Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

[UNBELIEVABLE] Hillary Clinton Laughs Hysterically About Possible War Against Iran

page: 2
29
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
My impression was that she laughed because of how candid the guy was being and it put her in an awkward position. I'm not seeing the laugh as sinister.


But these guys 'know' that the war is going to happen.

To them, it is a joke and they're not afraid to reveal that to the public.

If she just laughed at being caught in an awkward position, why does she go on to say provoke an attack and 'Bring it on'?

The fact of the matter is, American 'politicians' like Clinton can get away with absolutely anything- they can literally laugh at the people and America is that dumbed down on fluoride and the media they end up defending the people who will take them to war.

People are going to die, maybe millions will be affected by an Iranian conflict, and Clinton is declaring 'bring it on'!




posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
That laugh tells me she is far too comfortable in her present position. It's time for her to go.

Our government is mentally ill. There is no better way to put it. It has a very twisted sense of right and wrong.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


If you note....at the 1:17 mark, Hillary says '...and frankly there are those that will say...' or something real close to that...leading into the comment about an attack unifying and legitimatizing 'the regime.' Obviously 'those that will say' are IRANIAN since we here in America do not tend to refer to our administration as a 'regime.'

THEN...at around 1:26, she goes on to say that an argument is made constantly on the hard line side of the Iranian government that 'we're not going to give anything up and in fact, we're going to provoke it...' This, AGAIN, is obviously a reference to what is being said on the Iranian side...made clear by the part about not giving anything up. It is Iran who is holding back and 'not giving anything up,' being the ones accused of hiding their true intent behind more a benign facade. She says that their rationale is that if they are provoked by an attack, then they can come out in power in the Middle East...

This makes Mr. Baker's insistence on being the ones to initiate said attack truly LAUGHABLE. Right! If that's what the 'hard-line' want in Iran...what? We just play into their idea and facilitate it with a provoked attack?

It is remarkably wise to RESTRAIN ourselves in this situation no matter what because first of all...we still lack definitive proof and we are constantly under a persuasive attack by Bibi to go along with what Israel wants...which, imo, is the same thing, essentially, that Hillary says the hard-line Iranian government wants by provoking the attack that Israel also wants to provoke us into...Israel wants to be THE power in the ME and frankly, Iran is the only threat holding up their plans in that measure.

When she says that the President makes very clear that all options are on the table...most take that as saying that attack is still very much a possibility but the flip side and innuendo in that is also that NOT attacking is also a real and maybe more legitimate possibility. It is double-speak for sure...but in a two-party system, what choice is there, many times?

Her laughter and comment about 'we're trying hard' seems to me to be a mixture of her reaction to hearing exactly what she expected to hear from someone such as Mr. Baker and she does not say WHAT it is that they are trying hard to do, exactly. Her laughter is not hysterical but seems to be one of true amusement, imo. I would have reacted the very same way in her position, and I hold firmly to the idea that attacking anyone for any reason is just NOT WISE or warranted in this day and age...not to mention the current situation of the US in regard to war and attacks, et. al.

A female Secretary of State is a natural deterrence when it comes to the US's proven penchant for stirring up trouble and waging wars for various and unclear reasons.

I did not like Hillary at all up until recently...certain things I've observed in a new light of increased understanding which I did not have before have given me a new admiration for the woman and I think she is a breath of fresh air. The problem with most these days is that we are so used to breathing stagnant stinky political air that we have forgotten that fresh air does exist and is both healthy and refreshing...we fail to recognize it because we are conditioned that way.

I'm really interested in what she said after the point at which the video clip creator cut it short. Context is really so important, as well this person obviously knows, who made and posted this clip.
edit on 10/9/2012 by queenannie38 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
OP, there are enough posters now on the thread explaining to you what happened in the interview, yet you continue to insist it was something sinister, when clearly it isn't. Maybe the problem lies in hearing what you want to hear?
Mitt Romney is hysterical. He is hysteria in sheeps clothing. He's talking war, war, war. Read between the lines. And if the ME isn't enough, he's bringing China and Cuba, (Cuba?) well within the ranks of fightable foes. He sounds like a warmonger like none we've ever seen in office.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by alienreality
 





future voter opinion
line2




posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by BellaSabre
OP, there are enough posters now on the thread explaining to you what happened in the interview, yet you continue to insist it was something sinister, when clearly it isn't. Maybe the problem lies in hearing what you want to hear?
Mitt Romney is hysterical. He is hysteria in sheeps clothing. He's talking war, war, war. Read between the lines. And if the ME isn't enough, he's bringing China and Cuba, (Cuba?) well within the ranks of fightable foes. He sounds like a warmonger like none we've ever seen in office.


It doesn't matter how many people point I am wrong, Clinton says what she says in the video.

It is video evidence- she says what she says.

She finds it amusing, she laughs when it is mentioned that 'we should take them out'.

She says after laughing, 'bring it on!!'

You Americans are more dumbed down than I thought.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
If she just laughed at being caught in an awkward position, why does she go on to say provoke an attack and 'Bring it on'?


What she says is that THEY are saying "the best thing that could happen to us to be attacked by somebody...you know, just bring it on...because that would unify us...it would legitimatize the regime."

Again, you can hear this part at the 1:17 mark.

Then right at the end, she says that hopefully we won't get to that, because that would be...uh...and then...boom...no more clip...ended right there. How convenient.

The 'us' she is speaking about is not the American 'us' but the Iranian 'us'!...since when are we a 'regime' here in the United States?

You REALLY need to listen to that clip a couple more times without your offended and opinionated ears turned so far up. Use your reasonable ears instead. Propaganda works by playing on our emotions. Don't let your emotions lead you when listening or analyzing and you will defeat the propagandists and take back control of your own reasoning mind.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   

I need to try and understand what goes through American people's minds when they watch this kind of stuff.

OK, so the topic of conversation is Iran policy.

Baker finishes his statement with "We should take them out".

The above is the fact.

On hearing this, Hillary Clinton grins, she then laughs at the idea. So what part don't you get? Hillary finds it highly amusing that the policy should be 'to take them out'. When she speaks, she talks of letting Iran attack and provoking them because that way it is easier to go to war and say "bring it on!".

With that, which part don't you get? I'm genuinely intrigued.



I don't know how else to explain it other than to say I agree with Domo when he responded:

My impression was that she laughed because of how candid the guy was being and it put her in an awkward position. I'm not seeing the laugh as sinister.


Baker very matter of factly made some bold statements then the host dropped it on her. It was awkward.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
If she just laughed at being caught in an awkward position, why does she go on to say provoke an attack and 'Bring it on'?


What she says is that THEY are saying "the best thing that could happen to us to be attacked by somebody...you know, just bring it on...because that would unify us...it would legitimatize the regime."

Again, you can hear this part at the 1:17 mark.

Then right at the end, she says that hopefully we won't get to that, because that would be...uh...and then...boom...no more clip...ended right there. How convenient.

The 'us' she is speaking about is not the American 'us' but the Iranian 'us'!...since when are we a 'regime' here in the United States?

You REALLY need to listen to that clip a couple more times without your offended and opinionated ears turned so far up. Use your reasonable ears instead. Propaganda works by playing on our emotions. Don't let your emotions lead you when listening or analyzing and you will defeat the propagandists and take back control of your own reasoning mind.


You Americans keep defending the criminals who will take you to another war. Have the brains to connect this video with all the other war mongering comments made by Clinton in regards to Iran policy.

edit on 9-10-2012 by Wonderer2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

It doesn't matter how many people point I am wrong, Clinton says what she says in the video.

It is video evidence- she says what she says.



True. What she says is what she says. And yet, you are wrong because you remain unable to actually hear what she is saying. You aren't even clear on her use of pronouns.

I'm sorry...I very rarely tell anyone they are wrong, and never about subjective topics. But this is objective in that her statements, are, as you point out, exactly what she says. You are hearing something she never says.

What you say she is saying is not what she's saying...she is actually saying that Iran says what you attribute to her, because you are hearing her 'us' as just being 'us' rather than 'them' which is how she says it:

There are those that are constantly saying...is what she says, leading into these comments that you are misconstruing.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Wow, what's up with this "you Americans are so dumbed down", "you Americans should get a brain". Man, that's not cool.


Your misconceptions and misinterpretations are at this point intentional. Wallow in them.

Peace Out



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


Are you Quint singing the song to us, I wonder?



That shark was smart...Quint not as smart as he thought he was...and those college boys weren't as dumb as he thought, either, eh?



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by BellaSabre
Wow, what's up with this "you Americans are so dumbed down", "you Americans should get a brain". Man, that's not cool.


Your misconceptions and misinterpretations are at this point intentional. Wallow in them.

Peace Out


War= Death.

There is nothing amusing about it.

They are joking about a military conflict they work towards and you guys are defending Saint Hillary. IMVHO, that is as dumbed down as it gets.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 

Agreed. Americans are numb to the stupidity of their politicians.

The problem is that these wars have been waged on foreign soil. If they'd been fought on US soil, Americans would have a very different view of war. They wouldn't be so GD quick to embrace the bullet and the bomb.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
....I don't know how else to explain it other than to say I agree with Domo when he responded:

My impression was that she laughed because of how candid the guy was being and it put her in an awkward position. I'm not seeing the laugh as sinister.


Baker very matter of factly made some bold statements then the host dropped it on her. It was awkward.


Exactly.

Howard Baker and Hilary were sparring in a friendly debate (friendly debates are what some grown-ups do when discussing world issues). Baker leaves this loaded idea ("take them out") at her feet in the middle of this friendly debate, and Hilary responds with laughter to Baker's tactic of leaving this loaded idea at her feet.

Some people really need to understand the whole context of these things.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Anyone interested in the entire discussion on Charlie Rose can view it on his website, here.

I am going to watch it now, so I don't know what bearing it might have on what I've already said, but I'm willing to keep an open mind and especially eager to get the whole thing rather than an out of context inflammatory 2 minute clip of the entire 60 minutes.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


I’m NO FAN of this administration (to state it mildly) but I don’t see the point here. She was laughing because she’s the secretary of state and is being put in the position of having to answer that tough question. I don’t think she was making light of it….she seemed to just tow the party line…..at least that’s the way I saw it.

I don't know....I'm not seeing it. I guess I'm just used to their arrogance.


edit on 9-10-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)


Wow....wait a minute.....is that really you, Seabag? I.....actually.......agree with you! Is this 12.21.12? Lulz.

But seriously, exactly what he said. Anyone with a triple-digit IQ can understand that she's laughing because the dude before her set her up for a very tough follow-up to his warmongering. She was in an uncomfortable spot of needing to not appear weak, yet not a d-bag warmonger. The laugh was one of being uncomfortable, which is why everyone else laughed with her. Unless the OP thinks the entire German audience was a bunch of nutcase warmongers too......? Hard to say what the OP is thinking, it runs counter to common sense.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by seabag
....I don't know how else to explain it other than to say I agree with Domo when he responded:

My impression was that she laughed because of how candid the guy was being and it put her in an awkward position. I'm not seeing the laugh as sinister.


Baker very matter of factly made some bold statements then the host dropped it on her. It was awkward.


Exactly.

Howard Baker and Hilary were sparring in a friendly debate (friendly debates are what some grown-ups do when discussing world issues). Baker leaves this loaded idea ("take them out") at her feet in the middle of this friendly debate, and Hilary responds with laughter to Baker's tactic of leaving this loaded idea at her feet.

Some people really need to understand the whole context of these things.






And your explanation for when Baker says that's next year...then reaffirms 'IT WILL BE NEXT YEAR.'

Just more of me taking stuff out of context?



edit on 9-10-2012 by Wonderer2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rulkiewicz
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


I think you're overlooking the fact that.... one second he's talking the political jargon... then he closes with "we take them out". In my opinion, he went from "Business man" to "Southern boy".

I would have laughed if I was in her position too.


Yep. I don't like any of those in power, I view them all as nothing more than self-serving hypocrites who would sell their own grandmothers for their own ego.

However, this video has CLEARLY been edited, and not very cleverly either.

Besides that poorly done cut and paste job, she is laughing at the man next to her, and she clearly states that attacking Iran would be like emboldening the regime and the opinions of Iran's supporters.

I think someone tried to make a propaganda video, and they failed miserably.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Well, I don't have a triple digit I.Q., but I know she couldn't contain her joy about a person being brutally murdered. She thinks it's amusing to talk about whether or not Iran will be attacked. She laughs very easily at the most serious of subjects. That's how it looks to me.









 
29
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join