First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply United Nations: Targeting Wikileaks Founder With Drone Strike Criminal Violation of Human Rights
16723 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 10/4/16

rawratl wrote:

Trump would drone strike him just for insulting him on twitter. I don't see the point.


When has Trump EVER drone striked anyone? He has fought whole twitter wars with back and forth insults that then settled down and resulted in absolutely nothing with no one dead or bombed. If his version of fighting a war is a back and forth insult chain on twitter than I for one welcome that type of non-violent war.
qwueri 
16404 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Online
Posted 10/4/16 , edited 10/4/16

PhantomGundam wrote:

It's been more than 24 hours since this story came out. Has Hillary denied it yet? If she's been keeping quiet about this rather than immediately claiming it's fake, that's quite alarming... It shows she's either hoping people forget about it in a few days or she's taking her time to try to come up with an excuse.


I have yet to see any major news sources pick this up, which seems odd considering that's the sort of thing Fox would snap up in a heartbeat. Seems more and more like a drummed up blog post than legitimate journalism.


Rujikin wrote:

When has Trump EVER drone striked anyone? He has fought whole twitter wars with back and forth insults that then settled down and resulted in absolutely nothing with no one dead or bombed. If his version of fighting a war is a back and forth insult chain on twitter than I for one welcome that type of non-violent war.


When has Trump help political office or a post in the military? All that's known about how he'd act in the position to call a drone strike is that he'd 'bomb the hell out of Isis' and 'blow out of the water' any vessel that made aggressive maneuvers or gestures toward US naval vessels. He's a guy that time and again goes to the boundaries of what the law allows, be it squabbles over Twitter, tax rates, or denying records of past statements. The real question is whether he will go over that legal line, and how badly should he do so?
28190 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/4/16

rawratl wrote:
Trump would drone strike him just for insulting him on twitter. I don't see the point.


Trump would drone strike us for the last month worth of threads alone. >.>



PhantomGundam wrote:
It's been more than 24 hours since this story came out. Has Hillary denied it yet? If she's been keeping quiet about this rather than immediately claiming it's fake, that's quite alarming... It shows she's either hoping people forget about it in a few days or she's taking her time to try to come up with an excuse.


Why would she address what is essentially an internet rumour from a borderline conspiracy blog? You don't address gossip. That legitimizes it.

I mean, its not like you would be convinced if she did. You basically just put forth that if she says nothing she's guilty but if she says something she's guilty. -.-
51110 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 10/4/16

Rujikin wrote:

When has Trump EVER drone striked anyone? He has fought whole twitter wars with back and forth insults that then settled down and resulted in absolutely nothing with no one dead or bombed. If his version of fighting a war is a back and forth insult chain on twitter than I for one welcome that type of non-violent war.


I would imagine Trump would be in prison right now if he hijacked the military and made them drone strike someone. It's not exactly something you can do without having the authority...
23084 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Pittsburgh
Offline
Posted 10/4/16
So the big announcement was finally released. Assange just wanted to say that it was WikiLeaks 10th anniversary and everyone was trolled.
37281 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/4/16
46633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 10/4/16

Rujikin wrote:


rawratl wrote:

Trump would drone strike him just for insulting him on twitter. I don't see the point.


When has Trump EVER drone striked anyone? He has fought whole twitter wars with back and forth insults that then settled down and resulted in absolutely nothing with no one dead or bombed. If his version of fighting a war is a back and forth insult chain on twitter than I for one welcome that type of non-violent war.


He's not President yet, we'll see if he gets the power. He already said he'd blow up a Iranian warship for taunting us. So we'll just have to see.
46633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 10/4/16


We will probably have to go underground if he gets elected; I'm sure we're on a list somewhere.
51110 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 10/4/16

runec wrote:

Why would she address what is essentially an internet rumour from a borderline conspiracy blog? You don't address gossip. That legitimizes it.

I mean, its not like you would be convinced if she did. You basically just put forth that if she says nothing she's guilty but if she says something she's guilty. -.-


It may just be nothing more than a rumor, but when even the U.N. comments on it, it should be pretty hard to ignore it. If you have a habit of denying every bad thing you're accused of, even if some of the accusations are true, it really says a lot when you take a long time to explain yourself or make an excuse. Delaying your response is only something you do when you can't honestly explain yourself.

It's possible nobody in her campaign has told her about the story yet, but that's unlikely. It might also be possible that if she really did make those remarks, she could've just been telling a really poor joke. Also unlikely given how much she hates whistleblowers and anyone that dares to uncover legitimate dirt on her. Even so, saying something would still be better than ignoring the problem.

Obviously she shouldn't talk about every little rumor that surfaces online, but allegations of trying to commit a war crime prompting the U.N. to speak should definitely not be ignored. It only makes her look worse than she already looks. Especially since it's the kind of thing that fits perfectly with how she's known to behave.
46633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 10/4/16


I just want to leave a few links for you here

Clinton Foundation:
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

Trump Foundation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/us/politics/trump-foundation-money.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/01/trump-pays-irs-a-penalty-for-his-foundation-violating-rules-with-gift-to-florida-attorney-general/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/donald-trump-foundation-charity

Trump Illegal Business: Mind you, there are like 30 different stories I could link. However, this one doesn't seem to be getting any coverage.
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/14/donald-trump-cuban-embargo-castro-violated-florida-504059.html

Trump vs. Hillary fact checker
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/
qwueri 
16404 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Online
Posted 10/4/16 , edited 10/4/16



And which of those contains comments by Hilary of initiating hostile actions with over nations over flimsy provocations?

And if you really want to get to get a measuring stick of scandals between Trump and Hilary you'd have alot of dirt to dig. If you're going to compare lies, Trump has Hilary beat on a daily basis.
51110 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 10/4/16


Two people rob a bank. Person A got caught while Person B ran away. Person A's lawyer tells the cops that Person A should be let go because Person B also robbed the bank. I'm sure you're smart enough to realize why this argument doesn't work in real life.
13575 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / Australia
Offline
Posted 10/4/16

MysticGon wrote:

Something tells me a major war will breakout no matter who is elected.


Yeah you're probably right. Just don't engage China and we'll be right (I say this as an Australian since we're pretty much fucked if that happens).
28190 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/4/16

PhantomGundam wrote:
It may just be nothing more than a rumor, but when even the U.N. comments on it, it should be pretty hard to ignore it.


A UN rapporteur commented on the scenario when asked to comment on it during an interview by True Pundit. She also said she was unaware of the original "scathing report" from TP. So the UN didn't comment on it, a UN envoy commented on it when asked about it during an interview:


Dr. Callamard said she had no knowledge of the assertions contained in the True Pundit story regarding the State Department. Dr. Callamard, however, did draw on her expertise to help bring clarity to an otherwise complex and controversial issue, stating “the use of drones for targeted killing outside the context of armed conflict, is almost never likely to be legal and to meet human rights law limitations on the use of lethal force.”


She is not commenting on Hillary Clinton, she's commenting on the scenario of drone striking an individual target when asked to do so during an interview. The UN didn't "weigh in" or "release a statement". A UN rapporteur, who is someone appointed as a sort of independent investigator of a specific topic or realm of expertise to advise the UN, responded to a question she was asked.

This is media bullshit essentially. Creating smoke to convince you there is fire. When the "fire" is basically an anonymous claim on a conspiracy blog. This isn't even important enough for the envoy in question or the UN human rights office to tweet about. -.-

Go take a search around if you don't believe me. Literally the only one the internet making this claim/link is True Pundit.

I'd be willing to bet the "interview" with Dr Callamard was just a question they emailed her or asked her over the phone too. It certainly doesn't appear to have been an actual interview on camera. There's also nothing else to this supposed "interview" except this one question and answer.

Here, it's even hit Snopes now:
http://www.snopes.com/julian-assange-drone-strike/

If there was anything actually to this do you think the "anonymous source" from the state department would leak it to some random conspiracy nut blog instead of a credible media outlet?
27229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 10/4/16
Just get the stupid election over with so all this nonsense would stop, and then it'll be business-as-usual, nothing changes, nothing is fixed, move on to the next election, rinse and repeat. Yawn.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.