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 2008 : "If I'm the president, we will attack Iran"

page: 2
22
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: LifeMode

unleash the Kraken? Putin won't give her the chance.

The world laughed in Putin's face at his mass exercises for nuclear war. He told his people to prepare for it, and ran some pretty serious drills. Notice how here our government didn't even budge. No exercises for the same, just blunt hubris and disregard.

Now all of you think very, very carefully about this. Putin is seriously not expecting the USA to launch a nuclear attack on Russia. Nope.

Nope. He is not.

And to me, there could only be one reason he would put all his people through that. Because he knows if Clinton wins, the game is on. And he don't play games. Not like that. He is preparing to first strike, and I seriously believe that. To what degree remains to be seen. I suspect he will wipe out the immediate threat, and have his finger on a hair trigger with one last warning for the USA to back off after that.

And there the balance of this world as we know it will hang, suspended for a moment in time briefly while Clinton and all her war cronies contemplate their next move. And any single, minute indication of a retaliation, and Putin will unleash hell on the spot.

That is seriously what I suspect is going to happen.




posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican

That's what you're hoping for, yeah? War with Russia? She wouldn't be the only one losing her head in that scenario. A whole lot of innocent Americans would, too.

All of these people wishing for an EMP or killer virus or Russia to come along and kick Hillary's ass seem not to care much about the fact that those things would actually result in the American people getting an ass beating...while POTUS is safely sequestered out of harm's way in an undisclosed location. Should your hope, and theirs, actually come to fruition, a great many innocent people are going to die.

Be very careful what you wish for in this life. You just might get it.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: tigertatzen

I'm sitting here arguing that we need warmongers out of the White House, and you're off on some other trip, trying to put words in my mouth.

*sigh*

Read the thread, will you?



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueAmerican
a reply to: tigertatzen

I'm sitting here arguing that we need warmongers out of the White House, and you're off on some other trip, trying to put words in my mouth.

*sigh*

Read the thread, will you?


We are already at war with Russia. It's a proxy war but war nonetheless. It's how things are done now if you can't literally roll over a country. You have to find a buffer and poke and prod around the edges until you find a nice soft spot to win people over, take them in with open arms like we are doing with Syrians. Now you can take all these refugees and form a new Syrian Liberation Army and throw them right back at Assad but this time armed with better toys.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican




Except now, it's not even Iran anymore. She wants a piece of the Bear. Which I sincerely hope will swipe her head off with its paw.


I did read the thread. Twice. I was responding to the above. Did you not write those words? Pretty sure you did, since they were in your OP.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: TrueAmerican

That's what you're hoping for, yeah? War with Russia? She wouldn't be the only one losing her head in that scenario. A whole lot of innocent Americans would, too.

All of these people wishing for an EMP or killer virus or Russia to come along and kick Hillary's ass seem not to care much about the fact that those things would actually result in the American people getting an ass beating...while POTUS is safely sequestered out of harm's way in an undisclosed location. Should your hope, and theirs, actually come to fruition, a great many innocent people are going to die.

Be very careful what you wish for in this life. You just might get it.


I don't think you see where I'm coming from. At all. I am trying to prevent that. That's the whole point. Don't disregard the warmonger's responsibility in all this. That's part of the point too.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 11:14 AM
link   
consortiumnews.com...

Washington’s New Lock-Step March of Folly

By Robert Parry

As polls show Hillary Clinton closing in on victory, Official Washington’s neoconservative (and liberal-hawk) foreign policy establishment is rubbing its hands in anticipation of more war and more strife, including a U.S. military escalation in Syria, a take-down of Iran, and a showdown with nuclear-armed Russia.

I fully agree with the OP. We are now treading on thin ice if she is elected.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican

im now voting for hilllary because she will bomb iran, and madonnas giving blow jobs so thats that



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Apparently a power station has blown up in Russia, and power out to many. I'm referencing the recent cyber threat the US made against Russian infrastructure and power grids. It's a curious coincidence.

www.rt.com...


There have been eyewitnesses' reports of a "huge blast" at one of the city's electrical substations, according to SeverPost news agency.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: TrueAmerican

That's what you're hoping for, yeah? War with Russia? She wouldn't be the only one losing her head in that scenario. A whole lot of innocent Americans would, too.



What you fail to realize is that she doesn't give a good Go* damn about we the people. She only gives a shi* about her own and being the first woman pres. She is pathological.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueAmerican
Apparently a power station has blown up in Russia, and power out to many. I'm referencing the recent cyber threat the US made against Russian infrastructure and power grids. It's a curious coincidence.

www.rt.com...


There have been eyewitnesses' reports of a "huge blast" at one of the city's electrical substations, according to SeverPost news agency.


That is a substation transformer short circuiting. Could be from several possibilities. One is loss of cooling oil. Same thing happened at a plant I once worked for as an electrician.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlesT

Is one of those possibilities a cyber attack?



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueAmerican
A little gentle reminder of words spoken by the warmonger:



As if Amerika hasn't stirred enough horse manure in the Middle East already? Leaving nothing but death destruction, and mayhem. But that's still not enough. She wants more. I say let's make her have to go fight it herself. I am no fan of Iran, but enough is enough. Another country full of dead children is not what I want done in my name, thank you. No thank you.





Except now, it's not even Iran anymore. She wants a piece of the Bear. Which I sincerely hope will swipe her head off with its paw.


This is one reason amongst a number of others why I voted Jill Stein today.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Maybe but as I stated, several possibilities. I think, if it were a ciber attack, they would be having multiple incidents in various other locations. Can't believe a ciber attack can be so precise as to target one single transformer.

Edit: Remember several years back, several transformers in Cal. were taken out by rifle fire. They put holes in the transformers draining out the cooling oil.
edit on 2016-11-08T11:38:38-06:0011amTue, 08 Nov 2016 11:38:38 -0600TuesdayAmerica/Chicago3830 by CharlesT because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlesT

Well, suppose another one just "happens" to blow up somewhere in Russia again today? I'd have to be seriously suspicious then. Kind of like 9/11. Second plane hit, we knew it was an attack for sure.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueAmerican
a reply to: CharlesT

Well, suppose another one just "happens" to blow up somewhere in Russia again today? I'd have to be seriously suspicious then. Kind of like 9/11. Second plane hit, we knew it was an attack for sure.


It remains to be seen, doesn't it?



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Problem is that to take out a line transformer via a ciber attack, the generating facility would have to be the intended target. Speed regulation of the generator would have to be altered causing spikes in the voltage or frequency. I think something of this nature would be noticed long before it took out any downstream infrastructure and the generating facility would be dropped off line.

Edit: Supply comes from multipls sources now days. If the separate sources are not phase sinked problems are created.
edit on 2016-11-08T11:51:02-06:0011amTue, 08 Nov 2016 11:51:02 -0600TuesdayAmerica/Chicago0230 by CharlesT because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
This seems pertinent:

Trump: Look, nuclear should be off the table. But would there be a time when it could be used, possibly, possibly?

Matthews: OK. The trouble is, when you said that, the whole world heard it. David Cameron in Britain heard it. The Japanese, where we bombed them in ’45, heard it. They’re hearing a guy running for president of the United States talking of maybe using nuclear weapons. Nobody wants to hear that about an American president.

Trump: Then why are we making them? Why do we make them?

Matthews: Because of the old mutual assured destruction, which Reagan hated and tried to get rid of.

Trump: I was against Iraq. I’d be the last one to use the nuclear weapon.

Matthews: So can you take it off the table now?

Trump: Because that’s sort of like the end of the ballgame.

Matthews: Can you tell the Middle East we’re not using a nuclear weapon on anybody?

Trump: I would never say that. I would never take any of my cards off the table.

Matthews: How about Europe? We won’t use it in Europe?

Trump: I — I’m not going to take it off the table.

Matthews: You might use it in Europe?

Trump: No, I don’t think so. But I’m not taking …

Matthews: Well, just say it. “I will never use a nuclear weapon in Europe.”

Trump: I am not — I am not taking cards off the table.


Our nukes are a deterrent. He answered those questions like anyone running for President should.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueAmerican

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: TrueAmerican

That's what you're hoping for, yeah? War with Russia? She wouldn't be the only one losing her head in that scenario. A whole lot of innocent Americans would, too.

All of these people wishing for an EMP or killer virus or Russia to come along and kick Hillary's ass seem not to care much about the fact that those things would actually result in the American people getting an ass beating...while POTUS is safely sequestered out of harm's way in an undisclosed location. Should your hope, and theirs, actually come to fruition, a great many innocent people are going to die.

Be very careful what you wish for in this life. You just might get it.


I don't think you see where I'm coming from. At all. I am trying to prevent that. That's the whole point. Don't disregard the warmonger's responsibility in all this. That's part of the point too.


Then why punctuate your OP at the end with a statement that you hope Russia takes Hillary's head off? That doesn't exactly jibe with your assertion above...can you not see your own contradiction there?

I agree, warmongers have no business in government. But it's not a choice between the lesser of two evils. They're all evil. I understand that people from both parties still believe that their side is the righteous one, the superior one in all of this. But they could not possibly be more wrong.

I know it's a normal emotional reaction for people to take satisfaction from the idea of someone whom they do not like or feel has slighted them in some way being taken down a peg or two. My point is, there is a bigger picture here...if that were to actually happen, any satisfaction from seeing Hillary get smacked down is going to be pointless if the rest of the nation gets smacked down right along with her. It would be a very hollow victory in the end, and the repercussions of such a thing for the rest of us would be enormous...and lasting.

That's all I was trying to get across, OK? There are an alarming number of people in the past couple weeks who have been expressing hope for a catastrophic event to perform a "reset" in our country. There's even a thread here stating that America needs to be nuked. Things like that are very disheartening to hear.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
This seems pertinent:

Trump: Look, nuclear should be off the table. But would there be a time when it could be used, possibly, possibly?

Matthews: OK. The trouble is, when you said that, the whole world heard it. David Cameron in Britain heard it. The Japanese, where we bombed them in ’45, heard it. They’re hearing a guy running for president of the United States talking of maybe using nuclear weapons. Nobody wants to hear that about an American president.

Trump: Then why are we making them? Why do we make them?

Matthews: Because of the old mutual assured destruction, which Reagan hated and tried to get rid of.

Trump: I was against Iraq. I’d be the last one to use the nuclear weapon.

Matthews: So can you take it off the table now?

Trump: Because that’s sort of like the end of the ballgame.

Matthews: Can you tell the Middle East we’re not using a nuclear weapon on anybody?

Trump: I would never say that. I would never take any of my cards off the table.

Matthews: How about Europe? We won’t use it in Europe?

Trump: I — I’m not going to take it off the table.

Matthews: You might use it in Europe?

Trump: No, I don’t think so. But I’m not taking …

Matthews: Well, just say it. “I will never use a nuclear weapon in Europe.”

Trump: I am not — I am not taking cards off the table.


It would be foolish for any president to say they would never use it. It is the ultimate deterrent. Either answer had him set up for failure. I don't like the man, but I don't like the woman either. The US is circling the bowl...




top topics



 
22
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join