Surprised this hasn't been discussed more.

Huzzah!! Wish I could’ve been there.

I was in Dallas when that happened and didn’t hear about it until I got back to my parents house. I think those guys are idiots, and the public officials who send their men to protect the idiots should be removed from office. Thank god nobody got seriously hurt.

Well, those two terrorist guys were killed…

Anyway, this was at a Muhammad cartoon event whose purpose was to troll another, anti-Islamophobia event? This makes it an anti-anti-Islamophobia event? And the two gunmen were thus anti-anti-anti-Islamophobia?

They should have carved Mohammed on toilet seats, like these ladies.

I tihnk texas is one of the last places you want to go shooting around like some crazed terrorist. You could get away with it in France, because the french hold up the white flag to pretty much anything. But Texan’s…they’ll shoot ya’ll for stepping on their porch…let alone being a crazed muslim.

Yeah, ISIS didn’t think that through very well.

On a side note, since ISIS has taken responsibility and they declare themselves to be a sovereign state, does that mean congress can officially declare war on them? I realize we’re already effectively at war with them, but it’s pretty half-assed on our part.

On a second side note, what say now the folks who have been saying that ISIS is no threat to the US?

First off, these guys weren’t ISIS in that they had no real training or experience, they were just a couple nutjobs that quickly put up a facebook post claiming allegiance then rushed out the door to get shot by a single officer with a pistol.

Secondly, I don’t think this constitutes a threat to the US, and definitely doesn’t constitute a reason to spend billions on someone else’s war. It’s funny to hear people trash talk Bush then want to rush right into another idiotic conflict that isn’t ours. I don’t think anything about the ISIS threat gives me a reason to put any number of good US men and women into bodybags or send them away from their families.

Thirdly, what Iraq needs and what the Middle East needs is stability. Iraq is holding its own against ISIS and even taking minor steps. This process is strengthening the experience and backbone of its exceptionally weak military and allowing it to work alongside neighbors such as Iran and Jordan, also building some cohesion within the region. US involvement would only undermine this.

Lastly, ISIS has been largely funded in the past through Saudi Arabia (Sunni) as a Sunni organization destabilizing a newly Shia Iraq which neighbors Shia Iran, who is funding and openly supporting the Houthi (Shia) militants that are seeking control in Yeman (split), which neighbors SA. This is an old fashioned proxy conflict that will work itself out, and the US is doing just fine sitting this one out.

ISIS? More like WASWAS.

Don’t mess with Texas.

I’m not anxious to rush into another war and am not convinced that ISIS was honestly behind this attack, but they have officially claimed credit for it. If a foreign government sent two soldiers to the US and had them execute a similar attack, would you feel the same (keep in mind that ISIS considers itself to be a sovereign state)?

I would in fact feel that a full blown military response costing any number of American lives greater than zero and billions of dollars would be a massive and stupid overreaction to a “foreign government” that we bomb on a regular basis sending two “soldiers” over here to get gunned down by a cop.

But they didn’t, the facts are out that these guys did not travel over from the ISIS region, and were not trained by ISIS. I also think that putting ISIS on the same footing as a foreign government is laughable.

You can always fly yourself over and fight ISIS if you feel that strongly about it, apparently its all the rage these days among delusional future Darwin Award nominees.

As I noted, I’m neither anxious to rush into another war, nor convinced that ISIS was honestly behind the attack. I’m just trying to explore the situation and engage in dialogue, as I find it interesting that a quasi-state might have sponsored a physical attack on US citizens on US soil. That would be pretty historic, don’t ya think?

I can think of a number of actual attacks by both actual states and terrorist organizations with actual casualties. So a few wackos claiming allegiance to a random extremist organization that noone recognizes as a legitimiate state, resulting in no casualties isn’t really on my radar.

The degree of the attack versus being attacked matters much more IMO.

There are conflicts every single day in the world where a US asset, a US citizen or US property (most of the time abroad) that is under some sort of threat or directly under attack. Knee jerk’n into a full scale invasion hasn’t worked, won’t work and should work as it’s not really USA’s place to control mostly isolated regional coflicts.

Again, not advocating war, but what state sponsored attacks have occurred within the US? Although there is legally no difference, I draw a distiction between attacking a US embassy, military base, property, etc. and an attack in the middle of Texas.

If ISIS was smart, they’d focus on targeting states who have elected stupid liberals who have effectively neutered the population from carrying firearms. it’ll be like shooting fish in a barrel.

it’s hilarious those two idiots targeted texas lol

Well for starters there was the War of 1812 that culminated in the British burning down the White House. Then there were several battles with Mexico in 1846 on this side of the Rio Grande, followed by the Mexican American War, then the full on Civil War in the early 1860’s.

In 1916, German SS agents blew up the Black Tom munitions dump in NJ, killing a few people.

In 1918, a German sub fired on the town of Orleans, MA and nearby ships.

That same year, Mexican soldiers fought a battle with US cavalry along the border that is alleged to have been caused by German instigators.

1941, Pearl Harbor

1942 Aleutian Islands campaign

I mean, yes, you could really stretch the case by trying to consider ISIS a legitimate state which basically no one does and they arent’ recognized by any government anywhere as such. You could also try to grasp at straws by calling these amateur clowns soldiers and even go one step further by arranging some form of weak link between these guys and ISIS beyond a few tweets. You could theoretically even then take this 0 casualty attack and put it in the same league as the others above.

And then at the end of all those terribly stretched assumtions, you would have a somewhat rare event. So there’s that.

I was going to type “in the last 50 years”, but I stupidly thought that was kind of implied since I wouild hope you think I’m actually aware of Pearl Harbor (HI wasn’t technically a state yet, but I’m not here to split hairs). You’ve kind of proved my point though, all the examples you gave either occurred during war or were a precursor for our entry into a war.

When was the last time there was a state sponsored attack in any developed country?

Anyway, interesting that less then a century ago, the world was in a situation where Germany or Japan would go bomb the US or some European country. Different times now.