# White House: Taliban not a terrorist group. It’s an Armed Insurgency’.



## Rifleman62 (31 Jan 2015)

Note that none of this has been broadcasted on ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, even though it was ABC's WH Reporter, Jonathan Karl original question. On FOX though.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/taliban-terrorists-white-house/story?id=28588120     See video at link

A White House spokesperson preferred to talk of the Taliban as “an armed insurgency” rather than a terrorist organization during a press briefing, when a reporter pressed him about Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s release.

Responding to a question posed by ABC’s chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl, deputy press secretary Eric Schultz argued the US can swap prisoners with the Taliban because the group is not a terrorist organization but “an armed insurgency.”

During the Wednesday briefing, Karl asked how the US decision to swap Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five Taliban leaders held at Guantanamo Bay differs from the Jordanian government’s trade of a convicted terrorist for the release of an Air Force pilot held by the Islamic State. 


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/taliban-terrorists-white-house/story?id=28588120     See video at link

 They act like terrorists, they regularly kill civilians like terrorists, but the White House does not consider the Afghan Taliban to be a terrorist group.

“They do carry out tactics that are akin to terrorism. They do pursue terror attacks in an effort to try to advance their agenda,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest explained today, but “they have a different classification.”

 The issue has come up because the White House insisted on Wednesday that a prisoner exchange between Jordan and ISIS would be different than the prisoner exchange the United States made last year with the Taliban to gain the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

“Our policy is that we don't pay ransom. We don't give concessions to terrorist organizations,” Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz said Wednesday. “This is a longstanding policy that predates this administration. And it's also one that we've communicated to our friends and allies across the world.”

Schultz explained that the exchange the United States made with the Taliban -- releasing five Taliban prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in exchange for the release of Sgt. Bergdahl -- was consistent with that policy because the Taliban is an “armed insurgency” and not a terrorist organization. 

In the latest round of verbal gymnastics over the Taliban, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki refused to categorize the murder of American civilians at Kabul International Airport an act of “terrorism.”


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/01/not-islamic-either-part-trois.php     See short video at link.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for that attack on Friday, which killed three civilian contractors working for the U.S. government and wounded one other. The gunman was reportedly a member of Afghan security forces who turned his weapon on his colleagues before being killed.

At Friday’s State Department briefing, Psaki was asked whether the U.S. government categorized the assault as terrorism.

“Obviously any attack that kills contractors – that kills individuals who are working there in harms way — is horrific and a tragedy,” she said. “But I’m not gonna put new labels on it today.”


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/01/not-islamic-either-part-quatre.php     See video at link. This is how to conduct an interview!

*Not Islamic either,*

*The Obama administration has dragged the Pentagon into its clown show on the Taliban and terrorism*. Megyn Kelly devoted a segment to the swap of Bowe Bergdahl for the Taliban Five as well as the proper categorization of the Taliban last night on her FNC Kelly File show (full video below, eleven minutes long). Pentagon spokesman Admiral John Kirby appeared to respond to Kelly’s questions.

As to the Taliban, Kirby, asserted:* “We consider them an armed insurgency…they aren’t considered a foreign terrorist organization.”* What won’t he and his colleagues say? Is resignation not an option? Admiral Kirby faithfully toes the Obama administration line in a degrading cause.

 Megyn Kelly tonight took on Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby about the news that one of the “Taliban Five” has made contact with terrorists since being freed from Guantanamo Bay.

“Can you assure the American people that these five guys do not pose any threat to the United States?” Kelly pressed.

Kirby insisted that the U.S. is working with Qatar to mitigate the threat, but Kelly questioned Kirby on how this man made contact with terrorists “if our protocols are so great.”

“Obviously, there’s a flaw in the system,” Kelly remarked.

But Kirby argued that the system in place allowed the U.S. to discover this re-engagement activity and that the assurances are working as they should.

“So we don’t shut down the opportunity for these five guys to make contact with other terrorists, we just have a system in place to know about it. But that’s a little disconcerting,” Kelly said.

“The Kelly File” host also pressed Kirby over the White House’s statements that the Taliban is an armed insurgency, not a terror group.

Kirby doubled down on those remarks, telling Kelly, “We consider them an armed insurgency […] they aren’t considered a foreign terrorist organization.”

Kirby told Kelly that the Defense Department is "fairly unapologetic" about swapping five Gitmo detainees for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. He reiterated that the U.S. does not negotiate with terrorists.

Kelly fired back, “You’re asking the American people to say, ‘This was OK because the State Department hadn’t labeled them a foreign terrorist organization even though the president of the United States and the commander-in-chief did label them a terrorist organization.'"

She continued, “The American people say, ‘Come on, you did it, you negotiated with terrorists, just admit it.’”


----------



## Tibbson (31 Jan 2015)

Just another example of how this White House will speak out of both sides of its mouth in order to say what ever will fit their purposes.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Feb 2015)

Strictly speaking, terrorism is just a technique.  At least an admission that the Taliban are combatants is an admission that the enemy exists.

Baby steps, baby steps.


----------



## McG (1 Feb 2015)

"Terrorist" and "armed insurgent" are different but not mutually exclusive terms.  This is not a news story; it is a political/infotainment word smithing game.


----------



## Sigs Pig (1 Feb 2015)

Baz said:
			
		

> The problem isn't just pilots, and I don't think its just aircrew either... MARS is the same way in that they drive people up as fast as they can, so they get little time spent at sea.  Just look at all the training billets assigned for MARS to any given deployment.
> 
> The simple answer is to streamline the headquarters, in the right places (bring back the Group HQs, but get rid of 1 and 2 CdnAirDiv, so that each group has the experience in it needed; we lost a lot when MAG went away.  As well, make the Air Staff just the number of people that the Commander needs to make good strategic decisions, and no more.  I could go on...).  However, it still doesn't solve the real problem: careerism.
> 
> ...



Are you saying the Taliban now have pilots (Non-kidnapped ones) or are you saying that pilots, in general, are a terrorist group?

ME


----------



## McG (1 Feb 2015)

Sigs Pig said:
			
		

> Are you saying the Taliban now have pilots (Non-kidnapped ones) or are you saying that pilots, in general, are a terrorist group?
> 
> ME


I think that post was intended for another thread, and it has now been moved there.


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Feb 2015)

Yep the White House has a real problem with classifying the Taliban.They traded 5 taliban HVT's for Berghdal and at least one has rejoined the fight.


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Feb 2015)

And he continues on his apology tour. Outrageous to compare the Christian Crusades over a thousand years ago with the acts of barbarism of ISIS.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/05/obama-at-national-prayer-breakfast-people-committed-terrible-deeds-in-the-name-of-christ/ 

*Obama At National Prayer Breakfast: ’People Committed Terrible Deeds In The Name of Christ’*

Charlie Spiering - 5 Feb 2015

At the National Prayer Breakfast, President Obama reminded attendees that violence rooted in religion isn’t exclusive to Islam, but has been carried out by Christians as well.

Obama said that even though religion is a source for good around the world, there will always be people willing to “hijack religion for their own murderous ends.”

“Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” Obama said. “In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

Obama also denounced Islamic State terrorists for professing to stand up for Islam when they were actually “betraying it.”

“We see ISIL, a brutal vicious death cult that in the name of religion carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism,” he said criticizing them for “claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions.”

Obama at Prayer Breakfast: "Faith Distorted"   Video


----------



## G.R-B (5 Feb 2015)

White house spoke person about war on drugs:

"The Hells Angels is a motorcycle club, whose members partake in criminal activities in a somewhat organized fashion. But I don't think calling them a criminal organization is right." 

 ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 Feb 2015)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> And he continues on his apology tour. Outrageous to compare the Christian Crusades over a thousand years ago with the acts of barbarism of ISIS.



I don't know how outrageous it is in some respects.  There were some deeds done in those days which a no less barbaric quite frankly.  The burning of witches or heretics at the stake for starters.  Now, it's not fair to judge them by today's standards as we've come so very far since then.  ISIS, on the other hand are present day.  They don't get a pass from me for behaving like barbarian cavemen.


----------



## cupper (5 Feb 2015)

Don't forget though that technically the Taliban was at one time the governing body in Afghanistan (whether legitimate or not).

ISIS and AQ are terrorist organization which have no legitimacy in any sense. Members are more likely than not from other countries rather than the country they are fighting in.

Even when you look at the Sunni Insurgency in Iraq the majority were Iraqi Sunnis who fought against being relegated to insignificance in their own country (albeit after being removed from their position as the ruling minority). But they were Iraqis fighting within their own country in essentially a civil war.

The Taliban is waging a civil war to regain control they once had.

I admit that this is very over simplified, but the point is that although they use terrorist means and methods, they still have some legitimacy as a defeated government in a civil war.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (5 Feb 2015)

G.R-B said:
			
		

> White house spoke person about war on drugs:
> 
> "The Hells Angels is a motorcycle club, whose members partake in criminal activities in a somewhat organized fashion. But I don't think calling them a criminal organization is right."
> 
> ;D



I wonder if anyone has told the RCMP and FBI that.


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Feb 2015)

Rex Murphy writes a very good article. I note ABC,NBC, CBS did not cover the President’s remarks.


*Rex Murphy: In Obama’s impulse to absolve Islam, he offers a rebuke to Christianity*

National Post - Rex Murphy - February 7, 2015

The President of the United States is an interesting theologian. He has taken to declaring that Islamic terrorists, who by their own emphatic insistence are Islamic, and who conduct their merciless operations in Nigeria, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq and fitfully in many countries around the world explicitly and defiantly under the banner of Islam, are not what or whom they say they are.

His purpose can  been seen as vaguely worthy — making the point that not all Muslims subscribe to the violent actions and tenets of the numerous radical factions, but saying “not all” does not erase a worryingly large “some.” Some, in these dreadful cases, is very, very many. But who really blames, or has been blaming, “all Muslims” ever? Western world leaders to a person have been insisting it is not all Muslims since the morning of the 9/11 attacks. This is a tired, and by now needless, rhetorical gambit.

But Mr. Obama treads travels much further on this dubious ground. On Thursday, two days after Jordanian pilot Muath Al-Kassasbeh was horrifically murdered by ISIS, Mr. Obama, speaking at a prayer breakfast, went through the usual theatre — these people are not Muslims, Islam is peace, etc., but then took a strange sideswipe at Christians.

He had this to say: “And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.”

My first qualification here would be to point the obvious, that in those times of the Crusades, Muslims were committing terrible deeds in the name of Allah. This was not a one-sided clash of blades and bludgeons. This is hardly a trivial point.

My second is that the burden of his remarks are so very odd. Is it a very strange turn of thought to have, the day after someone was burned to death in a cage by Islamist fanatics,  that Mr. Obama thinks Christians are about to mount their “high horse” and are making the claim that the barbarism of this week is “unique to one place.”

    There is no high horse. Christians are not climbing on it

Hardly unique, Mr. President. Check Boko Haram for the last couple of months. Or the Taliban any month you choose.

There is no high horse. Christians are not climbing on it. And no one has claimed religious violence is unique. The whole line of thought is not so much a straw man as the logical equivalent of an entire thatched roof of those stuffed puppets.

He also called up slavery as being done, by some, in the name of Christ, as if the practice owed something very particular to Christian belief, ignoring that the ignominy of slave-trading has been practiced since ancient days by peoples of varying faiths, to the everlasting shame of them all.

The Americans, to their equally everlasting credit, fought a civil war and ended slavery, and it was the greatest of presidents, and the country’s greatest true moralist, who conducted that war. It was Lincoln who posed the searing observation in the Second Inaugural address that, “It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged.”

The key to that sentence lies in the word “dare.” In the most powerful line of that same address, this deeply religious President, gave his — may we call it Christian? — view of slavery. If the war should continue, said Lincoln “till all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s 250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword…” it could be seen as a judgment of God.

In sum, far from seeing a Christian warrant for slavery, Lincoln, in that profound address, pictured it as a deep woe upon the Republic, an “offence” against God, and the devastations of the Civil War as a providential unfolding.

    He enfolds the most extreme acts of ISIS and other branches of radical Islam into a story of Christian hypocrisy

Oscar Wilde, if I may obtrude the playwright into so serious a subject, once wrote that listening to Chopin he felt “as if I had been weeping over sins that I had never committed, and mourning over tragedies that were not my own.” That’s the same feeling one could get from listening from the tone and tenor of Mr. Obama’s prayer meeting remarks. In his impulse to absolve Islam, he offers a rebuke to Christianity. He enfolds the most extreme acts of ISIS and other branches of radical Islam into a story of Christian hypocrisy. He goes back a thousand years to indict, at least partially, Christianity, and ignores yesterday in order to maintain that all of Islam is peaceful.

There have been many sins committed by many faiths, and there are tragedies even now underway. But it is a very displaced analysis that seeks to offer corrections to Christianity during a period of Islamic turmoil, and seeks out forgotten sins to ignore those so very close to mind.


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Feb 2015)

Tangent On

Rex Murphy for boss of Earth

Tangent Off

 :nod:


----------



## Halifax Tar (8 Feb 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Tangent On
> 
> Rex Murphy for boss of Earth
> 
> ...



I second the motion


----------



## cupper (8 Feb 2015)

[quote ahor=Halifax Tar link=topic=117789/post-1350780#msg1350780 date=1423441581]
I second the motion
[/quote]





			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Tangent On
> 
> Rex Murphy for boss of Earth
> 
> ...





			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I second the motion



WHat? You mean he's not already? :nod:


----------

