Gen. Martin Dempsey, speaking to reporters on board a military plane traveling to Afghanistan, said Sunday that he believes the Sunni insurgent group formerly known as ISIS is not currently plotting or planning attacks against the U.S. or Europe.But there also is this:
Intelligence officials have picked up radio talk and chatter indicating that the terrorist groups are going to “carry out an attack on the border,” according to one JW source. “It’s coming very soon,” according to this high-level source, who clearly identified the groups planning the plots as “ISIS and Al Qaeda.” An attack is so imminent that the commanding general at Ft. Bliss, the U.S. Army post in El Paso, is being briefed, another source confirms. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not respond to multiple inquiries from Judicial Watch, both telephonic and in writing, about this information.The radio chatter about an attack suggests that it may be somewhere near El Paso.
Islamic terrorist groups are operating in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez and planning to attack the United States with car bombs or other vehicle born improvised explosive devices (VBIED). High-level federal law enforcement, intelligence and other sources have confirmed to Judicial Watch that a warning bulletin for an imminent terrorist attack on the border has been issued. Agents across a number of Homeland Security, Justice and Defense agencies have all been placed on alert and instructed to aggressively work all possible leads and sources concerning this imminent terrorist threat.But General Dempsey says:
Dempsey said that so far, there is no sign that the Islamic State militants are engaged in "active plotting against the homeland, so it's different than that which we see in Yemen."On the other hand....
Specifically, Judicial Watch sources reveal that the militant group Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) is confirmed to now be operating in Juarez, a famously crime-infested narcotics hotbed situated across from El Paso, Texas. Violent crimes are so rampant in Juarez that the U.S. State Department has issued a number of travel warnings for anyone planning to go there. The last one was issued just a few days ago.Is it confusing, or are Americans being told something less that the truth by the administration, through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? That's impossible to answer accurately because we have unknown unknowns.
Links to the articles from which the quotes above were taken here and here.
Who do you believe?
26 comments:
Creating confusion means when there is an attack no one and everyone is to blame.
(Ie., not Obama. Because that's what's important, don't you know.)
Also, he does have a strategy. He just can't cop to it.
He doesn't need a strategy to raise the thread level.
Cameron raised it and began to talk about the threat, Obama is continuing to ignore.
The Jayvee could never hurt us.
Since the attack will speed up the fundamental transformation of America it's all good with the Big O.
He supports Iran, so anything that he can do or not do to cause the US to be defeated works for him.
The ISIS flag will be flying over the White House post haste. Not just inside it.
Yeah, but making it express might actually upset some members of the Obama Fan Club. Maybe.
Maybe not.
I can't imagine that anyone who voted for him or still supports him would be displeased with having ISIS take over here. They are all on the same side - death to America, death to Israel.
Anybody notice that our beloved President sounded hoarse yesterday?
I suspect he's under extreme pressure to act and in true Obama fashion is afraid to make a decision.
So he's smoking like a chimney.
Marlboro Reds, of course.
Panama Red.
He'll never get out of the boat.
Well, at least the newlyweds, Angie and Brad, will be safe at their country estate in Provence. I don't think brie on a baguette is better than swiss on rye, but that's me.
Attack or no attack? Who or what do you believe?
The anniversary of 9/11 is less than two weeks away. Celebratory attack in America?
The answer is (c), neither.
There either is or is not going to be an terrorist attack by people coming across our southern border. Both scenarios have been forecast by the government. It does not matter to "our" government which forecast is correct. The first priority of "our" government is covering its enormous ass. Of secondary importance is (1) protecting us, (2) telling us the truth.
I am planning on staying home on that Thursday, but will be okay if nothing happens.
If the earth opens up and swallows Harry Reid and Pelosi Galore, who am I to squawk?
I believe Judicial Watch. I'm not so sure about their unnamed sources or JW's interpretation of what they were told.
Including the lines about drug crime in Juarez and travel warnings connected to that weakens their statement as it adds an unnecessary and unrelated point of alarmism.
The Dempsey quote is five days old, so they could both be right.
Drudge, Power Line and Legal Insurrection have all picked up the Judicial Watch story. Fox will probably have on their broadcast tonight.
If it's correct and if there is an attack, then the administration will be complicit in any deaths that result because they withheld the information.
I wonder if the radio talk and chatter are just to scare us. Why would there be radio talk and chatter if they were trying to do act covertly?
For all we know the CIA could be providing false intel to help or hurt the administration.
I predict there will not be a big terrorist event on 9/11 because they know we'll bomb the hell out of them in the ME.
You know there is going to be a major terrorist attack in the USA or against USA interests on 9/11.
The only way to stop it is to shut down Youtube. I think that is the plan.
This sounds pretty speculative. I'm still starting to lose respect for (not quite yet "detest") Obama as time goes on but my hunch is the domestic threat assessments are being handled more or less competently. If they're not, despite all the wiretapping, then that's a real FUBAR.
I also have a feeling ISIS is more interesting in proving they can take and hold land than just blow up targets abroad. I think they want to freak out people abroad, and might apparently have a bigger hard-on for the Limeys, but have an idea they feel that would work against them. They've obviously been much better at openly inspiring and recruiting and that makes, er, difficulties when it comes to blowing stuff up in the Western front. I figure they'd rather prove that they can capture and behead the prey that fall into their trap, instead. It's more gov-ern-ment-like.
Although, I've got to hand it to you guys for picking up on the south-of-the-border threat. I thought the administration was deporting more than ever, but the way some of these south-of-the-border types are gives me the creeps (no offense, Lem). Lately I've been seeing a lot of anti-Israel stuff from more Floridians, and then you've got the Penelope Cruz/Javier Bardem crap. Legacies of the Moors and Inquisition? Who knows. A Jewish community of 200 was just expelled from Guatemala today. I heard ISIS doesn't give a crap about Hamas and nitpicks over the approach to its goals, but I'm sure all the hatred blends in among certain recruitment-rich populations.
They are all on the same side - death to America, death to Israel.
What's scary is wondering if Obama isn't impressed until the threats get a little more personal than that.
If the best they can manage is a car bomb at the Mexican border crossing, it is safe to say they aren't a threat to the United States.
Welcome to the dark side, R & B.
;)
ricpic said...
Well, at least the newlyweds, Angie and Brad, will be safe at their country estate in Provence. I don't think brie on a baguette is better than swiss on rye, but that's me.
Brie on a baguette in Provence is pretty sweet. I'll have a small aperitif with that.
Post a Comment