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.
More than two dozen other candidates and lawmakers across the political spectrum received Gülen-linked donations that appear questionable, including Clinton and Jeb Bush.
At a time when the faith-based Gülen movement is under heavy government pressure in Turkey, intellectuals from various countries have praised the movement for its efforts to make the world a better place for everyone by promoting education, peace, benevolence through dedication.
TURKEY'S FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM: TARGETING THE GULEN MOVEMENT
Erdogan grew convinced that Gulen was trying to overthrow his government. He accused the Gulen movement of infiltrating the judiciary, police and prosecutors - establishing a "parallel state."
Tensions surfaced last year when Erdogan accused Gulen and his followers of orchestrating a corruption probe against his inner circle. Four cabinet members were forced to resign. A taped conversation surfaced of a conversation between Erdogan and his son, Bilal, in which they plotted to dispose of ill-gotten gains. On the tape, which Erdogan maintains is "fabricated," Bilal is heard promising to remove a stash of money from the family home "in the dark."
Exclusive : FBI Whistleblower and Teacher Expose Islamic Gülen Movement Infiltrating U.S. Through Charter Schools
Gülen-inspired schools are the largest charter network in the U.S. and receive approximately $150 million a year in taxpayer money. There are about 130 of these charter schools in 26 states where the majority of the teachers are from Turkey, as well as many of the contracts for construction and operation have gone to Turkish businesses. Those actions have raised red flags for the U.S. government.
The schools themselves are considered high quality and are focused on STEM-based learning — something that proponents of the Gülen Movement claim is lacking in U.S. education.
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Swills
It must be a totally alternative viewpoint.
Like un-MSM.
Earlier weren't you complaining about liberal sites with inadequate sourcing?
originally posted by: xuenchen
great sources with many "easy to follow" references in at least 2 wiki stories...
some even for sale
most highlight zero evidence
just plain old propaganda denazification
I know everybody automatically accepts the Left Wing writings as absolute truth even when nobody even posts any real evidence.
:
originally posted by: xuenchen
You still can't show any clear and concise "sources" or even "definitions".
None of the "Academic" references have any verifiable facts.
originally posted by: xuenchen
LOL
All Left Wing "sources" at the bottom of the page you cleverly forgot to link.
The MSM/Academic complex has you totally sucked in.
Still no valid and unbiased "definitions".
originally posted by: xuenchen
Ah yes.
Excellent biased sources in all that.
originally posted by: xuenchen
Jump on it.
What *ARE* the unbiased "definitions" anyway?
originally posted by: xuenchen
The arguments are getting weaker and weaker aren't they.
Everything is coming from out-of-reach sources.
No wonder Fascism is flourishing and failing at the same time.
originally posted by: xuenchen
All Left Wing definitions and "sources".
They're a strong bunch with many loyal followers.
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: xuenchen
originally posted by: Annee
Do men take money from countries who mistreat women?
This is a presidential race, not a gender race.
My word !!
Are you suggesting there's bias involved?
Seems Islamic States mistreat Women, and here we have Hillary taking $$$ from specific groups that may very well be involved in that travesty.
No.
But, if this sentiment doesn't also apply to every other candidate (regardless of gender) , that I have a problem with
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: xuenchen
Thanks for the links. Interesting read:
More than two dozen other candidates and lawmakers across the political spectrum received Gülen-linked donations that appear questionable, including Clinton and Jeb Bush.
So why the focus on Hillary, hmm?
originally posted by: Wardaddy454
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: xuenchen
originally posted by: Annee
Do men take money from countries who mistreat women?
This is a presidential race, not a gender race.
My word !!
Are you suggesting there's bias involved?
Seems Islamic States mistreat Women, and here we have Hillary taking $$$ from specific groups that may very well be involved in that travesty.
No.
But, if this sentiment doesn't also apply to every other candidate (regardless of gender) , that I have a problem with
Can you prove that "every other" candidate took money from this or similar groups? Or is this a tit-for-tat because Hillary is the focus.
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: Wardaddy454
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: xuenchen
originally posted by: Annee
Do men take money from countries who mistreat women?
This is a presidential race, not a gender race.
My word !!
Are you suggesting there's bias involved?
Seems Islamic States mistreat Women, and here we have Hillary taking $$$ from specific groups that may very well be involved in that travesty.
No.
But, if this sentiment doesn't also apply to every other candidate (regardless of gender) , that I have a problem with
Can you prove that "every other" candidate took money from this or similar groups? Or is this a tit-for-tat because Hillary is the focus.
Where did I mention that I said every other candidate took money . . . . . .
I said nothing to require I prove what I said.
if this sentiment doesn't also apply to every other candidate (regardless of gender) , that I have a problem with
originally posted by: ghostrager
a reply to: xuenchen
Hillary is playing her voters. She doesn't care about Democrats ideologies. Her platform and purpose is on the international scale.
originally posted by: FamCore
originally posted by: ghostrager
a reply to: xuenchen
Hillary is playing her voters. She doesn't care about Democrats ideologies. Her platform and purpose is on the international scale.
Nicely-put.
2nd
originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: Annee
I think there are a number of presidential "front-runners" who aren't thinking on the international scale..
basically Hillary will sell out quicker than a lot of others since she (her husband) has been around and has spent time building relationships.
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: Annee
The era of isolationism is history.
International is the only logical direction.
originally posted by: FamCore
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: Annee
The era of isolationism is history.
International is the only logical direction.
International for the BENEFIT OF ALL, yes, that is the direction we should be moving in. Hillary is more about the benefit of her and those in charge/those who donate to her campaign which is the opposite of "the benefit of ALL"
Don't try to convince me that Hillary cares about us peons and wants to do good for the world. She's MOST interested in getting power and exploiting that power (as she's very well demonstrated in her other roles)