Hillary Clinton is a Terrorist and Should Resign.

Originally posted by Seeker Mom
Before calling for her head, consider this: these cables that were supposedly sent in her name were simply signed from the office of the secretary of state and not Hillary herself. She didn't write these, nor did she order them. In fact she probably didn't even review them.

Here is a link that should clear up this misconception.
www.noquarterusa.net...-53820

She is the Secretary of State. Her signature was on them. She is legally responsible. And I'm damn sure she knew about it. She has regular briefings with the intel guys. Have you seen her sack anyone for this? If not, she is colluding.

What I don't get is that people on here slag off the NWO and the government daily, but when push comes to shove they then jump back in and defend them.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Seeker Mom
Before calling for her head, consider this: these cables that were supposedly sent in her name were simply signed from the office of the secretary of state and not Hillary herself. She didn't write these, nor did she order them. In fact she probably didn't even review them.

Here is a link that should clear up this misconception.
www.noquarterusa.net...-53820

Very true

If I write a note to someone saying "kill Bill", does that mean the someone I was writing the note to should be jailed for planning to kill Bill?

No - that would mean the Ambassador who received the note should be jailed. But the person who gave the order is responsible, and in this case it carries her name. But hey, let's not attack a member of the NWO, we know for sure they are innocent, honest and totally working for the good of the American slaves.

Originally posted by wcitizen
What I don't get is that people on here slag off the NWO and the government daily, but when push comes to shove they then jump back in and defend them.

This isn't the new world order


this is the current world order...you know...the thing everyone is fighting to maintain.

reply to post by Seeker Mom



I could also say. Before calling for Assange's head, consider:

He didn't write the diplomatic emails.
He didn't ask for DNA, fingerprints, passwords of politicians and UN officials.
He didn't leak the documents, he simply received them.
He has not broken any law by publishing them.

Yet - Hillary has called him a terrorist and wants him arrested.

Meanwhile,

G. Bush authorises torture and massive war crimes and lives feely and in luxury, on money made through illegal deals while he was a politician.
Hillary did ask for DNA, fingerprints, passwords, details on US officials - which is a serious crime, and she lives freely and in luxury, at the taxpayers expense and REMAINS Secretary of State.

Julian is arrested.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by wcitizen
What I don't get is that people on here slag off the NWO and the government daily, but when push comes to shove they then jump back in and defend them.

This isn't the new world order


this is the current world order...you know...the thing everyone is fighting to maintain.

I don't get your point, sorry!

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Terrorism is the threat or action of using deadly violence to progress a political or religious agenda.

Lets not destroy a word..she did not threaten such things...and therefore in no way should be classified as a "terrorist".

overreacting and destroying context of a word will only weaken your discussion...perhaps the word "spy" or "betrayer" may work....if using the word liberally...and sort of blurring the lines..but one word that definately does not fit would be "terrorist"

I am deliberately pushing the use of language here, it's not an over-reaction. But I'm interested that I have not seen such posts when JA was accused of being a terrorist. I am utterly amazed at the way people, who constantly complain about this mafia government, jump in when one of them is targeted in exactly the same way they target others.

Yes, it's abuse of the word terrorist - but hey, simple dissenters are now considered 'terrorists' by the US government, and that's why I deliberately used it in this context.

With the scramble I have seen to discredit Wikileaks by a huge number of ATS posters, I am coming to believe that there is a 'cognitive dissonance' thing going on here. It's as though they can't cope with the fact that Hillary has disgraced her country, so they attack WL for exposing it. It's mind boggling.

Hillary Clinton's actions were a crime, a threat to diplomacy and to national security, yet NOBODY has mentioned that. She should resign and face judicial consequences.

Originally posted by wcitizen
I don't get your point, sorry!

Point is pretty simple

People around here are always pushing away anything new, saying its some sort of new world order agenda that will make us fall into the traps of whatever

stuff like this has been going on since the 50s and before...this is the world order...nothing new about it.

we -need- to push for a new world order, with a global court for these elitist bastards worldwide
we -need- a global government to protect not just a citizen from another, but from one country to another

the outcry against a new world order is the subterfuge and confusion planted by the current world order to keep the status quo...they have taken a golden ticket and smeared it with filth so people rally against it, meanwhile wrapping their filth in gold wrap so people will die protecting it.

I am basically saying, the NWO thing annoys me to no end...it is what we as a people should be fighting for...yet the current powers are truely scared if the world did unite and make a stand on what is and isn't acceptable.

ok, rant over

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by wcitizen
I don't get your point, sorry!

Point is pretty simple

People around here are always pushing away anything new, saying its some sort of new world order agenda that will make us fall into the traps of whatever

stuff like this has been going on since the 50s and before...this is the world order...nothing new about it.

we -need- to push for a new world order, with a global court for these elitist bastards worldwide
we -need- a global government to protect not just a citizen from another, but from one country to another

the outcry against a new world order is the subterfuge and confusion planted by the current world order to keep the status quo...they have taken a golden ticket and smeared it with filth so people rally against it, meanwhile wrapping their filth in gold wrap so people will die protecting it.

I am basically saying, the NWO thing annoys me to no end...it is what we as a people should be fighting for...yet the current powers are truely scared if the world did unite and make a stand on what is and isn't acceptable.

ok, rant over

Right, thanks for clarifying that! Yes, and I mostly agree with what you say. I do believe, however, that they do mean something specific when they speak of a NWO - it's not what we've had until now, it is a differnt world they are trying to create, one world (despotic, totalitarian) global government supported by violent martial law.

Originally posted by wcitizen
Yes, it's abuse of the word terrorist - but hey, simple dissenters are now considered 'terrorists' by the US government, and that's why I deliberately used it in this context.

With the scramble I have seen to discredit Wikileaks by a huge number of ATS posters, I am coming to believe that there is a 'cognitive dissonance' thing going on here. It's as though they can't cope with the fact that Hillary has disgraced her country, so they attack WL for exposing it. It's mind boggling.

He is not a terrorist either...and that retardation was brought to you by overreactionary politicians also trying to destroy the word to mean anything they don't like.

This leak is a soft version of the pentegon papers or watergate...but back then, the officals didn't much like that stuff being released either.
This latest leak shouldn't even be remotely measured to what those were.

The people on here wanting to throw wikileaks under the bus after the leak are simply disappointed that their specific worldview wasn't validated...meh, welcome to reality...but again, just because you don't like someone or something, does not make it terrorism..

Its just one of my pet peeves. The english language is ripped apart soo much already, words that used to hold weight now meaningless (like love, terrorist, sheep, etc) that eventually we will have a language with no feeling or flavor should we continue to keep upping labels for otherwise mundane events.

Originally posted by wcitizen
(despotic, totalitarian) global government supported by violent martial law.

I have seen the opposite in action, but the wordplay is that they might try to instill something of that nature.

Funny...the more the world opens up, the more people seem to think its closing down...its distraction fueled by the old powers to make the common citizens fear change and demand nothing ever change.

The worst thing we could do for our civilization is to keep things the same...change is needed, else we will wither and die...and most likely from a cough or blast (highly advanced weapons in a age where nationalism still exists)


for one moment...imagine a world 200 years from now that is set up the same as right now...with rogue nations, intrigue, tension, and unjust actions going on...
now imagine how much our weapons can progress in 200 years...

the world must unite, or we will indeed die. If we cannot do it democratically and given each nation its own identiy while working together for the greater good...then through iron fisted totalitarianism...either way, it must be done.

I prefer the former.

Originally posted by Seeker Mom
Before calling for her head, consider this: these cables that were supposedly sent in her name were simply signed from the office of the secretary of state and not Hillary herself. She didn't write these, nor did she order them. In fact she probably didn't even review them.

Here is a link that should clear up this misconception.
www.noquarterusa.net...-53820

I don't disagree with what you have to say. However, I do find it interesting that this line of reasoning didn't work so well for Ron Paul when the whole "racism" card was thrown in his face due to something being published that was most likely never read, checked nor endorsed by him.

Funny how things only work one way, eh?

I would be willing to bet money that if similar leaks happened with other country's data that Hillary would have plenty of company.

So far, Wikileaks has focused pretty much solely on the US. I don't really expect any change in this given the popularity of focusing on the US for all that wrong in universe at the moment.

However, were they to broaden their scope I'd be willing to wager that most every country engages in similar things.
I'm not saying it is right - I am saying that is how politics goes on the world stage. Everyone spies on each other while making kissy faces in public.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by wcitizen
Yes, it's abuse of the word terrorist - but hey, simple dissenters are now considered 'terrorists' by the US government, and that's why I deliberately used it in this context.

With the scramble I have seen to discredit Wikileaks by a huge number of ATS posters, I am coming to believe that there is a 'cognitive dissonance' thing going on here. It's as though they can't cope with the fact that Hillary has disgraced her country, so they attack WL for exposing it. It's mind boggling.

He is not a terrorist either...and that retardation was brought to you by overreactionary politicians also trying to destroy the word to mean anything they don't like.

This leak is a soft version of the pentegon papers or watergate...but back then, the officals didn't much like that stuff being released either.
This latest leak shouldn't even be remotely measured to what those were.

The people on here wanting to throw wikileaks under the bus after the leak are simply disappointed that their specific worldview wasn't validated...meh, welcome to reality...but again, just because you don't like someone or something, does not make it terrorism..

Its just one of my pet peeves. The english language is ripped apart soo much already, words that used to hold weight now meaningless (like love, terrorist, sheep, etc) that eventually we will have a language with no feeling or flavor should we continue to keep upping labels for otherwise mundane events.

I used the word 'terrorist' provocatively here - in a sense to show the idiocy of how that word is used, but also because it is the way TPTB use that language. I was also interested to see the response it would get if I turned their usage of the word against Hillary. I suspected there would be quite a few people challenging this...which is what happened. So, it kind of illustrates something which I think is important. People have accepted that dissidents are classed as terrorists (wrongly), they have accepted that people who could reveal important information are frequently assissinated by the authorities - but, well, this cognitive dissonance thing, they can't accept Hillary being given the same treatment.

I have found this quite sobering...perhaps criticising TPTB and accepting that these people are called terrorists - even if you don't agree with it - is still part of being INSIDE the matrix. Have a rant and move on.

This is thinking in progress, prompted by what I have perceived as a surprising lack of congruence in response in recent days.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by wcitizen
(despotic, totalitarian) global government supported by violent martial law.

I have seen the opposite in action, but the wordplay is that they might try to instill something of that nature.

Funny...the more the world opens up, the more people seem to think its closing down...its distraction fueled by the old powers to make the common citizens fear change and demand nothing ever change.

The worst thing we could do for our civilization is to keep things the same...change is needed, else we will wither and die...and most likely from a cough or blast (highly advanced weapons in a age where nationalism still exists)

I agree that radical change is needed, but unlike you I don't see the world opening up - well, not politically or economically at least. I see a tightening of the screws of manipulation and control each year more.

for one moment...imagine a world 200 years from now that is set up the same as right now...with rogue nations, intrigue, tension, and unjust actions going on...
now imagine how much our weapons can progress in 200 years...

I totally agree, and my belief is that they have much worse than that in store for the world.

the world must unite, or we will indeed die. If we cannot do it democratically and given each nation its own identiy while working together for the greater good...then through iron fisted totalitarianism...either way, it must be done.

I prefer the former.

I agree we must unite. I disagree with the totalitarian option. I believe the former would be quite possible were it not for a governing cabal hell bent on stopping it.

Oh yes. Hillary Clinton.
I can say without reservation that Hillary is perhaps the most evil b*tch that ever lived.



Has everyone seen The Clinton Chronicles?



The Clintons are snakes. They excel in finding dirt on people and blackmailing them with it. That is how the acquired power and that is how they wield it.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

I know very well what the definitions (there are several) of 'terrorist' are - in my post I was playing devil's advocate by showing that by using the term in the way it is used by TPTB, Hillary Clinton should also be classed as a terrorist.

Does someone who disagrees with the government fit the dictionary definition of a terrorist? NO
Does the government imply or in some cases even state they are terrorists? YES

If the Government can distort the meaning to suit its own purposes, that distortion can and must also be used against them.

I hope you get my meaning now.

Originally posted by Frogs
I would be willing to bet money that if similar leaks happened with other country's data that Hillary would have plenty of company.

So far, Wikileaks has focused pretty much solely on the US. I don't really expect any change in this given the popularity of focusing on the US for all that wrong in universe at the moment.

However, were they to broaden their scope I'd be willing to wager that most every country engages in similar things.
I'm not saying it is right - I am saying that is how politics goes on the world stage. Everyone spies on each other while making kissy faces in public.

I've seen this same argument used so many times, when US has been criticised, but it's actually completely irrelevant. Do you explain away a murderer's crime - just because other murderers haven't been identified and caught yet? Or if you are burgled, and the police said well, there are plenty other people who burgle - so it's not fair for us to charge this one? It's ridiculous.

No wonder this government gets away with every damn thing - although many people moan and complain, when it comes to the crunch the truth is so uncomfortable many people's mind just jumps into 'justification', also known as 'let's just make it disappear then we don't have to deal with this nasty truth'.

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

I would define it more generally:

Terrorism is using fear to advance an agenda.


In that case, certainly there are many who are guilty in our government and governments around the world... not surprising.

FBI is guilty many times, especially when they 'entrap' young people into high profile terror scenarios where they bust them in the limelight in order to:

1. Make it seem as if there is a genuine terror threat we should be concerned about.

2. Make it seem as if they are actually doing something productive with taxpayer $$.

3. To generally control us, and to preserve their power and hierarchy in that control.


....btw I have heard rumors from Swedish authorities that the dominatrix has raped some young teenage boys - she said it was consentual but I'm not sure I believe her...

If one defines terror that loosely then half the people in America could be arrested under the Patriot Act.
The question brought up by Hillary, is exactly that. Can they decide now to define terror as loosely as you just stated? If so, then everyone is screwed.

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by Seeker Mom
Before calling for her head, consider this: these cables that were supposedly sent in her name were simply signed from the office of the secretary of state and not Hillary herself. She didn't write these, nor did she order them. In fact she probably didn't even review them.

Here is a link that should clear up this misconception.
www.noquarterusa.net...-53820

She is the Secretary of State. Her signature was on them. She is legally responsible. And I'm damn sure she knew about it. She has regular briefings with the intel guys. Have you seen her sack anyone for this? If not, she is colluding.

What I don't get is that people on here slag off the NWO and the government daily, but when push comes to shove they then jump back in and defend them.

Leadership = responsibility.


It's amazing how people will shut their eyes to the crimes of their favourite political figures, while pointing out all that's wrong with their rivals.

Whatever side they are on, if it happens on their watch, in their office, it's their responsibility.

Well ONE thing is for sure. She's a LIAR! And she lied to CONGRESS in sworn testimony:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If anything, she should lose her job at minimum. Isn't there a law against lying to Congress? She should spend time in jail too.