Touchy Feely...

[smitty]

Typical liberal touchy feely ideas that usually come back to bite you in the keister. Just if you be nice to the mean ol' terrorist they'll play nice in the world.  Well, this philosophy is proven wrong once again!

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/07/hillary-s-state-department-refused-to-brand-boko-haram-as-terrorists.html

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/08/clinton-state-department-resisted-labeling-boko-haram-as-terror-group/

[bullets13]

I'm going to call at least some bit of BS here.  I'm reading it (the fox article, only, of course), and this looks more like something Western Journalism would come up with.  

 

The justice department is supposedly encouraged to add Boko Haram to a list of terrorist groups in 2011 (no month named, so could even be late in the year) but the first documented encouragement in the article comes closer to halfway through 2012.  after some research by the justice department, in June 2012 they add three high ranking members of the group to the list.   They then did some research and some consultation with the Nigerian government, and added the entire group in 2013. 

 

After all of the 2011 claims at the beginning of the article, a letter is cited, but it wasn't written until March 30, 2012.  and less than 2 1/2 months later the designation had been made on leaders of the group.  That's a far cry from all of the "resisting and blocking" that the article claims.  There's also another link to another letter, but it too was written in 2012.

 

The only "evidence" that there was a push back in 2011 by conservatives offered up in the article is a quote from Rep. Patrick Meehan, R-Pen.  That's it.  No links, no documents.  No nothing.  Just a weak quote about a delay, that doesn't even mention blocking or resisting, as the strong opening of this piece claims.

 

Another source for this piece:  An unnamed former US official, VIA the daily beast.  Wow, I'd take that to the bank for sure.

 

The final source: Timothy Furnish, who in this piece is referred to as "an author and an islamic scholar".  while both of those are true, they fail to mention he's an author for a site called "Family Security Matters", which would be akin to Huffington Post using a source as an expert because he's an author and a scholar, but they you find out the author is an author for Right Wing Watch. 

 

 

I have no doubt that there was some delay in getting this thing done, but when does the government, right OR left, act quickly on anything?

[smitty]

I'm going to call at least some bit of BS here.  I'm reading it (the fox article, only, of course), and this looks more like something Western Journalism would come up with.  

 

The justice department is supposedly encouraged to add Boko Haram to a list of terrorist groups in 2011 (no month named, so could even be late in the year) but the first documented encouragement in the article comes closer to halfway through 2012.  after some research by the justice department, in June 2012 they add three high ranking members of the group to the list.   They then did some research and some consultation with the Nigerian government, and added the entire group in 2013. 

 

After all of the 2011 claims at the beginning of the article, a letter is cited, but it wasn't written until March 30, 2012.  and less than 2 1/2 months later the designation had been made on leaders of the group.  That's a far cry from all of the "resisting and blocking" that the article claims.  There's also another link to another letter, but it too was written in 2012.

 

The only "evidence" that there was a push back in 2011 by conservatives offered up in the article is a quote from Rep. Patrick Meehan, R-Pen.  That's it.  No links, no documents.  No nothing.  Just a weak quote about a delay, that doesn't even mention blocking or resisting, as the strong opening of this piece claims.

 

Another source for this piece:  An unnamed former US official, VIA the daily beast.  Wow, I'd take that to the bank for sure.

 

The final source: Timothy Furnish, who in this piece is referred to as "an author and an islamic scholar".  while both of those are true, they fail to mention he's an author for a site called "Family Security Matters", which would be akin to Huffington Post using a source as an expert because he's an author and a scholar, but they you find out the author is an author for Right Wing Watch. 

 

 

I have no doubt that there was some delay in getting this thing done, but when does the government, right OR left, act quickly on anything?

This article was about the State department under Hillary Rodman Clinton's watch. 

[stevenash]

 

I'm going to call at least some bit of BS here.  I'm reading it (the fox article, only, of course), and this looks more like something Western Journalism would come up with.  
 
The justice department is supposedly encouraged to add Boko Haram to a list of terrorist groups in 2011 (no month named, so could even be late in the year) but the first documented encouragement in the article comes closer to halfway through 2012.  after some research by the justice department, in June 2012 they add three high ranking members of the group to the list.   They then did some research and some consultation with the Nigerian government, and added the entire group in 2013. 
 
After all of the 2011 claims at the beginning of the article, a letter is cited, but it wasn't written until March 30, 2012.  and less than 2 1/2 months later the designation had been made on leaders of the group.  That's a far cry from all of the "resisting and blocking" that the article claims.  There's also another link to another letter, but it too was written in 2012.
 
The only "evidence" that there was a push back in 2011 by conservatives offered up in the article is a quote from Rep. Patrick Meehan, R-Pen.  That's it.  No links, no documents.  No nothing.  Just a weak quote about a delay, that doesn't even mention blocking or resisting, as the strong opening of this piece claims.
 
Another source for this piece:  An unnamed former US official, VIA the daily beast.  Wow, I'd take that to the bank for sure.
 
The final source: Timothy Furnish, who in this piece is referred to as "an author and an islamic scholar".  while both of those are true, they fail to mention he's an author for a site called "Family Security Matters", which would be akin to Huffington Post using a source as an expert because he's an author and a scholar, but they you find out the author is an author for Right Wing Watch. 
 
 
I have no doubt that there was some delay in getting this thing done, but when does the government, right OR left, act quickly on anything?

Bullets- are you then saying that the Obama approach to being nicer and more "humble" has made the other side less offended by us and less likely to want to harm us?

[bullets13]

 

This article was about the State department under Hillary Rodman Clinton's watch.

 
ok. i read it. it did exactly what i said it did.

[bullets13]

 

Bullets- are you then saying that the Obama approach to being nicer and more "humble" has made the other side less offended by us and less likely to want to harm us?

 

Huh? I'm saying that the article written was long on opinion and short on verifiable fact. I have no idea what you are talking about.

[stevenash]

Simply wanted your opinion about how the President has handled himself with the rest of the world regardless of what the articles said or didn't say.

[bullets13]

I'm not a big fan of his on any particular issues with the exception of a couple of social issues. But I prefer to see factual articles, especially from legitimate news sources. This story was full of holes and misdirection.

[smitty]

Democrat-aligned group MoveOn.org hosted an online petition opposing a terrorist designation for Boko Haram. The petition, "Reject Terrorist Designation for Boko Haram" was posted in 2012 and began gaining more signatures from Democrat Party activists after the group kidnapped 230 Nigerian girls to sell into sexual slavery.
At the time, Secretary of State Hillary Rodman Clinton, refused to designate Boko Haram a terrorist group even after it bombed United Nations headquarters in Abuja, Nigeria in 2011. 
MoveOn.org is one of the biggest bankrollers of Democrat Party campaigns, spending $21.6 million on its programs in 2012.  100 percent of its PAC contributions went to Democrats. 

Again, just don't call them terrorist, which they actually are, and they'll play nice.  What's up with the Democrats on this? 

Is it Touchy-Feely, or is it something bigger? 

[Big girl]

I'm not a big fan of his on any particular issues with the exception of a couple of social issues. But I prefer to see factual articles, especially from legitimate news sources. This story was full of holes and misdirection.

they cant provide you any facts just mete conjecture. Smh

[Big girl]

Mere

[stevenash]

Yeah, except when one is provided with a video and the excuse for the video is that the vocal sound and lip movments are not in sync and are, therefore, untrue.

[Big girl]

Have you seen the video? If you have you need to have your eyes examined.

[stevenash]

If there was the slightest bit of truth to what you are saying, trust me, the dems would have made a very big deal out of it.

[Big girl]

Maybe they didnt see it. It was on you tube, not CNN, FOX or MSNBC. Someone showed it to me so that I could stock up on food and supplies. I told her to look closely at his lip movements. She agreed that the words didnt match.

[stevenash]

What do you think about the video ( available anywhere to anybody) where then candidate Obama says the level of debt during the Bush
Administration was irresponsible and unpatriotic only to increase it by 60% during his yet to be completed tenure?

[westend1]

 

Bullets- are you then saying that the Obama approach to being nicer and more "humble" has made the other side less offended by us and less likely to want to harm us?

Deflect and change subject.   Typical Nash response.  The question Bullets was asking was "do you agree that the article lacked much factual substance"?   Pretty easy yes or no.

[stevenash]

As I explained to Bullets, I simply wanted his opinion on the subject I asked him about rather than starting a new thread.

[Big girl]

Deflect and change subject. Typical Nash response. The question Bullets was asking was "do you agree that the article lacked much factual substance"? Pretty easy yes or no.

he thinks he is smarter than all of us.

[stevenash]

Ahhh, yes, now we have the "thought" police