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.

 

DHS Secretary: Right-Wingers Pose Same Threat As Islamic Extremists

page: 3
47
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 11:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'd think of it more like being hugged by a thorny prickly pear.


Ever seen the movie "Little Nicky"?

Contemplate Hitler's "punishment" in hell; that's probably closer to the facts of American politics.




posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Naw. Missed that one. Not a huge movie fan.

Thanks for your kind reply.

I normally don't get into even thinking about such things . . . it's just that this year, the horror has gotten so extreme & deep . . . it's hard to think of fitting consequences for the evil perpetrators at the top.

I think every last one of them that says a single thing against gun rights should have 100% of their gun aided protections withdrawn. What rank hypocrisy. Milo Y has it right on that and a lot of other scores.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Have you ever met a claimed right winger or a claimed islamic extremist?

If not how do you know the difference outside of what you read on the internet?

If you have please elaborate?

To be simple what is the difference in your opinion?

Please ignore me if you choose to ignore all my questions answering one is not good enough for me amswering at least 4 is acceptable, I do not think I am asking much for such a well informed stance and claim.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Gryphon66

Naw. Missed that one. Not a huge movie fan.

Thanks for your kind reply.

I normally don't get into even thinking about such things . . . it's just that this year, the horror has gotten so extreme & deep . . . it's hard to think of fitting consequences for the evil perpetrators at the top.

I think every last one of them that says a single thing against gun rights should have 100% of their gun aided protections withdrawn. What rank hypocrisy. Milo Y has it right on that and a lot of other scores.


So, do away with freedom of speech and gun rights?

Wow, tough crowd.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 12:37 AM
link   
I'm gonna have to agree with BFFT on the issue with the title. It should have read "Right Wing Extremists Pose Same Threat as Islamic Extremists".



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Welllllllllllll, not really . . .

However, there might need to be some sort of special category defined in the Constitution for our leaders who tend toward outrageous corruption etc. soooooooooooooo horrifically, chronically and easily.

They SHOULD be held to a higher standard given how much they set themselves above "the little people" in the gritchy one's words.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 05:00 AM
link   
Honestly, this says it best...




posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 05:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

They have become soooooooo brazen at displaying their goals and strategies the last few years . . . I don't think the whole populace knowing what they are up to would matter.

IF 90% of the populace marched on all their halls of power--maybe. Won't happen.

And, the super top level oligarchy folks are well hidden anyway. The famous public ones are probably at least one or two levels down, maybe 3.

More and more folks on all sides of most issues know the score in terms of the corrupt evil folks at the top. I think all it's mattered is more gun sales and more prepping.

I'm glad of both of those but it won't make a lasting difference in terms of the preservation of the Republic. The Republic is going down, down, down. Whether it will ever rise again in any semblance of its better days remains to be seen. I'm skeptical.

It might break into two National units when the split comes up & down the length of the Mississippi. Add in WWIII etc. etc.

Not a pretty prospect regardless of how many know the solid truth.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 05:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Let's take Johnson's comments seriously for a moment.
Bundy ranch - far right, correct? Many were armed, how many people were shot?
Zero.
Malheur wildlife refuge standoff - more far-right wingers. Again, how many got shot?
1 - and that was by Oregon State Police or FBI, there was no return fire by the man killed.
Sorry Jeh, I just can't come up with any dangerous right wing statistics to validate your concerns.
Better go back to doing Sudoku puzzles or something non-threatening to the rest of us.
You suck at your job.
Or you just lie a lot.


True, but ...

Oklahoma City bombing in? 168 dead
Centennial Olympic Park bombing? Okay, only 1 dead, but with 111 were injured that must be considered pure luck.

And more recently:

2012: Sikh Temple shooting - 6 dead
2014: Kansas Jewish Center shooting - 3 dead
2015: Charleston Church Shooting - 9 dead
2015 Colorado Planned Parenthood Shooting - 8 dead


edit on 16-6-2016 by DupontDeux because: typos



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 06:22 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The same type of narrative has been used by Cameron to attack free speech by aligning 911 conspiracy theorists with radical Jihadi terrorists and then announcing that they will be no longer tolerated just for expressing an opinion.

Basically the concept is to shut up any form of dissidents by labeling them extremists and for the twisted Globalists in America who have false flagged America into wars based on deception this means conservative Christians or patriot constitutionalits as they are the ones most likey to see through the criminal anti American tyranny and stand against it.

Dangerous times we live so let's tell them all to GTF.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 06:25 AM
link   
a reply to: DupontDeux

I think most of those were simply insane people.
2 were Army veterans, one serving in Vietnam and another being discharged for misconduct.
Right or left their ideologies mattered little to those with a desire to kill, maim and destroy.

Still, you make a good point.
Dangerous people come from all ideological persuasions.

ETA: It seems MIchael Wade Page the Sihk temple shooter was a neo-Nazi.
All the shooters in the other incidents named had no group affiliations.
All were loners with long histories of threatening behaviors except Roof.
I think that is key in developing the mindset these killers had - too much time alone, disconnected from family and friends.
The isolation becomes a vacuum of loneliness that turns to hate.
edit on 16-6-2016 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: DupontDeux

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Let's take Johnson's comments seriously for a moment.
Bundy ranch - far right, correct? Many were armed, how many people were shot?
Zero.
Malheur wildlife refuge standoff - more far-right wingers. Again, how many got shot?
1 - and that was by Oregon State Police or FBI, there was no return fire by the man killed.
Sorry Jeh, I just can't come up with any dangerous right wing statistics to validate your concerns.
Better go back to doing Sudoku puzzles or something non-threatening to the rest of us.
You suck at your job.
Or you just lie a lot.


True, but ...

Oklahoma City bombing in? 168 dead
Centennial Olympic Park bombing? Okay, only 1 dead, but with 111 were injured that must be considered pure luck.

And more recently:

2012: Sikh Temple shooting - 6 dead
2014: Kansas Jewish Center shooting - 3 dead
2015: Charleston Church Shooting - 9 dead
2015 Colorado Planned Parenthood Shooting - 8 dead



Not to start anything but the "PP incident" was not directly intended for them.

– Nidal Hasan – Ft Hood Shooter: Reg­istered Democrat and Muslim.
– Aaron Alexis, Navy Yard shooter – black liberal/Obama voter
– Seung-Hui Cho – Virginia Tech shooter: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff, registered Democrat.
– James Holmes – the “Dark Knight”/Colorado shooter: Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, #Occu­py guy,progressive liberal, hated Christians.
– Amy Bishop, the rabid leftist, killed her colleagues in Alabama, Obama supporter.
– Andrew J. Stack, flew plane into IRS building in Texas – Leftist Democrat
– James J. Lee who was the “green activist”/ leftist took hostages at Discovery Channel – progressive

So it goes back and forth but who's counting.




posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

I agree - and I also think that nutters tend to be labeled "right wing" simply on the merit of being nutters. Or on a single issue - being anti-abortion is not in itself a right wing thing, but utter the words "pro life", and you WILL be labeled as belonging on the right. Actually, very few single issues can alone place someone on the political scale.

On the other hand there are clearly defined left wing movements, like the Sanders supporters - I bet if some of them went further than just aggressively protesting at Trump rallies and actually shot at or bombed a rally, then they would not be labeled "left wing extremists".


Anyway, to your question, did they belong to right wing groups?

Yes, or at least most of them did.

Dylan Roof, Charleston Church shooter, you know about. (and I assume you know about the two Atlanta and Oklahoma bombers from the 90's too, right?)

The shooter at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs belonged (or identified with? I am not sure which) to "Army of God

Frazier Glenn Cross, Kansas City Jewish Center shooter, founded first the Carolina Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in the 70's and then the White Patriot Party in the 80's. He was in general deeply connected to the white supremacist movement

Wade Michael PAge, Sikh Temple Shooter, had "ties" to the neo-nazis and was reportedly a member of the white supremacist group The Hammerskins



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

I am not at all disagreeing.

I just wanted to point out that there is some evidence to support the notion that right wing extremists are dangerous. I did not mean to suggest that the left does not have its share of loonies. I should have made that clear - my bad.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 07:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: DupontDeux


ETA: It seems MIchael Wade Page the Sihk temple shooter was a neo-Nazi.
All the shooters in the other incidents named had no group affiliations.


I am not so sure about this guy belonging to any group. Some sources leave out the "reportedly" part which basically is code for that some paper at some time wrote that he was, but that no proof was ever produced.

Just saying.

However I think there is credible evidence for the other shooters I mentioned having group affiliations.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 07:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66




And the bit more insightful thing: focusing on the truth rather than the false dichotomy of right-left is really the only thing that has even the barest potential to save ANY OF US from what seems to be on the way.


I agree with this. People tend to overlook problems that "their team" has. In the name of intellectual honesty, I think we have the responsibility to scrutinize all sides in the political arena, even if it pains us to do it.

On this issue particularly, what Johnson says has a small amount of truth to it, there are radical right wing people that pose a threat, I just don't think they are as big of a problem as Islamic terrorism righty now, and as I said in my first post, it seems to fit a pattern of oppression politics for him to shift blame from an oppressed group to one he perceives as oppressor.

But forget about that even. On a very basic level, why would one of the first things Johnson says after a Islamic extremist killed 49 people be to say "Well other people are bad too!". This is insensitive, and completely insane. If you had a loved one get killed by a drunk driver, would you want the police to hold a press conference and say, "Well drunk drivers are bad, but we also must watch out for home invasions". It seems obvious that there is then an agenda with Johnson, and other people trying to blame other groups.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

The DHS secretary was making a direct comparison between ISIS and conservatives.

Some were attempting to downplay it.

I was trying to be sarcastic. Apologies.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
But haven't most of the recent shootings/bombings been done by Democrats?


The SAME people behind Occupy Wall Street,Ferguson,Black Lives Matter, Cops getting shot in the street, and Trump protesting.

But FEAR the right!



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

Very true assertions on your part. Thanks.

However, the gritchy one would be several times worse in terms of ruthlessly seeking people out that even looked at her cross-eyed.

She is one super evil super vengeful bw*tch.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   
As usual, OP pastiches different things said by different people at different times together and makes a comprehensive political statement out of it.

And of course, not surprisingly, the title and many comments are not at all what the DHS Director actually did or said:

From the OP's initial source



“Member Acevedo reminded the Council that the threat from right-wing extremists domestically is just as real as the threat from Islamic extremism,” the minutes state. Johnson echoed the sentiment. “Secretary Johnson agreed and noted that CVE [Subcommittee on Combating Violent Extremism], by definition, is not solely focused on one religion,” the minutes state.


So Johnson here is simply "echoing" the statement made by another individual, and that statement regards EXTREMISTS not simply members of the right-wing, Conservatives, or Republicans.

Once again, the Chicken Littles are running around in circles crying about something that wasn't even said.

Not to mention of course, that the US Government cannot go after any individual religion because of the First Amendment. (Which makes all the bluster about going after "Muslims" just so much BS.)



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join