Terrorist Sympathizer Obama Has DHS Delete Terrorist's Records!

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Well, why not sift through and post a link to an article that is not from a right-wing blog or Republican mouthpiece?

Rather than giving a link to a Google search?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Honestly? Mostly because I don't have the time to look at each post and then somehow try to figure out if the site is left or right. But my previous post about which is more likely kind of sums up my logic. It makes no sense for the right to lie and risk much...it makes more sense for the left to stay quiet and risk nothing.

Prove that logic wrong and you have my attention.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: Gryphon66

Honestly? Mostly because I don't have the time to look at each post and then somehow try to figure out if the site is left or right. But my previous post about which is more likely kind of sums up my logic. It makes no sense for the right to lie and risk much...it makes more sense for the left to stay quiet and risk nothing.

Prove that logic wrong and you have my attention.

Your "logic" that the right tells the truth and the left doesn't? You seem pretty clear on right and left to me.

LOL ... unless you can find something that is not obviously right-wing propaganda, I think we're done.

You're gesturing wildly to 45,000 or so links and saying "See! I'm right."

Not much logic there.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Don't be an ass! You know my example and the logic behind it. All of you liberals like twisting words. I never said one side lies and the other doesn't. Are you blind? Didn't you read my words? So go ahead...prove that the logic that one person lying and taking a risk is less likely that the opposition shutting up and not taking a risk.

Problem is...you can't. So you twist words, make up statements, etc. to cover for your total lack of a point other than your liberal ass-kissing of the liar in chief.

Nothing more to say to you. You have completely invalidated your integrity. Not worth another moment of my time.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

If there were any actual proof or even decent evidence that the Obama Administration was selectively scrubbing information about known terrorists from the nation's data repositories, are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that every news outlet in the country wouldn't be screaming it from every corner?

I asked you to do something simple to back up your claim, you're desperately trying to make it about me, liberals, some grand conspiracy ...

Cite something that verifies this story from a known, respected non-partisan source. This is not difficult, and it is your claim to support, not mine.

My "integrity" is not at risk here.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Not at risk...gone.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: Gryphon66

Not at risk...gone.

LOL .. .cite a source.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

It makes no sense for the right to lie and risk much...it makes more sense for the left to stay quiet and risk nothing.

This is the funny part, I guess you want to live in a world where websites on the internet have never posted exaggerated headlines or just outright false ones.
Just go look in the LOL or Hoax bins and you will see them from all sorts of sources.
They are probably not lying, but distorting or twisting possibly.
ETA: As in yes they were told to delete stuff, but it was stuff that was considered not important. This 'whistle blower' didn't really say much in the source, just that stuff was deleted. Also MrSpad pointed out this was happening in the 2008 time period, sounds like it is possible obama wasn't even in office yet.

You seem to be putting all your eggs in the basket that these websites are above twisting or distorting a claim and would only possibly post the truth and nothing but the truth like they are under oath or something.

I bet you would be laughing in our face's if we were talking about how since alter net or mother jones posted it and they would NEVER risk lying it must be true.

another post below.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

Something's really wrong here. I mean...with THAT title on the thread, where are all the liberal Obama-ass-kissers who are supposed to call me (or us) racist? Where are the defenders of this president? Where are those who voted for this terrorist twice who should be here lying or at least saying "but so-and-so did the same thing" or some other crap?

Where is everybody????

They are busy waiting for coded email instructions from The Hillary Clinton for President Campaign

The PR contractors are analyzing the fallout defense tactics.

originally posted by: Kitana
a reply to: vjr1113

The Boston attack... They were Bosnian

They were Chechen, not Bosnian. Bosnia is about 1,000 miles from Chechnya.

I would like to know if he walked out with proof because something like this makes our government directly responsible for supporting terror and providing material support by not acting on known data, and instead erasing it. This is a very serious charge. This is treason.

So far, there's no indication he walked out with any proof of any of his claims.

Obama was the distraction from Bush's crimes. Bush's "stupidity" was the reason for his neglect of duty. The next POTUS will cover up Obama's mess, and so on and so forth.

Hey, I just found out about this guy, he is real. He doesn't have proof, but what he is saying is that they were discontinuing investigations of people with known terror ties due to deciding it was not PC enough to continue to investigate them, and he believes this policy of knowing some people have actual terrorist ties and simply deciding not to keep them under investigation even though they have such history is a dangerous policy here in the US.

I know about one of the cases he is talking about, he is real. The first article that was offered in the OP, was a bit over dramatized, but this guy is real.

We DO need to keep all those people with known terrorist ties under investigation the whole time they are in this country. We cannot do anything until they act, but if we are not watching them then when they do act we cannot catch it. And people with known ties to terrorism are the most dangerous and the most likely to actually commit terrorist attacks. They have a much higher likelihood than anyone else.

www.breitbart.com...

a reply to: links234

simple mistake. I do apologize but I had a bout of insomnia and I havent slept at all in a while. Hoping to soon! lol

I found another article about this guy. It is not as dramatic as is in the OP.

a reply to: Kitana

It had nothing to do with PC, it was about a civil rights issue. I know people like to conflate the two,
He thinks foreign nationals don't deserve them, well news flash to him, that isn't how our constitution works.
Nothing to do with PC.

The guy also says he has worked for the the DHS for 15 years, well you might want to check his math there and look when it was created.

Haney says officials accused of unfairly profiling Muslims because Tablighi Jamaat, the sub-group of Deobandi, was not on a list of specially designated terrorist organizations.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... uashed-government-didn-t-want-unfairly-profile-Islamic-groups.html#ixzz3zWuVnBiX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

a reply to: Sremmos80

I have civil rights, a Muslim has civil rights, but guess what - when you begin to talk to known terrorists, go train in camps where the teach extreme extremism, I would expect to become a target of an FBI or DHS investigation. Seriously, I would. You cannot start up such activity without expecting your civil rights to turn into an active FBI or DHS investigation as to your activities, and with court order, they can keep you under surveillance should the judge find it warranted.

You don't simply decide you cannot have them under surveillance no matter their activity because it appears prejudiced. Muslims are 5000 times more likely than anyone else to commit a terrorist attack. You can jack that up even more for the ones with known ties to extremism.

And, whether you realize it or not, it IS a problem.

a reply to: Kitana

And the issue was, the people he was going after didn't have the ties he said they did to have their rights revoked...

Muslims are 5000 times more likely than anyone else to commit a terrorist attack.

Talk about BS numbers, would LOVE to see any source close to that.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: smurfy

What difference is there between Obama and Obama's administration? Sounds like a weak attempt to confuse the situation.

Sounds like yours is a weak attempt to make a minor part of my post as the main thrust of it.
I repeat my full post,

"If this guy Philip Haney is slating the President or the administration et al, (it's not too clear) where is the printed word with all the specifics...names, dates and places etc, of all those concerned, Obama, the administration, the terrorists, what they were up to, where they were coming from, and how did they get in if not residents...like, this is not exactly Snowden is it?"

Now, if Philip Hanley had put something tangible on the table, (especially since he had data at some time) that would be a different matter. However as yet he hasn't.

The fact that you continue to give this lying, criminal the benefit of the doubt over anyone else...let alone someone who can lose everything by "coming out with it" is not only a sign, but proof to me that Obama could shoot a child in the head while laughing his ass off on camera and you would claim the child was a threat. Your words hold no value after this pathetic effort to prop up this creature that calls himself president. I will never call him anything but scum.

I bet ya someone will give you a star for that. No matter, the FBI will be on the job soon and get it all sorted.
In the meantime, why don't you go and ask Philip Hanley for all the documentation, and plonk it on this forum for the forum's dissemination.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: spinalremain

Well it does matter when the title and general theme of this is Obama and him being a terrorist sympathizer.

Even tho the guy has been regularly drone striking the middle east his whole time in office.

Yes I understand. You can't take that seriously though. Clearly, there are some at ATS with a polar agenda.

originally posted by: JuJuBee
Obama was the distraction from Bush's crimes. Bush's "stupidity" was the reason for his neglect of duty. The next POTUS will cover up Obama's mess, and so on and so forth.

GW of course is not stupid, however, he is a little, ingloriously thick, but very clever at playing stupid even though he is thick. He sent me an e-mail admitting that, then another one telling me to delete it....so I did.