Why is Hilary calling the FBI director Coney a liar?

[Tiberius]

She didn't outright call Director Comey a liar, but she did completely misrepresent what he said. Her inability to fully accept what she did was wrong is one of the reasons why I'm not voting for her.

"Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what i have told the American people"

That's not even remotely what he said, and rightly earned a "pants on fire" rating from Politifact:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...-comey-ca/

[account_inactive]

Why don't you go suck Drumpf's cock and be done with it?

It's a wonder how Hillary can still walk with your tongue rammed that far up her arse.

[Aractus]

Actually it was a bit unfair of me to call Trump an oxygen thief, at least he hasn't inflicted war and poverty upon people in the middle east and contributed to creating the refugee crisis. That said, they're both neurotic, arrogant, and wholly unsuitable to be politicians, let alone leader of a Nation State. Osama bin Laden was a better human being than Hillary. Why? Because he didn't want war in the middle east. In fact he even said that he didn't want to see a caliphate state. Even he knew that war and destabilisation could result in that. And he's not the only one, the White House, and Hillary were also warned by the Pentagon that destabilising the region would leave it vulnerable to a caliphate. So what did the USA do? First they invaded Afghanistan, and toppled the Taliban. The war was illegal (the USA demanded the ruling Taliban to extradite a citizen, when no such extradition treaty even existed by which to do so), they committed horrendous war crimes, and set up an illegal prison in which prisoners intentionally were not treated according to the Geneva conventions because Gorge W didn't believe they should apply, and they tortured and killed the war prisoners. In total there were 27,000 combatants or others involved in the war killed, and 26,000 Afghani civilians killed that were documented and we knot about (the true number is probably much higher).

Of course they didn't find Osama bin Lade in Afghanistan anyway, so they decided to start a war in Iraq to "help Iraqis" attain "freedom". The Pentagon told Bush and Cheney that there weren't any WMDs in Iraq, but they decided to push ahead anyway. It was also illegal, and the US also committed countless war crimes such as the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse incidents. They toppled Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, and then somehow failed to force a democratic government upon people that didn't want one. This war resulted in over 1 million deaths in total, more than half were civilians.

Then they decided to invade Pakistan as well. And they finally found and killed Osama bin Laden, meanwhile more civilians were killed, the region was further destabilised, and of course they decimate Al-Qaeda, which allowed for other insurgent groups in the Middle East to grow stronger (i.e. DAESH). There is now a huge civil war in the region as a direct result of this warmongering. These wars, started by the US, have caused huge security problems for: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. There are currently about 65 million forcibly displaced people, 5 million in just the last 12 months. I don't know how many refugees can be directly attributed to these wars, but according to this statement from the UNHCR (link in previous sentence) it would be very high:

The reasons are threefold:

•    conflicts that cause large refugee outflows, like Somalia and Afghanistan – now in their third and fourth decade respectively – are lasting longer;
  
•    dramatic new or reignited conflicts and situations of insecurity are occurring more frequently. While today’s largest is Syria, wars have broken out in the past five years in South Sudan, Yemen, Burundi, Ukraine and Central African Republic, while thousands more people have fled raging gang and other violence in Central America;
  
•    the rate at which solutions are being found for refugees and internally displaced people has been on a falling trend since the end of the Cold War, leaving a growing number in limbo.
  

...
The study found that three countries produce half the world’s refugees. Syria at 4.9 million, Afghanistan at 2.7 million and Somalia at 1.1 million together accounted for more than half the refugees under UNHCR’s mandate worldwide.

Germany currently hosts 316,100 refugees, with an additional 441,900 asylum seekers registered in 2015. They probably have even more displaced people, Syrians in particular, currently living in Germany who have not yet made their asylum applications, or have made them this year and wouldn't be reflected by the UNHCR figures I'm looking at. In total, there were 2.17 million applications for asylum made worldwide in 2015 to nation states, of which Germany received 441,900 (about 1/5th of all applications).


Now I don't care where refugees go, but I think that the USA, and its allies including Australia and the UK should be the ones who pay proportionate costs to relocate and resettle all refugees from Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, and the surrounding countries. If Germany wants to accept 400,000, great, but they should send the bill to the assholes that went and made the problem in the first place.

[account_inactive]

Actually it was a bit unfair of me to call Trump an oxygen thief, at least he hasn't inflicted war and poverty upon people in the middle east and contributed to creating the refugee crisis. That said, they're both neurotic, arrogant, and wholly unsuitable to be politicians, let alone leader of a Nation State. Osama bin Laden was a better human being than Hillary. Why? Because he didn't want war in the middle east. In fact he even said that he didn't want to see a caliphate state. Even he knew that war and destabilisation could result in that. And he's not the only one, the White House, and Hillary were also warned by the Pentagon that destabilising the region would leave it vulnerable to a caliphate. So what did the USA do? First they invaded Afghanistan, and toppled the Taliban. The war was illegal (the USA demanded the ruling Taliban to extradite a citizen, when no such extradition treaty even existed by which to do so), they committed horrendous war crimes, and set up an illegal prison in which prisoners intentionally were not treated according to the Geneva conventions because Gorge W didn't believe they should apply, and they tortured and killed the war prisoners. In total there were 27,000 combatants or others involved in the war killed, and 26,000 Afghani civilians killed that were documented and we knot about (the true number is probably much higher).

Of course they didn't find Osama bin Lade in Afghanistan anyway, so they decided to start a war in Iraq to "help Iraqis" attain "freedom". The Pentagon told Bush and Cheney that there weren't any WMDs in Iraq, but they decided to push ahead anyway. It was also illegal, and the US also committed countless war crimes such as the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse incidents. They toppled Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, and then somehow failed to force a democratic government upon people that didn't want one. This war resulted in over 1 million deaths in total, more than half were civilians.

Then they decided to invade Pakistan as well. And they finally found and killed Osama bin Laden, meanwhile more civilians were killed, the region was further destabilised, and of course they decimate Al-Qaeda, which allowed for other insurgent groups in the Middle East to grow stronger (i.e. DAESH). There is now a huge civil war in the region as a direct result of this warmongering. These wars, started by the US, have caused huge security problems for: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. There are currently about 65 million forcibly displaced people, 5 million in just the last 12 months. I don't know how many refugees can be directly attributed to these wars, but according to this statement from the UNHCR (link in previous sentence) it would be very high:

The reasons are threefold:

•    conflicts that cause large refugee outflows, like Somalia and Afghanistan – now in their third and fourth decade respectively – are lasting longer;
  
•    dramatic new or reignited conflicts and situations of insecurity are occurring more frequently. While today’s largest is Syria, wars have broken out in the past five years in South Sudan, Yemen, Burundi, Ukraine and Central African Republic, while thousands more people have fled raging gang and other violence in Central America;
  
•    the rate at which solutions are being found for refugees and internally displaced people has been on a falling trend since the end of the Cold War, leaving a growing number in limbo.
  

...
The study found that three countries produce half the world’s refugees. Syria at 4.9 million, Afghanistan at 2.7 million and Somalia at 1.1 million together accounted for more than half the refugees under UNHCR’s mandate worldwide.

Germany currently hosts 316,100 refugees, with an additional 441,900 asylum seekers registered in 2015. They probably have even more displaced people, Syrians in particular, currently living in Germany who have not yet made their asylum applications, or have made them this year and wouldn't be reflected by the UNHCR figures I'm looking at. In total, there were 2.17 million applications for asylum made worldwide in 2015 to nation states, of which Germany received 441,900 (about 1/5th of all applications).


Now I don't care where refugees go, but I think that the USA, and its allies including Australia and the UK should be the ones who pay proportionate costs to relocate and resettle all refugees from Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, and the surrounding countries. If Germany wants to accept 400,000, great, but they should send the bill to the assholes that went and made the problem in the first place.

My fucking arse.

[FatAndFaithless]

Calling Osama Bin Laden a better human than Hillary sounds like a step too far...even for someone who really hates Hillary.

And Trump hasn't fucked around in the Middle East because he hasn't had the opportunity or ability to, yet.

[ReptilianPeon]

Even if I was right after all, and Hilary did (basically) call James a liar, I had planned to change my username anyway. Good to know I was shown to be mostly correct in the end. Hilary must be living a fantasy.

[Esquilax]

And Trump hasn't fucked around in the Middle East because he hasn't had the opportunity or ability to, yet.

Yeah, I was just about to say: that's a problem of capability, not of inclination. Trump can't even help himself from encouraging violence against individual citizens who disagree with him, after all.

[Thumpalumpacus]

WHAT THE FUCK? If a potential future US president "can't be trusted" with nuclear weapons then there shouldn't be any fucking nukes at all.

This has got to be the shittiest logic I've seen coming from a notably illogical member.

If you're nice, I'll take the time to explain to you why, Aractus.

[Aractus]

Calling Osama Bin Laden a better human than Hillary sounds like a step too far...even for someone who really hates Hillary.

Your reply is interesting. So I thought about it, and I don't think it s a step too far, even if it may 'sound that way'. I'll explain why. Both Osama and Hillary were/are important leaders in noteworthy terrorist organisations. It just so happens that Osama within his terror organisation didn't really believe in war, or even civil war, they believed in taking violent actions against their enemies - which notably includes Hillary's terror organisation. Hillary, on the other hand, does believe in waging war, and creating the environment for civil wars through the use of violence. And she also believes in violent actions against her enemies.

Now you may say that Hillary isn't a terrorist, and I can prove that she is. I have used the word terrorist consistently for years - you can do a search on the forum to do confirm this. The single definition of terrorism that I believe in is: the use of violence for political objectives. Hillary wrote that "The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad". , and then went through with the act. That is a textbook example of a terrorist act: an act of violence to achieve a political objective.


So both of them are terrorists, and Hillary is the worse of them because she's the warmonger.

And Trump hasn't fucked around in the Middle East because he hasn't had the opportunity or ability to, yet.

Um, the last 3 US Presidents (if not more) are war criminals, that have escaped any accountability for their war crimes. Clinton is already a war criminal, as well as being married to one. Trump is not. He's neurotic, and you're probably right as soon as he gets into office he'll probably join the club. But right now he isn't a war criminal.

[Excited Penguin]

Defending the character of the founder of al-Qaeda and saying it's more ethical than Clinton's.

Ok, then, buddy, I think that's enough internet for today...