Iraq

Despite Hysteria, ISIL Doesn't Pose Specific Threat to U.S.

They've got their hands full with more localized problem.

|

The United States is not aware of any specific threat to the U.S. homeland from Islamic State militants, the Department of Homeland Security said on Friday after Britain raised its international terrorism threat level.

Islamic State militants and their supporters, however, "have demonstrated the intent and capability to target American citizens overseas," Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said in a statement. He noted that DHS took steps over the summer to strengthen security at overseas airports with direct flights to the United States.

NEXT: David Harsanyi Reacts to the Left's Reaction to Burger King

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What hysteria? They may not pose a “specific threat”, but it’s surely not “hysteria” to recognize the fact that they’re damn sure a threat to anyone they don’t particularity like, including the US.

  2. Ok, so the DHS says ISIS is no border threat.

    But then comes this.

    http://goo.gl/3Nozid

    Whom to believe ?

    Our government is out of control. It has now grown so large that different agencies are contradicting each other. In the case of TOR we have one agency of government attacking an entity that is funded by other government agencies.

    1. And this

      http://goo.gl/dUQNEN

      it’s getting crazy.

      Maybe we should limit some more civil liberties to solve the problem ?

    2. Oh, hell, I think it’s a good thing that various agencies disagree with each-other. Think what it would mean if they all agreed.

  3. On the other hand, ISIL is a bunch of violent vermin, who should get stepped on as a matter of principle; ie. we don’t want to share a planet with the fuckers.

  4. All you heroes can ship right over there and play the hero part. On your dime.

    1. I would rather wait until they hit us first, and THEN we can get involved officially.

      That’s how we entered WW2, you know. Pearl Harbor was a small price to pay.

      1. So, we should wait till the the homeland is attacked first and a bunch of Americans killed to get involved militarily? How are the deaths of all those military and civilians at Pearl Harbor a “small price to pay?” To whom? Maybe to you, but what about their families, friends and fellow citizens?

        Why not just preemptively kill a real threat to us?

      2. As long as they don’t “hit us first” in your back yard, right?

    2. Don’t worry, you little pussy; someone better than you will step up and make sure you’re safe in your little cubicle. Odds are you don’t actually pay any federal taxes, so don’t worry your little head about who pays for it.

  5. my roomate’s mother-in-law makes $89 an hour on the internet . She has been without a job for seven months but last month her income was $21691 just working on the internet for a few hours. visit the site……….
    ???????? http://www.netjob70.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.