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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Hillary Clinton gave order for Waco massacre

page: 6
47
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: mOjOm
Reno was a big fish and Cunningham wasn't?



I don't think he's as big a fish as Reno was, but that's just an opinion.




posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: ColaTesla




Clinton was not in any position that would have given her authority to order or escalate the siege that ended with the deaths of 76 religious cult members in 1993.


False according to Snopes.

Snopes


I em ember a time snopes actually meant something
Now snopes is just msm reporting



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler
Many of them are dead. Did you take a look at the list? And many have served out their sentences. Unless you think every crime deserves life-long incarceration.

So what's the point of this thread again? Oh, yeah. It's the idea that Hillary gave the order for Waco. I still see no credible evidence.


Maybe not life but some of them sure do get light sentences. Some are even pardoned or only serve a tiny portion of their time.

They certainly get off easier than any normal citizen would if convicted of a similar crime.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

That would be an interesting thing to look into, statistically.

In any case, the premise of this thread is absurd. As are "sources" provided.

edit on 9/18/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Then go with the fact that Reno Testified to it herself.

There is no evidence at all that Hillary had anything to do with calling the shots about Waco.

There is plenty of evidence to show that Janet Reno was in charge of it however and gave the orders to what happened. Including herself telling you that she was in charge of it.

Not sure how much more clear it can be.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You edited your post.

Now this is awkward.
edit on 18-9-2016 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I know. I caught it.

Not awkward. You were right.

edit on 9/18/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: ColaTesla




Clinton was not in any position that would have given her authority to order or escalate the siege that ended with the deaths of 76 religious cult members in 1993.


False according to Snopes.

Snopes


I em ember a time snopes actually meant something
Now snopes is just msm reporting


Factcheck.org is way more credible than Snopes, who's owners are Canadian with a liberal slant.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable

So, the sources which Snopes links are not valid?



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Your unfortunate perspective (I'm sorry for your friend) does not give you any insight behind the scenes.


No. But his parents, who were on the scene before it ended, did.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: boncho

This post should have its own thread. Snopes is just another government / big corporate mouthpiece for the official story. Its the opposite of an actual reference yet is often cited as a source as if it was a science journal. Snopes routinely denies linking to credible sources and science journals that disagree with the story they are pushing. And its ever more devious because much of the material and links are accurate, particularly on items that dont mean much or are not truly contested.

It looks like the story of Clinton pulling the trigger is short on supporting evidence and long on conjecture.
edit on 18-9-2016 by pirhanna because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UnBreakable

So, the sources which Snopes links are not valid?


Not saying Snopes is not valid, just that I prefer Factcheck.org first.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

I respect what you are saying. However, I am not alone in having only rumor on the clintons and not enough evidence to convict them. In fact, that group is getting larger every day. It is huge already. I am not alone. The problem is that the people who have the proof keep getting dead...under strange circumstances. With all the accusations against the clintons made by so so many people all over the world, at what point does defending them stop being the optimum choice? How many people whom have died suspiciously had only rumors about them?

I know what I know. Whether I can provide proof sufficient to convince you is the question. In the end, the answer means nothing to me. My knowledge and experience on this subject is not dependent on your being convinced of its authenticity.

My friend, along with his wife and children, are dead. The only thing anyone had on him was the suspicion that he was a straw man buyer for koresh. However, with the weapons he purchased at his place of residence that is a questionable argument at best. They lived communally. Every weapon my friend purchased was there where he lived. Making the case that he was a straw man buyer was tenuous at best. Deciding he, his entire family, and dozens of others including many women and children deserved to die for it - ludicrous.
edit on 18-9-2016 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable

I didn't actually ask about Snopes, but about its links.

I see it like Wikipedia, used as a jumping off point because they usually do provide links directly to sources.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ColaTesla

I recall this siege vividly, it was an awakening of sorts for me as to the extent the US government will go to silence dissent. At no time prior to this thread has Hillary been raised as the fundamental force behind the final ATF assault, and there has been plenty of dissection of this topic over the last 20+ years.

If there is any truth to this claim that she gave the order, then now will be the time it gets exposed because there are many investigative journalists out there who would love nothing more than to bury Hillary for good, personally I think this is a real stretch to link her to any real decisions that were made to take down the compound.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: schuyler

I know what I know. Whether I can provide proof sufficient to convince you is the question. In the end, the answer means nothing to me. My knowledge and experience on this subject is not dependent on your being convinced of its authenticity.


You know ONLY what you know. The problem with your "testimony" is that you have no link to Hillary. You have a rumor that you are presenting as evidence. The rest and largest portion of your testimony is about Waco itself. I appreciate that you know that part of it, but there is no serviceable connection back to Hillary. Then you go tell everyone that if they contradict you they "damn well better" have evidence. That veiled and ridiculous threat aside, why do they need evidence when you present none whatsoever?

You have no evidence here. It won't stand up in court. It won't stand up here no matter how many "others" you claim believe the same as you do. Your "evidence" doesn't even qualify as hearsay, which is itself inadmissible. You hear a rumor and you believe it. That's all. That's beyond mediocre. It's beyond weak.

If that's all you've got, you got nothin'. Sorry.


originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Not calling you a liar, but I will point out an inaccuracy. All four agents that were killed were not recent transfers from the secret service.


And even the rumor itself is getting shaky.


edit on 9/18/2016 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Not calling you a liar, but I will point out an inaccuracy. All four agents that were killed were not recent transfers from the secret service.

McKeehan joined ATF in 1989 and prior to that had been in the Marines and worked for a sheriff's office, as well as going to college. Unless the speculation is that somehow before the age of 30, he managed to serve a hitch in the Marines including a deployment for desert storm, get a college degree, intern with the Marshals, make it through secret service training and somehow skip the part where you don't do protective detail right out of training, then receive two awards from ATF years before '93, and then finally became an ATF agent just in time for for Waco.

LeBleu joined ATF in 1987, and received multiple awards prior to 93 and served as a sheriff's deputy before moving into ATF. He also received recognition from outside entities for being involved in training with them, as a member of ATF.

Williams joined ATF in 1988, and was recognized for his efforts, as an ATF agent, in several large investigations. Coincidentally, his father is retired secret service.

Willis joined ATF in 1990, and prior to that was an agent for the defense investigative service.

That's an awful lot of backstory to have just been made up and not have one person come along and say "no, actually mckeehan didn't win that award" or "no, williams actually wasn't even at that arson investigation."

All four agents participated in some degree of protective detail for Clinton at some point, either while he was governor or during the campaign. As did literally hundreds of other people. I'm all for unraveling a conspiracy, but let's not do that by connecting dots that aren't there.
edit on 18-9-2016 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

the Kennedy's were assassinated, Nixon had to resign, Chuck Colson did the time for Watergate.

Bill Clinton still "dicking bimbo's in the next room, never got in trouble, Obama has lied so many times and no one cares not even the peopel or the media, and Hillary well we are still waiting.

the point being you said none of them got in trouble. I pointed out it wasn't true except int he case of the Clinton's.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: MongolianPaellaFish

Hillary stole Bill Clinton's bacon when they got married and that is why he is porking every woman he can ever since.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish
Hillary Clinton stole my bacon back in '92!


Believe it or not, there is a member on this site that believes the government is going to come take your bacon.




new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join