|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 31, 2014 8:42:01 GMT -5
In the event the US suffered a major terrorist attack from a Mexico based group, I believe the US border would be completely militarized in short order. And I don't think Obama would have a lot if choice in the matter. It would either be regular US Army, and a VERY beefed up Border Patrol, or other states would follow Texas' lead and put the National Guard there... Because if neither of those things happen, private militias will significantly increase their presence, and we're liable to end up with modern day lynchings. Either way that goes will mean a militarized border.
NONE of these scenarios is good for either Mexico or the cartels. The cartels might be as evil and lawless as the Islamists, but they're not known for being either crazy or stupid.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 31, 2014 8:47:09 GMT -5
Not entirely true. While they don't want to associate with non Muslims, they will to accomplish a particular mission. Just as Iran will work with secular states for a particular purpose. And with this regime, there is no telling what would happen if it were proven to have come from Mexico. We might cross the border, but it's just as likely that The Puppet would decide that "diplomacy" is needed, and that the Mexicans should handle it. A lot depends on the type, and severity of the attack. I agree that O's response would be incredibly weak. I just think the cartel's business interests are undermined by an alliance with ISIS. The cartels are pretty much apolitical. They are after money, and not much else matters to them. Allying with a terrorist group, for appropriate remuneration, would be a good fit, at least in the short term. Some of the cartels are led by savvy, intelligent criminals, and might realize that the long term implications of such an alliance would harm their 'business', perhaps irreparably, but they might not want to pass up the money. Especially if they think allying will give them power long term.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 31, 2014 8:49:30 GMT -5
I agree that O's response would be incredibly weak. I just think the cartel's business interests are undermined by an alliance with ISIS. The cartels are pretty much apolitical. They are after money, and not much else matters to them. Allying with a terrorist group, for appropriate remuneration, would be a good fit, at least in the short term. Some of the cartels are led by savvy, intelligent criminals, and might realize that the long term implications of such an alliance would harm their 'business', perhaps irreparably, but they might not want to pass up the money. Especially if they think allying will give them power long term. Possible, but the long-term downside is likely to end with extermination rather than power and money. And I suspect the cartels understand that.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 31, 2014 8:49:41 GMT -5
In the event the US suffered a major terrorist attack from a Mexico based group, I believe the US border would be completely militarized in short order. And I don't think Obama would have a lot if choice in the matter. It would either be regular US Army, and a VERY beefed up Border Patrol, or other states would follow Texas' lead and put the National Guard there... Because if neither of those things happen, private militias will significantly increase their presence, and we're liable to end up with modern day lynchings. Either way that goes will mean a militarized border. NONE of these scenarios is good for either Mexico or the cartels. The cartels might be as evil and lawless as the Islamists, but they're not known for being either crazy or stupid. Just speculation, but remember that even intelligent individuals make mistakes. I can contemplate a scenario where the cartels assist the terrorists for a really big payoff, thinking that, maybe, we will 'militarize' the border, but only in certain areas, and would leave other areas even more exposed.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 31, 2014 8:51:14 GMT -5
The cartels are pretty much apolitical. They are after money, and not much else matters to them. Allying with a terrorist group, for appropriate remuneration, would be a good fit, at least in the short term. Some of the cartels are led by savvy, intelligent criminals, and might realize that the long term implications of such an alliance would harm their 'business', perhaps irreparably, but they might not want to pass up the money. Especially if they think allying will give them power long term. Possible, but the long-term downside is likely to end with extermination rather than power and money. And I suspect the cartels understand that. But, they think they can corrupt American law enforcement, and maybe even the military, just as they have the Mexican. Possibly. They have gotten away with it for so long in Mexico, with a combination of rewards and punishment, it's possible that they think they can do it here as well. Who knows?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 31, 2014 8:54:28 GMT -5
In the event the US suffered a major terrorist attack from a Mexico based group, I believe the US border would be completely militarized in short order. And I don't think Obama would have a lot if choice in the matter. It would either be regular US Army, and a VERY beefed up Border Patrol, or other states would follow Texas' lead and put the National Guard there... Because if neither of those things happen, private militias will significantly increase their presence, and we're liable to end up with modern day lynchings. Either way that goes will mean a militarized border. NONE of these scenarios is good for either Mexico or the cartels. The cartels might be as evil and lawless as the Islamists, but they're not known for being either crazy or stupid. Just speculation, but remember that even intelligent individuals make mistakes. I can contemplate a scenario where the cartels assist the terrorists for a really big payoff, thinking that, maybe, we will 'militarize' the border, but only in certain areas, and would leave other areas even more exposed. Well then, we're possibly in for a couple years of really nasty cross border fighting, with either the active participation of the Mexican government, or a full-scale US invasion and a toppling of the Mexican government. The thing is, the Mexicans aren't the Taliban running Afganistan after 9/11. They have nothing to gain, and everything to lose. And no 72 virgins waiting for them if they martyr themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 31, 2014 8:56:46 GMT -5
Possible, but the long-term downside is likely to end with extermination rather than power and money. And I suspect the cartels understand that. But, they think they can corrupt American law enforcement, and maybe even the military, just as they have the Mexican. Possibly. They have gotten away with it for so long in Mexico, with a combination of rewards and punishment, it's possible that they think they can do it here as well. Who knows? They probably can in Democrat run areas. I just don't see it happening on a large scale though. We're not England yet, where the local authorities won't protect young girls from Islamic exploitation for fear of being labeled racist b
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 31, 2014 21:52:34 GMT -5
Just speculation, but remember that even intelligent individuals make mistakes. I can contemplate a scenario where the cartels assist the terrorists for a really big payoff, thinking that, maybe, we will 'militarize' the border, but only in certain areas, and would leave other areas even more exposed. Well then, we're possibly in for a couple years of really nasty cross border fighting, with either the active participation of the Mexican government, or a full-scale US invasion and a toppling of the Mexican government. The thing is, the Mexicans aren't the Taliban running Afganistan after 9/11. They have nothing to gain, and everything to lose. And no 72 virgins waiting for them if they martyr themselves. I don't expect the cartels to do the actual dirty work themselves, but to provide access. They can use coyotes to lead the terrorists across at places they know won't be guarded, perhaps supply explosives, or info about where to get what they need, depending on what they plan. It would be very hard to conclusively prove that any cartel had anything to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 31, 2014 21:54:40 GMT -5
But, they think they can corrupt American law enforcement, and maybe even the military, just as they have the Mexican. Possibly. They have gotten away with it for so long in Mexico, with a combination of rewards and punishment, it's possible that they think they can do it here as well. Who knows? They probably can in Democrat run areas. I just don't see it happening on a large scale though. We're not England yet, where the local authorities won't protect young girls from Islamic exploitation for fear of being labeled racist b You have to consider impact. How large a city would it take for an attack to create exactly the sort of confusion and terror they want? They would only have to corrupt a few cops, or politicians, who wouldn't know what was about to happen, but would be happy to take a "donation" of large, untraceable cash.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Sept 1, 2014 4:09:42 GMT -5
But, they think they can corrupt American law enforcement, and maybe even the military, just as they have the Mexican. Possibly. They have gotten away with it for so long in Mexico, with a combination of rewards and punishment, it's possible that they think they can do it here as well. Who knows? They probably can in Democrat run areas. I just don't see it happening on a large scale though. We're not England yet, where the local authorities won't protect young girls from Islamic exploitation for fear of being labeled racist b I don't think there is a difference between Democrats or Republicans or Libertarians or any other party in this regard. Neither greed nor lack of honor stops at any particular party line border or political philosophy edge. And large scale" isn't necessarily dependent on how big might be the access "break". One or two people with ebola or similar illness loose in San Diego for three days could do an enormous amount of damage. One cart with a "dirty bomb" in Houston could be psychologically devastating. And while the Administration would rant and rave, if ISIS were to claim credit quickly, we might see a militarization of the border within 48 hours, I doubt we would see anything in Mexico and just logistically, it wold be several days before we could go after even the tunnels, never mind cartel leaders somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Sept 1, 2014 4:10:44 GMT -5
They probably can in Democrat run areas. I just don't see it happening on a large scale though. We're not England yet, where the local authorities won't protect young girls from Islamic exploitation for fear of being labeled racist b You have to consider impact. How large a city would it take for an attack to create exactly the sort of confusion and terror they want? They would only have to corrupt a few cops, or politicians, who wouldn't know what was about to happen, but would be happy to take a "donation" of large, untraceable cash. As I say in response to RJ, redleg, they don't need to corrupt anyone.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Sept 1, 2014 7:10:52 GMT -5
They probably can in Democrat run areas. I just don't see it happening on a large scale though. We're not England yet, where the local authorities won't protect young girls from Islamic exploitation for fear of being labeled racist b I don't think there is a difference between Democrats or Republicans or Libertarians or any other party in this regard. Neither greed nor lack of honor stops at any particular party line border or political philosophy edge. And large scale" isn't necessarily dependent on how big might be the access "break". One or two people with ebola or similar illness loose in San Diego for three days could do an enormous amount of damage. One cart with a "dirty bomb" in Houston could be psychologically devastating. And while the Administration would rant and rave, if ISIS were to claim credit quickly, we might see a militarization of the border within 48 hours, I doubt we would see anything in Mexico and just logistically, it wold be several days before we could go after even the tunnels, never mind cartel leaders somewhere else. Honestly, the GOP, while not perfect, is MUCH less corrupt than the Democrats. All one needs to do to see this is to look at the malicious prosecution of Governors Perry and Walker.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Sept 1, 2014 7:12:16 GMT -5
They probably can in Democrat run areas. I just don't see it happening on a large scale though. We're not England yet, where the local authorities won't protect young girls from Islamic exploitation for fear of being labeled racist b You have to consider impact. How large a city would it take for an attack to create exactly the sort of confusion and terror they want? They would only have to corrupt a few cops, or politicians, who wouldn't know what was about to happen, but would be happy to take a "donation" of large, untraceable cash. Perhaps, but I still consider this unlikely in most parts of the country. Some place like Detriot might be an exception, but then if you set off a large bomb in Detriot, would anyone be able to tell the difference?
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Sept 1, 2014 7:56:19 GMT -5
You have to consider impact. How large a city would it take for an attack to create exactly the sort of confusion and terror they want? They would only have to corrupt a few cops, or politicians, who wouldn't know what was about to happen, but would be happy to take a "donation" of large, untraceable cash. Perhaps, but I still consider this unlikely in most parts of the country. Some place like Detriot might be an exception, but then if you set off a large bomb in Detriot, would anyone be able to tell the difference? Probably not. The issue is how the regime and the LR media would handle it. Would they set a hysterical tone, and all we would hear, 24/ 7, would be the casualty rate, speculation on where would be struck next, and 'how did this happen', or would it be regime spin? Much of the effect would be dependent on how it was reported, not how effective it was.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Sept 1, 2014 8:15:17 GMT -5
Perhaps, but I still consider this unlikely in most parts of the country. Some place like Detriot might be an exception, but then if you set off a large bomb in Detriot, would anyone be able to tell the difference? Probably not. The issue is how the regime and the LR media would handle it. Would they set a hysterical tone, and all we would hear, 24/ 7, would be the casualty rate, speculation on where would be struck next, and 'how did this happen', or would it be regime spin? Much of the effect would be dependent on how it was reported, not how effective it was. Agreed. If there's anything we can count on, is that it would be covered in the most irresponsible was possible by the American media, and they would parrot Obana's spin. Even if that spin is obviously ludicrous.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Sept 1, 2014 8:33:03 GMT -5
Probably not. The issue is how the regime and the LR media would handle it. Would they set a hysterical tone, and all we would hear, 24/ 7, would be the casualty rate, speculation on where would be struck next, and 'how did this happen', or would it be regime spin? Much of the effect would be dependent on how it was reported, not how effective it was. Agreed. If there's anything we can count on, is that it would be covered in the most irresponsible was possible by the American media, and they would parrot Obana's spin. Even if that spin is obviously ludicrous. I'm afraid you are correct. Remember the anthrax scare, and we only lost 4 people. But the country was nearly shut down.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Sept 2, 2014 9:06:10 GMT -5
I sort of wonder if the biggest threat ISIS poses might be to non-radical Muslims. It's really a problem with their tactics. They go out of their way to hide in the crowd... among unradicalized Muslims. When their attacks start spreading beyond the Middle East (and right now, no one doubts they will), their actions are going to cause suspicion of all Muslims. They work very hard to obscure the line between themselves and all other Muslims - indeed claiming to represent the goals of all of Islam. And, unfortunately, mainstream Islam doesn't seem very willing to acknowledge the wolves that move amongst them, let alone work to expel and expose them.
Sooner or later, that's going to HAVE to start happening, or the assumption is going to become that ISIS is what they say they are: true Islam. If they're not 'true Islam' the rest of that religion is going to have to do a much better job of differentiating themselves. Otherwise the world is going to find itself where it was during WWII: assuming that German = Nazi.
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Sept 2, 2014 14:35:05 GMT -5
You have to consider impact. How large a city would it take for an attack to create exactly the sort of confusion and terror they want? They would only have to corrupt a few cops, or politicians, who wouldn't know what was about to happen, but would be happy to take a "donation" of large, untraceable cash. Perhaps, but I still consider this unlikely in most parts of the country. Some place like Detriot might be an exception, but then if you set off a large bomb in Detriot, would anyone be able to tell the difference? Yes, the improvement would be noticeable immediately.
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Sept 7, 2014 6:40:05 GMT -5
I sort of wonder if the biggest threat ISIS poses might be to non-radical Muslims. It's really a problem with their tactics. They go out of their way to hide in the crowd... among unradicalized Muslims. When their attacks start spreading beyond the Middle East (and right now, no one doubts they will), their actions are going to cause suspicion of all Muslims. They work very hard to obscure the line between themselves and all other Muslims - indeed claiming to represent the goals of all of Islam. And, unfortunately, mainstream Islam doesn't seem very willing to acknowledge the wolves that move amongst them, let alone work to expel and expose them. Sooner or later, that's going to HAVE to start happening, or the assumption is going to become that ISIS is what they say they are: true Islam. If they're not 'true Islam' the rest of that religion is going to have to do a much better job of differentiating themselves. Otherwise the world is going to find itself where it was during WWII: assuming that German = Nazi. So true So true
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Sept 15, 2014 10:52:03 GMT -5
I sort of wonder if the biggest threat ISIS poses might be to non-radical Muslims. It's really a problem with their tactics. They go out of their way to hide in the crowd... among unradicalized Muslims. When their attacks start spreading beyond the Middle East (and right now, no one doubts they will), their actions are going to cause suspicion of all Muslims. They work very hard to obscure the line between themselves and all other Muslims - indeed claiming to represent the goals of all of Islam. And, unfortunately, mainstream Islam doesn't seem very willing to acknowledge the wolves that move amongst them, let alone work to expel and expose them. Sooner or later, that's going to HAVE to start happening, or the assumption is going to become that ISIS is what they say they are: true Islam. If they're not 'true Islam' the rest of that religion is going to have to do a much better job of differentiating themselves. Otherwise the world is going to find itself where it was during WWII: assuming that German = Nazi. Well, the "moderate Muslims" are performing exactly the same function as the German people that saw NAZIism for what it was, but said nothing. "Silence means consent", in that, if no one is speaking out against it, then they must agree with the situation.
|
|