It's quite easy to sit back and sneer at 'fake news' but because things like this are so common, even if it is someone winding people up it's plausible, because of what's happened in the past. It's quite easy to laugh off but it's the thin end of the wedge, which by now is getting very fat.

Sorry it's not worth discussing if you refuse to think beyond three word soundbites.

The world is a complicated place that populists try to paint as black and white/ right and wrong.
If you want to take it as a win over the libs then fill your boots but I'd suggest there aren't many serious people who understand the middle east who would say, "yup you know the person who's responsible for all this is Hillary Clinton".

So we're reduced to "well it might not be true but it [isounds[/i like it could be true because look at all these other things we've made up which people believed".
It truly is the triumph of truthiness; it's quite embarrassing to watch.

Quote The Ghost of '99="The Ghost of '99"Sorry it's not worth discussing if you refuse to think beyond three word soundbites. The world is a complicated place that populists try to paint as black and white/ right and wrong. If you want to take it as a win over the libs then fill your boots but I'd suggest there aren't many serious people who understand the middle east who would say, "yup you know the person who's responsible for all this is Hillary Clinton".'" I was surprised to learn that the Middle east only became a problem in 2008 - I thought it had been going on a lot longer than that? Anyway - in Post's statement he does intimate that Hillary Clinton herself said "Hillary Clinton made the middle east more volatile, I gave perfect examples from [uhorses mouth herself [/uas to why it was a mistake to get rid of Gaddafi" Had a look at the links provided - Not really sure I see any evidence there that she regrets her actions? Whilst https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/14/hi ... out-libya/

Quote The Ghost of '99="The Ghost of '99"Sorry it's not worth discussing if you refuse to think beyond three word soundbites. The world is a complicated place that populists try to paint as black and white/ right and wrong. If you want to take it as a win over the libs then fill your boots but I'd suggest there aren't many serious people who understand the middle east who would say, "yup you know the person who's responsible for all this is Hillary Clinton".'" I was surprised to learn that the Middle east only became a problem in 2008 - I thought it had been going on a lot longer than that? Anyway - in Post's statement he does intimate that Hillary Clinton herself said "Hillary Clinton made the middle east more volatile, I gave perfect examples from [uhorses mouth herself [/uas to why it was a mistake to get rid of Gaddafi" Had a look at the links provided - Not really sure I see any evidence there that she regrets her actions? Whilst https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/14/hi ... out-libya/

Show me where I've mentioned 3 word soundbites.

The world isn't black and white but some things are, Clinton went to that meeting with Sarkozy/Cameron with a view to not getting involved and her weakness as a leader caused her to change her mind on a whim, resulting in nothing but more misery in the middle east. 1 person actions can change the course of history, there's not many.

For instance, Gavrillo Princip, if he doesn't shoot Archduke Franz Ferdinand the world would be a different place.

If Clinto held her resolve then the world would be a better place, not just the middle east.

I think this post must be peak post. She wasn't even President, Obama was making the decisions.

But you really should stop this bizarre whatabouttery as to what would have happened had someone else won. On this and almost everything else, your "team" (this appears to be how its viewed on the right now) won, they are in charge and have been for a long time. Make them take some responsibility for the world as it is, not some made-up space in your head where it's all the fault of Clinton or Corbyn, Remainers or woke libs.

Very naive of you to think that only 'The President' has a say on matters, if that were the case why didn't Obama go to the meeting? Why send Clinton with the stance of 'We ain't getting involved? then get involved? The article I posted a link to states in her own words just that and that she told Obama to get involved and he did.

Clinton not getting elected took away the opportunity to right that wrong and try and sort things in Libya, if she would have been elected she would have tried to fix her f**k up/sort her legacy and got involved in troops on the ground, it was have been another Iraq.

You say a side is in charge, again, you are very naive in thinking this. The 'right' may have been elected by the people but it's still NGOs who are influencing things on a grand scale, you only need to look at a certain Hungarian billionaire to know how powerful NGOs can be.

Is your username with relation to the year you were born? Genuine question.

Did somebody say Soros?
House!

Facts are facts.

Unless they are "Alternative Facts" - We know the Right like to use those as well

Jesus, are the useful idiots still falling for the dead cat "culture war" distractions?

Quote Jukesays="Jukesays"I was surprised to learn that the Middle east only became a problem in 2008 - I thought it had been going on a lot longer than that? Anyway - in Post's statement he does intimate that Hillary Clinton herself said "Hillary Clinton made the middle east more volatile, I gave perfect examples from [uhorses mouth herself [/uas to why it was a mistake to get rid of Gaddafi" Had a look at the links provided - Not really sure I see any evidence there that she regrets her actions? Whilst https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/14/hi ... out-libya/'" Who said it only became a problem then? The middle east has always been a problem and always will, it needs people like Hussein and Gaddafi because they are the lesser of two evils, I don't agree with them as leaders and the things they did but what's the alternative? A less safer world? The UK and Europe have witnessed terror attacks as a result of getting rid of Hussein and Gaddafi, we would be safe to walk the Christmas markets, to walk around London and so on had we left then to it. If Clinton doesn't regret the decision that's even worse. They need to learn their lessons and stay away from the middle east, let them get on with their own business.

Quote Jukesays="Jukesays"I was surprised to learn that the Middle east only became a problem in 2008 - I thought it had been going on a lot longer than that? Anyway - in Post's statement he does intimate that Hillary Clinton herself said "Hillary Clinton made the middle east more volatile, I gave perfect examples from [uhorses mouth herself [/uas to why it was a mistake to get rid of Gaddafi" Had a look at the links provided - Not really sure I see any evidence there that she regrets her actions? Whilst https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/14/hi ... out-libya/'" Who said it only became a problem then? The middle east has always been a problem and always will, it needs people like Hussein and Gaddafi because they are the lesser of two evils, I don't agree with them as leaders and the things they did but what's the alternative? A less safer world? The UK and Europe have witnessed terror attacks as a result of getting rid of Hussein and Gaddafi, we would be safe to walk the Christmas markets, to walk around London and so on had we left then to it. If Clinton doesn't regret the decision that's even worse. They need to learn their lessons and stay away from the middle east, let them get on with their own business.