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

Wikileaks Hillary knew Saudis sponsored ISIS took money from them, and helped cover it up

page: 10
132
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I wondered at the time if this was a slip of tongue or a freudian slip ... None, he really meant that.




posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

I will watch the vice video at sometime, but I am on mobile data now and can't do videos.

Basically you argument boils down to none of this is new information and the Saudis are not homogeneous.

I think this is new because we have an admission from Hillary that she knows that the Saudi government funds Isis, and it outlines a timeline that directly shows she sent the Podesta group to Saudi Arabia to work on their PR and cover their connections to Isis.

But it doesn't matter if its new or not at the end of the day. Why would the fact that you knew for a while that Hillary was helping arm Isis, accepting money from people that financed them, and helping the Saudis cover their Isis connection change how serious you viewed this?

Then the argument about Saudi not being homogenous.

First it doesn't matter, Hillary claimed the government of Saudi was financing Isis. Not private citizens, not some of the government. She said the government. And she sent the Podesta group to help cover this up.

Why not expose the parts of the government that were among them? Instead, she helps them cover it up.

And even if there are many factions in the Saudi government, that excuses none of this.

You can not arm, take money from, and help cover up for a group that says "Half of us are terrorists, but half are not".

This is ridiculous.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Your post is 20 percent facts and 80 percent BS molded to create a picture that suits your agenda.

Not going to discuss further as you seem to be wholly comfortable just inventing stuff to help your OP make sense.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

more of "everybody else did it"

Oh and when we get emails from everybody else in the government showing they KNEW saudi arabia and quatar were state sponsors of terror we can blame them.

I dont have to explain anything, HILLARY has to explain why she KNEW the quataris and the saudis were sponsoring isis and did nothing about it.

You may be able to deflect forever, but you wont have to do this past november. The american people will find out about this and when they do the dems will wish they had trump as a nom.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5




Not going to discuss further as you seem to be wholly comfortable just inventing stuff to help your OP make sense.

lol not surprised as hillary is exposed and indefensible.
Abetting isis is a loser position on election day.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 03:17 PM
link   
She could always say she was defrauded by that person. We need to prove that she in fact knew this information herself and was willing to help isil.

That is where the issue is legally.

While this can damage her image, it is not damning enough tp tide people over.

It is the same when i walk into a fast food place claiming my wife had an alergic reaction to a burger she ordered. She asked for no tomatoes, but it had tomatoes in it. Then i give you a false phone number, and you just give me what i want for free. Same thing.

We have to prove that hillary knowingly and willingly helped isil. Which means more digging. We need to prove hillary knew she was helping to create isil.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: GiulXainx

she armed them
she took money from them
what more proof do you need?



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: GiulXainx
She could always say she was defrauded by that person. We need to prove that she in fact knew this information herself and was willing to help isil.

That is where the issue is legally.

While this can damage her image, it is not damning enough tp tide people over.

It is the same when i walk into a fast food place claiming my wife had an alergic reaction to a burger she ordered. She asked for no tomatoes, but it had tomatoes in it. Then i give you a false phone number, and you just give me what i want for free. Same thing.

We have to prove that hillary knowingly and willingly helped isil. Which means more digging. We need to prove hillary knew she was helping to create isil.


I see where you are coming from, and you may be right as far as actually charging her with treason.

But in the end although more proof would be ideal, I think we already have what we need to make a judgement.

She said she though the Saudis were arming Isis. Lets assume for a minute that the Saudis were in fact not arming Isis.

She still took all of the actions she did under the assumption that they was arming Isis.

That is damning. She accepted money, made arming them a top priority, and sent a pr firm to help their image all under the belief that they were arming Isis.
edit on 12-10-2016 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   

edit on 12-10-2016 by mecheng because: Nevermind



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Wow..

The Hillary haters really dont understand how the world works. Principality has no place in big time descisions.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
Wow..

The Hillary haters really dont understand how the world works. Principality has no place in big time descisions.


Or, maybe they do and are tired of it. I'm not sure how 'principality' figures into this...but you can bet the farm if this was leaked about Trump, he'd be more than finished. It's really more about hypocrisy.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Will someone — who is actually capable of it — calmly and lucidly explain what wrongdoing has occurred here?

The Clinton Foundation is not Hillary Clinton. It is a trust that operates autonomously, as it is supposed to do under the law.

One of the ways it raises money is through speaking appearances by Bill (and Hillary) Clinton. They don’t get the money. The foundation keeps it. If Bill Clinton accepted a speaking engagement in Saudi Arabia, it was for the foundation, not for himself. That’s what he does these days, work for the foundation.

I don’t doubt that he was royally wined and dined and that all his expenses were paid — that is just as it should be when one is hosting a former leader of the world’s most powerful nation. Any other treatment of him would have been scandalous.

Yes, Mrs Clinton knew that the Saudis and Qataris were funding Sunni terrorists. We all knew that, didn’t we? We knew that they did, and we knew that she did. Nothing new in that ‘revelation’.

And — I realise some of you will not be able to understand this — that is absolutely no reason for the Clinton Foundation to turn down Qatari or Saudi donations. Seriously. That is the reason why trusts exist in the first place.

And why should a charitable foundation not accept donations from a legitimate member of the international community, or from any of its citizens who is not a convicted criminal or compromised in any other way?

As for the Saudis, I’m sure they had their reasons (and hopes) for making such donations. But what have they actually received from the Clintons in return? Where is the evidence of a quid pro quo?

Absent speculation about connexions that have not been proven to exist, or favours that have not been shown to have been done, what is there to see here? Empty air.

If this is all the criminals at Wikileaks can come up with, (and they are criminals, make no mistake about it), the Clinton campaign will be laughing all the way to the election.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
Why you guys are not rioting in the streets about the fact you have two muppets running for president is beyond me.


I think it is the fluoride in their water and the collusion of the press with one candidate or the other.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Yes, Mrs Clinton knew that the Saudis and Qataris were funding Sunni terrorists. We all knew that, didn’t we? We knew that they did, and we knew that she did. Nothing new in that ‘revelation

Uh no that is not true

m.state.gov...



Currently there are three countries designated under these authorities: Iran, Sudan, and Syria

Hillary KNEW they the saudis and qutaris were sponsoring isis.
It was HER DAMN JOB to sanction these countries. What did she do? She took money from them, facilitated them getting arms, and kept them off the sanction list.
She is complicit in EVERY isis terrorist attack after she knew.
This is treason. American citizens DIED on american soil.
This is the worst scandal in american history.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
This in my opinion may be the biggest revelation in the leaked documents.

I have not seen anyone connect the dots like this, and so I hope people find this informative.

First the leak today.


Clinton sent the email on August 17, 2014 to Podesta. It was an eight-point plan to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Clinton’s email said that the United States should support Kurdish forces on the ground with U.S. military advisers and avoid the use of a conventional ground operation.

“While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region,” Clinton wrote.


dailycaller.com...

So Hillary knew that the saudis and Qatar were sponsering Isis. This is huge in its own right for non election reasons.

The current administration is still buddying up to regimes we know sponsor Isis. This is appalling!

No wonder Obama wants to belittle the threat Isis is, he is partnering with countries that sponsor them!

But now is where it gets really interesting.

First, I have got give a shout out to ATS member Socrato for posting this article.

This is damning as far as I am concerned.

Remember when the media went nuts because David Duke may have donated money to Trump. He had to denounce him, etc. etc. Although Duke is a scum bag, he pales in comparison to ISIS.

And now we find out that in 2014 Hillary knew that Saudi and Qatar were giving money to ISIS, and yet she still accepted the money the gave her? UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!

But it gets worse.

Keep in mind that the leaked email was from August 17 2014. It showed that Hillary knew Saudis sponsored terrorism and she wanted to deal with them.

Now fast forward to September 2014. Look at this!!!!



Last Sept. 4, Bill Clinton met with King Salman for what was described by one source as a “brief courtesy visit” at the Four Seasons Hotel. Two weeks later, on Sept. 18, the Podesta Group filed papers with the Justice Department reporting that it had been retained by an entity called “the Center for Studies and Media Affairs at the Saudi Royal Court.”



www.yahoo.com...

So on August 17 2014 Hillary is writing that she knows that Saudi is a state sponsor of ISIS, and says we should pressure them. The next Month, Bill meets with the Saudis, and two weeks later, the Podesta Group that is connected to the Clintons is hired to represent the Saudis.

This is unbelievable!!!!

Keep in mind that the August 17 email was to John Podesta, HIllarys campaign manager, and brother of the Podesta Group Chairman Tony Podesta. So Hillary emails John about knowing the saudis sponsor Isis, a couple of weeks later Bill visits the Saudis, and then a couple of weeks later the Saudis hire Hillarys campaign managers brother firm to help their public image. Just what was the Podesta group supposed to do for the Saudis?



The Saudi government, under increasing criticism over civilian casualties from its airstrikes in Yemen and a harsh crackdown on political dissidents at home, has just hired a powerhouse Washington, D.C., lobbying firm headed by a top Hillary Clinton fundraiser — an arrangement that critics charge raises fresh questions about the influence that foreign government lobbyists could have on her campaign.

The Saudi contract with the Podesta Group, owned by veteran Washington lobbyist and Clinton campaign bundler Tony Podesta, calls for the firm to provide “public relations” and other services on behalf of the royal court of King Salman.



www.yahoo.com...

This is amazing. It is proof that not only did Hillary know that the Saudis sponsored ISIS, but she sent Bill to meet with them, and then sent a firm connected to her to help cover up the Saudis crimes.

In exchange, the Saudis paid the Clinton foundation up to 25 million dollars that Clinton has not given back, and paid the Podesta firm and Bill large sums of money.

This should be the biggest story on the news right now! Proof that Hillary intentional took money from and helped a sponsor of ISIS!


All social issue leaked emails in the msm
Not much on this
Name calling bs is really important
Treason is not



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Hopefully we few are not the only ones taking notice.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Dear lord. Are you really so naive?

Are you really so naive as to expect that states have no secrets? Or that their public pronouncements are not acts of policy?


Hillary KNEW they the saudis and qutaris were sponsoring isis.

Yes. So did just about everybody else.


It was HER DAMN JOB to sanction these countries.

No. It was her job (while Secretary of State) to look after the interests of the USA. If sanctions were in the country’s interest, then sanctions there would be. If they were likely to damage US interests, then there would be none.

But that is not for you or I to decide. It is for the relevant constituted authority to decide. I believe that authority, in the US, is the President.


What did she do? She took money from them,

No, the Clinton Foundation accepted money from them, as it had every right to do.


facilitated them getting arms, and kept them off the sanction list.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar are longstanding allies of the United States, which has defence agreements with both countries. It also has close commercial ties with both. It is hard to see how American security or economic interests would be served by abrogating those agreements and imposing sanctions. What would happen next, in the resulting power vacuum? A US occupation of the Gulf? Or should you just leave them to the Russians and the Iranians?


She is complicit in EVERY isis terrorist attack after she knew.

Fiddlesticks.


This is treason. American citizens DIED on american soil.

Strategic errors are not treason. And where else should American citizens die? On foreign soil?


This is the worst scandal in american history.

You clearly don’t know much American history. And the naivety of your post perfectly demonstrates why most people are unfit to hold political office.

Next, please.

Can someone tell me, without all the hysterical reaching and confabulation, what wrongdoing has actually been shown here?

Thanks in advance.

edit on 12/10/16 by Astyanax because: of Aaron Burr



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Its out
It wont go away
She is a traitor

Clinton’s explosive memo accuses the Saudi and Qatari governments of terror support and refers to past U.S. plans to arm Syrian fighters.

Read more at: www.nationalreview.com...


Others are putting the pieces together.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Absolutely nothing in that National Review article suggests treason.

Forget it, chum, you’ve had your shot. Next, please.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: shooterbrody

Absolutely nothing in that National Review article suggests treason.

Forget it, chum, you’ve had your shot. Next, please.

Reading is fundamental
Giving guns to isis is treason
Think those guns were used in paris?

It must be noted that critics, including yours truly, have opposed working with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey to arm Syrian fighters because these countries aid and abet jihadists. Whether our government has colluded with these countries to steer weapons to Syrian groups, or has directly provided weapons to groups backed by these countries, many of the weapons so provided have ended up in the hands of anti-American jihadists, including ISIS and al-Qaeda

Read more at: www.nationalreview.com...



new topics

top topics



 
132
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join