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.
What say you?
I think they want to make a deal with the Taliban to spare the Poppy fields.
That’s why we’re still in Afghanistan.
No blood for opium.
To the mentioned, Christians, White males, legitimate gun owners, returning Service Men and women are the terrorists.
Now, if someone were to say something about a conservative, then the MSM would say “The seriousness of the allegations requires further investigations.”
If one were to remind the MSM of this, concerning what you posted, they would probably say that they have changed (albeit temporarily --- just for now --- because it might make zero look bad) their position on this.
...Contrary to press reports, the Afghan Taliban – aka the Quetta Shura - never had their hands on Sgt. Bergdahl. He was always under the control of the Haqqani network......."
FULL ARTICLE
....................................
And even that article doesn't tell the whole story.
I also have it on high authority that 0bama himself called off the search and rescue mission very early.
Even Richard Condon who wrote "The Manchurian Candidate" would have had to stretch his imagination a lot further to write this story. .............
As to the original question, of course they don't think the Taliban is terrorist. Both are Muslim Sympathists at the very best. I personally believe that 0bama is a Muslim Brotherhood 'brother' and Hagel is a Dhimmi at least, if not an actual convert.
(And CIA chief Brennan IS a convert)
Surely not! /s
They would have to then say that the Taliban are terrorists, because the Taliban own guns!
Oh, forgot, you said legitimate gun owners...
Does they believe it?
I don't know that they does.
They may had be believe that. But who have know what they believe.
Obama is a fan of the Taliban..he supports what they do, always has
“Does Hagel and Obama (WH) believe that the Taliban aren’t terrorists?”
I can haz water-boarding?
Rhetorical questions. What does constitute a terrorist these days, and when does/do the definition(s) of such change? Are military personnel who engaged and killed members of the Taliban in combat now murderers?
Something is wrong here. Is this just another distraction from the laundry list of mounting scandals we have with this administration?
Doesn’t matter. They are. It’s obvious Obama and his group are terrorists to the US.
@RichardGrenell: 7 platoon members of Bowe say he walked away from them. he sought out Taliban. how is media not reporting this?
I think they believe the Taliban serves a purpose in their plan for deconstructing the U.S. which is why they won’t move against them.
he sought out Taliban. how is media not reporting this?
Because telling the truth about a deserter does not fit the narritive
Because it doesn't help their Lord and Master, Barack Hussein 0bama.
.........................
This whole story will never be fully told. The Brad Thor article at the Blaze tells an important part of it, but even he gets a couple of things wrong, and leaves out some important stuff.
Even Faux will never come close to telling the whole story. Gonna have to read a lot of the 'tin hat' websites, then blend them together, and throw out the chaff to get anything like a clear picture.
Who would call their allies terrorists?
It is obvious that our enemies have Hillary and Obama by the short hairs and are pulling. Hillary and Obama were up to no good IN THE INITIAL DESTRUCTION OF THE LIBYAN GOVERNMENT. They knew they could bamboozle and pay off the American press, but they didn’t figure in Al Qaeda and Putin. Al Qaeda and Putin smacked Hillary and Obama in the chops at Benghazi. Now, they control Hillary and Obama. Those two corrupt jackasses are in trouble up to their eyeballs.
Notice how the Benghazi committee is getting started and five enemy bigwigs get released from our custody. Al Qaeda realizes that they are about to lose their hold over Hillary and Obama. They have to get everything they can out of them before the committee finds out how much aid and comfort these Democrats have been providing our enemy and shuts Hillary and Obama down.
And the media will protect Obama, they will never report on the REAL story..what Obama confirmed for me yesterday was my theory all along that Benghazi was a Blind Sheikh for Stevens swap that went wrong..Ive always believed that is what happened and the fact that Obama had NO problem giving back Five Taliban terrorists to get back one supposed deserter makes my theory even more logical..this story never smelled right, right from the start because Obama never does anything to benefit the country, only to benefit HIMSELF
WOW so Idaho is a lot like Afghanistan according to the whacko daddy..guess I won’t be visiting Idaho anytime soon
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.