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.

 

Hillary Clinton is a Terrorist and Should Resign.

page: 1
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Hillary Clinton ordered Diplomats to break international law by collecting extensive personal information about politicians the world over, including personal passwords, fingerprints and DNA. She also authorised spying on the President of the UN, and sought passwords which would enable her to access UN secret information - which is the most serious breach of UN security protocol.

This is an attack on the world community, and her actions have jeopardised diplomatic relations. As such, Hillary Clinton is a threat to national security and a terrorist.

She must resign immediately and be arrested and tried for her crimes.


edit on 2-12-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-12-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
It's a war. Sad. Doing what war beings do.

The stage has upped for this war though. Now the players may get hurt who were once immune, as she has said.

Maybe this is in bad taste, but wasn't a transparent administration something they wanted when they went in? Seems they are starting to get that.


edit on 2-12-2010 by catlantis because: last line



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Do you have a link?



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 
The woman is Satan or the anti-christ take your pick,and all this time everybody's been looking for a male demon!



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Terrorism is the threat or action of using deadly violence to progress a political or religious agenda.

Lets not destroy a word..she did not threaten such things...and therefore in no way should be classified as a "terrorist".

overreacting and destroying context of a word will only weaken your discussion...perhaps the word "spy" or "betrayer" may work....if using the word liberally...and sort of blurring the lines..but one word that definately does not fit would be "terrorist"



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Hillary brought that on herself by claiming Assange is a terrorist. But we should reserve such a word for actual terrorists. She is however, an international criminal, and should resign. Not that it would change anything.

She basically has done the same thing Nixon did.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Before calling for her head, consider this: these cables that were supposedly sent in her name were simply signed from the office of the secretary of state and not Hillary herself. She didn't write these, nor did she order them. In fact she probably didn't even review them.

Here is a link that should clear up this misconception.
www.noquarterusa.net...-53820



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seeker Mom
Before calling for her head, consider this: these cables that were supposedly sent in her name were simply signed from the office of the secretary of state and not Hillary herself. She didn't write these, nor did she order them. In fact she probably didn't even review them.

Here is a link that should clear up this misconception.
www.noquarterusa.net...-53820


Very true

If I write a note to someone saying "kill Bill", does that mean the someone I was writing the note to should be jailed for planning to kill Bill?



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Seeker Mom has an excellent point and if the concept of collective government is accepted then you should be calling for the president to be arrested as well.

But you only mention the Secretary of State. And then I assume you will then arrest all the living past Secretarys of State and Presidents as collecting information about your allies and enemies alike as been part of national and international relationships for thousands of year.

What do you expect your senior government leaders to do. Sit back and let events happen or protect its citizens?



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I would define it more generally:

Terrorism is using fear to advance an agenda.


In that case, certainly there are many who are guilty in our government and governments around the world... not surprising.

FBI is guilty many times, especially when they 'entrap' young people into high profile terror scenarios where they bust them in the limelight in order to:

1. Make it seem as if there is a genuine terror threat we should be concerned about.

2. Make it seem as if they are actually doing something productive with taxpayer $$.

3. To generally control us, and to preserve their power and hierarchy in that control.


....btw I have heard rumors from Swedish authorities that the dominatrix has raped some young teenage boys - she said it was consentual but I'm not sure I believe her...



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
"Terrorism is the threat or action of using deadly violence to progress a political or religious agenda."


In that case the US government can be considered a terrorist organisation.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
and she's against violent video games, and free speech. Kill the hoe.

How did the "coolest" most layed back president who loves B.J.'s and pot marry this women??



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Seeker Mom
 


Thank you for adding some sense to this thread.


It's disgraceful that the OP didn't even have a link or context or ANYTHING, yet people are starring and flagging like it means something. The ignorance is gross.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by catlantis
It's a war. Sad. Doing what war beings do.

The stage has upped for this war though. Now the players may get hurt who were once immune, as she has said.

Maybe this is in bad taste, but wasn't a transparent administration something they wanted when they went in? Seems they are starting to get that.


edit on 2-12-2010 by catlantis because: last line


Why is this in bad taste - this is what the government do to people all the time. Bad tase can work both ways.

second



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Do you have a link?


The link is to the wiki cable about this - I didn't keep the link. I'll have a look for it, but in the meantime if you want you can do a search on it.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Namaste1001

Originally posted by SaturnFX
"Terrorism is the threat or action of using deadly violence to progress a political or religious agenda."


In that case the US government can be considered a terrorist organisation.


That's my point really.... She brands WL a terrorist, but by her own standards, she too must be one.

second



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Easy...


We mean no harm... the Wikileaks story is taking the world by storm, and also ATS.

It is hard to keep up with all the info, we all know that.

I can't tell you how many stories I have read on it in the last week.

The context for this thread, is that Hillary Clinton would be the fall person for much of the scandal - she ordered the UN spying. Also, Assange has stated that she should resign if it is true.




posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Namaste1001
 





In that case the US government can be considered a terrorist organisation.


So you flew by plane this holiday and just found that out?



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I would define it more generally:

Terrorism is using fear to advance an agenda.


You can define it however you want to
I can define terrorism as anyone whom eats hot pockets...

it doesn't mean that the definition is correct...lets actually use the real definition


the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear


that is the definition english speaking people have agreed upon for that specific word.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by Namaste1001

Originally posted by SaturnFX
"Terrorism is the threat or action of using deadly violence to progress a political or religious agenda."


In that case the US government can be considered a terrorist organisation.


That's my point really.... She brands WL a terrorist, but by her own standards, she too must be one.

second


Terrorism requires you to target citizens specifically.

America, or any nation I know of in the west, threatens citizens...they threaten governments, and no doubt citizens will suffer that the said government will fall to, however, they do not make bombing raids to specifically target citizens.

There have been historical gray areas here...such as when carpet bombing was given the go ahead in nazi occupied germany. It was decided that the citizens of germany were endlessly supplying the nazis as a national movement, therefore they became fair game.
The outcome was good overall, however the means is very open to debate on if this was simply a war tactic, or a terrorist move.

But no...bugging the room of a visiting diplomat is not terrorism, nor is strategic bombings of artillery and high profile military/government targets.

Nuking Mecca = terrorism...lemme know when something specific like that happens, else, the argument has no weight.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join