Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Does Hagel and Obama (WH) believe that the Taliban aren't terrorists?
6/1/2014 | Laissez-faire Capitalist

Posted on 06/01/2014 1:14:03 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist

1.) If they believe that the Taliban aren't terrorists, then is this behind their reasoning that no negotiations took place with terrorists in the release of Bowe Bergdahl for 5 GITMO detainees?

2.) If they state that there was a third party involved (Qatar) and thus neither side (the WH or the Taliban) spoke directly with each other, then does that constitute their position that no negotiations took place with terrorists?

The problem with #1 is that when the WH slammed Karzai over some of his statements concerning joining the Taliban, what could/can the WH say to Karzai now?

Breitbart.com has a Nov 27, 2013 article entitled "Karzai: Obama administration said Taliban 'Not Our Enemies'

The problem with #2 is that this cannot be done with Al Qaeda without breaking the law. Period.

3.) So is the WH saying explicitly that the Taliban A.) aren't terrorists, or that they aren't terrorists B.) if and when it suits the WH (Obama)?

A & B, logically, are the only avenues left for the WH. B would be a hypocritical position to take, but nonetheless a position that could be taken.

Nonetheless, the WH must state which of the two (A or B) they officially stand behind.


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Military/Veterans; Society
KEYWORDS: 0; afghanistan; alqaeda; bergdahl; bobbergdahl; bowebergdahl; bumblegunner; chuckhagel; dumblegunner; earnest; gitmo; hagel; hamidkarzai; islam; joshearnest; karzai; lyingliar; obama; obamaforeignpolicy; obamalied; scandal; scandals; taliban; waronterror; zero
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last
To: Laissez-faire capitalist

We need a War on jihad.


21 posted on 06/01/2014 2:20:42 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Yes, Obama’s officially says Taliban is NOT our enemy. It has been such since day one. Woodward’s book ‘Obama’s Wars’, Gen McCrystal, etc. All the way. It is just that no one listens to the wind bag. As Rush says, he tells you what he is going to do, like Vince Lombardi. Problem is no one tries to stop him.


22 posted on 06/01/2014 2:22:06 PM PDT by shalom aleichem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

They are both Muslims, so of course they are not going to say anything about terrorists or radical Islamists. Drag em out of office. Time for REAL hope and change!


23 posted on 06/01/2014 2:23:29 PM PDT by sassy steel magnolia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sassy steel magnolia

Easiest way to find out is pose that as the first question to the new paid government liar.

Let him answer it.


24 posted on 06/01/2014 2:25:54 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz ("Heck of a reset there, Hillary")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Does Freepers know grammar? This is a test.


25 posted on 06/01/2014 2:30:13 PM PDT by Misterioso (Every major horror of history was committed in the name of an altruistic motive. - Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

I’m being serious when I say I wonder what else they are doing while this smoke bomb is obscuring our view.


26 posted on 06/01/2014 2:33:47 PM PDT by Excellence (Marine mom since April 11, 2014)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

When you yourself are a terrorist, there are only rebels, freedom fighters and governments. Terrorist do not see each other as terrorists. Pretty simple.


27 posted on 06/01/2014 5:01:17 PM PDT by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
To continue with bad grammar:

They does believe Taliban aren't terrorists.

28 posted on 06/01/2014 9:24:28 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner; All

@dumbblegunner Real knee slapper coming from you. Anyhoo... I was working on adapting and altering this, and did not change it from Does to do when I added “and Obama (WH)” But you know this already, despite your never-ending sarcasm on the boards, while you continue to add nothing to the threads. Again, a deflection from you away from your buddy Obama.


29 posted on 06/02/2014 6:40:28 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
So..you wrote a screwed up title and that makes Obama my buddy?

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

If you wrote a good title, who's buddy would I be then?

30 posted on 06/02/2014 6:43:01 AM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner
Your comments to the thread were unwarranted. No one wants your sarcasm. It was from you for the purpose of being a jerk, or deflecting for Obama. I thought that I might give you the benefit of the doubt on the being a jerk part.

No one called you to be a part of the title police, and we already have the spelling police here at FR.

I make it a habit of not doing what you did, as do many others here. It is called being considerate and being merciful, some things that you might wish to educate yourself on...

And it was a good title, as it asked a good question, just that it was messed up a tad, which you pointed out, to the exclusion of actually contributing to the thread. Your diversion then was noted, and the only reason that I could surmise is that you were using a diversion.

BTW, surely you wouldn't be one of those (and I have seen them here at FR) who would say that a thread wasn't worth posting on, and then right after that post on that very same thread?

31 posted on 06/02/2014 7:06:45 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
Your comments to the thread were unwarranted.

No one called you to be a part of the "warranted" police.

No one wants your sarcasm.

I like it, it makes me happy.

It was from you for the purpose of being a jerk, or deflecting for Obama.

I am rather a jerk, but I can't see how pointing out your error does anything for or against Obama.

I make it a habit of not doing what you did, as do many others here.

That's good, you should leave such things to those who know how.

Your diversion then was noted, and the only reason that I could surmise is that you were using a diversion.

Keep on surmisin', clearly you need the practice.

32 posted on 06/02/2014 7:17:11 AM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

Most amusing.

The whining of the bloggers never stops, does it.


33 posted on 06/02/2014 7:56:28 AM PDT by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson