Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department repeatedly declined to fully go after the terror group responsible for kidnapping hundreds of girls.

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 #BringOurGirlsBack, was cited across the media and widely credited for raising awareness of their plight.


I would certainly consider any group that would kidnap girls out of their school and threaten to sell them into slavery as a terrorist group.

But I would really like to see this group roundly condemned by every Islamic leader in the world.

But according to Harry Reid, the Tea Party are a group of terrorists, so get Boko Haram to join the Tea Party, then the Dems will go after him. Problem solved.

If a group is labeled as “terrorist group”, is there greater obligation, legally or otherwise, for the United States to get involved?

Not holding your breath, are you? :rolleyes:

What about Kerry’s State Department? Have they made any kind of a ruling?

Edit: NM, I went back and read the article. Kerry added BH to the list last November,

The world waits for any Islamic bloc, or school or “leader” to even verbally disavow such criminal violence. It seems that Islam is an unshakable monolith when under scrutiny, but post-terrorism, reverts to a purely subsidiary organization whose individual leaders answer to no one.

That is exactly correct. Islam, while not divided into nearly as many sects as Protestant (or, if you prefer, non-Catholic+Orthodox) Christianity, has no central authority, like Catholicism’s Bishop of Rome and Heir of St. Peter. Even so, there are many respected imams throughout the Islamic world, whose word carries a lot of weight. What are we hearing from them on the subject of Boko Haram?


Apparently the Sultan of Sokoto doesn’t count in your book as an Islamic leader speaking out against Boko Haram. I mean it’s not like he labeled them as anti-Islamic and its not like he is considered to be the spiritual leader of Muslims in Nigeria. Oh wait he did and he is. Maybe the cricket noise is due to a white noise machine being set so high as not to be able to here Muslim leaders when they do speak out?:shrug:

If he is speaking out, good on him. But it’s not like his comments are making the news outlets over here. What’s the word from, for example, the Grand Muftis of Egypt, or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia?

Well, that solves the problem then!

If Boko Haram does not represent the teachings of Islam in action, then each and every Islamic leader on earth should speak out, should they not?

White noise or white wash?

Yeah, whatever happened to the “war on terror”? They are clearly terrorists.

I did hear though on my local Catholic radio station this morning that the FBI was going to be aiding the Nigerian people in intelligence gathering. At least that’s something, but wow, it seems like there is more we could be doing.

-Given that Boko Haram has a history of murdering Imams and Muslim community leaders who speak out against them or criticize them I seriously doubt any Muslim leader in that region is engaging in any form of “white wash.”
-“If Boko Haram does not represent the teachings of Islam in action, then each and every Islamic leader on earth should speak out, should they not?” This is the same standard we apply to other faiths? So if I find a particular Christian leader who hasn’t spoken out against the Lord’s Resistance Army, for example, I can conclude that it’s all just “white wash” and that the LRA does actually represent Christian teachings?

Obligation to get involved- I don’t know; but being listed as a terrorist group opens up a lot more options in regards to what our law enforcement agencies, State Department, etc can do.


  1. Hillary Clinton is useless.

  2. Boko Haram is truly awful and should be compromised to a permanent end.

  3. Anyone else question Obama and the outrage to go and rescue these kids, when who knows how many times American civilians and soldiers were captured by Islamic militants and beheaded and there was not even a flinch on Obama’s part.

  4. Notice that no Islamic groups have stepped up and condemned this group…

Hasn’t the US been supporting the terrorist groups in Syria for a while now, against Russia which has opposed them?

The US has been supporting the rebels in Syria, some of which are terrorist groups. Russia isn’t opposing the rebels in Syria or supporting the Assad regime, its protecting its own interests in Syria. I’m quite sure if Russia could somehow get the Syrian rebels to call for the annexation of Syria into Russia it would quickly decided that Assad has to go.

The OIC condemned Boko Haram.

Apparently you didn’t bother to review the google results from the link in post 14.

I am quite sure that you are wrong. The Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill is a strong supporter of the Orthodox Christians in Syria, and not the Islamic rebels.
You have not given any reason to believe your unsupported claim that Russia does not support the Assad regime.
Here are some articles indicating that your claim is not true.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.