In leaked email, Clinton claims Saudi and Qatari governments fund ISIS

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,930
Criminal Mexi Midget
https://www.yahoo.com/news/in-leaked-email-clinton-claims-saudi-and-qatari-governments-fund-isis-221758254.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma
The Clinton campaign today tried to tamp down a mounting controversy over a newly disclosed, and potentially explosive, email in which the former secretary of state appeared to accuse the Saudi and Qatari governments of secretly funding the Islamic State.

On Aug. 17, 2014 — eight months before she declared her candidacy for president — Clinton sent a detailed strategy for combating the Islamic State, which she referred to as ISIL, in an email to John Podesta, then a White House counselor and now her campaign chairman.

Along with a military campaign to roll back the terror group in Iraq, the Clinton emailtalks about confronting the Saudis and the Qataris, both key U.S. allies, over what she refers to as governmental backing of ISIL.

The Clinton email states: “We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.”
we KNOW who the TRUE enemy is but we go after others, this is how stupid Clinton/Bush & Obama have been.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,609
34,781
USA
Here's the thing. My faith in Wikileaks has now been diminished since it was found to be tampered with.

You can believe everything you read. Or be selective. I just don't have the faith I did in these leaked emails anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WarHeadz

zin

macrumors 6502
May 5, 2010
488
6,439
United Kingdom
You mean this part of the story from that thread?

But the Russians had faked it all, taking a real document released by WikiLeaks and altering it to create a bogus story—one that ultimately was picked up by Trump himself.
Seems you are the one who didn't read it. The article itself is about people misrepresenting an email, not the fact that the email itself has been tampered with. So I'll ask again, source for your claim?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cfedu and jkcerda

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,609
34,781
USA
You mean this part of the story from that thread?



Seems you are the one who didn't read it. The article itself is about people misrepresenting an email, not the fact that the email itself has been tampered with. So I'll ask again, source for your claim?
No. I read it. I just misspoke. My point remains though - that since I personally can't see originals - my faith in reprints in the media or online has diminished.

You can go on believing anything you want.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,609
34,781
USA
the leaks are from the originals ..........
Like I said - for me, the veracity of these leaks has been altered. I'm not saying they've been tampered with or not. But I,personally, do not have full faith in them. You can call that myopic or whatever you want. But you're not going to change my own opinion on that.
 

Lord Blackadder

macrumors G5
May 7, 2004
13,519
2,556
Sod off
https://www.yahoo.com/news/in-leaked-email-clinton-claims-saudi-and-qatari-governments-fund-isis-221758254.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma


we KNOW who the TRUE enemy is but we go after others, this is how stupid Clinton/Bush & Obama have been.
Every single president since WWII has pursued policies in the Middle East that have contributed in some way to the rise and persistence of war, Islamic revolution, and terrorism. Nothing Trump has said indicates that he will be able to change this course. Clinton at least demonstrates a grasp of the realities of the region, though I disagree with her overall policy. Trump sounds a lot like Ahmadinejad - a populist saying things a certain minority of voters wish to hear.

This discussion is pointless because there are broader, cross-party forces at work keeping us embroiled in the Middle East. Even the anti-establishment groups favor warmongering approaches. Clinton represents an unsatisfactory status quo; Trump represents an irresponsible ignorance.
 
Last edited:

zin

macrumors 6502
May 5, 2010
488
6,439
United Kingdom
No. I read it. I just misspoke. My point remains though - that since I personally can't see originals - my faith in reprints in the media or online has diminished.

You can go on believing anything you want.
Slimey answer. You haven't misspoken. You got caught in a lie.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,930
Criminal Mexi Midget
Every single president since WWII has pursued policies in the Middle East that have resulted in the rise and persistence of war, Islamic Revolution, and terrorism in the Middle East. Nothing Trump has said indicates that he will be able to change this course. Clinton at least demonstrates a grasp of the realities of the region, though I disagree with her overall policy. Trump sounds a lot like Ahmadinejad - a populist saying things a certain minority of voters wish to hear.

This discussion is pointless because there are broader, cross-party forces at work keeping us embroiled in the Middle East. Even the anti-establishment groups favor warmongering approaches. Clinton represents an unsatisfactory status quo; Trump represents an irresponsible ignorance.
17 or so of the hijackers were from S-A, S-A is financing ISIS, at what point do you go after them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: zin and webbuzz

TonyC28

macrumors 68000
Aug 15, 2009
1,557
3,882
USA
Saudi Arabia has been a great friend to the United States. Possibly funding the 9/11 terrorists. Funding ISIS. And I leave "possibly" out of the sentence about funding ISIS because she didn't sound like she was making an accusation but rather stating something that is known. And what do we do when our friendemy had been found to once again be screwing us? We have a meeting in the Oval Office and do what we can to protect their secrets. Just imagine if this little revelation came out while Bush was president...the blame-Bushers would blow an artery in excitement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: webbuzz and jkcerda

Lord Blackadder

macrumors G5
May 7, 2004
13,519
2,556
Sod off
17 or so of the hijackers were from S-A, S-A is financing ISIS, at what point do you go after them?
Who is "them"? Saudi Arabia is a nation, not a person or a single party. Any action we take must be balanced against the consequences of weakening yet another Middle Eastern government at a time when chaos is increasingly the new normal. Right now we at least have a government to work with, one that is cooperating with us in many ways.

Make no mistake - I think Saudi Arabia is a regressive, despotic state and an ally of convenience born out of Cold War politics. But push them too far, and they may run into the arms of Russia or China - or worse, we end up with another Egypt, or worse another Yemen, Syria or Iraq. Saudi Arabia also has a huge amount of brand new military gear we sold them that could fall into the wrong hands if the state were to weaken or fall. And that would help ISIS or other insurgents far more than any form of support they may be getting now.

This is a diplomatic issue requiring a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. It will not yield rapid and sweeping results, but the stakes are too high to play the cowboy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rdowns and twietee

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,830
Midlife, Midwest
It's worth reading the e-mail in question in its entirety.

I honestly don't know if Hillary Clinton personally wrote the entire text. But even if she did, it's hardly a damning condemnation of her qualifications to serve as President of the United States. Rather the opposite, in fact.

Because the reality is, it shows a person intimately familiar with geopolitical factors at work in the Middle East, and the competing interests of Islamists, of various Sunni factions, and the concerns the Turkish Government has about providing Peshmerga fighters with heavy weapons. The strategy outlined emphasizes the need to avoid large-scale US military involvement, instead relying on US intelligence and special forces operators to provide the support needed by local groups to defeat ISIL in both Iraq and Syria.

In 2014, Donald Trump was still wasting people's time on absurd birther conspiracies, and engaging on a pathetic vendetta against a distiller of single malt Scotch whisky. In 2014 Hillary Clinton seemed to be intensely interested in formulating an effective strategy to confront ISIL.

Who do YOU think is more qualified to serve as our next Commander-In-Chief.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,930
Criminal Mexi Midget
1.Exactly, in fact he has promised to destroy ISIS.



2.What are you proposing exactly, yet another war in the ME?
1.so we should NOT destroy ISIS?
2. seems we invaded the wrong country, a few times.
[doublepost=1476293786][/doublepost]
Who is "them"? Saudi Arabia is a nation, not a person or a single party. Any action we take must be balanced against the consequences of weakening yet another Middle Eastern government at a time when chaos is increasingly the new normal. Right now we at least have a government to work with, one that is cooperating with us in many ways.

Make no mistake - I think Saudi Arabia is a regressive, despotic state and an ally of convenience born out of Cold War politics. But push them too far, and they may run into the arms of Russia or China - or worse, we end up with another Egypt, or worse another Yemen, Syria or Iraq. Saudi Arabia also has a huge amount of brand new military gear we sold them that could fall into the wrong hands if the state were to weaken or fall. And that would help ISIS or other insurgents far more than any form of support they may be getting now.

This is a diplomatic issue requiring a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. It will not yield rapid and sweeping results, but the stakes are too high to play the cowboy.
S-A is WORSE than Syria/Iraq/Yemen/Egypt. you guys are funny/weird and not in the best possible way. seems we have waged the wrong war with the wrong country.
[doublepost=1476293838][/doublepost]
It's worth reading the e-mail in question in its entirety.

I honestly don't know if Hillary Clinton personally wrote the entire text. But even if she did, it's hardly a damning condemnation of her qualifications to serve as President of the United States. Rather the opposite, in fact.

Because the reality is, it shows a person intimately familiar with geopolitical factors at work in the Middle East, and the competing interests of Islamists, of various Sunni factions, and the concerns the Turkish Government has about providing Peshmerga fighters with heavy weapons. The strategy outlined emphasizes the need to avoid large-scale US military involvement, instead relying on US intelligence and special forces operators to provide the support needed by local groups to defeat ISIL in both Iraq and Syria.

In 2014, Donald Trump was still wasting people's time on absurd birther conspiracies, and engaging on a pathetic vendetta against a distiller of single malt Scotch whisky. In 2014 Hillary Clinton seemed to be intensely interested in formulating an effective strategy to confront ISIL.

Who do YOU think is more qualified to serve as our next Commander-In-Chief.
at this point Trump.
 

subsonix

macrumors 68040
Feb 2, 2008
3,551
79
1.so we should NOT destroy ISIS?
2. seems we invaded the wrong country, a few times.
Yes, but I responded to Trumps supposed course change in contrast to his own statements, on #2 I agree, it seems that way. Now he has refused to give any details, but I suppose it does not involve sending angry letters.
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,830
Midlife, Midwest
at this point Trump.
Trump's strategy for confronting ISIL (one he claims is far superior to our military and intelligence leaders) can be summarized as "Bomb the hell out of them".

As I recall, you have frequently called Hillary Clinton a "war-monger". I'm curious to know how you believe that "bombing the hell' out of various locations in the Middle East (a strategy inevitably destined to kill far more innocent civilians than ISIL fighters, and further inflame public opinion against the US) is somehow superior to Mrs Clinton's far more nuanced and pragmatic approach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IronWaffle

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,930
Criminal Mexi Midget
Trump's strategy for confronting ISIL (one he claims is far superior to our military and intelligence leaders) can be summarized as "Bomb the hell out of them".

As I recall, you have frequently called Hillary Clinton a "war-monger". I'm curious to know how you believe that "bombing the hell' out of various locations in the Middle East (a strategy inevitably destined to kill far more innocent civilians than ISIL fighters, and further inflame public opinion against the US) is somehow superior to Mrs Clinton's far more nuanced and pragmatic approach.
you spelled "treasonous" wrong.
palling around with a nation responsible for 9/11 and ISIS is IMHO treason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrewDaHilp1