It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ISIS Attack in Texas? Watchdog Warns About Activity Near El Paso, Texas Border

page: 2
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Well I hear ISIS kills their enemies with fire from their nostrils and thunderbolts out their ass. There are also rumors that if you look at one directly you may turn to stone. I'd be careful if I lived in Texas and thereabouts.
edit on 5-9-2014 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   
So my curiosity can't help it. Is it the instant gratification and bad budgeting society that creates the drug issue or the drugs themselves?

I also don't know if IS was like super "secret" until they made themselves visible. I stopped watching the news long ago. I'm really tired of seeing dead people all over the place like they don't mean anything.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   
That's what is called desensitizing...a reply to: Iamthatbish



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 08:53 PM
link   
ISIS attacking Texas is in my humble English opinion like Al - Queda attacking Glasgow in Scotland.

Unlucky.

en.wikipedia.org...

One guy kicked a burning terrorist so hard in the balls, he broke his own leg.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 09:00 PM
link   
ISIS thinks its going to mess with Texans. Apparently they aren't aware of just how insanely stupid that is.

They can go ahead and kick that hornet nest. Good luck to them.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Who is able to speak on the credibility of Judicialwatch.org as an official source? I've never heard of them until now.
edit on 5-9-2014 by lostbook because: punctuation fix



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Domo1
Am I the only one that feels like one day IS just popped up out of nowhere and suddenly it had been known about for a long time? I feel like someone is messing with me.


It's called social engineering and apparently you're just gonna have to get used to it. I've been following this like a hawk for well over 11 years and it is LOL funny the Next Level bull# with these so called "experts".

If (anyone) you really believe ISIS isn't just a rebranding of the CIA manufactured Al Qaeda than I got one of Saddam's nuclear weapons to sell you.
edit on 5-9-2014 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
The cartels do not want to take the US down, we are their biggest customer when it comes to drugs they manufacture and sell.
We are their safe haven from any country touching them and trying to take them over, as we would never allow anyone to occupy mexico land other then who is already there.
Cartels are not helping ISIS IMO, to much money to be lost there and that is what they are all about, money.


I wouldn't be so sure seeing how like 80% of their revenue comes from the CIA and various money seeking opportunists. Coincidently enough, the same NLBS'ers are the ones responsible for what is today known as Al Qaeda, or rather ISIS.

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, well you ain't gonna fool me again see.


Been there, bought the shirt, wore it out....I know how this story ends.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Rosinitiate

The IS is the same Al-Qaeda in Iraq that was founded by Abu Musab Al Zarqawi - that big arab dude with the beard that was in all the newspapers during the insurgency in Iraq known for his brutality. They've changed their name a few times, broke off from al-qaeda, had some "leadership changes" (due to our assassinations), but they are essentially the same group formed in '99. It's only "new" now because the media ignored them after we pulled out of Iraq, but they were fighting the Iraqi establishment well before we left. Many events happen around the world that don't get reported by the western media - it does not mean those events never happened.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Syyth007
a reply to: Rosinitiate

The IS is the same Al-Qaeda in Iraq that was founded by Abu Musab Al Zarqawi - that big arab dude with the beard that was in all the newspapers during the insurgency in Iraq known for his brutality. They've changed their name a few times, broke off from al-qaeda, had some "leadership changes" (due to our assassinations), but they are essentially the same group formed in '99. It's only "new" now because the media ignored them after we pulled out of Iraq, but they were fighting the Iraqi establishment well before we left. Many events happen around the world that don't get reported by the western media - it does not mean those events never happened.


Blah, blah, blah, I'm just waiting for the next, next Pearl Harbor. Wake me up when it's here yeah?



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Rosinitiate

Keep living in fear - you are much more likely to be killed by your fellow citizen (actually, your own relatives and friends) then an extremist group in Iraq. People kill each other everyday for the most mundane of reasons.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Iamthatbish




I also don't know if IS was like super "secret" until they made themselves visible.


From the brief amount I've read today they are essentially a splinter group of al qaida. So they were al qaida, then got even more radicalized and kind of went off to do their own thing.

That sound right to people?



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 09:59 PM
link   
I think it's BS.
I don't think that cartels would want that kind of heat. They know that the US would invade and level Mexico, so I don't believe they would want to bring that on themselves. This is just fluff. Now, if I'm wrong and cartels ARE working with terrorists, then I guess Mexico will get invaded by US troops and there will be nothing left of any of them and they won't be coming to America working anymore.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Syyth007
a reply to: Rosinitiate

Keep living in fear - you are much more likely to be killed by your fellow citizen (actually, your own relatives and friends) then an extremist group in Iraq. People kill each other everyday for the most mundane of reasons.


Haha that is also LOL funny. I don't live in fear, I live in awareness. I don't fear ISIS, nor death really. Its a release not a punishment.


I'd prefer to live for various reasons, none of which are germane to this topic. As it turns out, I'd have a better chance of being killed by my government than ISIS. In fact, I'd have a better chance getting killed walking my doggie. It's not about fear, I know what they're capable of obviously, I just find sorrow expressed through cynicism due to what I see as obvious and others (majority) see as lunacy. So be it. Eat your cake.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Domo1
Am I the only one that feels like one day IS just popped up out of nowhere and suddenly it had been known about for a long time? ... The whole thing feels like it went 0-60 way too freaking fast for my comfort.


This was the feeling I've had as well. I think that perhaps it could be understandable for one reason: the US presence in Iraq. It is plausible that they did not wish to launch their operations while US troops were present, as then the US could easily stay and fight against them, whereas if they allowed the US to leave before launching their offensive, it is much less likely that the US will recommit resources to Iraq. So there is less chance for opposition if they wait until the US leaves.

Therefore they could have been building up their funding and resources secretly, attempting to fly under the radar of US intelligence, basically just waiting for the best moment to strike. This is not a really advanced strategy by any means, and I am quite convinced that such a thought could have entered into the head of the ISIS military leadership. So I don't think they really wanted to face US forces at that time, but rather would like to spread as far as possible as quickly as possible, recruiting more fighters along the way. It is much easier to replenish your fighters when you have started making gains, as more people are likely to join because of that success. If they had launched their offensive while the US was still present, the US military would have had an easier time stopping that offensive at the outset, which would have translated into fewer gains and fewer new recruits. They would much rather face the Iraqi military as opposed to the US military, as the Iraqi military has fewer resources.

What seems a bit more implausible to me is how they could equip and finance themselves right under the nose of the ever-watchful military intelligence apparatus of the United States, and how the US didn't find out and attempt to destroy them before the threat level increased. I think a plausible explanation is that ISIS kept their presence and resources out of Iraq, or in isolated parts of the country that were not heavily monitored by the US. They could have been in Syria for instance, out of the reach of US troops. Meaning they entered Iraq after the US military withdrew their forces. And ISIS would have been correct in doing it this way, because they have proven capable of defeating Iraqi military forces on a number of occasions.

To me the biggest question is just where they are getting all this money. Such funding would have to come from multiple sources, and there are a limited number of people or organizations who could contribute so much money. And ISIS seems to have had money before raiding banks and acquiring the spoils of war, so to speak. The biggest haul that I have read about came from a bank in a conquered city, although I do not recall which city that was, and if my currency conversion is correct then they netted about $300,000 dollars, which is nothing at all considering they were well-financed before this point.

As far as an ISIS presence in Mexico it is possible, although it seems highly improbable to me. I do not understand why the cartels themselves would tolerate an ISIS presence, and the only answer could be that they are being well paid. But it still would seem like a bad trade-off for the cartels, as ISIS is simply bad for business. And the cartels make plenty of money, and likely have billions themselves. It is a huge risk for their overall drug operations because ISIS will definitely bring the heat of US intelligence and the US military. The cartel leaders, the ones making the decisions, have to know that the US might blacklist and come after them personally, rather than attempt to defeat the cartels outright, as this is a much more achievable objective. So they could personally be placing themselves in danger. It doesn't make sense to me, but perhaps these leaders do not really care.

Or perhaps they do not know of the ISIS presence themselves. And maybe they did not strike some sort of deal with ISIS at all. Would they attempt to drive out ISIS if they discovered them, or would they not bother them at all? These are important questions in my opinion, and the cartels must play a pivotal role in this discussion precisely because they are similar to a government themselves in that they control vast resources and can make decisions that have a large impact on their particular regions, and the entire country of Mexico as a whole.

It would be smart of ISIS to enter the US through Mexico if their intention is to enter the US. What does not make much sense to me is why they would be expending manpower and resources on such a plan. They seem to be much more goal-oriented than any previous terrorist group, and they are bent on creating an actual state. It is precisely because of this objective that it makes more sense for them to use all the resources at their disposal close to home, to first establish and/or secure that state before branching out into larger operations involving more nations. Militarily it makes no sense whatsoever to essentially waste resources by attempting to launch small offensives in all these different regions, as opposed to concentrating forces on a single, or a few, different objectives. They wouldn't want to put all their fighters in one place, as that means it is easier to destroy them with airstrikes, but spreading them out too much causes these independent units to lose their effectiveness in my opinion.

Force allocation, or in military terms what is called economy of force, involves making decisions that could cause the overall operation succeed or to fail. You want to use the minimum amount of resources necessary to achieve the objective. You waste resources if you commit too many to a single area or goal when fewer of those resources would have sufficed, and you waste resources by committing too few of them to an objective or area when you needed more to achieve success. It is a balance, and is one of the intangibles of military strategy. It is for reasons such as this that military strategy is an art moreso than a science, and I highly doubt ISIS has military decision makers who are experienced or knowledgeable enough to perform their strategic duties appropriately, which is good news for everyone who is not ISIS.

This basically means that if US reports are accurate, and ISIS really is in Mexico, launching small terrorist attacks against the US, while it will terrify US citizens to a certain degree, will not do anything to alter the bigger picture. It will not help them strategically, and in fact is likely to harm them in the long run. You can have a successful military operation, meaning you achieve your objectives, but that can turn out to be a negative thing. If their objective was simply to terrorize, sort of like what we've seen with other terrorist groups who never really approached achieving long-term military successes, then such small attacks in the US would probably suffice for them. But considering what ISIS' stated goals are, such attacks in the US will not help them achieve those goals one bit. And to elaborate on what I said about a successful operation hurting you overall, take 9/11 for instance. Al-Qaeda was successful in their operation, but it ultimately caused their destruction.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: ATF1886




so I'm sure there looking for a means to replace the missing money


And they have found it. They were already doing it, they have just "upped" the amount of "product". It's called human trafficking.
The last thing the cartels want is to join up with IS...it simply isn't going to happen. Though, it does make for a good scapegoat.
They aren't going to kill their own cash cow....they are greedy criminals, ruled by a love for wealth/power/fame. The last thing they want in their way is a bunch of radicals ruled by religious ideology.

Now....smuggling in members of IS (while not knowing they are IS members) is a different story. Sleeper cells, imo, are very real and quite within reason, dirty government agency hands be damned. (Many of these "sleeper cells" are NOT IS affiliated, btw...and not government agency sponsored either)



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 11:42 PM
link   
All day long in the news it's isis this and isis that. Yes it could be possible that isis may whant to work with cartels and hook them up with some weapons to fight the American devils. I seriously doubt that's happening. Why in the world would the drug cartels want to help isis on their march to burn America to the ground when we are their cash cow. They love are need for dope. Americans pay their way to have lavish parties and woman and all the tequila they can drink. If America burns then the cartels have nothing. I don't see them helping isis at all,if some isis get over the border then they did it on their own or our great government gave them a helping hand.



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Warning TO ISIS...
You may be able to get one car blowed up before;
Texans find out.
I wouldn't mess with Texas.
23 million people.
100+ million Rifles, Shotguns, Assault Rifles, Sub Machine
Guns, Grenades, RPG's, Bazooka',s Helicopters, Land Mines,
Recon drones and Tanks...and that's just the civilians .
Oh and El Paso ?
Umm...citizens + FortBliss.

edit on 6-9-2014 by UnderKingsPeak because: One word

edit on 6-9-2014 by UnderKingsPeak because: Ok removed one word



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 02:30 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

I heard them discussing this exact thing on Coast to Coast the other night...They were discussing the ISIS bunch targeting oil fields, etc. in S Texas.

Don't really know how reliable their info is either, honestly. Who knows what is the truth and what isn't anymore.





posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 10:40 AM
link   
While some in IS may think it an easy way into the US from Mexico,I really doubt they are"working with the cartels."
Maybe they have some financial arragement with a coyote or two to smuggle people into the US,but they share no ideological similarities other than they are both barbaric to the core,and have no regard for human life if they are in the way of their goals.

IS are certainly being used to ramp up the attack rhetoric though-in the UK and mainland Europe as well as in the US.
I think the reason for this is to shift public opinion so that when we put boots on the ground,not quite as many people will protest.
I say this because we are already getting sucked into airstrikes,and as any military strategist will tell you,no enemy can be vanquished by air power alone-it always comes down to boots on the ground.

That is what all the IS hype in the media is about IMO-preparing the public.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join