ISIS on Southern Border *UPDATE: NEW THREAT!*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ABNAK

I know there's the whole "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing but how freaking hypocritical of ISIS (not that we expect upstanding ethics and morals from them mind you). A radical fundamentalist Islamic terror group, who by doctrine eschews drugs, aligns themselves with drug-running cartels. Oh the irony......

---

Exactly what I was thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ABNAK

I know there's the whole "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing but how freaking hypocritical of ISIS (not that we expect upstanding ethics and morals from them mind you). A radical fundamentalist Islamic terror group, who by doctrine eschews drugs, aligns themselves with drug-running cartels. Oh the irony......

---

Meh. The IRA used to kill drug dealers every now and again to prove that they were the "good guys". That is until the Soviet Union collapsed and with it a good deal of the IRA's funding. Once that happened, the IRA started selling drugs to fund their activities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J-Dub

Well if Islamic terrorists are in bed with the Mexican Cartels, we'd be the first to know...since we are too.

Has everyone forgot operation "arm the Sinaloa Cartel"?????? Otherwise known as, we'll give you arms, let your dope across, if you give us intel on the gulf coast and zetas......

---

This! So much of this! Worst part is CIA was as much a part of it then as they are now!

If we could get our heads out of our collective asses we would napalm the drug fields in South America and air drop Salt across cartel run lands. Lest we forget, wipe FARC off the planet along with ISIS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fjallhrafn

Meh. The IRA used to kill drug dealers every now and again to prove that they were the "good guys". That is until the Soviet Union collapsed and with it a good deal of the IRA's funding. Once that happened, the IRA started selling drugs to fund their activities.

---

Yeah except nothing about the IRA necessarily rejected drugs. It is one of those tenets of strict Islamic interpretation though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TAZ

There is absolutely no irony there. Their religion forbids the CONSUMPTION of drugs not the use of drugs to fund the destruction of your enemy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

---

Sure there is, from a purely fundamentalist standpoint. Yeah, the Taliban use the opium trade to fund their activities but when they were in charge (before 9-11) opium cultivation was a bigtime no-no. The same can be said about ISIS. If they ever establish their farked-up little caliphate let's see if they allow drug dealing.

What do strict Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran do to drug dealers?

My point is, and I mentioned the possibility of it in a previous post, that while the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" line of thinking is no doubt in place that it is indeed ironic. Not unexpected, but certainly hypocritical.

I find it odd that the cartels would risk their business by dealing with these people. However, I've heard many times over the last 6-7 years, from people working gov and private sector down there about middle eastern persons attempting to cross. I always wondered if it was just normal illegal immigration or something more sinister.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markm

I don't know... I say we still keep our boarders wide open until something really bad like 9/11 happens. Then we can take action when it's too late and blame republicans. :rolleyes:

---

I stopped reading after the first sentence and actually choked on my French toast. I was about to be really pissed off. Glad I finished reading haha

So, I saw what Hagel had to say. Does anyone think that IS poses a legitimate threat? This is the United States. At this point, with all the uber-surveillance in the country, the gov would have to literally allow a large-scale event to occur.

Or am I wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scooter22

So, I saw what Hagel had to say. Does anyone think that IS poses a legitimate threat? This is the United States. At this point, with all the uber-surveillance in the country, the gov would have to literally allow a large-scale event to occur.

Or am I wrong?

---

It wouldn't be the first time.

There's still risk in crossing the border illegally, however lax it may be appearing to get. Except for a hyped up "prayer rug looking thing" and a few pages from an old Quran, I get the feeling this is more of that fear and panic journalism that seems to be so common these days.

How many of the 9/11 hijackers had to enter the country illegally? Their handlers and those who networked with them? It's a stupid risk no real organization is going to take. And a lot of Muslim and Middle Eastern folks are living in the US right now. I'm sure that makes some dudes really nervous, but we aren't exactly seeing a daily 9/11, not by a long shot.

At most you'll have stupid sympathizers or idealists who want to be part of something. They'll do some dumb shit, it'll be essentially irrelevant and come with a low death toll, but it will lend credibility to the absurd islamophobia keeping people indoors lately. I'd be more concerned with how the government's reaction will interfere with my daily life than anything else. Never invite the man into your life and all.

The good news is, I've invested heavily in plastic sheets and rolls of duct tape. I figure if we can keep ISIS in the news for another two weeks tops, I'll make a killing on the flip sale. Can't let the ISIS boys go spitting anthrax into our open windows from their winged lizard steeds, which I heard all Muslims have.