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.

 

Homeland Security Chief: ‘No Idea’ Who Scrubbed Islam from Counterterror Materials

page: 3
28
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


No references attached to a religion are needed, as the religion is not them problem?


They (references to the radical Wahhabi sects) are when a (small) portion of that religion believes it's holy duty is to spread it's particular flavor of that religion across the globe.

Just like references to gang affiliation are needed when addressing that particular aspect of criminal activity.

Such references provide the necessary context in which the discussions take place.




posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Gryphon66


No references attached to a religion are needed, as the religion is not them problem?


They (references to the radical Wahhabi sects) are when a (small) portion of that religion believes it's holy duty is to spread it's particular flavor of that religion across the globe.

Just like references to gang affiliation are needed when addressing that particular aspect of criminal activity.

Such references provide the necessary context in which the discussions take place.


But you just said that the problem is with radicals and terrorists not a religion. Now you're saying it is the religion.

You seem confused



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


You seem confused


Back atcha.

(part of) The problem is radicals and extremists that follow a particular sect of Islam. There are radicals and extremists that follow sects of Christianity, but that does not mean all Christians subscribe to those same ideals. But radicals of any flavor need to be addressed within a context that makes sense to have such discussions.

Back to the OP:


Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson pleaded ignorance Thursday when asked during a Senate hearing about a massive purging of counterterrorism materials that cite Islam and jihad at his agency.

Specifically, Johnson was grilled over a DHS whistleblower’s explosive charge that his agency ordered hundreds of classified counterterrorism files containing key intelligence data deleted or altered to avoid offending Muslims.

“Was that testimony accurate?” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, asked the secretary, who was called to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning Homeland Security oversight.

“I have no idea,” Johnson claimed, shrugging off the controversy as an issue of semantics not particularly relevant to fighting terrorism.


In this specific circumstance, we are talking about radical Islam and the fact that Islam (of any (including the radical element) type) cannot even be mentioned within the framework of training provided for the defense of radicalization.

And the director of the Agency in charge of Homeland Security claims to "have no idea," as to the changes being made within his organization's training materials.

Our country is forgetting itself into ruin and you question that it's even happening.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Then you have no problem with training materials referring to radicalized indivduals, terrorist organizations and rogue states. No references attached to a religion are needed, as the religion is not the problem?

Fine. That's my point.

I think that we need to use all that excess money we have to throw around to rewrite every word that is politically, historically, and scientifically incorrect.

It is obvious we have money to burn, so anything that offends someone, must be scrubbed immediately.

I will include that the the VA forgo all life threatening medical treatments for the Veterans to make sure that funding is available for procedures that address the needs of a select few, and that it be made top priority.

It seems to me just another knee jerk reaction to a complaint, where it is always easier to throw on a band-aid than fix the real problem.

I don't care what they call, or don't call the terrorist. It is not going to stop people from thinking what they think about the terrorist. Just like tabooing the "N" word from being "spoken", have not stopped one person from thinking it.

We cannot legislate what people think, this is just another example of how they fuel hatred and division.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Your argument is that we somehow limited in our training materials because we cannot blame the religion of Islam ITSELF for terrorists, extremists, radicals, etc. and that we're taking care to excise that frankly insulting language from official documentation.

My argument is that the First Amendment clearly limits the Government of the United States (and the several States, et. al.) from prohibiting the free exercise of a religion. Through various judicial decisions, that has been understood to include the concept that one religion (or religious sect) cannot be "singled out" for Government action or legislation SIMPLY based on the religion.

If you don't have anything to add to that, let's have done and give others the chance to post.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

I understand your stated frustrations. I share a sense of bafflement with the actions of our government on many occasions.

However,

How would you feel if Government counter-terrorism training materials stated that Christianity has been the source of many domestic terrorism attacks?

And please, just for the sake of argument, just answer that one question.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

My argument is that we cannot discuss radical Islam in our counterintelligence training materials because of pressure from groups that support radical Islam.

If you can't see the value in being able to discuss radical Islamists using terms specific to those same radicals, that's your problem, not mine.


If you don't have anything to add to that, let's have done and give others the chance to post.


(looking for a button on my screen which keeps other people from posting in the thread and I'm not seeing one)



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Fair enough. That's your argument.

I'm considerably bored here as we're merely repeating the same things back and forth: one final question if you would.

And please just answer it.

In your opinion is "radical Islam" a religion or not?



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

How would you feel if Government counter-terrorism training materials stated that Christianity has been the source of many domestic terrorism attacks? And please, just for the sake of argument, just answer that one question.

If we are dealing with a group of Christians that are attacking Americans, or any other group of people, and they were using the Bible and Christianity, as their excuses, or reasoning, for their actions, I would hope that our government would definitely, make sure that our military were able to clearly identify them.

I believe our military has the ability to realize that not all Christians are a threat, and will show due diligence in determining which are, and which are not. If they can do this with animals, and Christians, I don't see why it is not expected that they can do this with any other religious group.

I think there is absolutely nothing wrong or discriminating in accurately identifying a threat.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Perhaps the Homeland security chief with selected Alzheimer's syndrome, needs to do is dig into ATS database for the last 7 years and Im sure that somewhere we have posted plenty of threads of how the wording when it comes to, Islam, Extremist, jihadist and terrorist was scrapped from counterterrorism materials along with people of interest and terrorist known groups in the middle east.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


In your opinion is "radical Islam" a religion or not?


In my opinion (what you asked for), no it is not. It is a bastardization of certain Islamic teachings. Those who follow this particular set of ideals are a small minority within the Larger Muslim population.

They, however, believe that they are performing the holy work of their deity by carrying out these vicious attacks against any and all whom they view as the enemy; including other Muslims.

Does that mean that they should be allowed the free expression of their religion?

That's what you're advocating for isn't it? Because they define what they do as religious, the training materials used by our counterintelligence services is not allowed to single out these groups because they consider themselves religious.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoeLowUSA

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: JoeLowUSA
a reply to: xuenchen

It was probably the oath keepers!!! I had heard many years ago they would not sit idly and watch our nation crumble. That they would protect America from all of our enemies both foreign and domestic. Legend has it that they are even paid to and have the logistics necessary to protect our country from its enemies. With this swift incontrovertible action taken by the oath keepers, I must apologize for claiming you all were a worthless bunch, for claiming you are doing nothing while our nations goes to #e and republic is lost.

So thank you oath keepers. Thank you for everything. You have done so much for us. modern day founders is what you are.


At least the Oath Keepers have served their country. What have you done for it?



How have they served the country? I graduated from 8th grade, also why I've never "served" my country.



Sounds like a real winner here. How many of Your children are being supported by the American tax payer?



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Every time i see one of these stories where the department head knew nothing about it i think "Moe, Larry the cheese", because only one of the 3 stooges could be so stupid as to believe anyone will buy his denial.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join