ISIS, Russia, and the "credible" threat.

If you've been following the news, there are a few things you've become aware of. And I'd like to get some thoughts on these trending media topics.

First, with the downing of a Russian jet by Turkey, there has been a flurry of contradictory reports coming from these two factions. With that said, I have a couple of questions regarding these reports. Russia had made several, overt claims that there were no attempts by Turkey to contact their pilot in this incident. Furthering, they have posited that it was a planned attack, and that their jet was downed over Syrian airspace. Conversely, Turkey claims to have made multiple attempts to contact this jet, and made several explicit warnings before downing it. So, what I want to know, is this: Can we trust Russia to be forthcoming, and honest regarding their downed jet? Or, should we assume that they are being dishonest in their claims? If, however, they are being honest, why, then, would Turkey make this assault? Could there be underlying ties between Turkey, and radical Islamic factions?

Second, on the home front, we've heard a lot of the same over recent days, and weeks. Despite ramping up homeland security to measures previously unseen since 9/11, we've heard the same thing being reported. "No specific, credible threats at this time." In this regard, what I am then curious about, is this: Would the United States government be forthcoming, if there was explicit knowledge of a planned attack? If so, would it be rationally strategic to do so? In an instance in which there were identified threats, would public knowledge of those threats not hinder the disruption of any of these possible attacks, if they were to be so? And if this is to be true, does it further suggest that an identifiable, and "credible" threat has already been realized?

If you've been following the news, there are a few things you've become aware of. And I'd like to get some thoughts on these trending media topics.

First, with the downing of a Russian jet by Turkey, there has been a flurry of contradictory reports coming from these two factions. With that said, I have a couple of questions regarding these reports. Russia had made several, overt claims that there were no attempts by Turkey to contact their pilot in this incident. Furthering, they have posited that it was a planned attack, and that their jet was downed over Syrian airspace. Conversely, Turkey claims to have made multiple attempts to contact this jet, and made several explicit warnings before downing it. So, what I want to know, is this: Can we trust Russia to be forthcoming, and honest regarding their downed jet? Or, should we assume that they are being dishonest in their claims? If, however, they are being honest, why, then, would Turkey make this assault? Could there be underlying ties between Turkey, and radical Islamic factions?

Second, on the home front, we've heard a lot of the same over recent days, and weeks. Despite ramping up homeland security to measures previously unseen since 9/11, we've heard the same thing being reported. "No specific, credible threats at this time." In this regard, what I am then curious about, is this: Would the United States government be forthcoming, if there was explicit knowledge of a planned attack? If so, would it be rationally strategic to do so? In an instance in which there were identified threats, would public knowledge of those threats not hinder the disruption of any of these possible attacks, if they were to be so? And if this is to be true, does it further suggest that an identifiable, and "credible" threat has already been realized?

Bump.

Bump.

[ILLoKWENT]

1. maybe they dont want to cause unnecessary panic if they revealed what the credible threat is.2. if they reveal the credible threat to a specific event or put out certain details, it might allow the terrorists to pinpoint where the govt is getting their leads, and try to cover up their tracks by eliminating the source.. would the US govt lie if there was a very bad threat about to occur.?most certainly..

[ILLoKWENT]

1. maybe they dont want to cause unnecessary panic if they revealed what the credible threat is.2. if they reveal the credible threat to a specific event or put out certain details, it might allow the terrorists to pinpoint where the govt is getting their leads, and try to cover up their tracks by eliminating the source.. would the US govt lie if there was a very bad threat about to occur.?most certainly..

[Ray Zeus]

government wouldn't tell us if they knew of a major threat... and i don't trust putin but i can't say too much im shipping off to the navy soon and big brother might be watching

[Ray Zeus]

government wouldn't tell us if they knew of a major threat... and i don't trust putin but i can't say too much im shipping off to the navy soon and big brother might be watching

[Godbody]

Wasn't Michael Flynn fired because he had secret transgressions with Russia? And wasn't he taking money from Turkey on the side to do political favors for them? That's something that needs to be looked at when we talk the Russia/Turkey conflict. Dude got removed from his NSA position and the media dedicated 1 day to the story, when they usually overblow issues and dedicate days to them

[Godbody]

Wasn't Michael Flynn fired because he had secret transgressions with Russia? And wasn't he taking money from Turkey on the side to do political favors for them? That's something that needs to be looked at when we talk the Russia/Turkey conflict. Dude got removed from his NSA position and the media dedicated 1 day to the story, when they usually overblow issues and dedicate days to them