Assange Included on Obama's "KILLER TUESDAY" List

originally posted by: ghostrager
a reply to: RedMenace16

Why, because Assange has so much faith in the MSM that all entertain those who want his head?

Here's on of the highlighted videos from Wikileaks 10th Anniversary celebration in Berlin. Now, does it seem so far fetched that he could have been on a hit list when both Dems and Reps have called for his death?

I don't think you get it, I'm telling you Trump is on record saying Edward Snowden should be executed while you sit here with your little conspiracy theories guessing what someone might or might not be thinking.

a reply to: facedye

Is that what it "looks" like to you?. I'm not telling you to believe anything but if you take it that way that explains why you think the media is telling you what to think too.

I'm telling you what I think. I think it's ridiculous.
You can think it's the next set on commandments for all I care.

originally posted by: Grambler
Yet she says she can't recall. Doesn't that seem like she is at least saying there is a possibility she said it? And if she thinks she may have said it, it probably means she at least thought it.

She probably did say it. If she didn't say it publicly she definitely said it privately. Assassinating Assange was a VERY popular idea it's why he nearly won Time's Man of the Year in 2010, because he was this lone man standing up to governments. Governments didn't like this, and they were ready to push back hard.

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: RedMenace16
a reply to: facedye

I'm the kind of guy who says Trump is on record saying Edward Snowden should be executed.

So take that how you want it kid.

so what?

if true pundit reported that trump wanted snowden executed during a private e-mail discussion, would you have left that comment referencing hillary's drone strike comment on assange?

see, the problem is, you think this is a "Clinton bashing" thread. it's not.

Trump said he wanted to kill Snowden for leaking classified information, are you saying Snowden should be killed?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Plus things like intelligence, common sense, an ability to differentiate between reality and fantasy.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Grambler

You would think if she never had a thought of droning Assange, she would have said when asked "Of course I never said that!"

If you were in Hillary's (or other top political positions) would you not have thought of taking out Assange?

If we're being perfectly honest?

Having a thought, is not an action. We are human, we all have thoughts we would not necessarily put into action.

This is a "nit-picky" to me.

Secretaries of state and career politicians shouldn't be expressing "thoughts we all have" with regards to killing people. they're put in charge, supposedly, and as a primary function, to set benevolent & productive policies while at the same time setting an example of excellence.

if you're going to defend someone who's supposed to know better and more than you and i, shouldn't there be something more tangible than "well we're all human" to choose from?

We don't live in La La Land. Idealism is a nice word, nothing more.

How unrealistic to think any person in high level politics wouldn't have thoughts of Assange being eliminated.

This is the Real World.

So then, by your logic, it's no big deal to have the leaders of our free world openly talk about killing political dissidents.

La la land? what a snarky observation.

You don't want your representatives to look, act and be professional?

What happens when you yourself don't look, act or behave professionally at your place of business?

a reply to: Grambler

The same way Ted Cruz didn't need to deny his father had any role in Kennedy's death.
It goes without saying.

Dubbed “Terror Tuesday” and “Killer Tuesday” by U.S. intelligence agency insiders, Clinton met with President Obama and National Security Council members, among other diplomats, on Tuesday, November 23, 2010 in the Situation Room to specifically hand-select the next so-called national security threats to die via the U.S. drone strike program, sources confirmed. Assange, largely considered internationally as a trouble-making journalist and muckraker, was part of that Tuesday’s proceedings and debate, sources familiar with the meeting have confirmed to True Pundit.

They sure are acting like it's a done deal.

Where the hell was Trump ?

a reply to: RedMenace16

why would you go through the trouble of quoting my entire response to you when you clearly haven't taken the time to understand, nor answer it?

this thread is about assange being supposedly found on obama's kill list.

you're talking about the election.

no politician or individual running for office should be brazenly and light heartedly talking about murdering people for being "traitors to the state."

I don't think your point of view has much to do with this thread's intended course of discussion.

So this meeting took place in 10 or 11 right? If he was on the kill list he would be dead.

Show of hands how many people here have said this man I would love to kill x?

People put our political leaders on a pedestal for some ungodly reason and forget that like every last one of us here they are human. Obviously if you can't see why they might want him out of the picture you might be the blind one...

And honestly lets look at these meeting judging from what info we are given it sounds like there were a wide variety of people present, obama, sos,sod,nsa,fbi,cia and more I'm sure. So I imagine these discussion talked not only about who to kill but the Meerut for and against. Would you rather our leaders sit on there thumbs?

a reply to: crimsongod21

we would rather our leaders do the job they were elected to do and represent the voice of the people they're supposed to serve.

no reasonable person would want their government, dictated by the United States Constitution, contemplating on whether or not they should be killing political dissidents.

why would we think it reasonable to be complicit with anything else just because "that's the way it's been for a while"?

People put our political leaders on a pedestal for some ungodly reason and forget that like every last one of us here they are human. Obviously if you can't see why they might want him out of the picture you might be the blind one...

ungodly reason? we put them up on a pedestal because the position was created specifically for an appointed individual who holds him or herself to a high standard of moral and practical fortitude. we put them up on a pedestal because we expect them to act how we morally OUGHT to act. this is an ungodly reason?

we see why they might want him out of the picture. we just don't agree that this is how our country should be run. we don't agree that this is where our focus should be.

a reply to: facedye

Just a couple questions

1. Are our elected officials human beings that suffer stress and other emotions inherent to our species?

2.did they kill him?

3. Is part of there jobs to protect america and its interest both nationally and abroad?

Here is. Quick answer key.

1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes

You say they should hold themselves to a higher standard, but we as human are fallible and prone to not only follow our emotions.

Maybe the problem is with the electorit electing people that shouldn't be in power in the first place, but then again if you look at our history the only president in recent memory that comes to mind as inherently good was also possibly the worst president for the nation we have had, that being president carter.

a reply to: crimsongod21

1. Yes

2. No

3. Yes

Are you saying that they're attempting to protect American interests by talking about drone killing assange?

How are you not being an apologist for your elected leaders by saying "they're human too"?

They're talking about drone killing someone who's literally done nothing harmful to the American people aside from being a nuisance to the establishment.

Let's keep this within a relative context. You haven't responded to the few questions I initially posed in my response to you.

originally posted by: Gin

You mean his "Rest In Peace" Prize.

What a joke.

a reply to: facedye

I apologize I assumed your questions were meant to be rhetorical

In reaponse, we are complicit with a meeting of informed people from multiple areas of our govt. For risk and threat prediction and action because its a he'll of a lot better than ignoring the issues hoping they go away.

If they thought he had documents that could be harmful to national security, our military on foreign soil or any of the other various reasons then yes by all means talk about him think about liquidating him with extreme prejudice. Obviously they thought any information he might have or share was not a valid enough threat to terminate him or they would have.

You say they should be held to a higher standard, that you are unwilling or unable to uphold yourself that sounds a lot like hypocrisy

If our focus shouldn't be on national security what should it be on? Rainbows and unicorns? Obviously that was a jest, but truly our national security is paramount to all other aspects of our life here in america, can't worry about fixing roads if they are always getting blown up, can't think about education if the schools are inside of war zones.

Our elected officials and more importantly the president were created to be a mouth piece for the popular opinion of the people, we as an electric have given the president the power, however truly small it is that he/she now posses.

The problem does not lie with those in office but with us as a population. That alone should be clear enough for any one to see.

a reply to: facedye

Not an apologist, if they take actions that are against the greater good or that are illegal they should be dealt with accordingly. Do I think talking about taking out a person disseminating classified documents that could possibly lead to the harm of our nation or its troops to be offensive or wrong, I do not.

a reply to: crimsongod21

In reaponse, we are complicit with a meeting of informed people from multiple areas of our govt. For risk and threat prediction and action because its a he'll of a lot better than ignoring the issues hoping they go away.

what issues are you talking about? i'm saying assange doesn't need to be killed over revealing information that can potentially be harmful to our national security. "if you can't put him behind bars, put him in the ground" doesn't seem like a valid political process.

You say they should be held to a higher standard, that you are unwilling or unable to uphold yourself that sounds a lot like hypocrisy

i am willing and able to uphold myself to this standard. i never stated the opposite. our politicians should have political outcomes and perspectives that are more rational and progressive than ones the public can come up with. it's their job.

If our focus shouldn't be on national security what should it be on? Rainbows and unicorns? Obviously that was a jest, but truly our national security is paramount to all other aspects of our life here in america, can't worry about fixing roads if they are always getting blown up, can't think about education if the schools are inside of war zones.

so in efforts to potentially kill assange by way of drone strike, we're potentially decreasing the risk of "getting blown up and having our schools be inside war zones?" i think this notion is ridiculous and makes no tangible sense. these two thoughts are not bridged together.

The problem does not lie with those in office but with us as a population. That alone should be clear enough for any one to see.

so Obama isn't the problem, his cabinet isn't the problem, the federal reserve isn't the problem, the trilateral commission and big 6 media aren't the problem, hillary and trump aren't the problem... it's the american people? and anyone can clearly see this?

why am i and every other citizen here clearly a bigger problem to our United States than any parties mentioned above?

Drone control people!

DRONE CONTROL!

Just remember who says you can't be trusted with your second amendment RIGHTS.

Goes off and wants to mass drone people.

a reply to: facedye

Let me answers as best I can for you.
1. National security is the issue, enemies both foreign and domestic, in other words what these "kill meetings" were about. Would you prefer to ignore these issues?

2. Ok so maybe you are, but who's standards do we follow, every one has there own moral code and compass who is to say that what you find morally right I wouldn't find to be gray or outright wrong.

3. If we avoid risk assessment and national security talk how long would it take for a country or other party to seek and find a weakness to bring us to our knees? How long before the real fighting landed on our shores? How many car bombs and air raises would follow if we gave up on protecting ourselves?

4.yup, it is our fault in large we are an uneducated mass of idiots, while some people maybe educated about politics, and our politicians talking points the vast majority are not. Most people vote blind down party lines and never look back. They then want to complain about all the injustice in our political system but are unwilling to take them time to admit to themselves they are to blame for our situation.unless you subscribe to the theory that all elections are jokes and predetermined, and I'm guessing from your educated responses you do not.

a reply to: crimsongod21

1. National security is the issue, enemies both foreign and domestic, in other words what these "kill meetings" were about. Would you prefer to ignore these issues?

we're talking about killing a political dissident. he is not an enemy, neither foreign nor domestic. you're deflecting because you don't want to contradict yourself in answering truthfully to my direct question. you can't bring up one issue that makes it acceptable for the US government to talk about killing him.

why is it either a matter of killing him or "ignoring these issues?" you're juggling two absolute extremes.

2. Ok so maybe you are, but who's standards do we follow, every one has there own moral code and compass who is to say that what you find morally right I wouldn't find to be gray or outright wrong.

the united states constitution and bill of rights provide ample background for what the "moral thing for a politician to do" would be. it was literally written and agreed upon by the founding philosophers of our country. looks like you don't really care to place a lot of value in established documents that answer your question directly.

3. If we avoid risk assessment and national security talk how long would it take for a country or other party to seek and find a weakness to bring us to our knees? How long before the real fighting landed on our shores? How many car bombs and air raises would follow if we gave up on protecting ourselves?

you avoided answering this question directly, so i'll directly ask it again: how is assange putting us at risk for "getting blown up and having our schools be inside war zones?"

4.yup, it is our fault in large we are an uneducated mass of idiots, while some people maybe educated about politics, and our politicians talking points the vast majority are not. Most people vote blind down party lines and never look back. They then want to complain about all the injustice in our political system but are unwilling to take them time to admit to themselves they are to blame for our situation.unless you subscribe to the theory that all elections are jokes and predetermined, and I'm guessing from your educated responses you do not.

when an ant farm gets destroyed by a whiny, privileged 8 year old who gets anything he wants, are the ants to blame for being too dumb to understand what it means when he approaches them with gasoline and a lighter?

when a dog gets abused by its owner but keeps sticking around because it still gets food, water and shelter, is the dog at fault for not knowing how to change its circumstances?

i find this perspective to be 150% un-American, ignorant, and definitely apologetic.