Omitting 'Islamic' Terrorism From Security Document Dishonest (1 Viewer)

[Schlzm]

Quick question for those taking this position -- Do you feel the same way about the term White Supremacist?

If you feel differently, please let me know what the distinction is.

I would say the likelihood that someone looks at the [Demographic Identifier] and jumps to the negative connotation.

How about Crazy Lunatic?How about Compassionate Conservative?

How about bleeding heart liberal? Or just the word Liberal itself -it has been used as a quasi "curse word" lampooned by the hard right to characterize anyone with opposing viewpoint.

Also you could just look at your avatar or think about anything you have ever mentioned about Karl Rove, George Bush, **** Cheney, Gen. Petraeus, etc... to get the answer to the position you are attempting here.Schlzm

What have a said about Karl Rove, **** Cheney or Gen. Petraeus that even comes close to the way the word liberal is used by the hard right?

 

[perry147]

I would say the likelihood that someone looks at the [Demographic Identifier] and jumps to the negative connotation.

How about Crazy Lunatic?How about Compassionate Conservative?How about bleeding heart liberal? Or just the word Liberal itself -it has been used as a quasi "curse word" lampooned by the hard right to characterize anyone with opposing viewpoint.

Also you could just look at your avatar or think about anything you have ever mentioned about Karl Rove, George Bush, **** Cheney, Gen. Petraeus, etc... to get the answer to the position you are attempting here.Schlzm

What have a said about Karl Rove, **** Cheney or Gen. Petraeus that even comes close to the way the word liberal is used by the hard right?

Care to answer the question now?

 

[Schlzm]

How about Crazy Lunatic?How about Compassionate Conservative?How about bleeding heart liberal? Or just the word Liberal itself -it has been used as a quasi "curse word" lampooned by the hard right to characterize anyone with opposing viewpoint.

Also you could just look at your avatar or think about anything you have ever mentioned about Karl Rove, George Bush, **** Cheney, Gen. Petraeus, etc... to get the answer to the position you are attempting here.Schlzm

What have a said about Karl Rove, **** Cheney or Gen. Petraeus that even comes close to the way the word liberal is used by the hard right?

Care to answer the question now?

Not possible. I have no idea what "a" has said about any of them or if those statements come close to your view of the supposed vilification via the term "liberal".Schlzm

 

[cosjobs]

So the methodology behind each term is the same. Nearly all White Supremacists are white people who believe the white race is superior, and nearly all Muslim Terrorists are Muslims who believe that Islam is the superior religion.The difference, then, is only how each term is received. Most people are intelligent enough to understand that not all white people are supremacists upon hearing the term White Supremacist. So why is it difficult to reach a similar conclusion that not all Muslims are terrorists upon hearing the term Muslim Terrorist?It seems that one of the reasons is the relative novelty of the term. White Supremacist has been in our vocabulary for awhile so we're used to it. The term Muslim Terrorist is still relatively new so we're uncomfortable with it. We should probably get used to it, though, because they're going to be around for awhile.

I'd agree with 99% of that and just add that an additional difference is that many Americans know enough white people to know that White Supremacist is not a common ideology. Many Americans don't know enough Muslims to really get a feel on how common Radical Islamists are. They may pay lip service, "Oh, I realize that it's a great religion being slandered by a few bad apples" but when it comes to personal comfort, sitting down next to someone in a plane, I don't think it's actually true.So newness of term and exposure to the demographic would be two of the primary differences.

The simple question is how much fear of White people is a result of common usage of the term WHite Supremacist vs. how much non-MUslim fear of Muslims a result of terms like Islamofacist and Muslim Terrorists. It think the latter is much, much higher than the former. I admire the logic behind the re-wording, as I believe it an direct attempt to remove unjustified, negative connotations to underserving religions.

 

[perry147]

Also you could just look at your avatar or think about anything you have ever mentioned about Karl Rove, George Bush, **** Cheney, Gen. Petraeus, etc... to get the answer to the position you are attempting here.Schlzm

What have I said about Karl Rove, **** Cheney or Gen. Petraeus that even comes close to the way the word liberal is used by the hard right?

Care to answer the question now?

Not possible. I have no idea what "I" has said about any of them or if those statements come close to your view of the supposed vilification via the term "liberal".Schlzm

Hope that helps.But I can save you time; there is nothing that comes close.

 

[Schlzm]

What have I said about Karl Rove, **** Cheney or Gen. Petraeus that even comes close to the way the word liberal is used by the hard right?

Care to answer the question now?

Not possible. I have no idea what "I" has said about any of them or if those statements come close to your view of the supposed vilification via the term "liberal".Schlzm

Hope that helps.But I can save you time; there is nothing that comes close.

According to you being in the role of the "attackee".Schlzm

 

[Jewell]

So the methodology behind each term is the same. Nearly all White Supremacists are white people who believe the white race is superior, and nearly all Muslim Terrorists are Muslims who believe that Islam is the superior religion.The difference, then, is only how each term is received. Most people are intelligent enough to understand that not all white people are supremacists upon hearing the term White Supremacist. So why is it difficult to reach a similar conclusion that not all Muslims are terrorists upon hearing the term Muslim Terrorist?It seems that one of the reasons is the relative novelty of the term. White Supremacist has been in our vocabulary for awhile so we're used to it. The term Muslim Terrorist is still relatively new so we're uncomfortable with it. We should probably get used to it, though, because they're going to be around for awhile.

I'd agree with 99% of that and just add that an additional difference is that many Americans know enough white people to know that White Supremacist is not a common ideology. Many Americans don't know enough Muslims to really get a feel on how common Radical Islamists are. They may pay lip service, "Oh, I realize that it's a great religion being slandered by a few bad apples" but when it comes to personal comfort, sitting down next to someone in a plane, I don't think it's actually true.So newness of term and exposure to the demographic would be two of the primary differences.

The simple question is how much fear of White people is a result of common usage of the term WHite Supremacist vs. how much non-MUslim fear of Muslims a result of terms like Islamofacist and Muslim Terrorists. It think the latter is much, much higher than the former. I admire the logic behind the re-wording, as I believe it an direct attempt to remove unjustified, negative connotations to underserving religions.

You guys both raise good points. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. We can still all agree that Liebermann is generally a tool, right?

 

[Guest]

You guys both raise good points. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. We can still all agree that Liebermann is generally a tool, right?

Oh yah.

 

[Jewell]

So the methodology behind each term is the same. Nearly all White Supremacists are white people who believe the white race is superior, and nearly all Muslim Terrorists are Muslims who believe that Islam is the superior religion.

The difference, then, is only how each term is received. Most people are intelligent enough to understand that not all white people are supremacists upon hearing the term White Supremacist. So why is it difficult to reach a similar conclusion that not all Muslims are terrorists upon hearing the term Muslim Terrorist?

It seems that one of the reasons is the relative novelty of the term. White Supremacist has been in our vocabulary for awhile so we're used to it. The term Muslim Terrorist is still relatively new so we're uncomfortable with it. We should probably get used to it, though, because they're going to be around for awhile.

I'd agree with 99% of that and just add that an additional difference is that many Americans know enough white people to know that White Supremacist is not a common ideology. Many Americans don't know enough Muslims to really get a feel on how common Radical Islamists are. They may pay lip service, "Oh, I realize that it's a great religion being slandered by a few bad apples" but when it comes to personal comfort, sitting down next to someone in a plane, I don't think it's actually true.So newness of term and exposure to the demographic would be two of the primary differences.

Exhibit A to this discussion.

First, that's well done artwork. A bit gaudy for my taste, but nice craftsmanship.Second, you want us to change national policy because of Peens' truck?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Fox Host Confronts State Dept. Spox: Why Won’t WH Admit Radical Islam Is Biggest Threat?Kelly File guest host Martha MacCallum confronted State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf about why the White House won’t openly say that radical Islam specifically is a major threat to the world. Eric Holder was asked twice yesterday if the U.S. is at war with radical Islam; both times he didn’t bite.

Harf told MacCallum tonight that Islamic extremism is “not the only kind of extremism we face,” though when pressed to name other examples of troubling extremism, she simply said people all over the world want to kill each other for a “variety of causes.”

MacCallum repeatedly told Harf there is a “common thread” in terrorist attacks all over the world that the administration appears to have some reluctance admitting. Harf called that viewpoint “overly simplistic” and argued there are different groups all over the world the U.S. has to combat differently.

Watch the video below, via Fox News:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-host-confronts-state-dept-spot-why-wont-wh-admit-radical-islam-is-biggest-threat/

Todd, Stephanopoulos to Holder: Is U.S. ‘At War with Radical Islam’?French Prime Minister Manuel Valls delivered a speech yesterday in which he said, of the attacks at Charlie Hebdo and a Kosher grocery store, “It is a war against terrorism, against jihadism, against radical Islam.”

Attorney General Eric Holder made the Sunday show rounds today, and was asked by both Chuck Todd and George Stephanopoulos if the United States is “at war with radical Islam.”

Holder emphasized on both programs that the U.S. is at war with terrorists who “corrupt the Islamic faith” and use their warped version of the religion to “justify their actions.” He mentioned the upcoming summit the White House is holding to combat violent extremism in order to make sure no more young people are “attracted to this radical ideology.”

You can watch both clips below, via NBC and ABC:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/todd-stephanopoulos-to-holder-is-u-s-at-war-with-radical-islam/

***************

Does anyone understand what is going on here?The French - ie France, one of the most tolerant, liberal nations on Earth - recently had its prime minister Valls state that France is "at war with radical islam."

Obama himself has used Bush's own Congressional "War on Terror" authorization to bomb Libya, threaten bombings of Syria and to conduct ongoing drone strikes and military operations throughout the muslim world. Plainly the WOT continues.

Holder skips the unity march now. - Why is this so difficult for this administration to say or enunciate in some clear fashion? And actually I don't think it is so much difficult, I don't think we see WH and State Department spokesmen under so much strain and twisted wordings to avoid saying it because they can't see it, I think it's more like they under specific instructions not to.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

White House: Taliban An "Armed Insurgency," Not A "Terrorist Group" Like ISILAt Wednesday's White House press briefing, deputy press secretary Eric Schultz wouldn't call the Taliban a terrorist group, instead referring to it as "an armed insurgency."

"The Taliban is still conducting terrorist attacks. You can't really say the war has ended as far as they are concerned," ABC's Jonathan Karl said at the briefing.

"Well, I'd also point out that the Taliban is an armed insurgency, ISIL is a terrorist group. So, we don't make concessions to terrorist groups," Schultz said.

"You don't think the Taliban is a terrorist group?" Karl asked.

"I don't think that the Taliban, um, uh -- the Taliban is an armed insurgency. This was the winding down of the war in Afghanistan and that's why this arrangement was dealt," Schultz responded.

JONATHAN KARL, ABC NEWS: You say the United States government does not give in to demands, does not pay ransom. But how is what the Jordanians are talking about doing any different than what the United States did to get the release of [bowe] Bergdahl -- releasing prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay to the Taliban, which is clearly a terrorist organization?
ERIC SCHULTZ, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY: As you know, this was highly discussed at the time and prisoner swaps are traditional end-of-conflict interaction that happens. As the war in Afghanistan wound down we thought it was the appropriate thing to do. The president's bedrock commitment as commander in chief is to leave no man or woman behind. That's the principle he was operating under.
KARL: Isn't that what the Jordanians are operating under?
SCHULTZ: Well, I think Jon --
KARL: I mean the Taliban is still conducting terrorist attacks. You can't really say the war has ended as far as they are concerned.
SCHULTZ: Well, I'd also point out that the Taliban is an armed insurgency, ISIL is a terrorist group. So, we don't make concessions to terrorist groups. We feel --
KARL: You don't think the Taliban is a terrorist group?
SCHULTZ: I don't think that the Taliban, um, uh -- the Taliban is an armed insurgency. This was the winding down of the war in Afghanistan and that's why this arrangement was dealt. Our view is, as the president said at the time, is as commander in chief when he sends men and women into armed combat he doesn't want to leave anyone behind.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...surgency_not_a_terrorist_group_like_isil.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/28/white_house_taliban_an_armed_insurgency_not_a_terrorist_group_like_isil.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...surgency_not_a_terrorist_group_like_isil.html

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Fox Host Confronts State Dept. Spox: Why Won’t WH Admit Radical Islam Is Biggest Threat?Kelly File guest host Martha MacCallum confronted State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf about why the White House won’t openly say that radical Islam specifically is a major threat to the world. Eric Holder was asked twice yesterday if the U.S. is at war with radical Islam; both times he didn’t bite.

Harf told MacCallum tonight that Islamic extremism is “not the only kind of extremism we face,” though when pressed to name other examples of troubling extremism, she simply said people all over the world want to kill each other for a “variety of causes.”

MacCallum repeatedly told Harf there is a “common thread” in terrorist attacks all over the world that the administration appears to have some reluctance admitting. Harf called that viewpoint “overly simplistic” and argued there are different groups all over the world the U.S. has to combat differently.

Watch the video below, via Fox News:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-host-confronts-state-dept-spot-why-wont-wh-admit-radical-islam-is-biggest-threat/

Todd, Stephanopoulos to Holder: Is U.S. ‘At War with Radical Islam’?French Prime Minister Manuel Valls delivered a speech yesterday in which he said, of the attacks at Charlie Hebdo and a Kosher grocery store, “It is a war against terrorism, against jihadism, against radical Islam.”

Attorney General Eric Holder made the Sunday show rounds today, and was asked by both Chuck Todd and George Stephanopoulos if the United States is “at war with radical Islam.”

Holder emphasized on both programs that the U.S. is at war with terrorists who “corrupt the Islamic faith” and use their warped version of the religion to “justify their actions.” He mentioned the upcoming summit the White House is holding to combat violent extremism in order to make sure no more young people are “attracted to this radical ideology.”

You can watch both clips below, via NBC and ABC:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/todd-stephanopoulos-to-holder-is-u-s-at-war-with-radical-islam/

***************

Does anyone understand what is going on here?The French - ie France, one of the most tolerant, liberal nations on Earth - recently had its prime minister Valls state that France is "at war with radical islam."

Obama himself has used Bush's own Congressional "War on Terror" authorization to bomb Libya, threaten bombings of Syria and to conduct ongoing drone strikes and military operations throughout the muslim world. Plainly the WOT continues.

Holder skips the unity march now. - Why is this so difficult for this administration to say or enunciate in some clear fashion? And actually I don't think it is so much difficult, I don't think we see WH and State Department spokesmen under so much strain and twisted wordings to avoid saying it because they can't see it, I think it's more like they under specific instructions not to.

At this point, they may as well have a 5 year old child as their spokesperson, standing there with their hands over their ears, eyes closed, screaming "La la la la la. I can't HEAR you!"

 

[Apple Jack]

Jfc some people will cling to anything to be bothered by.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Jfc some people will cling to anything to be bothered by.

This post bothers me.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Good point, it's an open question who is bothered by what.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Good point, it's an open question who is bothered by what.

 

[jonessed]

White House: Taliban An "Armed Insurgency," Not A "Terrorist Group" Like ISIL

At Wednesday's White House press briefing, deputy press secretary Eric Schultz wouldn't call the Taliban a terrorist group, instead referring to it as "an armed insurgency."

"The Taliban is still conducting terrorist attacks. You can't really say the war has ended as far as they are concerned," ABC's Jonathan Karl said at the briefing.

"Well, I'd also point out that the Taliban is an armed insurgency, ISIL is a terrorist group. So, we don't make concessions to terrorist groups," Schultz said.

"You don't think the Taliban is a terrorist group?" Karl asked.

"I don't think that the Taliban, um, uh -- the Taliban is an armed insurgency. This was the winding down of the war in Afghanistan and that's why this arrangement was dealt," Schultz responded.

JONATHAN KARL, ABC NEWS: You say the United States government does not give in to demands, does not pay ransom. But how is what the Jordanians are talking about doing any different than what the United States did to get the release of [bowe] Bergdahl -- releasing prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay to the Taliban, which is clearly a terrorist organization?

ERIC SCHULTZ, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY: As you know, this was highly discussed at the time and prisoner swaps are traditional end-of-conflict interaction that happens. As the war in Afghanistan wound down we thought it was the appropriate thing to do. The president's bedrock commitment as commander in chief is to leave no man or woman behind. That's the principle he was operating under.

KARL: Isn't that what the Jordanians are operating under?

SCHULTZ: Well, I think Jon --

KARL: I mean the Taliban is still conducting terrorist attacks. You can't really say the war has ended as far as they are concerned.

SCHULTZ: Well, I'd also point out that the Taliban is an armed insurgency, ISIL is a terrorist group. So, we don't make concessions to terrorist groups. We feel --

KARL: You don't think the Taliban is a terrorist group?

SCHULTZ: I don't think that the Taliban, um, uh -- the Taliban is an armed insurgency. This was the winding down of the war in Afghanistan and that's why this arrangement was dealt. Our view is, as the president said at the time, is as commander in chief when he sends men and women into armed combat he doesn't want to leave anyone behind.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/28/white_house_taliban_an_armed_insurgency_not_a_terrorist_group_like_isil.html

That's painful to read.

He definitely stuck to the talking though.

 

[jamny]

White House: Taliban An "Armed Insurgency," Not A "Terrorist Group" Like ISILAt Wednesday's White House press briefing, deputy press secretary Eric Schultz wouldn't call the Taliban a terrorist group, instead referring to it as "an armed insurgency."

"The Taliban is still conducting terrorist attacks. You can't really say the war has ended as far as they are concerned," ABC's Jonathan Karl said at the briefing.

"Well, I'd also point out that the Taliban is an armed insurgency, ISIL is a terrorist group. So, we don't make concessions to terrorist groups," Schultz said.

"You don't think the Taliban is a terrorist group?" Karl asked.

"I don't think that the Taliban, um, uh -- the Taliban is an armed insurgency. This was the winding down of the war in Afghanistan and that's why this arrangement was dealt," Schultz responded.

JONATHAN KARL, ABC NEWS: You say the United States government does not give in to demands, does not pay ransom. But how is what the Jordanians are talking about doing any different than what the United States did to get the release of [bowe] Bergdahl -- releasing prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay to the Taliban, which is clearly a terrorist organization?
ERIC SCHULTZ, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY: As you know, this was highly discussed at the time and prisoner swaps are traditional end-of-conflict interaction that happens. As the war in Afghanistan wound down we thought it was the appropriate thing to do. The president's bedrock commitment as commander in chief is to leave no man or woman behind. That's the principle he was operating under.
KARL: Isn't that what the Jordanians are operating under?
SCHULTZ: Well, I think Jon --
KARL: I mean the Taliban is still conducting terrorist attacks. You can't really say the war has ended as far as they are concerned.
SCHULTZ: Well, I'd also point out that the Taliban is an armed insurgency, ISIL is a terrorist group. So, we don't make concessions to terrorist groups. We feel --
KARL: You don't think the Taliban is a terrorist group?
SCHULTZ: I don't think that the Taliban, um, uh -- the Taliban is an armed insurgency. This was the winding down of the war in Afghanistan and that's why this arrangement was dealt. Our view is, as the president said at the time, is as commander in chief when he sends men and women into armed combat he doesn't want to leave anyone behind.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...surgency_not_a_terrorist_group_like_isil.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/28/white_house_taliban_an_armed_insurgency_not_a_terrorist_group_like_isil.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...surgency_not_a_terrorist_group_like_isil.html

Most on the left would rather keep the focus on what Sarah Palin says.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Taliban Besiege Pakistan School, Leaving 145 DeadLONDON — First the Pakistani Taliban bombed or burned over 1,000 schools. Then they shot Malala Yousafzai, the teenage advocate for girls’ rights.

But on Tuesday, the Taliban took their war on education to a ruthless new low with an assault on a crowded school in Peshawar that killed 145 people — 132 of them uniformed schoolchildren — in the deadliest single attack in the group’s history.

During an eight-hour rampage at the Army Public School and Degree College, a team of nine Taliban gunmen stormed through the corridors and assembly hall, firing at random and throwing grenades. Some of the 1,100 students at the school were lined up and slaughtered with shots to the head. Others were gunned down as they cowered under their desks, or forced to watch as their teachers were riddled with bullets.

Their parents crowded around the school gates, praying their children would survive while listening to the explosions and gunfire as Pakistani commandos stormed the building.

With its chilling echoes of a school in Beslan, Russia, where 186 children were massacred in 2004, the terrorist attack in Peshawar traumatized a scarred city that has suffered intense Taliban violence since the insurgency erupted seven years ago. By evening, mosques were filled with mourners carrying small wooden coffins, and residents cried openly in the streets.

A Taliban spokesman said the attack had been retaliation for the continuing military operation against the group in the North Waziristan tribal region. But the image of children’s bodies on the floor of their school auditorium, some of them not yet in their teens, again demonstrated how the Pakistani Taliban’s war has often been taken out on the country’s most vulnerable citizens.

A wave of outrage crossed national boundaries, with statements of support and sympathy coming from around the world.

Even other militant groups felt obliged to comment, though perhaps cynically. A spokesman for the Afghan Taliban, who have pushed civilian casualties in Afghanistan to a new high in the past year, posted a Twitter message criticizing the attack as un-Islamic and expressing shared pain with the victims’ families.

Witnesses in Peshawar said the assault started around 10 a.m., when nine heavily armed militants, disguised in paramilitary uniforms, slipped through a military graveyard and leapt over the back wall of the Army Public School. They rushed through the main building, shooting and flinging grenades before reaching the auditorium. There, according to one Pakistani official, a senior army official was giving a first aid course.

First they sprayed the students with bullets; then they singled out the survivors. “Our instructor asked us to duck and lie down,” a student named Zeeshan said in an interview at the hospital. “Then I saw militants walking past rows of students, shooting them in the head.”

Continue reading the main story

Elsewhere in the school, teachers, realizing what was going on, abruptly canceled classes and exams and tried to protect their charges, who ranged in age from roughly 5 to 17. A 7-year-old named Afaq broke down as he described how the militants sprayed bullets as they rushed into his classroom. “They killed our teacher,” he said, his eyes welling with tears.

Continue reading the main story
Although early assessments suggested that the gunmen had been intent on mounting a long siege — some were carrying stores of food, it was later discovered — a senior security official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, insisted that they had shown no intention of taking hostages. “They were there to kill, and this is what they did,” he said.

The school turned into a battleground when commandos from the army’s elite Special Services Group moved in. As the battle for control spread across the school, cornered militants detonated their suicide vests, causing loud blasts that rang across the city. Some attackers appeared to be speaking in Arabic, others in Pashto, survivors later reported.

Some students managed to flee, running from the school in their uniforms of green sweaters and blazers. Desperate relatives rushed to local hospitals or gathered outside the school gates, seeking news of their children.

One man, Muhammad Arshad, sighed with relief after soldiers rescued his son Ehsan. “I am thankful to God for giving him a second life,” he said.

Others never made it. Later in the evening, parents clustered around a list of the dead posted outside Lady Reading Hospital.

As the fighting raged, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif reached Peshawar, where he called an emergency meeting of all political parties for Wednesday. “This is a time for us to show unanimity to root out militancy,” said Ishaq Dar, the federal finance minister.

The siege capped a particularly turbulent year in Pakistan. The polio virus has spread from the tribal belt into the most populous city, Karachi, aided by militant attacks on health workers giving vaccines. Political feuding has brought the government, and at times the country’s major cities, to a standstill.

Experts say the North Waziristan offensive of the past summer has scattered militants and loosened their grip on part of the tribal belt. But even that success has come with caveats. The fighting sent more than a million civilians fleeing in a country already awash with internally displaced people. And many militant cells are reported to have merely moved to neighboring districts, or on the other side of the border with Afghanistan.

It offered some relief to citizens that the Pakistani Taliban had, for the most part, failed to deliver the revenge they had threatened when the military offensive began in June. Now, after Tuesday’s school massacre, even that hope has disappeared.

Muhammad Khurasani, the Taliban spokesman, said the militants had targeted the Army Public School because it caters to the sons and daughters of serving army personnel, although some civilian pupils also attend.

“Our shura decided to target these enemies of Islam right in their homes so they can feel the pain of losing their children,” Mr. Khurasani said in a phone interview.

Militancy experts said the attack showed that, despite several major schisms this year, the Taliban remain a force to be reckoned with.

“They want to undermine the Pakistani military’s plan by going after the middle class and their resolve,” said Vali Nasr, dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and a former Obama administration official. “They want to tell the public that the Taliban can hit them, and hit them hard, and that the military can’t do anything about it.”

Continue reading the main story
Globally, the attack generated a wave of opprobrium outstripping even the one that followed the attack by a Taliban gunman on Ms. Yousafzai in October 2012. She survived and last week became the youngest-ever recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/world/asia/taliban-attack-pakistani-school.html?_r=0

NOT "Terrorists".