WikiLeaks: Private Hillary email suggests Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding ISIS

[davidn3600]

A second batch of leaked email exchanges allegedly between Hillary Clinton and her 2016 campaign chair John Podesta have been seized on by both left and ring wing commentators as evidence of inconsistencies in the Democratic presidential nominee’s foreign policy stance.

The 2,000 new messages, dumped on Monday, are the second release in the last four days from Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who promised the supposed 50,000 strong email haul from Mr Podesta will provide “significant” insights into the current election campaign.

In one thread of correspondence from August 2014 Ms Clinton sent an eight-point plan to Mr Podesta, at the time a counsellor to President Barack Obama, outlining a strategy on how to defeat terror group Isis which involved supporting Kurdish forces in Syria and Iraq with military advisers.

The Obama administration ended up taking similar action to that described as desirable by Ms Clinton.

The exchange also appears to show the presidential candidate identified the Gulf states of Saudi Arabia and Qatar as “clandestine” “financial and logistic” supporters of the terrorist group, despite surface cooperation between the US and the Sunni states on combating the militants and other actions in Syria’s multi-sided civil war.

“While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, 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,” Ms Clinton reportedly wrote.

“This effort will be enhanced by the stepped up commitment in the Kurdish Regional Government. The Qataris and Saudis will be put in a position of balancing policy between their ongoing competition to dominate the Sunni world and the consequences of serious US pressure.”

The governments of both Saudi Arabia and Qatar deny arming Isis, although critics point out the terror group and the states share a common enemy in President Bashar al-Assad’s Alawite government. The states' respective embassies in London did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-leak-wikileaks-saudi-arabia-qatar-isis-podesta-latest-a7355466.html

You know...this Syrian civil war seems to have so many sides...do we know who is on which side anymore? I understand the "fog of war" can be deceiving. But this ridiculous.

[msongs]

1. gee I have suggested the same things many times, can I get on wikileaks? nt

[Wilms]

2. "We" don't know. But "they" do.

They'll tell us what they want, when they want.

[Foggyhill]

3. Is that really a secret

Private funds going to various sunnite factions is well known

[bmstee01]

4. Obviously

I really am not shocked by anything.
The Donna Brazille thing doesn't appear to be much of anything either. Her and CNN are both denying any sharing of questions. And I think I heard nothing like that was even asked?

[jehop61]

5. Well there's this

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/intelligence-expert-confirms-latest-hillary-clinton-email-dump-from-wikileaks-is-full-of-forgeries/26242/

Can't believe any of them.

[davidn3600]

7. How are they proven false?

Who is saying they are false? The government?

Oh yeah...I'm sure the government will never lie to me.

[leftofcool]

8. You don't think Podesta saves his emails?

I am quite sure Podesta is smart enough to compare his emails with the ones they "say" are his. Good grief!

[davidn3600]

10. But if someone is leaking government information

Don't you expect the first thing to do is discredit the leakers?

[Foggyhill]

9. The Newsweek article says so

They passed the Newsweek writer's text for someone else , blumentall
So a blatant forgery
Good grief, no wonder the US
Is so screwed since any conspiracy theory or forgery that confirm bias is accepted
As truth
That happens on the right and left

[davidn3600]

13. So just salue the American flag and just trust them that they wouldnt lie.....

First off, WikiLeaks doesn't have the ability to confirm the authenticity of every single thing that comes to them. If they ask the US government to confirm authenticity, do you honestly believe the government will give the truth? WikiLeaks is an information clearing house. Hackers or whistlblowers or informants anonymously drop information at their doorstep. And it is true that they sometimes get careless with what they throw out there. But they've also disclosed some very accurate information.

But ultimately, I don't view the government as any more trustworthy as Julian Assange. I know that's not popular to say on a forum that tends to be very pro-government. But it's how I feel.

And I want to make it clear that my distrust of the government is not partisan. I don't care if the government is lead by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or George Bush. The government should always be scrutinized and questioned. And the media itself isn't always trustworthy enough to do that job. 90% of the media today is controlled by a half-dozen very large corporations. The internet is our only hope to keep information free.

[Foggyhill]

15. Your part of the same continuum that led to Trump

THe left equiv sources to Fox or any conspiracy as a better source than gov or science (see anti-vax and Gmo frenzy)

You build one hell of a straw man btw, bravo for judging me and the pragmatic who fight their own biases as much as those of others so harshly

Having helped resettled Refugees I know all too well the consequence of US f-ups
Does that mean I damn all their future actions or trust anyone who seems to be against it

There is plenty of proof that Assange dumbs things he. Knows is fabricated and doesn't give a shot about it if not condones.

Considering his statements about Clinton and Trump and Russia, it is obvious he is a deliberate arm for Russian propaganda and a vessel for their criminal hacks
Some Trump surrogates have even said they are in contact with him

vetting the docs leaked, or removing non relevant private info, would take a week max even in large ones. There is disregard for the people affected that has been criticized by everyone he used to work even Snowden


Strangely enough WikiLeaks has never leaked anything about russia

[Major Nikon]

16. Which government?

The US? The Russian Federation? PRC? DPRK?

[davidn3600]

20. That's the problem...you never know who to believe anymore

Words don't mean anything. It's actions that matter and ultimately governments act in their own interests. And they all lie.

The Russian government is acting in their best interests, just as we are doing. Tensions are bad because there is a conflict in those interests. There is propaganda on their media networks as there is propaganda on ours. But I'm sick of my government trying to dictate to me who I'm supposed to fear in this world. I'm tired of being told who the boogeymen are and then overthrow those people only to get something worse. How many times does that have to happen before we learn our lesson?

Considering how we have royally fucked up the mid-east over the past 30 years, I am not so sure we have the grounds to tell Russia or anyone else the way that region is supposed to be. Obviously....our policy sucks. Bush's policy sucked. Obama policy sucks. Trump's would be a total disaster. But I doubt Hillary's will be much better because it's basically the same thing as what we've been doing for the past 20 years.

You want to know who started ISIS? It was us. It's our fault because of our stupid policies in that region. Just like Al-Queda was our fault as well. But our government will never admit to this nor will they ever learn from their mistakes.

[Major Nikon]

22. Believe it or not, there still is a difference between western governments and despotic regimes

The reason Wikileaks would never work in any of those other governments is they control what their citizens see. They also have zero accountability to anyone. Newspapers in China are better than the comics section here. Many of the stories are anti-West and you will not find one story that is the least bit critical of the Chinese government because publishing one would earn the editor a trip to a re-education camp. In Russia it could get you killed. In North Korea it will get you, your family, all your friends, and your dog killed. If they are doing this just within their own borders, one can only imagine what they are doing everywhere else. Wikipedia is inherently corruptible and there's no doubt despotic regimes are using it to their advantage. So it doesn't matter whether or not you trust the government. You can be quite sure Wikipedia is untrustworthy.

[cpwm17]

14. The NY Times accepts them as genuine.

Does Malcolm Nance have any real proof, or are we supposed to take his word on faith?

[kwassa]

17. They do? Where do they say that?

[lame54]

6. Haven't there been enough wikileaks forgeries...

To make the media vet each one before reporting on them?

Plus the fact that there have been so many false wikileaks documents is going under reported

[imanamerican63]

19. Digging up old news that has nothing to do with nothing!

Why are we not hear any about the right wing's emails? I know, a rhetorical question!