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 The U.N's Snake In Sheep's Clothing

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 06:49 AM
link   
To be honest i normally do spell check everything but i have just recently installed a new operating system and for some reason spell check isnt installed yet, i just havent got around to it. I dont see grammar to be that big of a deal to be honest as long as you have a point it cant be ignored based on grammar. Its a sad state of affairs when someone is ignored because of grammar would you ignore someone because he is blind or crippled is his point not as valid?




posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 07:48 AM
link   
WHAT IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE.

The OP does something most people on here wouldn't have the guts to to - actually do something about the crime HC has committed....and what does he/she get? Pulled apart and put down because of grammar issues.

People will twist anything, any way - oh, we knew this was happening...did you have EVIDENCE before? - just so they won't have to take any responsibility at all for making any kind of stand. The same people sit and whine and expect others to sort the world out for them...


edit on 4-12-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tsuki-no-Hikari
reply to post by maybee
 



It's just good practice to use proper grammar and spelling when conversing with important figures, especially when trying to make an argument. Improper use of grammar and poor spelling can lead to the dismissal of an argument regardless of its content, as unfortunate as that is. It would have been better to take a little time to proofread everything on the off chance that it's ever actually read.
edit on 4-12-2010 by Tsuki-no-Hikari because: (no reason given)


At least the OP did something, who else on this thread did?

Shame on you guys for this almost exclusive focus on the grammar. Truly, I despair.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   
I'm starting to think that most Americans on here seem unable to deal with the truth about HC's actions, and the hypocrisy involved in JA being accused of committing a crime. They will divert their attention to anything trivial rather than look the truth in the face.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by brizellious
 


I never said I didn't agree. I agree 100%. I was never against your cause, I'm glad you did something rather than nothing. But you could have made that something have a more substantial effect is what I meant to portray. It is possible that the cables are proof enough to convict her. But the fact remains that she isn't, even though the facts are there. So obviously there must be something missing, something that doesn't fit into or lacks support of the accusations against her that the President of the UN? believes is crucial enough to give her benefit of the doubt or anything of the sort that essentially benefits her. That's why I was saying maybe you should provide more evidence than a news clip.

Also my critique was sincere, and I'm sorry if it offended so many people. But I've had my own experiences when trying to communicate with diplomats and politicians and even business representatives about certain issues, and I've noticed that if I rant about an issue or accuse and do not provide a solid argument while also sounding professional with a well structured and thought out letter, they tend to shun you indiscriminately, and all you did was waste both the reader's and your own time. Typically when the response comes from someone who represents a country or an international organization, they will try to be polite about it so that they can fulfill the image expected of them, which is professional and respectable. I can't say the same for the business reps.




Originally posted by Tsuki-no-Hikari reply to post by maybee It's just good practice to use proper grammar and spelling when conversing with important figures, especially when trying to make an argument. Improper use of grammar and poor spelling can lead to the dismissal of an argument regardless of its content, as unfortunate as that is. It would have been better to take a little time to proofread everything on the off chance that it's ever actually read.


This is my point, and it is very true.

So my advice was genuine. I was just being rational after reading your letter, trying to put myself in the shoes of the intended reader while also keeping the mind of the writer. If you think about it, I made valid points. If you wanted a constructive dialogue with the UN Pres. then you should convince him it is worthwhile to speak to you. If you just want to tug at his trousers and get him to kick you away and then tell everyone what a jackass and a fraud the guy is, so be it. From the way you ended your OP, it sounded like you wanted to test the man rather than convince him. Usually this approach does not work through emails and letters. Once again, truly sorry.
edit on 4-12-2010 by asperetty because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
At least the OP did something, who else on this thread did?

Shame on you guys for this almost exclusive focus on the grammar. Truly, I despair.




Shame on you for not actually reading my posts, since you completely missed my point. Besides, I did do something. I provided evidence that UN spying is nothing new and therefore nothing for people to get so upset about.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Tsuki-no-Hikari
 



Shame on you for not actually reading my posts, since you completely missed my point. Besides, I did do something. I provided evidence that UN spying is nothing new and therefore nothing for people to get so upset about.


What???? Spying on the UN is and always was illegal regardless of how long it's been going on..

People have been murdering others since the dawn of time..
Should we now just ignore murderers because it's nothing new???

Some peoples reasoning is beyond belief..



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
WHAT IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE.

The OP does something most people on here wouldn't have the guts to to - actually do something about the crime HC has committed....and what does he/she get? Pulled apart and put down because of grammar issues.

People will twist anything, any way - oh, we knew this was happening...did you have EVIDENCE before? - just so they won't have to take any responsibility at all for making any kind of stand. The same people sit and whine and expect others to sort the world out for them...


edit on 4-12-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)


Oh get off the "high horse":
Hellloooo:
Every country collects information on every other country.Nothing is left to "rumor". Infact the British "services" are world recognized as the foot/vehicle surveillance experts their methods/principles are taught by the U.S. military investigative and counter-intelligence commands.
'nuff said.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


Oh get off the "high horse":
Hellloooo:
Every country collects information on every other country.Nothing is left to "rumor". Infact the British "services" are world recognized as the foot/vehicle surveillance experts their methods/principles are taught by the U.S. military investigative and counter-intelligence commands.
'nuff said


Mostly true but it's also true that when they are caught spying action is taken..
Recently it was the Rusian spies in the US...



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
I think this might add fuel to the fire

but anyone heard of the Hilary Clinton Murders

People the Clintons had clipped who got in their way ...

Theres lot on the net via this but heres a link of who they are alleged to have got rid of:
www.stewwebb.com...



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by brizellious
To be honest i normally do spell check everything but i have just recently installed a new operating system and for some reason spell check isnt installed yet, i just havent got around to it. I dont see grammar to be that big of a deal to be honest as long as you have a point it cant be ignored based on grammar. Its a sad state of affairs when someone is ignored because of grammar would you ignore someone because he is blind or crippled is his point not as valid?


A spell checker will not yet catch correctly spelled but misused "homonym's" such as :their; there; and they're
3different terms sounding a like.
I.E." U.n.officials are trying to protect their personal information: They're keeping personnel files locked in the the safe over there."

no foul.

edit on 4-12-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 46ACE
 


Oh get off the "high horse":
Hellloooo:
Every country collects information on every other country.Nothing is left to "rumor". Infact the British "services" are world recognized as the foot/vehicle surveillance experts their methods/principles are taught by the U.S. military investigative and counter-intelligence commands.
'nuff said


Mostly true but it's also true that when they are caught spying action is taken..
Recently it was the Rusian spies in the US...



You Don't indignantly ask the head of the kGB or Mi-6; or CIA to resign.That's like asking a tiger to apologize for being orange.
edit on 4-12-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-12-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by asperetty
 


Yes, next time I want to e-mail someone with MY opinion I will be sure to ask you for yours first.

Yuk
edit on 4-12-2010 by suigeneris because: spelling lololol



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
What???? Spying on the UN is and always was illegal regardless of how long it's been going on..

People have been murdering others since the dawn of time..
Should we now just ignore murderers because it's nothing new???

Some peoples reasoning is beyond belief..



I'm not arguing its legality. People have been acting like this is some huge, history-making revelation, and I'm pointing out that it's happened before without any serious consequences, so it doesn't make much sense to expect such gloom and doom for the US for doing it now.

Some peoples' lack of reading comprehension is beyond belief..



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Tsuki-no-Hikari
 


Some peoples' lack of reading comprehension is beyond belief..


My comprehension is fine...

I understand that you are saying that because this CRIME has been committed in the past it is now of less concern...

I don't agree with you...Comprehend that !!!!



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
My comprehension is fine...

I understand that you are saying that because this CRIME has been committed in the past it is now of less concern...

I don't agree with you...Comprehend that !!!!



*sigh*

Fine. I'll spell this out for you.

I am NOT saying that this is any less of a crime, nor am I saying that it should be any less of a concern. What I AM saying is that people shouldn't act so surprised about the spying. As I said, people have been reacting to this like the US is doomed because of it. I'm just trying to make it known that the punishment probably won't be any worse than it has been any other time a country has been caught spying at the UN.

I'll repeat myself:

I am not saying that this is any less illegal or any less of a concern because it has happened before. I'm saying that there's no reason for people to act like it's going to blow up for the US because countries have been caught doing it before without any real consequences.
edit on 4-12-2010 by Tsuki-no-Hikari because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Hillary is protected by diplomatic immunity I believe. The only laws she is bound by are her own country that she represents. She is immune to foreign prosecution but not to domestic prosecution. And the country she represents could always waive her crimes if they see fit.

I'm not exactly sure though if Hillary is considered a UN delegate or if the UN Diplomatic Immunity extends to her. Of course at certain times, yes, when she is actually there, but not like the designated UN diplomats and other employees that work there. And she is accused of ordering people to spy, so I'm not sure what kind of charges they can bring on her.

This is a US officials defense in response to a CNN reporter



When asked whether U.S. diplomats are carrying out those directives, this official said, "It's one thing for someone to say, 'Hey, if you come across this kind of thing, we'd be interested.' It's another thing to say, 'Go out and do it.'"

The official added, "I'm not even sure how many people even saw that message. Diplomats are free to ignore that kind of message, and I'm told virtually all of them do."

A former senior intelligence official who was not directly familiar with the Clinton cables agreed such a request is basically a wish list which most diplomats don't carry out.

When the intelligence community is pursuing information needed by the policymakers, it decides on what has to be collected and how best to do it.

"It's a detailed matrix of what is needed to go forward," said the former official. That could include obtaining phone numbers, providing talking points to diplomats and seeking other information.


www.allvoices.com...==

I assume that the UN has probably agreed in the favor of their reasoning.


I read the document. Though it is pretty suspicious, it doesn't sound like espionage. If it is, then all diplomats in the world are spies. It just so happens that the US made something like a wish-list for information it would like to have. Unless they asked to their diplomats to steal the info or act coertly, It's hard to really define it as spying. Of course to the layman, and anyone with common sense, it is spying without having to use the word. But these are not laymen we are talking about.

blendzpolitik.blogspot.com...

That is the doc. Read it all and you'll realize they didn't ask diplomats to spy. Collecting info and reporting it back if it is possible is not spying. This is how the media spins stories. In which direction? Maybe towards the conservative point of view.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by brizellious
 


Fantastic mate, well done. you've got a ton guts for doing this. Perhaps all the others who have offered "advice" could put all the 'advice' together and send similar messages also.

cheers



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by 46ACE

Originally posted by wcitizen
WHAT IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE.

The OP does something most people on here wouldn't have the guts to to - actually do something about the crime HC has committed....and what does he/she get? Pulled apart and put down because of grammar issues.

People will twist anything, any way - oh, we knew this was happening...did you have EVIDENCE before? - just so they won't have to take any responsibility at all for making any kind of stand. The same people sit and whine and expect others to sort the world out for them...


edit on 4-12-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)


Oh get off the "high horse":
Hellloooo:
Every country collects information on every other country.Nothing is left to "rumor". Infact the British "services" are world recognized as the foot/vehicle surveillance experts their methods/principles are taught by the U.S. military investigative and counter-intelligence commands.
'nuff said.




Sorry, I disagree. The people who are picking at the grammar are the ones on a 'high horse'.
Of course it goes on - it's also illegal. That's why it's a huge deal when a country catches a spy. The US treats foreign spies very harshly, so hhellllooo, catching a spy is considered a very big deal by the very person who has been caught spying.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by 46ACE

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 46ACE
 


Oh get off the "high horse":
Hellloooo:
Every country collects information on every other country.Nothing is left to "rumor". Infact the British "services" are world recognized as the foot/vehicle surveillance experts their methods/principles are taught by the U.S. military investigative and counter-intelligence commands.
'nuff said


Mostly true but it's also true that when they are caught spying action is taken..
Recently it was the Rusian spies in the US...



You Don't indignantly ask the head of the kGB or Mi-6; or CIA to resign.That's like asking a tiger to apologize for being orange.
edit on 4-12-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-12-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)


You seem to miss the point that it is the intel agency which gives their list to the State Department (Hillary is the Head of the State Department) and Hillary uses that list to order the diplomats to get the info, by spying.

So, no, it's not about asking the head of the CIA to resign, but Hillary should.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join