs -- can cause loss of
citizenship.

[lunatica]

46. The authorities have caught quite a few who were on their way there, but

I doubt they can tell who is a European or American citizen in every case. All they know about the murderer who beheaded Foley is that he has a British accent.

If the State Department doesn't list the country or countries you plan to visit as places to be avoided I imagine you'll be quite safe.

edited for spelling

[whathehell]

48. That's good to hear..

and, yes, you're probably right regarding the State Department.

Thanks for calming me down.

[Agschmid]

111. Me too.

I'll be there next week.

[whathehell]

114. Glad to see that I'm not the only one, at least..

Just curious -- What country are you going to?

[Agschmid]

123. UK.

We are going to so some tourist things but have altered our plans a bit based on current events. The trip is purely for fun.

[whathehell]

126. For some reason,

it may be irrational, but I'd be a bit less worried in the UK.

They had their incident with the bombing on the tube, and I

expect they are super security conscious.

I was there a couple of years ago -- In London and Oxford

and the Southwest of England. I had a great time.

[Iggo]

7. Imminent threat to...?

[Orsino]

10. To Iraq's current government, certainly.

To the business interests of a few, certainly.

Not to America's national security.

[TBF]

147. Oil profits.

You asked.

[chrisa]

8. In the same way there would have been a mushroom cloud over NYC had we not invaded Iraq.

[whathehell]

32. I think not, since, apart from murdering other muslims, men, women & children

They've just beheaded, on tape, an American journalist.

[chrisa]

53. All of this was done in Iraq. It's not hard to just kidnap a journalist.

I don't buy that ISIS is anymore of a threat than Al Qaeda is.

[whathehell]

56. Yes, but if you haven't heard, lots of them are coming back to Europe

and about 100 to America, where they hold citizenship.

I don't know the source of your skepticism on ISIS...They were

kicked out of Al-Queda for their brutality, and they are reportedly

sophisticated and VERY well-funded.

To be honest, I'm less afraid of an attack on our soil than attacks in

Europe. where I have friends and am planning a visit next month.

[chrisa]

61. The same can be said about Al Qaeda, though.

Al Qaeda was also called sophisticated and well-funded. In many ways, they were.

[whathehell]

63. True, but

they did pay us a visit on September 11, 2001, didn't they?

[chrisa]

72. True. 9/11 wasn't the first attack, though. The US has been dealing with terrorism for a while.

I wouldn't call ISIS an "imminent threat" to the US. The ME, definitely. Al Qaeda is probably still the bigger threat, just because they're already accomplished attacks around the world.

[whathehell]

99. It was the first major attack.

I guess you don't get to Europe much.

[chrisa]

135. The 1993 WTC attack actually had the same intent as the 2001 one. It's only that the 2001 one worked

What does that mean, "I don't get to Europe much?" Europe has been dealing with terrorism even longer / more frequently than the US has, especially Al Qaeda. Not just Al Qaeda either - many different terrorist groups.

[whathehell]

136. "worked" is the operative word there.

Yes, Europe has been dealing with terrorism even longer/more extensively than the U.S. has -- that was precisely my point.

[TheKentuckian]

9. Dubious at best, don't see how.

[GeorgeGist]

11. Yes, because, ooga booga, another 10000 member gang has the US looking foolish.

[whathehell]

34. Where have YOU been?..They just beheaded an American Journalist

It's on YouTube, if you need proof.

[former9thward]

64. How is that an imminent threat to the U.S.?

He was in Iraq and Syria. Not New York City.

[whathehell]

68. Well, for one thing,

it reveals their unmitigated brutality and hate for the West, and America
especially.

Beyond that, don't know how old you are, but just about thirteen years ago next month, you might remember that New York City wasn't a very
safe place to be either.

[former9thward]

71. The 9/11 crew were Saudis and operated out of Germany.

We did not attack either of those countries. Your type of thinking is a gift to the MIC. It is an excuse to continue to build up our military and send them on adventures almost anywhere in the world.

[whathehell]

118. No shit, sherlock...I guess you think bin Laden was an innocent bystander, too.

and by the way, I'm GOING to Germany -- Are you really so insular

that you think if it happens in Europe it's "no threat" to us?

Gift to the mic, my ass..I hate war, and I bet I've been around to see

more of them than you have.

That being said, I also hate sociopathic maniacs who brutally

murder any man, woman or child who doesn't belong to their religion,

especially when they DIRECTLY threaten us, which they have.

.

[Drunken Irishman]

130. Not worth it, man. They just don't get it.

They believe that if we isolate ourselves from every world problem that all the bad will go away. It's a perfect amount naivety and ignorance.

[whathehell]

140. Yes, and these are the same people who, rightfully, blamed Dubya

for ignoring the six months of warnings he got from the CIA

about a planned "attack from the air" by al Queda.

[HooptieWagon]

12. Not to US borders.

To US economic and diplomatic interests in Mideast, probably yes.

[GliderGuider]

28. +1 As usual, to find the threat, just follow the money. nt

[hifiguy]

13. The proper question to ask is "to whom?"

Certainly they are a threat to every thinking creature that lives in their area of influence. But to the continental US? Of course not.

Which is not to say that as a matter of basic morality they should not be forever obliterated from the face of the earth on humanitarian grounds, but I see no way to do that without killing innocent people.

[MineralMan]

14. I don't have enough information to form a judgment.

So, I voted to abstain. It's good to see that many people believe that they do have enough information, I guess.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

16. Until I have enough information to say Yes then I must say No. But, your point is well taken.

The adjective qualifier *imminent* gave me pause and also needs to be asked ... *to whom* is the threat?

I certainly do Not Feel Threatened by them.

Not today, anyway.

[Iggo]

18. "Until I have enough information to say Yes then I must say No."

[MineralMan]

19. It's pretty apparent to me that many are threatened

by this group. Most are in the immediate area where they are operating. That's of concern to me, just as I would have been concerned had I been alive in the 1930s about Hitler and what was happening in Europe. The very nature of how this group is operating gives me the same sense of evil being done.

In studying the history of WWII and what led up to it, I see that a lot of people in the U.S. were strongly opposed to our being involved in that situation. In fact, we became involved really only after Pearl Harbor, although I believe we would have become involved eventually, anyhow.

When I ask myself whether "we" are threatened, my next question is whether I'm part of the "we" that certainly is threatened. It's a complicated question. As I said, I'm not sure I have enough information. Or maybe I do and am just avoiding the question.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

20. all of that, yes. But that is not the question and besides the question is not fully formed.

the word IMMINENT means something to someone in this scenario, I am sure of that but, Who?

Not Me.

Maybe I am selfish but, I inferred *to me* at the end of the question and again I must say =

NO, *I* do not feel *imminently* threatened by ISIS today.



IOW the question is badly framed and, this is pretty close to a push poll.

Still, I felt I had to answer No for the reasons above.

[MineralMan]

22. Given the general wording of the question, I found that I could

not vote yes or no. As you say, it's a poorly thought-out poll. The question wasn't about whether you, personally, feel threatened. It was just a matter of a general imminent threat. I'd say there is, at least for some people, most of whom have no means to defend themselves at all.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

33. It is, indeed, a very generalized question and if one thinks:

It was just a matter of a general imminent threat. I'd say there is, at least for some people, most of whom have no means to defend themselves at all.

Then, I would be inclined to say Yes to the question.

However, when we talk about spending money to go to war to protect said people then I must think long and hard before *I* think war is a good answer.

I hate that they do not have the means to defend themselves. A lot of people in the world are in that same predicament.

Can America afford to *police/peacekeep via war (?)* all these peoples in need?

I hate to put it in economic terms but, we do have a bottom line budget that needs to be addressed.

[MineralMan]

40. My own personal opinion is that the US does not belong

in Middle East conflicts. We have not done well with them in the past, mostly because we have a very poor understanding of the region. I still believe that to be true. In an ideal case, the nations in that region should be the ones stepping up to deal with the current situation. Some are involved. More need to be.

At the same time, we do have means in place we can use to selectively attack terrorist forces without using U.S. soldiers to do on-ground operations. To that extent, I believe we can act. In fact, we are doing so. The problem with that is identifying targets for air operations. If targets are not clearly identified, we run the risk of attacking people who are not the correct targets. That's always a risk, in the best of circumstances, but it is magnified in this situation.

I suppose we will continue much as we have already done. So far, we haven't done badly, but I don't have any substantial information about the effectiveness of our operations, really. I don't expect to have that information, either.

Should we be the sole international enforcer? Well, no, we shouldn't. That's clear. Should we be participants? That depends, I suppose, on many factors I don't know enough about.

So, I abstain.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

44. IMO, abstain and NO are both correct in this scenario.

I almost answered abstain but, then I realized I had to infer to much to the badly worded question to arrive at even abstain.

However, I could move my vote to abstain and not feel slighted.

Peace.

[VanGoghRocks]

26. +1

[MH1]

146. Unless we think EVERY news story is a wholly made-up crock'o'shiite,

ISIL / ISIS is most definitely an "imminent threat" to lots of people, not to mention an already-happened threat to hundreds of thousands.

That they aren't Americans wasn't necessarily part of the question. But even if it was ...

I see no reason why some American citizens who've joined ISIL for training won't come back here and visit a local mall or whatever with their easily-obtained assault weapons.

The organization has expressed their intent to harm Americans and demonstrated that, just in case we didn't believe their words.

I would say that makes them an an "imminent threat" on some level.

[ecstatic]

154. Same here. Plus I haven't followed the situation closely.

I still would like for us to stay out of the Middle East (including Israel) completely.

[whatchamacallit]

15. Al Qaeda was played out, not scary or believable enough anymore to get us into Syria

ISIS is here to turn your minds to mush.

[conservaphobe]

17. Yes.

This administration has earned my trust by not hyping things.

So when they say something is serious, I take their word for it.

[BlueCaliDem]

41. +1000. I voted Yes, too.

ISIS is growing rapidly, becoming more dangerous than al-Qaeda and the Taliban, because they're expanding their membership to young men born and raised in other countries like England, Holland, Germany, Turkey, Belgium, and the U.S. and these young men all have duel-nationalities. They are dangerous to the safety of these countries.

They've already stolen U.S. war equipment out of Iraq (with help from Iran), and have gotten hundreds of millions of dollars of ransom for the release of foreign prisoners. They have three more Americans imprisoned that they're going to behead because they know they're not going to get the $100 million ransom for them as they do for journalists from other countries because America doesn't negotiate with terrorists. So they'll use American prisoners for propaganda purposes to strike fear in the hearts of people all around the globe.

So I trust when this president says they're a growing threat. As you've pointed out, President Obama doesn't hype things. Never has. And he's got the intelligence we don't, so he sees what we can't. I'll take his word for it, too.

[conservaphobe]

91. Mhm, and I admire the advocates for peace, but they tend to be incapable of nuance.

Broadly applying an ideology to every situation is a major issue across the entire world.

Those who constantly plead for inaction are no different than those who want to bomb our way out of everything.

[BlueCaliDem]

95. I'm 100% for peace, too, but I don't take it to the extreme.

Much like the president, I'm not 100% against all wars. I'm 100% against stupid wars.

I have to come to terms with the fact that past leaders and policies have messed up royally in some countries. Generations of aggrieved people continue to fight to this day because of those disastrous policies that have benefited some but mostly impoverished the majority of people in the world.

Those policies created a world for them that leaves them hungry, sick, angry, unemployed, and volatile. It bred hopelessness and desperation and made them vulnerable to charismatic militant propagandists for groups like al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIL. This , in turn, creates the necessity for military intervention in order to crush them before they grow too strong and get to the point that they can't be contained unless we launch a full-out war. I'd rather not see the latter happen again if it can be avoided.

[qazplm]

110. +a bajillion

America is exceptional and should bomb everything is just as ridiculous as America is the root cause of all evil and should never do anything again.

[Baitball Blogger]

21. They are an imminent threat to the American press who travel to the countries

where they are located, apparently.

[clarice]

23. I'm going to go out on a limb here...

Anyone who does not agree with the Prez's statement is either, woefully ill-informed
or has no problem with what Isis is doing. It's as simple as that.

PS Please keep hate mail to a minimum.

[Maedhros]

57. Yeah, that is pretty far out on the "excluded middle" limb...[n/t]

[clarice]

75. Please explain. nt

[Maedhros]

76. You're either with Obama, or your with the "terrorists."

I can, and do, oppose Obama's militarism yet I do not approve of ISIL's actions. There is a lot of excluded middle ground in your statement.

[clarice]

80. Cool...but I'm curious...what would YOU do if you were Prez? nt

[Maedhros]

87. The Prez was cool with Israeli commandoes killing a U.S. citizen aboard the Krav Mara.

He shouldn't over-react to the murder of a journalist.

The prime question should be: will U.S. involvement help the region, or make things worse? Our track record has repeatedly shown that it's the latter. We should provide actual humanitarian assistance for refugees, and rescue operations such as the aborted operation to remove the Yazidi from their mountaintop.

Air strikes are a "look busy" kind of response that appeases hawks inside the Beltway but won't have a meaningful effect on the situation on the ground.

[clarice]

89. You know....I've always wondered....

maybe it would be better if we didn't get involved with other Countries AT ALL.
It always comes back and bites us on the ass.

Now, humanitarian actions are still necessary, I realize, but most of the time, it is either for a Country that hates us, or what ever aid we send is hijacked by corrupt despots and sold on the black market.
I don't know the answer, but at times, I think, "Maybe it's time to help OUR people and watch out for OUR interests first.


I know how Rand Paul-ish this sounds....but

[conservaphobe]

92. +1

[clarice]

96. Thank you....once again, I'm in the unpopular minority.nt

[Xithras]

24. I generally see ISIS as the equivalent of the Nazi's in 1938.

They're a brutal, genocidal right wing group that wants to exterminate the "impure", is already committing horrific acts of violence and murder, and is more that willing to kill any of our people who wander into its combat zone. But it's not a threat to the United States right now.

Could it become one? Absolutely possible. Could it become another Iran, mostly staying within its own borders while screaming epithets at the rest of the world? Also absolutely possible.

[whathehell]

103. Me too..That's exactly the analogy i used last night with someone!

They really have NO qualms about doing the most horrifying things to

ANYONE!

I honestly not a terribly fearful person, but I have plans to go to

Europe next month, and the thought of them being there -- 500 of them

supposed to be 'returning' to Europe soon scares the shit out of me.

[eridani]

128. The Nazis had an air force and a navy. Does ISIS? n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

141. The Nazis were actually a military threat in 1938

We could turn the entirety of Syria and Iraq into a parking lot within hours if need be. The two are not remotely comparable.

[Lurks Often]

25. Maybe not an imminent threat as of today

although I don't have access to the classified briefings the President is getting.

The real question is how much of a threat might ISIS be a year from now, or 5 years from now?

Do we try and stop them now before they become more powerful and a greater threat or do we wait?

[betterdemsonly]

27. They are a threat

but they weren't an unforeseen threat. They are the reason it was silly to fund the Syrian opposition.

[jeff47]

29. To the US? No. To Iraq, Syria and others in the region? Yes. (nt)

[GliderGuider]

31. They are indeed an imminent threat...

...to American political and financial interests in the region.

An imminent threat to the United States of America the sovereign nation-state?
Not so much.

[whathehell]

69. Yes, and to certain unlucky journalists from America and Europe.

but maybe that doesn't bother you too much.

[GliderGuider]

85. This may not go over too well, but...

Frankly, no that doesn't bother me too much. Journalists die in horrible ways in war zones all the time - it's a known risk of being a war correspondent.

I see ISIS as a human version of Ebola. A journalist who gets caught by the human disease is in much the same situation as a doctor who gets infected by the viral one.

ISIS is about as much (or as little) threat to the integrity of the USA as Ebola.

[whathehell]

100. Is that the way you felt about Daniel Pearl?..Same lack of feeling for our troops?

I mean, they put themselves in harms way, right?

Nice "tough, shit, you put yourself there" lack of empathy you've
got there.

You do realize that these people, whatever other personal motivations they have, are doing us a SERVICE, right?...all of us nice, safe at home people?

We depend on these brave souls..What would we do without them?

As for ISIS, it's about as much like ebola as the 9/11 hijackers.

No, they're not a disease, they are PEOPLE with minds and thoughts, and yes, "plans".

Nice defense mechanism. Depersonalizing them will make you feel a lot safer, for sure. It's BS, but whatever works.

[GliderGuider]

104. Different people see the world in different ways.

I'm a pacifist, so I don't "support troops" of any nationality. I'm not asking you to share my views.

[whathehell]

116. Yes, you seem to see it like a cold, selfish libertarian..

Last edited Fri Aug 22, 2014, 08:24 PM - Edit history (2)

They're "pacifists" too, except when THEY or one "theirs"

are threatened.

To put it another way, you only get to be a pacifist, because

others are not -- They do the fighting for you.

[GliderGuider]

119. I come from three generations of Quakers and Unitarians

My grandparents were founding members of Canada's first socialist party, the CCF, that preceded the current socialist party the NDP. My mother has run for parliament under the NDP banner three times, and was a friend of Tommy Douglas, the man who gave Canada universal health care. I'm hardly a libertarian. But thanks for the projection.

It would be a poor, impoverished world if everyone saw it exactly the same.

[whathehell]

120. Yes, and you and the other generations of Quakers got the

luxury of living as such because others did NOT.

The least you could do is show some empathy and gratitude.

[Depaysement]

132. That's totally whack

Quakers risked their lives running ambulance corps in WW 1 Britain, helping miners during conflicts in West Virginia, mediating wars in Nigeria and Zimbabwe. Their history includes being tortured and imprisoned for their beliefs.

As for their "luxury of living" it is a luxury shared by the vast majority of Americans, including the vast majority of the very people who are responsible for starting wars.

[whathehell]

139. I salute those quakers..

Unfortunately, the poster I addressed doesn't seem to be of their mindset

or possess their willingness to contribute

My issue with him was not so much his pacifism as his lack of

empathy for Jim Foley and other war correspondents and soldiers

who die, in sometimes horrific ways.

That, in fact, was how the exchange between us started.

He actually said that he "didn't care much" about Jim Foley,

the journalist just beheaded by ISIS, because, like other war

correspondents, he chose to "put himself in danger".

When I reminded him that such journalists do us a service,

he didn't mention any of the risky, but valuable non-combatant roles

Quakers could and have played -- He just basically shrugged

his shoulders, dismissing it all on the basis of "different worldviews".

[GliderGuider]

143. Maybe this will clarify my feelings

Last edited Sat Aug 23, 2014, 02:58 PM - Edit history (2)

My empathy extends much more to choiceless victims than to those who put themselves in dangerous situations by choice.

Victims like these:

• The four young Palestinian boys who where shelled on the Gaza beach by an Israeli gunboat while playing soccer.
  
• Families who are either targeted deliberately by military forces, or who get caught in a crossfire.
  
• Women who are murdered by their boyfriends, husbands and ex-husbands.
  
• Men like Michael Brown who are murdered by police because of the colour of their skins.
  
• The women and girls kidnapped by groups like Boko Haram and ISIS to become bush wives or brides of Islam.
  
• LGBT people who are murdered because of their sexual nature.
  
• Aboriginal peoples around the world who are ruthlessly exterminated because they live on land that has value to some multi-national corporation.

The world is brimming with victims who get my full empathy, grief and outrage.

Journalists have a choice not to become potential victims. Volunteer soldiers have a choice not to become either potential killers or casualties. They have a right to make the choices they do. Along with the right to make a choice comes a responsibility to accept the accompanying risks. That puts such people in a different empathic category for me.

What happened to Foley was egregious, outrageous and horrifying. But he had a choice. What happens to the choiceless innocents who are caught in the path of that same ISIS epidemic is far, far worse. And they have no choice.

Does that help?

[whathehell]

144. So your lack of sympathy extends to anyone who "chooses" to put

themselves in danger, regardless of cause, including that of saving

those 'powerless' you deem worthy of empathy?

Do you realize that if journalists didn't choose to put themselves

in danger, neither you, nor the rest of the world would even KNOW

about genocides and other attacks on the powerless?

So, no, it doesn't 'help' because you've obviously not thought through

a few things.

[GliderGuider]

145. What would you like your anger towards me to accomplish?

[whathehell]

148. Lol..

Nice dodge.

[Depaysement]

131. Cool!

You should be proud.

[GliderGuider]

137. Thanks! I was very fortunate.

My upbringing emphasized freethought and the questioning of all assumptions and belief systems. As a result I've developed a worldview that isn't a comfortable fit for many people - it crosses many boundaries that are normally taboo. My social views are hard to put into a familiar box, so people tend to project their own Shadows onto them fairly often - as apparently happened here.

[Hippo_Tron]

142. Yep, exactly

[PeteSelman]

35. No. Same old bullshit

Different salesman.

The never ending war must never end.

[whathehell]

39. Yeah sure,

I guess beheading an American journalist and taping it was just

a tease, right?

[PeteSelman]

47. In what way does that make them an "imminent threat" to us?

That's right, it doesn't.

They aren't a threat to America, at all. You want to buy the horseshit because it's coming out of Obama's mouth? You do that. I'm not in. Fuck that.

[whathehell]

51. Why bother asking questions you only need your own answer for?

Go "fuck" whatever you want, but as critical of Obama as I am,

I don't distrust him on EVERYTHING, as you apparently do, so

no, I don't believe he'd bullshit us on national security.

[PeteSelman]

86. And you marched right behind the Chimp too I suppose.

Maybe you'd like to explain how some unfortunate getting beheaded equals imminent danger to us. How am I wrong?

[whathehell]

98. Excuse me, are you referring to Barack Obama "the chimp"?

[PeteSelman]

109. :sigh: No.

You know exactly who I'm talking about.

Did you buy the "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" bullshit ten years ago?

If yes, then hooray for you, you're consistent.

If no, then why was it bullshit then and not bullshit now when it's the same exact bullshit?

America, the "Homeland", is not in any danger at all from those idiots in Iraq or Syria. We're just not.

[whathehell]

115. Glad to hear it, 'cause that guy's been out of office for awhile

Maybe if you'd been here longer, you would realize that NO one

on DU was 'for" the Iraq War and neither was I.

That being said, are you REALLY saying that Bush and Obama are

the 'same' and that EVERY war is the same as that started by Bush

in Iraq?...You really can't be THAT uninformed, can you??

"Why is it bullshit then and not bullshit now"?..Um, different time,
different president, different circumstances?

I'm sorry, but I can hardly believe the fact that you actually

believe every military action, regardless of time and circumstance

is "the same". I can only imagine that you are either VERY young

and naive, or hopelessly uneducated or uninformed.

[PeteSelman]

122. Nevermind.

Just carry on.

Gish galloping is not what I expect from people here.

[whathehell]

124. I don't.

gish gallop on.

[eridani]

129. So explain why we didn't bomb Pakistan when Daniel Pearl was beheaded n/t

[whathehell]

134. A. I never suggested we bomb anywhere..

B. My post was addressed to the recipient's lack of empathy. Period.

C. Try actually reading the post before responding to it.

[jambo101]

36. There is potential.

Depends what their goals are.
If they just want to establish their caliphate and be left alone they probably pose no threat to the USA homeland.
If their objective is to kill every living westerner then they do indeed pose a major threat.
A few home made Nuclear bombs in shipping containers and detonated in a few major western ports would be a way to impact the wests economy in a major way.

[Maedhros]

59. Yes! We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud!

Wiser words were never spoken.

[BillZBubb]

37. No, it is hyperbole.

ISIS is a regional threat in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. Of the threats to the USA, they are way down the list.

[Marr]

38. To the United States? No.

[kelliekat44]

42. Yes, ISIS is an imminent threat but to whom? Not to the US mainland...nt

[Rex]

43. Not to our country, but to the ME...YES absolutely! nt

nt

[Marrah_G]

49. Not to our country

The middle east, yes. Europe, maybe?

[hifiguy]

50. To the territory of the US? Hell no.

Do they have

Missiles? Nope.
An Air Force, or any planes at all? Nope
A deep-water navy, or any navy at all? Nope.
Any way to get, en masse, out of their sphere of influence? Nope.
An intelligence agency with well-trained and -equipped spies? Nope.
WMD? Nope.

So how again are they a threat to the US?

Which is not to say that it wouldn't be a good thing if they were wiped off the face of the earth with extreme prejudice down to the last stone-age barbarian in the name of humanity, but that is a separate issue.

[0rganism]

52. conditional agreement -- they are clearly an imminent threat to Americans abroad

how our response scales to that threat is another matter. especially given that such an organization can quickly disperse into a local population, it would be very easy for our military to fall into the trap where airstrikes aimed to debilitate the group turn into something that reeks of collective punishment.

[brentspeak]

54. They are an imminent threat to the Iraqis and Syrians

And it's certain that some foreign ISIS fighters will return home -- UK, the Netherlands, Belgium, USA even -- radicalized, skilled, and ready to kill people in the name of Allah.

[TheKentuckian]

117. The the countries in danger will be taking the lead?

Virtually every country in the region and Europe have superiority, have at it.

[Sparhawk60]

58. Nope

But that will change unless we stop killing them. I am a peaceful guy, but if the guy next door keeps coming over to my house, to break my things and hurt my kids, then, you bet I am going to visit some harm on him.

I do not believe the ISIS are such moral saints that they will just turn the other cheek.

[Hugabear]

60. No threat at all.

If they wanted to do stuff in the United States, they'd already be doing it.

Teabagger extremists are more of a threat than ISIS

[Maedhros]

62. As many pointed out before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, what's now playing out with ISIL

was inevitable. The national boundaries staked out in the Middle East by Western colonial powers in the early 20th century were not stable in the long run. By destroying Iraq, we created the opportunity for regional uprisings to begin re-drawing those boundaries. Try as we might, we won't be able to stop it.

[CJCRANE]

65. Neocon Redux. I've seen this movie before.

[ZombieHorde]

66. They are an imminent threat

to fashion! Fall colors during the summer time?! Fucking barbarians.

[Zorra]

67. How could I know? The MSM is owned by the 1%, and tells me whatever the 1% tells them to.

My government is owned by the 1%, and does whatever the 1% wants them to do.

Any sources for information that I pretty much trust can't get close enough to the situation to provide me with credible information about the real situation.

[Turborama]

70. Due to going offline and chucking out the TV, I've been out of the news loop for quite a while...

...and need to catch up with what's been going on with this band of maniacs before I know which way to vote.

Having said that, as an expat living In Indonesia I am concerned that they could very well become an imminent threat here...

[99Forever]

73. I didn't buy this song and. dance when the neocons pushed it...

.... and I don't buy it when the neolibs do it either.

[kentuck]

74. Any opinion I might have would be clouded...

...by my belief that the MIC would do just about anything to get back into Iraq... or anywhere. They have withdrawals when there is no active war going on.

[Nye Bevan]

78. OK, but I don't think Obama is dumb, naive or deluded enough

to go along with something just because that's what the MIC wants.

[kentuck]

90. I have my doubts that any President...

..can withstand the arm-twisting and criticism from the corporate media for very long, including President Obama. Eventually they will persuade him.

[Nye Bevan]

77. I actually think that Obama is smart, deliberate,

and goes out of his way to find out from the experts what is really going on. And moreover, he is not jonesing for an excuse to invade countries or bomb the living daylights out of them. Unlike certain ex-presidents I could mention. So yes, when he says that, I believe him.

[Jackpine Radical]

79. I don't think I'm in a position to have a reasonable opinion.

[arcane1]

81. This is a topic where the government has zero credibility.

Besides, with our obscene "defense" budget, how much of a threat can these losers be?

[NCTraveler]

82. No one has given me reason to believe so. nt.

[woo me with science]

83. Unmitigated bullshit. And part of a pattern.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

84. Erect Bogeyman, wave flag, declare we need protection, give more money to the MIC.

[dilby]

88. Till they build a Navy I am sure we are fine. n/t

[flamingdem]

93. Without defining "imminent threat" it's impossible to answer

because that could mean anything on a very broad scale.

I think your point is that the threat is being exaggerated to drag us into war. I don't agree with that and think the last thing the Obama administration wants is to be back in Iraq with boots on the ground.

The beheading of James Foley has to be answered with action or a promise of action because Isis is otherwise going to keep doing what it's doing.

Clearly the US wants other countries to step up, that the reason for the rhetoric.

[ProfessorGAC]

94. Voted Yes, But(!)

I clicked the wrong button. I would have voted yes had the word "imminent" not been there.

I think any group with an agenda on the lunatic fringe is a threat. But, imminent seems hyperbolic.

[Harmony Blue]

97. Yes

They have their hands on U.S. military hardware.

[KamaAina]

101. I still can't find where they said "imminent threat"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014876595#post4

[egduj]

102. I don't believe he is lying about this.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

105. They've cried "wolf" too often

I remember when there were supposedly terrorist based in Britain who were going to blow up planes over the Atlantic by combining liquids in their carry-ons.

Turned out that they had just discussed it, and that none of them even had passports (which are required to board an international flight--no passport, no boarding).

Yet for several days, people were allowed to carry NOTHING on board except their boarding pass. Not their wallets, not their keys, not their computers.

Fortunately, British security officials backed down after people raised hell about having their wallets, keys, computers, and other essentials stolen out of their checked baggage.

But still, seven years after a plot that never got past the idle discussion stage, we're still putting our 3-oz. travel sized shampoo in plastic baggies.

Even if terrorists do attack U.S. and European targets, the chances of being caught up in such an incident are minuscule. I've been in two car accidents and narrowly missed being killed by a falling utility pole. There are many ways to die prematurely, and terrorism is actually one of the least likely.

[JEB]

106. A really vague question.

Imminent threat to what? Peace and tranquility on the oil fields of Iraq? The profits of multinational corporations? Actually they may be a boon to our voracious arms industry.

[JEB]

107. If they are such a threat,

why did we support them logistically and with arms when they threatened Syria? I think we need to butt our and let the ME people get their own house in order. We could use a bit of house cleaning ourselves.

[abelenkpe]

108. Imminent threat to US interests in Iraq

But average citizens in the US? Nope.

[J_J_]

112. +1000000

I find it insulting they think we are idiots like Republicans.

[NaturalHigh]

113. Unfortunately, yes.

[eridani]

127. Threat? Yes. Imminent? No.

Jeebus H fecking Keerist! We may be fighting them in Iraq, but we are supporting them in Syria.

[Jappleseed]

133. Going to vote no.

Since it is all just wack a mole.

Government gets outraged at something or somebody all the time then goes out of it's way to create more. ISIS has been the governments goal for the last 30 years that I know of. It is all part of destabilization of oil, that way they can at least maintain some control over it.

In my view you have to look for the pattern.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

138. To the US, I don't know. To people in the Middle East, yes, obviously. N.T.

[WinkyDink]

149. Yes, I do. Does anyone think they are not in it for the long-haul? That they WON'T behead the other

journalist?

[HereSince1628]

150. I think ISIS bears watching.

They have achieved status as an important violent player in the fertile crescent through force.

The open question is where will they turn their violent interest? We can only know that by surveillance on them.

[orpupilofnature57]

151. Yes,, as is any roving gang be backed by who knows who .

[DonCoquixote]

152. neither

Yes, they are exactly what we want to diuscourage, but they are not as likely to hit us directly as A qaida, for the simple fact that they are under attack from others, including syria and Iran, that have every reason to fear them as much as we do. They gained oxygen by our being in Iraq, which is why they are trying to drag us back.

[Kalidurga]

155. Not to the US mainland

To the middle east definitely. I don't think we should filter a threat by nationality though. If they are a threat to anyone anywhere we should be concerned. I don't know what we should do about it though. I am against an all out war that will probably do more harm than good. But, clearly something needs to be done.