View Full Version : Group issues GRAVE warning to ISIS: stay away from New York or…

11-26-2015, 08:34 AM
Now ISIS has something to worry about from the USA, yea I don't think they will be asking Obama for his permission or any advice. :laugh: The Mafia can and will take care of what they need to, but couple them up with say the top 5 outlaw MC's in the country and ISIS would be just a bad memory within a couple of days, go ahead boys have fun and teach Obama how you protect you own country, well I guess Obama is protecting his own country and family, any muslim country will work.

In the wake of the recent Paris terror attacks, ISIS is enjoying a surge in new declarations of war against them. Most notably, France, of course, joined by Russia. And, as we’ve been reporting, the hacktivist group Anonymous.

But apparently, one group was way ahead of its time in declaring war on ISIS — none other than the New York mafia. As the International Business Times (http://www.ibtimes.com/nyc-islamic-state-plot-italian-mafia-warns-isis-stay-away-new-york-2196169) reports, news outlets such as the New York Post and Reuters are reporting on an stern warning the group delivered to ISIS — all the way back in 2012. In the interview from three years ago — long before President Obama even declared ISIS the “J.V. team” — son of infamous mobster John Gambino, Giovanni Gambino, told NBC News the Islamic State was an opportunity to show the world that the Italian mafia could do a better job of protecting New York than the New York City Police Department.


11-26-2015, 10:16 AM
Not that I'm claiming a comparison between the Mafia and the British Government (- yes, really -) ... but on my side of the Pond, Cameron is busily trying to get a vote in our Parliament which authorises our joining the anti-ISIS bombing effort in Syria.

Needless to say, his opposition, the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, is doing what he can to throw a spanner in the works (as is only typical of the Left, of course). He's already gone on record as being in opposition to military action from the UK against ISIS in Syria.

All this is our top new story of the moment.


David Cameron says launching UK air strikes against Islamic State militants in Syria will "make us safer".

The prime minister denied claims it would make the UK a bigger target for terror attacks, as he made the case for military action, in the Commons.

He told MPs the UK was already a target for IS - and the only way to deal with that was to "take action" now.

The UK could not "outsource our security to allies" and it had to stand by France, he added.

David Cameron says he will hold a Commons vote on Syria air strikes if he thinks he will win it.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn sought assurances the UK would not be dragged into a ground war and asked the PM whether UK air strikes would make any military difference.

He said there was "no doubt" the "so-called Islamic State group has imposed a reign of terror on millions in Iraq, Syria and Libya" and that it "poses a threat to our own people".

But he added: "The question must now be whether extending the UK bombing from Iraq to Syria is likely to reduce, or increase, that threat and whether it will counter, or spread, the terror campaign Isis is waging in the Middle East."

Mr Cameron said "we face a fundamental threat to our security" and could not wait for a political solution, and that doing nothing "could make the UK more of a target for Isil attacks".

"That bomb in Paris, that could have been London. If they had their way, it would be London," said Mr Cameron.

"I can't stand here and say we are safe from all these threats. We are not. I can't stand here either and say we will remove the threat through the action that we take.

"But do I stand here with advice behind me that taking action will reduce and degrade that threat over time? Absolutely and I have examined my conscience and that's what it is telling me."

Cameron has political hurdles to overcome in his efforts. The deep unpopularity stoked up, over a period of years and symbolised by the witch-hunt of the Chilcot Inquiry, first ordered by Gordon Brown (which is taking a ridiculous amount of time to publish its findings) where Iraq of 2003 was concerned .. and Labour's current position, that of saying if we start taking action against ISIS in Syria, we'll invite a Paris attack in British cities, so 'if we leave ISIS alone, maybe they'll do the same to us'.

If Labour had their way, they'd insist that appeasement is our safest course, and that UK's bombing efforts would only antagonise ISIS into killing Brits needlessly.

Cameron has to overcome an appeasement climate built up by Labour over the past several years. Such is his position that he'll only proceed with a House of Commons vote if he's confident of winning it, because otherwise, the propaganda coup that ISIS (and Labour !) could gain by a defeated initiative would, he feels, be useful to them.

David Cameron does make one good point which we should all listen to. He points our that 'outsourcing our security to allies' should not be an acceptable status quo. I think I agree with him ... because, right now, we're doing just that by overly relying on Russia's efforts.

An effort which, as the Turkish incident shows us, definitely has its downside !!!

I'm pleased that Russia's interests and our own happen to coincide, NOW - nonetheless, I don't believe that'll continue indefinitely. Russia does have its agenda, which it'll follow through with, whether we like it, or not.

We should be prepared for such an outcome.