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

Breaking!!! Assange Internet has been disabled by state attack!

page: 7
71
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 04:32 AM
link   
a reply to: imjack

I'm just taking you to task for your comments on a public forum..

I invite you to cease posting if you don't like it.




posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 04:34 AM
link   
wow

i.imgur.com...

newsworldpaper.com...


BREAKING: Julian Assange DEAD, Ecuadorean Embassy Raided MINUTES Ago
edit on 17/10/2016 by stonerwilliam because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 04:35 AM
link   


Somebody called the Embassy for confirmation that Assange was ok. There was no confirmation, woman just says "I can't talk about that".

I suppose that is normal? But she could have said he is fine, if he was fine, right?



(post by imjack removed for a manners violation)

posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 04:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: stonerwilliam
wow

i.imgur.com...


Well I just watched 2 livestreams and there were no armed forces there...




posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 04:40 AM
link   
a reply to: imjack




No, you're trolling. And you're a troll.


You're adorable when you're flustered.

I invite you to peruse every post I made in this thread

Feel free to point out which ones are the trolling posts.

All I did was refute your assertions.

Now all you have left is to accuse me of trolling. If you really believe that to be so, I invite you to alert the posts you believe are reflective of this accusation to the moderators, as there is an anti-trolling provision in the Terms and Conditions.



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 04:45 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

You're trolling because you have yet to assert your position if you believe Hillary intentionally released the information.
There's nothing else to it.



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 04:47 AM
link   
a reply to: imjack




You're trolling because you have yet to assert your position if you believe Hillary intentionally released the information.


I never asserted that.

That link I posted will take you to every post I made in this thread.

I encourage you to find where I made that assertion.

Once again, I invite you to alert the posts you deem reflective of trolling.



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 04:50 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Reading isn't your strong suit.

That sentence translates to "You have not taken a position, on if you believe Hillary intentionally released the information."

'yet to assert' should be the biggest clue I'm accusing you of not even having a position yet.

Ignoring it for pages, deflecting every post, including probably the next one.

edit on 17-10-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 04:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj


Somebody called the Embassy for confirmation that Assange was ok. There was no confirmation, woman just says "I can't talk about that".

I suppose that is normal? But she could have said he is fine, if he was fine, right?



It weird because it's the second call within 24 hours that was made public and the first call the person answering stated that Assange was perfectly fine.....



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 04:53 AM
link   
a reply to: imjack

I never made that accusation against Hillary Clinton. I did say this:




That's not the accusation. The accusation, which is correct, is that her negligent handling of classified information, negligent transmission contrary to federal law and established protocol, created the circumstances by which this information was leaked.



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 04:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

The news was hours old when i woke up it could have been all over in the dark of night , i posted the news to see what others knew




edit on 17/10/2016 by stonerwilliam because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 04:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: projectvxn

Reading isn't your strong suit.


Frankly, the same could be said of you.

The post that started you off on your tangent said...

"We're not sure if Hillary broke laws intentionally, or out of ignorance.", yet you've gone on for pages as if what was said was just, "Hillary broke laws intentionally".

A simple "I don't think it was intentional" would have sufficed, and leave it at that.



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Did Hillary choose to use her own non secure server . yes
Did Hillary choose to send emails to non secure email addresses . yes

I really do fail to see where people are getting confused .



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 05:01 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

And I never accused you of making that accusation. Can you read? Your comprehension is disturbingly bad. I responded to someone else that made the accusation, and that is the post you started making all your irrelevant 'points' to me. I was ONLY responding to the point it's OBVIOUS it was not INTENTIONAL.

I never even disagree with your points about the protocols. The discussion however was not about that.

Seeing as you successfully dodged the question AGAIN, maybe you can contact the moderator yourself?

Do you believe Clinton intentionally released the information? That would be a question, not an accusation, I know comprehension of this extremely simple question is completely lost on you. Try your best.
edit on 17-10-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 05:04 AM
link   
a reply to: redmage

I agree that would have sufficed, specifically why he avoided answering it for 10 posts. Clearly a troll.
edit on 17-10-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 05:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: imjack
I responded to someone else that made the accusation


Again, "We're not sure if Hillary broke laws intentionally, or out of ignorance.", is pretty weak for you to declare as an "accusation" of doing it intentionally.

What is clear is that she broke the law with her mishandling of classified info, but beyond that not much is known except that she faces no consequences for something that would have put your average service-man/woman in Leavenworth.
edit on 10/17/16 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 05:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: imjack

I agree that would have sufficed


Then why did you go on for pages seemingly misrepresenting the original quote you were responding to?


Clearly a troll.


It seems someone surely is....
edit on 10/17/16 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 05:12 AM
link   
a reply to: redmage

You'd still have to be an idiot to not understand that's what I was saying after the 5th post. It's not even worth quoting anything when it's already been so heavily laid out what the position is.

Tbh, you're just deflecting for him now. He can respond to that last post. I'd love to hear more about how I don't know what I'm talking about when noone other than you can even answer the basic question I asked 10 times.

it was such a simple question it was nearly rhetorical. I'm not buying any excuse he has to not answering it other than raw trolling-douchery, or an IQ under 60.
edit on 17-10-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 05:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysticPearl
Poor Obama, poor Hillary, life's just so hard when the truth gets out.


When you base your life and your career upon nothing but lies, and lies to cover-up lies it eventually bites you in the ass. It is important to remember that the default...the normal is truth and facts. They always come back into style and bring down the wrong-doers.



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join