Obama al-Jazeera bin Lyin

How different is Al-Jazeera's whitewashing of Islamic barbarism from the Obama administration's? Answer: as different as identical twins.

Al-Jazeera America began by pretending it would cover the news honestly and in depth, but it apparently has as much depth as the snake oil salesman, Al Jazeera Gore, who sold them the slot in 2013 from Current.

The National Review obtained an email that directed Al Jazeera's propagandist "reporters" to not use terms such as "jihad," Islamist," and "terrorist." A top executive for the company, Carlos Van Meek, wrote to the New York and Washington newsrooms about how words can become problematic and also said, "One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter."

"Freedom fighter" shoots unarmed cop

Or "activist," if you work for CNN, as Christiane Amanpour called the Charlie Hebdo terrorists who massacred the staff at the newspaper. 

Scum buckets who kill children, behead journalists and others while screaming "Allahu Akbar!" are not freedom fighters. The children and journalists they kill are not in any way compromising their freedom. They are terrorists, and Islamic terrorists to be clear. The people who killed 3000 Americans and others on 911 were not freedom fights or militants; they were terrorists, of the Islamic kind.

Van Meek, who fits his name, said we should call terrorists "militants," or "fighters." He said that calling them extremists is forbidden. "Do not use the term Islamist," he said, because it's a "simplistic label."

Van Meek's level of political correctness has reached a point of pandering to Islamic terrorists. Al Jazeera is a champion at pandering--before they pandered in America, they pandered to Osama bin Laden and his terrorists of the Islamic kind. 

But don't fret, patriots, Al Jazeera has about as many prime-time viewers (18,000) as an Al Sharpton anti-white march.

So what about Obama and the boys on the left? Well, they're trying to convince us that Jordan's plan to swap Sajida al-Rishawi the terrorist, for Muath al-Kaseasbeh, the Jordanian pilot, is not the same as the Bergdahl trade last year. 

Bergdahl, a deserter at best, and a traitor at worst, was traded for the release of 5 Taliban terrorists at worst, and Islamic terrorists at best from Gitmo. 

Eric Schultz from the State Department made the case that the Taliban is not a terrorist group but an "armed insurgency." This Obama butt-boy claimed that "we don't pay ransom, we don't give concessions to terrorist organizations." So by this logic, the Taliban cannot be a terrorist organization because we made a concession. That's what we call an argument from fallacy:

We only make concessions with non-terrorist organizations.
We made concessions with the Taliban.
Therefore, the Taliban is a non-terrorist organization.

What we need to consider, in order to determine whether or not the Taliban is a terrorist organization, is our observations and the answers to the following questions:

1. If the Taliban was designated a terrorist organization during the Obama administration in 2010, and identified Hakimullah Mehsud and Wali ur-Rehman as specially designated global terrorists, has anything changed to declassify the Taliban as terrorists?

2. Does the killing of 141 people, 132 of them children at a Peshawar school by the Taliban, qualify them as terrorists?

3. Does the use of Improvised Explosive Devices, used to indiscriminately kill human beings, qualify the users of such devices (i.e., the Taliban) as terrorists?

If you still think the Taliban is merely an "armed insurgency," you might be a lberal.

Tweet