• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Hillary Refused To Call Boko Harum "Terrorists"

Mike

Well-known member
Hillary is as much a flop & hack as her boss is/was. The U.S. deserves at least a LITTLE honesty............................



The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.

In the past week, Clinton, who made protecting women and girls a key pillar of her tenure at the State Department, has been a vocal advocate for the 200 Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram, the loosely organized group of militants terrorizing northern Nigeria. Her May 4 tweet about the girls, using the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls, was cited across the media and widely credited for raising awareness of their plight.

What Clinton didn’t mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the U.N. headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen senators and congressmen.

“The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn’t use. And nobody can say she wasn’t urged to do it. It’s gross hypocrisy,” said a former senior U.S. official who was involved in the debate. “The FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department really wanted Boko Haram designated, they wanted the authorities that would provide to go after them, and they voiced that repeatedly to elected officials.”

In May 2012, then-Justice Department official Lisa Monaco (now at the White House) wrote to the State Department to urge Clinton to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. The following month, Gen. Carter Ham, the chief of U.S. Africa Command, said that Boko Haram “are likely sharing funds, training, and explosive materials” with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. And yet, Hillary Clinton’s State Department still declined to place Boko Haram on its official terrorist roster.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Why? Or does she just not care. This is twice the Clinton's have blood on their hands in AFRICA...............


HILLARY FOUGHT TO KEEP BOKO HARAM OFF TERROR LIST
Hillary Clinton’s public outrage at the abduction of hundreds of schoolgirls by a Islamist Nigerian rebel group ignores the role the 2016 Democratic frontrunner had in preventing the group from being designated as a terrorist organization. From The Daily Beast: “The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hurt the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls….On Wednesday, Clinton said that the abduction of the girls by Boko Haram was ‘abominable, it’s criminal, it’s an act of terrorism and it really merits the fullest response possible, first and foremost from the government of Nigeria.’ Clinton said that as Secretary of State she had numerous meetings with Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan and had urged the Nigerian government to do more on counterterrorism. What Clinton didn’t mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the UN headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen Senators and Congressmen.”

He did it - Clinton’s successor, Secretary of State John Kerry designated Boko Haram as a terrorist organization in November, 2013.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
If I remember right- the military advisors and Cato Institute came out with the plan of not calling these type folks anything that would give them credibility-- and to identify all such groups as criminals...
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
If I remember right- the military advisors and Cato Institute came out with the plan of not calling these type folks anything that would give them credibility-- and to identify all such groups as criminals...


LNK please
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
If I remember right- the military advisors and Cato Institute came out with the plan of not calling these type folks anything that would give them credibility-- and to identify all such groups as criminals...

Hey Einstein, this is another group that shares your God with you. They announced years ago that they wanted to kill every Christian in Nigeria.

No one in their right mind would NOT call them terrorists.

The earliest comment from CATO on Boko Harum that I could find from searching their website:
Nigeria. Violations of religious liberty are on the increase in this religiously-divided country. Noted the USCIRF: “The past year saw a dramatic rise in sectarian or religiously-related violence.”

Although these attacks, largely directed by radical Muslims against Christians, are not new—some 14,000 have died since 1999—they have escalated, explained the Commission, with the rise of “Boko Haram, a militant group that espouses an extreme and violence interpretation of Islam, [which] has been emboldened by the climate of impunity. Boko Haram has shifted its tactics and emphasis by targeting, killing, and bombing Christians and Christian clergy and threatening to kill all remaining Christians in the north.”
 

Tam

Well-known member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_cLZIEHZbA#t=30

It is a perfect storm due to her lack of attention to a ISLAMIC TERRORIST GROUP that she would not declare as one and get them on a watch list.

And Hillary talking about women and lack of the law enforcement protecting them is friggin laughable considering her own attempts to destroy her husband's sexual victims. :roll:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Flashback- Clinton: “Poverty” Behind Boko Haram, ‘Not Radical Islam’

by Aurelius • May 8, 2014


What, in hindsight, can be only described as an obtuse and extremely wrong statement, former President Bill Clinton stated in 2013 that the terrorist organization Boko Haram acts out of poverty, not because of religious fever.

Mr. Clinton not only stated that poverty was the cause, but that specifically, Islam and religion could not be blamed in any way.

“You have to somehow bring economic opportunity to the people who don’t have it,” Clinton stated. He added, “You have all these political problems — and now violence problems — that appear to be rooted in religious differences and all the rhetoric of the Boko Harams and others. But the truth is the poverty rate in the north is three times of what it is in Lagos.”

Clinton would go on to suggest that divvying up natural resources differently in Nigeria and offering Boko Haram jobs could help stop their terrorist attacks and kidnappings.

Clinton’s statements are directly opposed to the leader of Boko Haram himself, who stated that God had told him to abduct over 200 girls and women.

Abubakar Shekau, the leader of the group, recently released a video taking responsibility for the kidnappings. It begins with him and his followers shouting, “Allahu akbar!” and shooting guns into the air.

He goes on to say that, “I abducted your girls… By Allah, I will sell them in the marketplace… They are slaves and I will sell them because I have the market to sell them.” He later continues, saying that Western observers know nothing of what is right. “What do you know about human rights? You’re just claiming human rights (abuses), but you don’t know what it is.”

The former President must have also, apparently, forgotten that “Boko Haram” roughly translates into “Western education is sin,” not, “We are terrorists because we are poor.”

Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Clinton, in her time as Secretary of State, refused to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. Though not confirmed, Mr. Clinton’s belief that poverty caused their actions my have influenced Hillary’s non-designation.
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
OT,

I'm trying to understand the Independent voter mindset... Is it your opinion that Willy is correct and that the violence is due to poverty, or do you hold the opinion that the violence is due to religious persecution/intolerance?
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
iwannabeacowboy said:
OT,
do you hold the opinion that the violence is due to religious persecution/intolerance?

Couldn't be.....OT and those wonderful humans in Boko Haram worship the EXACT same God..... :roll:
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
LOok at who she defended in the earliest part of her law career. Domestic Terrorist. Bill married the witch. We elected that sob for president. And he was better than what we have now.

Sad situation all the way around.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
If I remember right- the military advisors and Cato Institute came out with the plan of not calling these type folks anything that would give them credibility-- and to identify all such groups as criminals...[/quote

failed memory??? Or just selective ?????

Secretary of State John Kerry eventually added Boko Haram and its splinter group Ansaru to the list of foreign terrorist organizations in Nov. 2013, following a spate of church bombings and other acts that demonstrated the group's escalating abilities to wreak havoc.

‪Being placed on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations allows U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies to use certain tools and authorities, including several found in the Patriot Act. The designation makes it illegal for any U.S. entities to do business with the group in question. It cuts off access to the U.S. financial system for the organization and anyone associating with it. And the designation also serves to stigmatize and isolate foreign organizations by encouraging other nations to take similar measures.


If you wish I can show where top military advisors and FBI an CIA as well as justice department personnel wanted them on the list in 2012 and Hitlry refused to do it...

what say you now oldtimer?? especially since you have been shown to be wrong about what Cato said??
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Oldtimer said:
If I remember right- the military advisors and Cato Institute came out with the plan of not calling these type folks anything that would give them credibility-- and to identify all such groups as criminals...

Finally had a couple minutes to look up the report.. It was put out by the RAND Corporation...


Rand Study: 'War on Terror' Not Working

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:59 AM

WASHINGTON — The United States should shift strategy against Al-Qaeda from the current heavy reliance on military force to more effective use of police and intelligence work, a study released Tuesday concluded.

The study by the RAND Corporation, a think tank that often does work for the US military, also urged the United States to drop the "war on terror" label.

"Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism," said Seth Jones, lead author of the study.


The US military has pressed in recent weeks for more troops to combat an intensifying Islamic insurgency in Afghanistan, but the RAND study recommends only "a light military footprint or none at all."

The study examined how terrorist groups since 1968 have ended, and found that only seven percent were defeated militarily.

Most were neutralized either through political settlements (43 percent), or through the use of police and intelligence forces (40 percent) to disrupt and capture or kill leaders.

"Military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups, and few groups within this time frame achieved victory," the report said.

"This has significant implications for dealing with Al-Qaeda and suggests fundamentally rethinking post-September 11 counterterrorism strategy," it said.

It argued that a US strategy centered primarily on the use of military force has not worked, pointing to al-Qaeda's resurgence along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border nearly seven years after the September 11 attacks.

Policing and intelligence "should be the backbone of US efforts," it said. Police and intelligence agencies were better suited for penetrating terrorist groups and tracking down terrorist leaders, it said.

"Second, military force, though not necessarily US soldiers, may be a necessary instrument when al-Qaeda is involved in an insurgency," it said.

"Local military forces frequently have more legitimacy to operate than the United States has, and they have a better understanding of the operating environment, even if they need to develop the capacity to deal with insurgent groups over the long run," it said.

While the US military can play a critical role in building up the capacity of local forces, it should "generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim societies, since its presence is likely to increase terrorist recruitment," the study said.

— AFP
 

Tam

Well-known member
Well Oldtimer your article is from 2008. and Obama's plans to stop calling it a war on terrorism proved one point, a Rose by any other name is still a rose and a War on Terrorism by what ever Obama wants to call it is still a War on Terrorism.

A Terrorist attack can be called a protest over a video but it does not change the fact it was a TERRORIST ATTACK

A terrorist Attack can be called Work Place Violence but that does not change the fact it was a TERRORIST ATTACK.

Until this Administration realize they are dealing with ISLAM EXTREMISTS/TERRORISTS GROUPS that want nothing more than to KILL people that do not believe in their god. the Terrorists will control the narrative on every battle. :roll: :x
 

hopalong

Well-known member
outdated reports are what oldtimer has based most of his arguments on in the past so that should not surprise anyone when he uses it to support his candidate of choice


EH oldtimer????? 2008 2014 how many yrs is that oldtimer??? Or can't you count that far????



Is that how you got all them yrs in L.E. :D :D :D
 

Mike

Well-known member
Rand Corporation, UGH!!! A bunch of leftist hacks. :roll:

They fall in the same category as the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center).

I'd rather have Cliven Bundy giving me legal advice. :shock:
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
OT,

I'm trying to understand the Independent voter mindset... Is it your opinion that Willy is correct and that the violence is due to poverty, or do you hold the opinion that the violence is due to religious persecution/intolerance?

bump...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
iwannabeacowboy said:
OT,

I'm trying to understand the Independent voter mindset... Is it your opinion that Willy is correct and that the violence is due to poverty, or do you hold the opinion that the violence is due to religious persecution/intolerance?

bump...

In ways both... Just like you see the highest criminal activity in the poorer sections of the U.S., I think that it is true around the world- poverty and despair breeds criminal activity and violence...
Then you add years of political strife- and many living under the old colonization days -- with generations of wars making refugees (no homeland) out of many-- with some Mullah's that preach that this poverty/political problem is because of your religion- and that dying as a religious martyr takes you straight to heaven-- and you end up with a bunch of criminal zealots....

One of the better examples is the Afghanistan area... It has been for years ran by the drug lords- and apparently still are from this article about Karachi- which has been one of the major export areas for Opium/Heroin... And the political zealots are tied right in with the criminal zealots...

Karachi, one of the fastest-growing megacities on the planet, is becoming a new front in Pakistan's war on terror as the Taliban moves to the streets from the mountains. Mixed with poverty, gangs and political violence, the insurgency makes the metropolis an extreme case of the chaos and commerce that coexist in some of the developing world's growing urban centers.

"You've got other cities where the problem is of crime or criminal gangs taking over parts of the city like Rio de Janeiro," said Sakib Sherani, chief executive officer at Macroeconomic Insights, an Islamabad-based research firm. "But Karachi is unique because it represents a failure of the state, where the state has initially ceded to organized crime and now it has ceded to armed militias."

---------------------------------
Since the 1970s, Karachi has been racked by violence among armed wings of political parties and criminals linked to weapons suppliers and drug mafias. As many as 10,693 people were killed between 2008 and 2012, according to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, more than the number of U.S military forces killed during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Residents are bracing for worse after a split between rural and urban Taliban factions in February. As much as 20 percent of Karachi is controlled by the Taliban, who run courts and extort money from people and businesses, says Amanullah Mehsud, a member of the Awami National Party, which comprises mainly Pashtuns, the insurgency's main ethnic group.

Criminal Alliances
While authorities reject the claim that the Taliban controls a fifth of the city, Shahid Hayat, the city's police chief, says gangs have allied with the insurgents.

"It's all meshed up," Hayat said in an interview. "They develop inter-linkages -- local criminals start using the terrorists and the terrorists start using the local criminals."


The result is a city where people from every walk of life live under daily threat -- from the kidnapping of the wealthy to middle-class workers having their phones taken at gunpoint to street vendors caught in a bomb blast.

"I don't know anybody in Karachi who hasn't been held up," said Sayem Ali, an economist at Standard Chartered, who was born and raised in the city. "The big problem is kidnapping and extortion."
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/karachi-joins-chaos-commerce-taliban-190100882.html
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Boko Haram .."Non-Muslim Teaching Is Forbidden"


Oldtimer said:
because this bunch just knows ALL Muslims are born killers and need to wiped out-- and that if you even think of trying to learn something about the religion/people you have committed blasphemy!!...

This group has a preferred lifestyle when it comes to knowledge of or dealing with anything different...


Here, OT, learn something...


Boko Haram and the Kidnapped Schoolgirls
The Nigerian terror group reflects the general Islamist hatred of women's rights. When will the West wake up?
By
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
May 8, 2014 7:18 p.m. ET

Since the kidnapping of 276 schoolgirls in Nigeria last month, the meaning of Boko Haram—the name used by the terrorist group that seized the girls—has become more widely known. The translation from the Hausa language is usually given in English-language media as "Western Education Is Forbidden," though "Non-Muslim Teaching Is Forbidden" might be more accurate.

But little attention has been paid to the group's formal Arabic name: Jam'at Ahl as-Sunnah lid-da'wa wal-Jihad. That roughly translates as "The Fellowship of the People of the Tradition for Preaching and Holy War." That's a lot less catchy than Boko Haram but significantly more revealing about the group and its mission. Far from being an aberration among Islamist terror groups, as some observers suggest, Boko Haram in its goals and methods is in fact all too representative.

The kidnapping of the schoolgirls throws into bold relief a central part of what the jihadists are about: the oppression of women. Boko Haram sincerely believes that girls are better off enslaved than educated. The terrorists' mission is no different from that of the Taliban assassin who shot and nearly killed 15-year-old Pakistani Malala Yousafzai—as she rode a school bus home in 2012—because she advocated girls' education. As I know from experience, nothing is more anathema to the jihadists than equal and educated women.

How to explain this phenomenon to baffled Westerners, who these days seem more eager to smear the critics of jihadism as "Islamophobes" than to stand up for women's most basic rights? Where are the Muslim college-student organizations denouncing Boko Haram? Where is the outrage during Friday prayers? These girls' lives deserve more than a Twitter hashtag protest.

Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau, in a video released in 2012. Associated Press

Organizations like Boko Haram do not arise in isolation. The men who establish Islamist groups, whether in Africa (Nigeria, Somalia, Mali), Southwest Asia (Afghanistan, Pakistan), or even Europe (U.K., Spain and the Netherlands), are members of long-established Muslim communities, most of whose members are happy to lead peaceful lives. To understand why the jihadists are flourishing, you need to understand the dynamics within those communities.

So, imagine an angry young man in any Muslim community anywhere in the world. Imagine him trying to establish an association of men dedicated to the practice of the Sunnah (the tradition of guidance from the Prophet Muhammad ). Much of the young man's preaching will address the place of women. He will recommend that girls and women be kept indoors and covered from head to toe if they are to venture outside. He will also condemn the permissiveness of Western society.

What kind of response will he meet? In the U.S. and in Europe, some moderate Muslims might quietly draw him to the attention of authorities. Women might voice concerns about the attacks on their freedoms. But in other parts of the world, where law and order are lacking, such young men and their extremist messages thrive.

Where governments are weak, corrupt or nonexistent, the message of Boko Haram and its counterparts is especially compelling. Not implausibly, they can blame poverty on official corruption and offer as an antidote the pure principles of the Prophet. And in these countries, women are more vulnerable and their options are fewer.

But why does our imaginary young zealot turn to violence? At first, he can count on some admiration for his fundamentalist message within the community where he starts out. He might encounter opposition from established Muslim leaders who feel threatened by him. But he perseveres because perseverance in the Sunnah is one of the most important keys to heaven. As he plods on from door to door, he gradually acquires a following. There comes a point when his following is as large as that of the Muslim community's established leaders. That's when the showdown happens—and the argument for "holy war" suddenly makes sense to him.

The history of Boko Haram has followed precisely this script. The group was founded in 2002 by a young Islamist called Mohammed Yusuf, who started out preaching in a Muslim community in the Borno state of northern Nigeria. He set up an educational complex, including a mosque and an Islamic school. For seven years, mostly poor families flocked to hear his message. But in 2009, the Nigerian government investigated Boko Haram and ultimately arrested several members, including Yusuf himself. The crackdown sparked violence that left about 700 dead. Yusuf soon died in prison—the government said he was killed while trying to escape—but the seeds had been planted. Under one of Yusuf's lieutenants, Abubakar Shekau, Boko Haram turned to jihad.

In 2011, Boko Haram launched its first terror attack in Borno. Four people were killed, and from then on violence became an integral part, if not the central part, of its mission. The recent kidnappings—11 more girls were abducted by Boko Haram on Sunday—join a litany of outrages, including multiple car bombings and the murder of 59 schoolboys in February. On Monday, as if to demonstrate its growing power, Boko Haram launched a 12-hour attack in the city of Gamboru Ngala, firing into market crowds, setting houses aflame and shooting down residents who ran from the burning buildings. Hundreds were killed.

I am often told that the average Muslim wholeheartedly rejects the use of violence and terror, does not share the radicals' belief that a degenerate and corrupt Western culture needs to be replaced with an Islamic one, and abhors the denigration of women's most basic rights. Well, it is time for those peace-loving Muslims to do more, much more, to resist those in their midst who engage in this type of proselytizing before they proceed to the phase of holy war.

It is also time for Western liberals to wake up. If they choose to regard Boko Haram as an aberration, they do so at their peril. The kidnapping of these schoolgirls is not an isolated tragedy; their fate reflects a new wave of jihadism that extends far beyond Nigeria and poses a mortal threat to the rights of women and girls. If my pointing this out offends some people more than the odious acts of Boko Haram, then so be it.

Ms. Ali is a fellow of the Belfer Center at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. She is the founder of the AHA Foundation.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303701304579549603782621352
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
OT & his Book Haram pals all worship the same God...but the Boko Boy's God expressly. forbids consumption of alcohol... which OT has been known to abuse...but it's OK if the Boko's or their pals traffick narcotics.

Trying to keep all this one God stuff straight can sure get confusing. Too bad the One God didn't just have one set of rules for everybody.
 
Top