Assange Included on Obama's "KILLER TUESDAY" List

originally posted by: facedye

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?

My logic is reality.

I think its very naive to think in high level politics "what to do about Assange" was not discussed or at least mentioned.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: facedye

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?

My logic is reality.

I think its very naive to think in high level politics "what to do about Assange" was not discussed or at least mentioned.

now you're changing your position.

you didn't talk about "what to do about assange." you stated it's only realistic to think that killing him must have been put on the table for discussion.

it's clear, from this short response, what you think of your government. your apathy about how the government should actually work, vs. how it's been, is abundantly clear as well.

just because you don't expect things to change doesn't mean their actions are acceptable by the people they're supposed to serve.

I remember when the CIA engaging in assassinations was a most egregious crime in the eyes of Democrats in the USA. This "kill list" by Obama and his government is the sort of thing that makes me wonder what on earth happened to the Democratic Party that it is willing to march in lockstep with Obama and his government's assassinations and indiscriminate drone strikes that have killed so many innocent civilians. That US Americans find it acceptable that their President and his advisers are sitting around making a list of who will be assassinated absolutely astounds me.

With the Bushes and the Clintons and Obama, the USA has been unmasked as a criminal enterprise engaging in indiscriminate crimes against humanity --a path the USA has been on since Truman ordered the use of 2 atomic weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki indiscriminately killing untold numbers of innocent civilians.

I don't think the U.S. should be using drone strikes on anyone, anywhere but especially not U.S. citizens (even if they are living on foreign soil). I also don't think drone strikes should be used on the soil of civilized nations like Europe, Asia or the Americas.

The U.S. should have the permission of the nations it is using drones in. How many nations can the U.S. drone strike someone in, anyway?

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: facedye

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?

My logic is reality.

I think its very naive to think in high level politics "what to do about Assange" was not discussed or at least mentioned.

now you're changing your position.

you didn't talk about "what to do about assange." you stated it's only realistic to think that killing him must have been put on the table for discussion.

it's clear, from this short response, what you think of your government. your apathy about how the government should actually work, vs. how it's been, is abundantly clear as well.

just because you don't expect things to change doesn't mean their actions are acceptable by the people they're supposed to serve.

I am not changing my position.

It's clear that you are spouting your words, from your head, and trying to attribute them to me.

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.

I am not trying to pick on you Annee, but let me get this straight.

You think that someone that is in one of the highests positions of power in the world, who could literally influence a decision to kill people and has done just that, has the right to discuss killing a person because they were putting out information that was politically inconvenient for them, because they are only human.

Yet at the same time, you judge Trump for the things he says?

Wow.

Lets see, if I had the options of a person calling me fat, a rapists or any other vile disgusting names in the book, or a person that is one of the highest ranking people in the government discussing murdering me, I think I would find the latter far more serious.

If you are willing to give Hillary a break for something so serious, how can you criticize Trumps temperament?

a reply to: Kapriti

Don't leave out the Tuskegee experiments, and stuff like mkultra's.

The D's really made a big stink about assassinations before, and now ?

People make this list when they get in the way of their POLITICAL agenda's.

It makes me feel sick to think that some politicians are deciding who lives or dies from their comfortable office.
What the hell has the world come to? Especially as the whole country is not up in arms about it.

a reply to: Grambler

Absolutely!

High level politics is not a TV show.

The power struggles at that level are very real and very serious.

Assange is basically a spy.

I'm not naive.

originally posted by: crimsongod21
a reply to: facedye

I
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.

I am sorry but I disagree with you more than anyone possibly could here.

Are you suggesting that our government should illegally murder people because we think they may possibly have some information that could hurt the country?

Well let me tell you another person that had sensitive information where they weren't supposed to; Hillary Clinton.

Do you think that Obama had a meeting discussing droning her?

And you know who Obama and many other people in this country think would be a huge threat to national security; Donald Trump. So they should be allowed to murder him, for the greater good right?

In fact, Obama thinks gloabal warming is the greatest threat to the world. So maybe we should just drone strike polluters or climate change deniers right? I mean its for the good of the country.

We have the rule of law for a reason. When the government starts breaking the law for the greater good, we end up with a dictatorship. Maybe the DOJ and FBI thought that letting Hillary get away with deleting her emails and jeopardizing national security was for the greater good?

I hope that the government never thinks that you are a threat of any sort, because it would be a shame if they treated you as you are suggesting they treat others.

originally posted by: Grambler

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.

I am not trying to pick on you Annee, but let me get this straight.

You think that someone that is in one of the highests positions of power in the world, who could literally influence a decision to kill people and has done just that, has the right to discuss killing a person because they were putting out information that was politically inconvenient for them, because they are only human.

Yet at the same time, you judge Trump for the things he says?

Wow.

Lets see, if I had the options of a person calling me fat, a rapists or any other vile disgusting names in the book, or a person that is one of the highest ranking people in the government discussing murdering me, I think I would find the latter far more serious.

If you are willing to give Hillary a break for something so serious, how can you criticize Trumps temperament?

I think you just covered the hypocrisy that seems so brazen in this election cycle. To be fair the same hypocrisy exists on both sides. The divide is so wide that fairness was tossed out of the window a long time ago.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Grambler

Absolutely!

High level politics is not a TV show.

Did I specify Clinton?

I can't believe you are saying this.

You think a fat joke is worse than someone seriously contemplating murdering someone.

Well, at least your honest. I guess the rest of us know where your priorities are at.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
The power over life and death gives her a thrill. We have all seen it in her comments on killing Qaddafi. Someone like her should never wield such power.

I have always assumed the Clintons have arranged for just about everyone to be in a compromising situation which they documented. Thus they hold something over just about everyone's head at this point. I doubt Bill has any real power I think it is all her, he is very bright and viper like.

What goes up must come down!

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Grambler

Absolutely!

High level politics is not a TV show.

The power struggles at that level are very real and very serious.

Assange is basically a spy.

I'm not naive.

Amusingly, you have more outrage over whether a 5 yr old boy who identifies as a girl, gets to choose which bathroom he uses than this.

That says it all.

Now you can sit here and support and not care much about high level politicians discussing killing journalists or those who release inconvenient information, but that's not any different than the leaders of the countries many peg as evil, like Russia or China or some of the Middle Eastern countries.

a reply to: Annee

it's clear to me you feel attacked and don't take criticism well.

especially when it makes sense.

a reply to: ghostrager

Considering the fact that Clinton never said to Drone Assange, I doubt the validity of the other claims in your OP either.

All other b.s. aside am I supposed that he was talked about? No I am not. It makes logical sense that they would discuss him, assuming they are not aware of what all information he has and what he would be willing to release. Could it be possible he has names of cia assets that are working deep cover ops? Locations of American bases and points of operations? Or any other military strategy or information?

If he had this type of info he could be considered a credible threat to national security this the reason he was discussed. Obviously he was found not to be a credible threat at that time and he got to keep being a thorn in the side of American politicians.

Did Hillary say that, I wasn't there so I don't know, I could see her saying that but once again that is why the meeting is made up of so many informed people so as to not let one person effect the entire outcome of the meeting.

Lets not kid ourselves Obama was not the first president to have these meetings he will not be the last, we could elect any of you and you would be subject to these same types of meetings.

This is only new due to the fear and hatred of Obama and Hillary


Also without the context of when and how it was said this could just be much ado about nothing, who knows maybe it was said in an off hand whimsical manner, or as a deadly serious option, as none of us were there its really hard to say.

originally posted by: crimsongod21
All other b.s. aside am I supposed that he was talked about? No I am not. It makes logical sense that they would discuss him, assuming they are not aware of what all information he has and what he would be willing to release. Could it be possible he has names of cia assets that are working deep cover ops? Locations of American bases and points of operations? Or any other military strategy or information?

If he had this type of info he could be considered a credible threat to national security this the reason he was discussed. Obviously he was found not to be a credible threat at that time and he got to keep being a thorn in the side of American politicians.

Did Hillary say that, I wasn't there so I don't know, I could see her saying that but once again that is why the meeting is made up of so many informed people so as to not let one person effect the entire outcome of the meeting.

Lets not kid ourselves Obama was not the first president to have these meetings he will not be the last, we could elect any of you and you would be subject to these same types of meetings.

This is only new due to the fear and hatred of Obama and Hillary

Yet Hillary and her cohorts criticize Trump for making fat jokes, and say they would fear him having his finger on the button?

Y0u can justify it all you want, if they had a serious discussion about killing someone because they didn't like the information he was putting out, that makes them terrible people.

Can you not see where this will lead? Maybe they don't like that Glen Greenwald published Snowdens documents, so lets drone him?

Maybe Breitbart is stirring up anger at the government, better drone them.

My two points is that this is wrong and extremely scary, and how can anyone that is willing to give this a pass criticize Trump for his words and temperament.

a reply to: Chadwickus

how do you know she never said that?

ETS to hoax bin... 3,2,1