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.

 

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

page: 7
132
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 12:55 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Do you think Wikileaks has some good info or do you think it's a psyop?




posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 12:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Encryptor

Had I not seen the fallout from released wikileaked materials, I would assume the latter. Why do you ask?



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 01:17 AM
link   
Your timeline fits into what I had been reading back in Sept 2015, which to me is the why behind the Administrations blind eye to the fact that our allies have been arming ISIS.


www.zerohedge.com...





“Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar and Turkey that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North field, contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets – albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad’s rationale was ‘to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas.’”


This also explains President Obama's stance with Russia concerning Ukraine, and why all of a sudden Hillary Clinton wants to accuse Russia of cyber warfare.

The need for Saudi PR becomes obvious. Chess can be a slow game with much strategy and many components but it only has one goal "checkmate".
edit on 12-10-2016 by 2gd2btru because: Typo



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: 2gd2btru

It's always been about resources has it not? I thought it was assumed. Think of the amount of lives lost so a few can get rich and even more powerful. Shameful.






posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 01:24 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

True. I just wanted to hear your opinion on Wikileaks, there's been a lot of talk about it and lot of mistruths mixed with truths from various websites. I tend to believe there's a lot of truth, mixed with a bit of untruth, but i feel that's the case for most everything we read online, such as Alex Jones.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Encryptor

I could certainly believe that. After I replied to your post it certainly got me thinking so cheers to that! A thread on the question you asked would be a great discussion if you care to make a thread on it.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 01:27 AM
link   
originally posted by: 2gd2btru

Your timeline fits into what I had been reading back in Sept 2015, which to me is the why behind the Administrations blind eye to the fact that our allies have been arming ISIS.


See that right there should be cause for alarm bells, but for some reason it's not. It should be, and it's like people are so dumbed down they'd rather ignore that fact.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 01:31 AM
link   
The problem is, I don't know that HRC had anything to do with the 2015 arms deal as she wasn't operating in any official capacity at the time.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 01:34 AM
link   
And here is a 2015 article saying Saudi is rounding up and arresting ISIS supporters, did they change their way or are these really shiites?



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 01:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: xstealth
The problem is, I don't know that HRC had anything to do with the 2015 arms deal as she wasn't operating in any official capacity at the time.


Right. However, as has been shown earlier in the thread, Hillary did sell tons of arms to the Saudis when she was there.

And also, I feel it is safe to assume that Obama and Kerry would have also known what Hillary claims to know, that the Saudis are sponsoring ISIS, and they still went ahead with the arms deal.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Say, that's a good idea. Gotta find the right forum to stick it in so give me a few!



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Found this

www.ibtimes.com...

Tons of info regarding sales during SoS and CF donators. Quite a long read.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI
Of course it has always been about the resources. I hate what our country has done to Syria just because the Saudis want their pipeline. This globalist administration feels they can trounce which ever sovereign nation that doesn't go along with their greed. Shameful indeed.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I will do my best to address your excellent points. If I don't address them all it is because I don't want to go off topic. Anybody who is age 30 and under will bear the brunt of what the non thinking people are helping to sow. Evidently the history of 2 world wars in the 20th Century just isn't enough for many people.

There are past political leaders who have broken the ceiling that are deserving of my respect. Margaret Thatcher and Helen Clark spring to mind. I don't agree with Clark in political terms. But I do respect her for being a good role model in terms of being the first women NZ Prime Minster to be elected in her own right. For me at least politics isn't personnel. So the fact I find Clinton to be repulsive is no small thing.

Sure there are people that will carry partisan water for their candidate or political party. The who saga around Trump's partially leaked tax return was a symptom of this merry go round. That anybody brought into the whole "Trump hasn't paid taxes in 20 years" mantra explains why Nigerian internet scams are still around.

I find Trump's comments concerning women to be disgusted. Never the less rational logic says the potential impact of Trump's foreign policy on Australia and New Zealand would do more to shape my future than his comments about women.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Another interesting article from 2014, seems to be very accurate
www.reuters.com...



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 01:57 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

And I think we're looking to hard here, you don't have to do much research to conclude that Hillary was involved in gun running, it's declassified from a FOI request

www.judicialwatch.org...

As far as Saudi Arabia there was no credible sources showing the government directly funding ISIS, but it was being done through rich individuals and families in Saudi Arabia. Unless there is concrete proof of it, then nothing could be said about it.

So it would be hard to prove anything outside of the Benghazi/Syria weapons trafficking FOI information.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 02:02 AM
link   
a reply to: xstealth

There is no doubt that she was aiding SA. As you've proven it's "in the books."

The new stuff here is that she KNEW that the Saudis were funding ISIS and other extremists. Also, moreover she was actively covering up with the help of the brother of John Podesta. Also, Ol' Billy was also over there orchestrating the week before.

That's the gist of the OP



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 02:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: xstealth
a reply to: JinMI

And I think we're looking to hard here, you don't have to do much research to conclude that Hillary was involved in gun running, it's declassified from a FOI request

www.judicialwatch.org...

As far as Saudi Arabia there was no credible sources showing the government directly funding ISIS, but it was being done through rich individuals and families in Saudi Arabia. Unless there is concrete proof of it, then nothing could be said about it.

So it would be hard to prove anything outside of the Benghazi/Syria weapons trafficking FOI information.


Its definitely a good article, but Hillary and Obama would claim that the gave those weapons to moderate rebels in Syria.

Now we know that they have no way of knowing that only moderates got these weapons but that would be the excuse.

That is the trouble with these things. Unless you have 100% proof, politicians and their followers will always say that it didn't happen.

Thats why I think this thread is so damning.

One little detail changed would have enabled everyone to blow the whole thing off.

For example, had it been Podesta instead of Hillary that said the Saudis were arming Isis, many people would be on this thread saying "Hillary didn't say that, so we don't know if believed that the Saudis were finding Isis".

And presto, the story would be discredited. But to have all of this line up, Hillary admitting the Saudi Isis connection, the fact that the email was to Podesta, the timeline of Bill and the Podesta group working with the Saudis, and the proof of the millions of dollars she received, it is amazing.

And so because it can't be brushed off, it looks like it will just be ignored by many Hillary supporters.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 02:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I understand that, but the problem is the news articles from the same time all say the same thing Hillary said, but none could verify it was the Saudi government.

They claim, as she will claim, it was rich independent anonymous Saudi's so supplying their government was a safe operation.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 04:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Would not be surprised if the reason Hilary deleted and destroyed evidence was that she was being paid by and knew about these dealings and just allowed it to happen because she was being paid a pretty penny.

Again, those of us who do something slight face huge penalties and prison time yet Hilary commits huge wrong doings and yet runs around scot free on national television. How wrong and insane is that.




top topics



 
132
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join