"60 Minutes"; 5/9/2010 - Don't Mess With HILL!!

Mr. Shaman

Senior Member
May 4, 2010
23,892
822
48
"Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the Pakistani government has been warned that if a terror operation like the failed Times Square bombing were to be successful and found to be originated in their country, "there would be very severe consequences."

"I think that there was a double game going on in the previous years, where we got a lot of lip service but very little produced."

rice1.jpg


"We've got a lot produced. We have seen the killing or capturing of a great number of the leadership of significant terrorist groups and we're going continue that."​

WHUP 'EM, HILL!!!!!!!!

92.gif
 
"Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the Pakistani government has been warned that if a terror operation like the failed Times Square bombing were to be successful and found to be originated in their country, "there would be very severe consequences."

"I think that there was a double game going on in the previous years, where we got a lot of lip service but very little produced."

rice1.jpg


"We've got a lot produced. We have seen the killing or capturing of a great number of the leadership of significant terrorist groups and we're going continue that."​

WHUP 'EM, HILL!!!!!!!!

92.gif

When I heard that statement by Sec'y Clinton, I was really puzzled.

Was that simply for domestic consumption?

Is there actually some sort of threat that this administration can hold over Pakistan, after all, can we withdraw aid and support, as a jihadi takeover of Pakistan is out of the question...as is a US military invasion of a nation of 170 millon persons.

So, what are the 'very severe consequences'? A good tongue-lashing?
 
"Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the Pakistani government has been warned that if a terror operation like the failed Times Square bombing were to be successful and found to be originated in their country, "there would be very severe consequences."

"I think that there was a double game going on in the previous years, where we got a lot of lip service but very little produced."

rice1.jpg


"We've got a lot produced. We have seen the killing or capturing of a great number of the leadership of significant terrorist groups and we're going continue that."​

WHUP 'EM, HILL!!!!!!!!

92.gif

When I heard that statement by Sec'y Clinton, I was really puzzled.

Was that simply for domestic consumption?

Is there actually some sort of threat that this administration can hold over Pakistan, after all, can we withdraw aid and support, as a jihadi takeover of Pakistan is out of the question...as is a US military invasion of a nation of 170 millon persons.

So, what are the 'very severe consequences'? A good tongue-lashing?

Tune-IN!!

At this point, you know as much as I know.....​
 
WHUP 'EM, HILL!!!!!!!!

92.gif

When I heard that statement by Sec'y Clinton, I was really puzzled.

Was that simply for domestic consumption?

Is there actually some sort of threat that this administration can hold over Pakistan, after all, can we withdraw aid and support, as a jihadi takeover of Pakistan is out of the question...as is a US military invasion of a nation of 170 millon persons.

So, what are the 'very severe consequences'? A good tongue-lashing?

Tune-IN!!

At this point, you know as much as I know.....​

The point of my response was not to probe for facts...merely conjecture, as in 'do you think this administration-statement is a total fraud.'

Since you posted this with some sort of approval, did you attempt any analysis... or

1. you believe that the good Sec'y can throw a lamp as far as Pakistan,

or

2. are you merely a lap-dog of the Sec'y?


Speak up.
 
When I heard that statement by Sec'y Clinton, I was really puzzled.

Was that simply for domestic consumption?

Is there actually some sort of threat that this administration can hold over Pakistan, after all, can we withdraw aid and support, as a jihadi takeover of Pakistan is out of the question...as is a US military invasion of a nation of 170 millon persons.

So, what are the 'very severe consequences'? A good tongue-lashing?

Tune-IN!!

At this point, you know as much as I know.....​

The point of my response was not to probe for facts...merely conjecture, as in 'do you think this administration-statement is a total fraud.'

Since you posted this with some sort of approval, did you attempt any analysis... or

1. you believe that the good Sec'y can throw a lamp as far as Pakistan,

or

2. are you merely a lap-dog of the Sec'y?


Speak up.

the point of your inquiry was to attempt to undermine Secretary Clinton's statement.

thanks for playing.
 
Tune-IN!!

At this point, you know as much as I know.....​

The point of my response was not to probe for facts...merely conjecture, as in 'do you think this administration-statement is a total fraud.'

Since you posted this with some sort of approval, did you attempt any analysis... or

1. you believe that the good Sec'y can throw a lamp as far as Pakistan,

or

2. are you merely a lap-dog of the Sec'y?


Speak up.

the point of your inquiry was to attempt to undermine Secretary Clinton's statement.

thanks for playing.

The point of my inquiry was exactly as stated. The most superficial analysis would have seen through it...except that you and the OP aren't up to even superficial analysis.

Or did I step on your heroines' toes? Is that the reason for your jibe?

And 'thanks for playing'...is that meant to be clever? Actually, it's so demode.
 
1. you believe that the good Sec'y can throw a lamp as far as Pakistan,

or

2. are you merely a lap-dog of the Sec'y?

I'm sorry...I don't understand your questions

Can you expand?
 
1. you believe that the good Sec'y can throw a lamp as far as Pakistan,

or

2. are you merely a lap-dog of the Sec'y?

I'm sorry...I don't understand your questions

Can you expand?

The OP seems to support the "WHUPPIN' " that 'HILL' suggests she will give to Pakistan if they don't work harder on behalf of the administration.

I'm interested in the form of 'WHUPPIN' that he believes that HILL will impose.

Or if he actually believes that she is serious.

'Cause, they're some folks that will believe anything.
 
I also would like to know what possible consequences there would be?

It is never good to make threats unless there is something behind them. If threats are made (as in this case) and nothing follows, then we have insulted someone and then been made to look foolish.

It is like the administration is reading Dale Carnagie and doing the reverse, or has a reverse goal... how to make enemies and have no influence over anything.
 
"Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the Pakistani government has been warned that if a terror operation like the failed Times Square bombing were to be successful and found to be originated in their country, "there would be very severe consequences."

"I think that there was a double game going on in the previous years, where we got a lot of lip service but very little produced."

rice1.jpg


"We've got a lot produced. We have seen the killing or capturing of a great number of the leadership of significant terrorist groups and we're going continue that."​

WHUP 'EM, HILL!!!!!!!!

92.gif

When I heard that statement by Sec'y Clinton, I was really puzzled.

Was that simply for domestic consumption?

Is there actually some sort of threat that this administration can hold over Pakistan, after all, can we withdraw aid and support, as a jihadi takeover of Pakistan is out of the question...as is a US military invasion of a nation of 170 millon persons.

So, what are the 'very severe consequences'? A good tongue-lashing?

PC (for Political Crap),

Military invasion of 170 million persons ? Even the mention of that possibility is out of order. The day we'd attempt doing anything so stupid isn't even considered. IT'S AIR STRIKES, STUPID !!!
 
Last edited:
WHUP 'EM, HILL!!!!!!!!

92.gif

When I heard that statement by Sec'y Clinton, I was really puzzled.

Was that simply for domestic consumption?

Is there actually some sort of threat that this administration can hold over Pakistan, after all, can we withdraw aid and support, as a jihadi takeover of Pakistan is out of the question...as is a US military invasion of a nation of 170 millon persons.

So, what are the 'very severe consequences'? A good tongue-lashing?

PC (for Political Crap),

Military invasion of 170 million persons ? Even the mention of that possibility is out of order. The day we'd attempt doing anything so stupid isn't even considered. IT'S AIR STRIKES, STUPID !!!

First, try to be more moderate in your language: your upbringing is showing.

Now to eviserate your geopolitical acumen: it is your contention that the United States administration is threatening to bomb Pakistan, even though President Obama has done back handstands and deep bows, to the extent of boot-licking, and removing words such as 'terrorist' and 'Islamofascist' from allowable US-diplomatic language?

Even the other 'challenged' posters are shaking their heads and rolling their eyes.

Astute. Very astute.

Now you may retreat back into the corner and, when you learn to sit up on your hind legs, be given some 'Beggin Strips.'
 
Apparently gautama isn't aware Pakistan is a NUCLEAR POWER. We go to air-bombing 170 million Pakis, we're gonna have a NUCLEAR WAR on our hands.

As in complete and mutual annihiliation. :eusa_doh:
 
Apparently gautama isn't aware Pakistan is a NUCLEAR POWER. We go to air-bombing 170 million Pakis, we're gonna have a NUCLEAR WAR on our hands.

As in complete and mutual annihiliation. :eusa_doh:

There is not enough space on the board to list the multiplicity and plethora of phenomena about which our colleage gautama is unaware.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top