It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Terrorist Sympathizer Obama Has DHS Delete Terrorist's Records!

page: 13
59
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Here's the thing though. You remember the Iraq war, we never should have gone in, but the Bush admin had a hardon for going to war in Iraq. The thing about analysts, is that its about their opinion on the facts. Much of what they say is how they perceive what they have before them.

For an analyst, there is a ton of political pressure. Here, I can give my analysis of a situation, and have no political pressure. It is different sitting in a room with all your higher-ups, who pay you your livelihood, who will often then apply pressure to change your tune more to their liking. That was how we had "proof" of wmd's in Iraq, we never had proof, we had tons of political pressure on the analysts to say what the administration wanted them to say and then, after no longer needing his original analysis, simply deleted the original files, because it was not needed.

This is going to be the same in this situation. What haney is saying, is that he wrote the truth, he wrote his analysis which is his opinion of the facts presented, and his higher-ups disagreed with his analysis (more than likely after garnering the attention of political pressure) and changed his words to suit the PC environment of this administration, in the same way we ended up with WMD's in Iraq.

This happens. We know it happens. We have watched it happen time and time again, so I don't find Haney far fetched.

I'll look and see if I can't find other complaints of the same thing in this administration.

edit on 10-2-2016 by Kitana because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




What does the nationality of the "9/11/ hijackers" have to do with Philip Haney's very specific claims?


Gee why whatever does Saudi Araiba the Sunni and Iran the Shia waging a global Islamic civil war around the globe have to do with the price of tea in China ?

I suggest opening up a history book, and READ.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Yeah people I an throwing around 'red herrings'.



The civil war in Syria, whose Alawite regime Saudi Arabia's Sunny monarchy has long plotted against, and the prospect of a war with Shiite Iran over its reported drive to acquire nuclear weapons, preoccupy Riyadh while, Abdallah, Canute-like, strives to keep the democratic wave from breaking on its shores


www.upi.com...

Pay no attention to Saudi Arabia and Iran vying for a regional hegemony for control of the Islamic/western world.

And pay no attention to Russia/China/North Korea backing the Shia.

And pay no attention to the US/Europe/ and other arab 'allies' backing the Sunni.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Kitana

Wow. So no evidence then. Cool exposition on the failures of intelligence though.

You may want to review Haney's claims instead of pulling them out of the echoing right-wing media chambers:

The Hill - Administration nixed probe into Southern California jihadists - December 16, 2015

He actually started on the right-wing circuit back around December 7th. Daily Caller, Breitbart first, Fox News next, then all the blogs and so forth down the food chain.

Apparently, all that died down late December, so they're trying to get another news cycle started with the latest:

The Hill -
DHS ordered me to scrub records of Muslims with terror ties February 5, 2016


To his credit, I haven't found Mr. Haney claiming that Barack Obama personally shut this down to "shelter terrorists" but that is certainly the position of the OP and the right-wing media.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Again, nothing.

The claim here is very specific. You want to talk about Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc.

That has zero to do with this topic ... didn't you READ the OP and the discussion? It's about a retired DHS agent claiming he personally could have stopped most DOMESTIC terrorist actions in the last 5 years or so.

Yes, you're throwing red herring, i.e. you're bringing up everything and anything you can conceive of to divert or obfuscate the very specific nature of the question in this thread, which is, again:

Do you have any information that verifies the claim that Barack Obama personally shut down Philip Haney's investigations at NTC-P/CBP/DHS to shelter terrorists?


edit on 10-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Nothing eh

WHATEVER.

Team Obama has spent $500M to train ‘four or five’ Syrian rebels

Of couse thats not the first time Obama's party armed terrorists.

We can't forget Afghanistan of the 80s and Charlie Wislon.



Charlie Wilson's War is a 2007 American comedy-drama film, based on the story of U.S. Congressman Charlie Wilson and CIA operative Gust Avrakotos, whose efforts led to Operation Cyclone, a program to organize and support the Afghan mujahideen during the Soviet–Afghan War


en.wikipedia.org...'s_War

nypost.com...

What you call 'nothing' i call the defense of the current regime from hell as just being BLIND to the TRUTH.
edit on 10-2-2016 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

That's right, you're offering NOTHING on the topic of the thread.

Nothing, ZERO, zilch ... you don't even seem to understand that we are talking about a disgraced DHS agent claiming that he could have stopped DOMESTIC attacks in the UNITED STATES if he hadn't had to follow the directions of his superiors. He has taken the claim all the way (by his own statement) through DHS, the Inspector General and to the US Congress.

There is ZERO credibility in the man's claims.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I found the breitbert article more credible myself, so that is the one I am going by. I know nothing of the hill and it sounds like they blew the facts up for effect, instead of sticking to the truth.

So, I am going with the breitbert article. I would almost suggest you do the same as newspapers are not always credible.


“They came into the National Targeting Center, either physically or through emails and correspondence, and said that we could not develop cases based on association with Tablighi Jamaat, and/or any Islamic group,” Haney revealed.

He charged this decision, which runs counter to the very purpose of the Department of Homeland Security and its charter to demolish the wall of separation between law enforcement agencies, was made because “this Administration is more concerned about the civil rights and civil liberties of foreign Islamic groups and foreign nationals than securing the freedom and security of the American public.”

He pointed to documents uncovered by a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act request tied to his whistleblower case as further support. “NTC was getting ‘pushback’ from CRCL, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, and DOS [the State Department] because of our focus on this group called Tablighi Jamaat,” he repeated...

...Haney said his superiors actually erased some of his files pertinent to the case, because they insisted the initiative had “gone in a different direction” and he was no longer authorized to add his data.

He concluded by saying his purpose in coming forward was to fix a broken intelligence system. “This isn’t about hurting anybody. This is about fixing it. We could fix it. We can fix it. That’s my focus.”


www.breitbart.com...

At one point he says it was a high powered case and there was a lot of people working it, then the department shut it down according to him and the files recovered from the freedom of information act - due to political pressure. And that is simply not far fetched at all knowing how intelligence works.


edit on 10-2-2016 by Kitana because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kitana
a reply to: Gryphon66

I found the breitbert article more credible myself, so that is the one I am going by. I know nothing of the hill and it sounds like they blew the facts up for effect, instead of sticking to the truth.

So, I am going with the breitbert article. I would almost suggest you do the same as newspapers are not always credible.




a reply to: Kitana

"The Hill" articles are written by Philip Haney, the man who claims DHS shut him down.

You don't find that to be a credible source?

I rest my case.

edit on 10-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: LOL



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Just a quick apology as I did misspoke, I said his words were changed by his superiors and that was incorrect. I must of been thinking of something else. I should have refreshed my memory prior to speaking and I apologize for that error.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kitana
a reply to: Gryphon66

Just a quick apology as I did misspoke, I said his words were changed by his superiors and that was incorrect. I must of been thinking of something else. I should have refreshed my memory prior to speaking and I apologize for that error.


No, actually you stated that you didn't find the statements made in "The Hill" credible.

Those statements are Philip Haney's.

No need to apologize to me, but there's really nothing else to say.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

He wrote those himself? They seemed different than the breitbert article for real, so I didn't accept them since breitbert did an exclusive interview with him.

Well, he doesn't like tablighi jamaat - and I have heard of them and would consider them a danger, but that article seems.. well just different than the breitbert one.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kitana
a reply to: Gryphon66

He wrote those himself? They seemed different than the breitbert article for real, so I didn't accept them since breitbert did an exclusive interview with him.

Well, he doesn't like tablighi jamaat - and I have heard of them and would consider them a danger, but that article seems.. well just different than the breitbert one.


Check the by-lines.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kitana
a reply to: Indigo5

Christians believe in the new covenant, which means no theocracy - God's Kingdom is in heaven and not of this earth.


For effs sake...No..Christians practiced theocracy from England to most of Europe for almost 2000 years after the new covenant.

The Vatican (its own tiny country HQ of Catholicism) still practices theocracy...

Hell..read a history book once in a while..



Catholic thought justified submission to the monarchy by reference to the following:
1.The Old Testament, in which God chose kings to rule over Israel, beginning with Saul who was then rejected by God in favor of David, whose dynasty continued (at least in the southern kingdom) until the Babylonian captivity.
2.The New Testament, in which the first pope, St. Peter, commands that all Christians shall honour the Roman Emperor (1 Peter 2:13–20), even though, at that time, he was still a pagan emperor. St. Paul agreed with St. Peter that subjects should be obedient to the powers that be because they are appointed by God, as he wrote in his Epistle to the Romans 13:1-7. Likewise, Jesus Christ proclaims in the Gospel of Matthew that one should "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's"; that is at first, literally, the payment of taxes as binding those who use the imperial currency (See Matthew 22:15–22). Jesus told Pontius Pilate that his authority as Roman governor of Judaea came from heaven according to John 19:10–11.
3.The endorsement by the popes and the church of the line of emperors beginning with the Emperors Constantine and Theodosius, later the Eastern Roman emperors, and finally the Western Roman emperor, Charlemagne and his successors, the Catholic Holy Roman Emperors.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Had you read everything I wrote, you would understand what I said. I never said most Christian followed Christianity, I said Christianity itself is very clear and all fault upon creating a theocracy out of it is upon individual people, and not Jesus and His teachings.

BUT, the bible speaks on that quite clearly. And I spelled it out for you. Cant make it any more clear really.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kitana
a reply to: Indigo5

Had you read everything I wrote, you would understand what I said. I never said most Christian followed Christianity, I said Christianity itself is very clear and all fault upon creating a theocracy out of it is upon individual people, and not Jesus and His teachings.



But for anyone interested in Establishing Theocracy the bible very clearly lends them support?

"Jesus told Pontius Pilate that his authority as Roman governor of Judaea came from heaven according to John 19:10–11."

"The New Testament, in which the first pope, St. Peter, commands that all Christians shall honour the Roman Emperor (1 Peter 2:13–20), "
"St. Paul agreed with St. Peter that subjects should be obedient to the powers that be because they are appointed by God, as he wrote in his Epistle to the Romans "

And a dozen other examples I provided ...

So you can say that Christian Theocracies are not "really" Christian...but rather the bad of the "people" using the bible to oppress...

But that makes you look a little silly to shout that the same does not hold true for other religions..Like Islamic Dictators..



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

You imply that Barack Obama, personally, knows and approves of the individual actions of every department, every agent, every day within the entire Executive Branch. Ironic is not the word I would choose to describe such a belief or statement: absurd is far more descriptive.


False... one thing is for the President not knowing what rogue agents might do, and a different story is the Obama administration enacting laws, and giving orders that come with the approval of President Obama that Federal agencies must follow and enforce...

You are yet once again trying to derail, disinform, and lie about the fact that these orders came from the Obama administration... notice the name OBAMA is mentioned, because OBAMA is the President, and not the directors of U.S. government agencies...


originally posted by: Gryphon66
You're offering an unsubstantiated claim by an unnamed "Border Agent" ... at least Haney had a name.


Yet once again false, the name/s of some of the whistle-blowers is given in those links... Another failed attempt by you to lie, and disinform...


...
“We might as well abolish our immigration laws altogether,” suggested agent Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council.

Testifying on the two-year border surge of immigrant youths, Judd said the policy shift was prompted by Obama administrationembarrassmentthat just over half of illegals ordered to appear in court actually do.
...

www.capoliticalreview.com...

Agent Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council.

He is an agent, and the President of:


The National Border Patrol Council is a labor union that represents agents and support staff on the United States Border Patrol. It is an affiliate of the American Federation of Government Employees, and through that larger organization is a member of the AFL-CIO.
...

en.wikipedia.org...


...
Once again, the testimony of career officials belies the administration's propaganda. In his 2013 testimony to Congress, ICE officer Chris Crane explained that, contrary to the claim that "deferred action" was freeing up resources to focus on detaining criminals, DACA was being used to prevent ICE officers from inspecting and detaining jailed illegal aliens:
...

cis.org...

ICE officer Chris Crane

Another whistle-blower that came forward with information that shows the Obama administration has been arming illegal criminals, and Mexican drug cartels is Whistle-blower John Dodson. The agent that blew the lit on Fast and Furious...

townhall.com...

Those are just some of the whistle-blower federal officials who have come forward with information that shows the Obama administration is releasing illegal criminals, allowing illegal criminals into the United States and even arming illegal criminals and Mexican drug cartels to then blame American's who want the government to protect and uphold the United States Constitution...


What other BS excuses are you going to come up with?...


edit on 10-2-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.

edit on 10-2-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: neo96

That's right, you're offering NOTHING on the topic of the thread.

Nothing, ZERO, zilch ... you don't even seem to understand that we are talking about a disgraced DHS agent claiming that he could have stopped DOMESTIC attacks in the UNITED STATES if he hadn't had to follow the directions of his superiors. He has taken the claim all the way (by his own statement) through DHS, the Inspector General and to the US Congress.

There is ZERO credibility in the man's claims.

As the OP of this thread...I say you're wrong. Their contribution to this thread is definitely on topic and welcome by me.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Another re-run of muslims dindu nuffins....but boy that hateful racism and bigotry against muslims is RAGIN' !!

Hey, if you can arrest the investigator who showed PP butchering and auctioning baby pieces....why wouldn't the muslims and their supporters do the same ?

Worked for Benghazi. That poor, dopey SOB and his video, lol. Took the fall for about 500 murderous muslims and the whole White House, lmao.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Out voting for Hillary in New Hampshire!



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join