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: 4
47
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
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.


I know it's important in a certain narrative to declare Mateen a "radical Islamic terrorist" but the facts still don't bear that out, at least not in the sense that we normally use the phrase. Mateen, in fact, had apparently "declared" loyalty to several disparate groups (ISIS, al-Qaeda, Hamas) who are actually dire enemies. The man was definitely a terrorist and mass-murderer.

As far as the citation in the Daily Caller article, Johnson made these comments about a month after the San Bernadino shooting (putting the time-frame in January 2016), not recently after Orlando. Am I misreading something?

As far as the rest of your comments, I can't disagree.
edit on 16-6-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted spelling corrections




posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
mateen was a self loathing, guilty homosexual man who thought he could 'fix' what was wrong with him (or, at least absolve him for his lustful sins) by killing a bunch of homosexuals.

i'd say his religion has less to do with it than religion in general. and a psyche that is too weak to stand on its own and declare himself free.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Right wing extremist = people who believe in the Constitution of the United States.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: 191stMIDET
Right wing extremist = people who believe in the Constitution of the United States.


BS.

I believe as strongly as anyone here in the US Constitution and back that up with regular commentary.

And I am an avowed leftist, registered Democrat, etc.

Think outside the box.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Hey ?

The Fort Hood Terrorist attack.

The Boston Bombing Terrorist Attack.

The San Bernadino TERRORIST Attack.

Orlando Terrorist Attack.

Were all committed by right wing neocons clinging to their guns and religion.

Sorry not the typical 'right' winger that people like Johnson whines about.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Might as well justify it by saying it was because he was a democrat.


We can say; religion, politics, gay/straight until we're all blue in the face.

It doesn't make the dead less dead.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

No, I'm saying "THEY" label any Constitutionalist as a "Right wing extremist" I'm a constitutionalist and I'm personally anti religion (not violently so to be sure) and I'm fairly liberal about many issues, and have Voted as a Democrat but because I love Gun's and believe in fighting tyranny I'm basically a terrorist in there eyes. That my friend, is BS.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Might as well justify it by saying it was because he was a democrat.


We can say; religion, politics, gay/straight until we're all blue in the face.

It doesn't make the dead less dead.



nor does blaming all muslims. or just slapping an "extremist' label on him.

Personally, i'd be more interested in people finding the reasons behind these things, instead of just slapping a label on them that, for some unknown reason, seems to help it make sense to some folks.

But not to me. In the end, especially with this person, i think we are talking about mental health assistance, and the gross negligence that we as a society have found ourselves participating in as it regards what passes for 'mental health care' in this country.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Thing is, we live in a free society.

Free means even the bad/crazy people will find a way to "express themselves".

It's the negative aspect to living in a free society.

It has happened.
It will happen again.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

No doubt crazies will be crazy.

But also no doubt that instead of just piling them 3 deep in prisons, we could approach our criminal justice problem from a different angle and (if nothing else) at least stop the degenerative effects of imprisonment.

The homerun would be actually funding treatment for people who just are not capable of existing in a peaceful world without a little help.

My wife works in a 'forensic' mental hospital. i worked there for 5 years myself. i can absolutely attest to the lack of attention paid to mental health needs among the poorest in our society.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Jeh Johnson + Obama + Hillary + most of the Administration are cultural Marxists.

That's the agenda they follow and execute.





President Barack Obama used communist China, which has very strict gun ownership laws, as an illustration for the benefits of enhanced gun control on a populace. Read more: dailycaller.com...




Firearms can be used by law enforcement, the military and paramilitary, or security personnel protecting property of state importance (including the arms industry, financial institutions, storage of resources, and scientific research institutions)


en.wikipedia.org...

NAIL on the head.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Your assessment of Mateen may be spot on.

Sounds reasonable.

However, your categorizing all religion . . . more or less . . . as I read your words . . .

categorizing all religion as for those who are too wimpy to stand up as individuals alone and be free . . .

That comes across as a fiercely held personal bias vs an objective fact.

It can be argued that authentic Christians are freer, by far, than a hedonistic atheist, agnostic etc.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

ABSOLUTELY

Turning mentally ill and compromised folks loose on the streets as a favor to their human rights . . . did relatively few of them any great favors.

For most, it exchanged a clean bed and decent meals for gutter sleeping, raging alcoholism and filth.

It has been said that a culture/society/nation must be judged by how it treats it's most impoverished, beleaguered, ill, disapproved, marginalized citizens.

INDEED.

However, it will only get worse. The oligarchy has bought into the whole eugenics model. Fringe folks will be among the first exterminated.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Yes and no.

Certainly mental health aspects are woefully treated--much less well.

However, VALUES MATTER.

I don't believe that if Mateen had been of a different RELIGION [run children, there's that dangerous "R" word again!] . . . IF Mateen had been a card carrying . . . Amish . . . Presbyterian . . . Quaker or any number of Christian sects which seem to bend over backwards being milque toasty wimpish . . . he'd not have even come close to even thinking about mowing down a bar full of gays. . . . regardless of the degree of his mental illness.

His MUSLIM FAITH AND INDOCTRINATION INCLUDED INHERENTLY a long list of founding document justification, even INSISTENCE OF VIOLENCE AGAINST non-believers, gays etc.

Denying that fact is not wise, imho.

VALUES MATTER--they trigger behaviors. They have consequences.

imho, pretending otherwise is not dealing in reality.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

My mom is among the most faithful christian women i know. i had a very strong foundation in christianity growing up. But my mom is not a victim to her religion.

i didn't mean to have it implied that religion is for weak people. I was implying that mateen was a weak person. irrespective of his faith. but because of his faith, carried guilt for his behavior. that guilt is how his weakness manifested.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I understand.

I kind of figured that.

Still . . . in terms of the content, 'had' to say something about the relative issues and values.

Thanks thanks.
.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Read the source. Director Johnson wasn't whining about anyone. He made a comment after the comment about EXTREMISTS was made.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: 191stMIDET
a reply to: Gryphon66

No, I'm saying "THEY" label any Constitutionalist as a "Right wing extremist" I'm a constitutionalist and I'm personally anti religion (not violently so to be sure) and I'm fairly liberal about many issues, and have Voted as a Democrat but because I love Gun's and believe in fighting tyranny I'm basically a terrorist in there eyes. That my friend, is BS.


In whose eyes? And why do you think THEY consider you a terrorist?



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Some of the documents and public speeches out of the current WH imposter's admin--particularly DHS--SAID SO--often rather brazenly, plainly, straight-forwardly.

They targeted Vets, Constitutionalists, Anti-Federalists etc.

I don't recall if such docs were purged from the gov site, or not.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   
The problem is not labeling right-wing extremists as an issue. Extremism in any form is a very real issue and a very real threat to all of our liberties.

The problem is what the government begins to define right-wing extremism as and continuing to harp on that above all other things.

When you look at what groups like the SPLC want to label as domestic terrorist extemists, this is the problem we face.

Constitution loving citizens are not terrorists. Ron Paul supporters are not terrorists. People that want to abolish the Fed are not terrorists!

This is wherein the real problem lies with these labels, imo.




top topics



 
47
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join