US Soldier spends 3rd Christmas as Taliban Prisoner

[Fern]

Very strange that US conservatives had no problem with Bush negotiating with terrorists in Iraq but suddenly have a problem with Obama negotiating with the Taliban here. Actually no, it's not shocking at all.
-snip-

To pretend that the fuss is merely partisan is BS.

There are 3 issues here:

1. Negotiating with terrorists on hostages. It's long been our policy that we don't do that. There are varying levels of agreement/disagreement. Some argue that it shouldn't be done at all. Others require that if done it must not be done publicly. Obama publicly overturned this. Disagreement is not unreasonable nor should it be unexpected.

2. Law to inform Congress. Obama did not comply. It is not unreasonable that some object.

3. The price paid was awfully high. So far I've seen nothing that refutes that these 5 were exceptionally high ranking terrorists and very dangerous. It is not unreasonable that some object to paying this price.

I have purposefully left out anything related to Bergdahl (sp?). If, however, it turns out that he purposefully sought out the Taliban and aided them he shouldn't have been recovered. He should have been 'droned' as Obama has done to other US citizens who were assisting terrorists.

Fern

 

[Oldgamer]

To pretend that the fuss is merely partisan is BS.

There are 3 issues here:

1. Negotiating with terrorists on hostages. It's long been our policy that we don't do that. There are varying levels of agreement/disagreement. Some argue that it shouldn't be done at all. Others require that if done it must not be done publicly. Obama publicly overturned this. Disagreement is not unreasonable nor should it be unexpected.

2. Law to inform Congress. Obama did not comply. It is not unreasonable that some object.

3. The price paid was awfully high. So far I've seen nothing that refutes that these 5 were exceptionally high ranking terrorists and very dangerous. It is not unreasonable that some object to paying this price.

I have purposefully left out anything related to Bergdahl (sp?). If, however, it turns out that he purposefully sought out the Taliban and aided them he shouldn't have been recovered. He should have been 'droned' as Obama has done to other US citizens who were assisting terrorists.

Fern

Wrong on all accounts, the GOP is trying to make a scandal out of every friggin thing. So now that Benghazi has died down they are using the POW as an excuse to create a scandal. They didn't get a 30 day notice, big fucking deal. It is not an impeachable offense, nor is what POTUS did illegal.

 

[Oldgamer]

Under Bush 600 Gitmo terrorist detainees were released, and we got nothing for it, at least we got our soldier back. In addition one of the released detainees under Bush is suspected for a terroristic attack.

What POTUS did was the right thing, and we got our POW back, and I for one am proud that he did this.

I don't give a shit if the father said he was thanking Allah, it isn't an indication that he is a terrorist, if that was the case every American Muslim would be considered a Terrorist. I believe the father does this to ease his sons transition, but whatever his reasons are it doesn't make him some sympathizer or possible terrorist. When we start thinking like this then we start heading down the path of another "McCarthy" like conduct. All of which is totally Un American.

 

[fskimospy]

To pretend that the fuss is merely partisan is BS.

There are 3 issues here:

1. Negotiating with terrorists on hostages. It's long been our policy that we don't do that. There are varying levels of agreement/disagreement. Some argue that it shouldn't be done at all. Others require that if done it must not be done publicly. Obama publicly overturned this. Disagreement is not unreasonable nor should it be unexpected.

2. Law to inform Congress. Obama did not comply. It is not unreasonable that some object.

3. The price paid was awfully high. So far I've seen nothing that refutes that these 5 were exceptionally high ranking terrorists and very dangerous. It is not unreasonable that some object to paying this price.

I have purposefully left out anything related to Bergdahl (sp?). If, however, it turns out that he purposefully sought out the Taliban and aided them he shouldn't have been recovered. He should have been 'droned' as Obama has done to other US citizens who were assisting terrorists.

Fern

The idea that this guy was a hostage taken by terrorists is frankly absurd. He was a soldier in a war zone that was captured by the enemy. The reason you don't negotiate with terrorists over hostages is that it encourages more of the same behavior. Considering that in a war you are already trying as hard as you can to capture enemy soldiers, the idea that tibia would have that result is absurd and everyone knows it.

If you think this isn't partisan then you're awfully naive. Do we really need to break out the list of people who suddenly went from calling for this guy to be saved by any means necessary to calling him a traitor and a terrorist? Nobody is so gullible as to believe that they all just suddenly had a change of heart.

 

[Oldgamer]

Basically the GOP is saying that one of our own American Soldiers is worth less than 5 detainees that is the ultimate insult and the most disgusting thing I have ever witnessed here in our country. There are many Muslims who are in our military who serve this country that say "praise allah" and other things, and it doesn't make them terrorist sympathizers.

 

[Oldgamer]

The idea that this guy was a hostage taken by terrorists is frankly absurd. He was a soldier in a war zone that was captured by the enemy. The reason you don't negotiate with terrorists over hostages is that it encourages more of the same behavior. Considering that in a war you are already trying as hard as you can to capture enemy soldiers, the idea that tibia would have that result is absurd and everyone knows it.

If you think this isn't partisan then you're awfully naive. Do we really need to break out the list of people who suddenly went from calling for this guy to be saved by any means necessary to calling him a traitor and a terrorist? Nobody is so gullible as to believe that they all just suddenly had a change of heart.

Agreed....

 

[row]

The Taliban was already doing everything they could to kidnap US servicemen.

your source for such a lame ass statement, carnac the magnificent? or maybe sigmund_freud and shemp howard's love child, moonbeam?

the taliban had no incentive to kidnap. that's why there was only one fucking American hostage is the whole country you stupid shit. they had incentive to kill. but now thanks to your dumb shit for brains leader, that has all changed.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is retarded.

lol

 

[Fern]

Basically the GOP is saying that one of our own American Soldiers is worth less than 5 detainees that is the ultimate insult and the most disgusting thing I have ever witnessed here in our country. There are many Muslims who are in our military who serve this country that say "praise allah" and other things, and it doesn't make them terrorist sympathizers.

How G@d damn many of our soldiers have been killed trying to kill or capture even one such high ranking terrorist? And we let the terrorists go? Unbelievable.

So Obama turns out these 5 highly dangerous terrorists and now how many American etc lives will we lose because of it? Or do you think they are all going to retire and take up sheep herding or something?

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

your source for such a lame ass statement, carnac the magnificent? or maybe sigmund_freud and shemp howard's love child, moonbeam?

the taliban had no incentive to kidnap. that's why there was only one fucking American hostage is the whole country you stupid shit. they had incentive to kill. but now thanks to your dumb shit for brains leader, that has all changed.

lol

You think the Taliban had no incentive to capture US soldiers? Considering the history of what happens with US captives I can't possibly imagine what have you that idea. They are incredibly valuable.

Can you provide a source for such a breathtakingly inane statement? Better yet, provide a single solitary military source that says the Taliban had no incentive to capture our troops before.

Seriously, use your brain. It is always funny when someone says a bunch of stupid and ignorant things and then calls someone else shit for brains.

 

[fskimospy]

How G@d damn many of our soldiers have been killed trying to kill or capture even one such high ranking terrorist? And we let the terrorists go? Unbelievable.

So Obama turns out these 5 highly dangerous terrorists and now how many American etc lives will we lose because of it? Or do you think they are all going to retire and take up sheep herding or something?

Fern

So presumably you were also outraged when Bush gave lots of money and other aid to terrorist groups in anbar province in Iraq. It is basically certain that some of that came back and was used to kill US troops.

I did a quick search for your outraged posts about that but I couldn't find any.

 

[spidey07]

The idea that this guy was a hostage taken by terrorists is frankly absurd. He was a soldier in a war zone that was captured by the enemy. The reason you don't negotiate with terrorists over hostages is that it encourages more of the same behavior. Considering that in a war you are already trying as hard as you can to capture enemy soldiers, the idea that tibia would have that result is absurd and everyone knows it.

If you think this isn't partisan then you're awfully naive. Do we really need to break out the list of people who suddenly went from calling for this guy to be saved by any means necessary to calling him a traitor and a terrorist? Nobody is so gullible as to believe that they all just suddenly had a change of heart.

This high treason of Obama has wide spread bipartisian support. It's got serious legs and hopefully we can impeach him if not forcefully remove him from office. He has flatly committed treason.

What's even worse is obama KNEW about all this and yet still did it against the advice of the majority of his advisers telling him not to. His heart is with the muslim terrorists which is why he let his brothers go to cause more harm.

 

[fskimospy]

This high treason of Obama has wide spread bipartisian support. It's got serious legs and hopefully we can impeach him if not forcefully remove him from office. He has flatly committed treason.

What's even worse is obama KNEW about all this and yet still did it against the advice of the majority of his advisers telling him not to. His heart is with the muslim terrorists which is why he let his brothers go to cause more harm.

Lol. Life must be an unending series of frustrations for you.

 

[Fern]

You think the Taliban had no incentive to capture US soldiers? Considering the history of what happens with US captives I can't possibly imagine what have you that idea. They are incredibly valuable.

Can you provide a source for such a breathtakingly inane statement? Better yet, provide a single solitary military source that says the Taliban had no incentive to capture our troops before.

Seriously, use your brain. It is always funny when someone says a bunch of stupid and ignorant things and then calls someone else shit for brains.

Can you point to any evidence that indicates they've always placed a high priority on capturing Americans?

What would be the point? Until now there were no trades. Having a captive definitely meant our special and other forces would make your group a high priority to track down and kill. Hardly seems attractive to me.

Otherwise, their M.O. seems to be beheading those they capture.

Personally I find it hard to believe in the many years of conflict there were no opportunities to capture US soldiers. In fact, I find it impossible to believe. I think they just killed those who fell into their possession.

Fern

 

[spidey07]

They normally kill american soldiers they manage to capture very quickly. That he was with them for 5 years and evidence shows he actively saught the taliban out means he was actively working with them. Obama knew this, try that fucker.

 

[Fern]

So presumably you were also outraged when Bush gave lots of money and other aid to terrorist groups in anbar province in Iraq. It is basically certain that some of that came back and was used to kill US troops.

I did a quick search for your outraged posts about that but I couldn't find any.

I've got over 20,000 posts. A "quick search" isn't going to work. I know, I can't even find my own posts.

Otherwise, I must be getting too old to remember that far back. Your 'Bush giving aid to terrorists in Anbar" doesn't ring a bell. I got nothing.

Fern

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Well it looks like this guy had a history of deserting:

A classified military report detailing the Army’s investigation into the disappearance of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in June 2009 says that he had wandered away from assigned areas before — both at a training range in California and at his remote outpost in Afghanistan — and then returned, according to people briefed on it.

The roughly 35-page report, completed two months after Sergeant Bergdahl left his unit, concludes that he most likely walked away of his own free will from his outpost in the darkness of night, and it criticized lax security practices and poor discipline within his unit. But it stops short of concluding that there is solid evidence that Sergeant Bergdahl intended to permanently desert.

 

[fskimospy]

Can you point to any evidence that indicates they've always placed a high priority on capturing Americans?

What would be the point? Until now there were no trades. Having a captive definitely meant our special and other forces would make your group a high priority to track down and kill. Hardly seems attractive to me.

Otherwise, their M.O. seems to be beheading those they capture.

Personally I find it hard to believe in the many years of conflict there were no opportunities to capture US soldiers. In fact, I find it impossible to believe. I think they just killed those who fell into their possession.

Fern

Well they repeatedly made claims to have captured US service members in the past, and of course in fact captured this guy in this case. It's very odd to make claims about these things and then actually perform something that you think has no value.

The value of a captured US soldier should be obvious to everyone. You can get information from him. You can make propaganda videos with him. You can cause the US to expend enormous resources trying to get them back. If you want to kill him you can do it on tape and distribute it, etc. etc.

Israel traded more than 1,000 prisoners for a single soldier, yet no other Israeli soldier has been captured since. Does this indicate that people no longer wish to capture Israeli soldiers? I'm unaware of a single credible military source that says the Taliban had no interest in capturing US troops before this.

 

[fskimospy]

I've got over 20,000 posts. A "quick search" isn't going to work. I know, I can't even find my own posts.

Otherwise, I must be getting too old to remember that far back. Your 'Bush giving aid to terrorists in Anbar" doesn't ring a bell. I got nothing.

Fern

The awakening councils in Anbar province that were heavily credited with reducing the violence there were also groups that had been insurgent groups before. The US military provided extensive funding for these groups along with all kinds of other support.

By any means that this qualifies as negotiating with terrorists the situation in anbar would apply too.

 

[row]

You think the Taliban had no incentive to capture US soldiers? Considering the history of what happens with US captives

13 year war

2122 American deaths

1 pow

you appear to be semi-lucid, figure it out professor.

I can't possibly imagine what have you that idea. They are incredibly valuable. Can you provide a source for such a breathtakingly inane statement? Better yet, provide a single solitary military source that says the Taliban had no incentive to capture our troops before.

well the above for one thing. now other than your ability to mind read across continents, let's see your source confirming the above.

uh. what? you. can't. well shave my sister's back and call me a regressive. of course you can't cause it doesn't exist. well except in your pea brain.

Seriously, use your brain. It is always funny when someone says a bunch of stupid and ignorant things and then calls someone else shit for brains.

whatever.

 

[spidey07]

He wasn't captured, he went looking for the terrorists to join up and wage his jihad against America.

Obama knew this. That makes his actions treason. He released 5 highly dangerous terrorists to continue their war against he US and in return he got another jihidi to bring back to American soil. He knew this, that makes it treason.

 

[Matt1970]

Well? Where is the impeachment?! If what he did was so illegal why are there not Republicans bringing the motion to impeach forward in Congress yesterday?

btw, what in the world is the "liberal DU"?

Like just mentioned it would be nearly impossible. Plus, if we impeach Obama we get President Biden. I just threw up a little in my mouth.

 

[Fern]

The awakening councils in Anbar province that were heavily credited with reducing the violence there were also groups that had been insurgent groups before. The US military provided extensive funding for these groups along with all kinds of other support.

By any means that this qualifies as negotiating with terrorists the situation in anbar would apply too.

Thanks. I looked it up.

Looks to me like they were mercenaries paid by the US military to fight AQ. I don't see any similarity.

As long as didn't overpay them, or pay those who didn't actually fight against AQ I've got no problem with it. Now, I would hope we didn't supply them with any heavy weaponry.

BTW: Seems odd to me that these councils were Sunni since AQ is also Sunni.

Fern

 

[waggy]

Like just mentioned it would be nearly impossible. Plus, if we impeach Obama we get President Biden. I just threw up a little in my mouth.

lol

 

[fskimospy]

13 year war

2122 American deaths

1 pow

you appear to be semi-lucid, figure it out professor.

well the above for one thing. now other than your ability to mind read across continents, let's see your source confirming the above.

uh. what? you. can't. well shave my sister's back and call me a regressive. of course you can't cause it doesn't exist. well except in your pea brain.

whatever.

Interesting to see that you think a failure to capture us soldiers indicates a lack of desire to capture us soldiers.

By that logic when we rolled over Iraq and their armed forces inflicted almost no casualties in 1991 I guess that means they didn't want to.

So again, can you cite any source that backs up your claim?

 

[fskimospy]

Thanks. I looked it up.

Looks to me like they were mercenaries paid by the US military to fight AQ. I don't see any similarity.

As long as didn't overpay them, or pay those who didn't actually fight against AQ I've got no problem with it. Now, I would hope we didn't supply them with any heavy weaponry.

BTW: Seems odd to me that these councils were Sunni since AQ is also Sunni.

Fern

They were former insurgents, or as we called them, "terrorists". We didn't just negotiate with these terrorists, we hired them.

I don't see a problem with it either, but then again I'm not the one that says we can't negotiate with terrorists.