Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Geezil

Bowe Bergdahl, traitor or patsy?

Recommended Posts

Looking more and more like good ole barry freed 6 muslim rats ......

 

walks like a duck words

 

 

 

 

oh and yup, we were right all along :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worms tried to justify this trade by calling him a POW. He has never been classified as POW, so it would seem that Worms is the one playing word games, Sport.

Did you even bother reading his post above yours? You're the one insisting on turning it into wordplay. The guy just got dome admitting that he doesn't know if he was technically a POW. :doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you even bother reading his post above yours? You're the one insisting on turning it into wordplay. The guy just got dome admitting that he doesn't know if he was technically a POW. :doh:

 

He called him a POW in the same post, Sport.

 

You aren't very bright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if these guys will ever be an imminent threat.

the dad ? The kid? Or barry ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if they were going to use this trade to test as a way to clear gitmo, couldn't they have done a little background work on some of our pow's and picked one that wasn't an enemy sympathizer. they had reports of the desertion. wouldn't there be someone in the cabinet that could've said "hey, let's not pick him to be the guinea pig because we're gonna look like a bunch of muslim sympathizers if we choose this guy." seems like they didn't think this through very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if they were going to use this trade to test as a way to clear gitmo, couldn't they have done a little background work on some of our pow's and picked one that wasn't an enemy sympathizer. t

Bergdahl is the only prisoner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if they were going to use this trade to test as a way to clear gitmo, couldn't they have done a little background work on some of our pow's and picked one that wasn't an enemy sympathizer. they had reports of the desertion. wouldn't there be someone in the cabinet that could've said "hey, let's not pick him to be the guinea pig because we're gonna look like a bunch of muslim sympathizers if we choose this guy." seems like they didn't think this through very well.

He was the only one. Turns out the only way al qaeda could grab one of our guys was for him to walk right to them. Hmmmmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy fock the hacks are busy on this one today.

Yes, yes you are.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President Obama's claim Tuesday that the U.S. would "be keeping eyes" on five hardened Taliban leaders traded for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's freedom was immediately challenged by a Middle East official quoted as saying they'd actually be allowed to move freely -- and even "go back to Afghanistan if they want to."

 

The source, identified as a senior Gulf official, reportedly told Reuters that the five Taliban members would not be treated like prisoners while staying in Qatar, where they were released. Rather, they'd be allowed to "move around freely" in the country and then be allowed to travel outside Qatar after one year.

 

The official, seemingly contrary to Obama's claims, also said U.S. officials would not be involved in monitoring their movements.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/03/traded-taliban-leaders-free-to-roam-in-middle-east-claim-undercuts-obama/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Googie in full semantics mode. My favorite time in all threads. :clap:

But he's not RP, dammit! :nono:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are five million guys over there just like the ones that got released.

 

I'm not sure the imminent threat meter even blipped.

 

There's a lot more to this story yet to come out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We gave up 5 Islamic Terrorists who hate America for one American Deserter who dislikes America.

- Dysfunctional America

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We gave up 5 Islamic Terrorists who hate America for one American Deserter who dislikes America.

- Dysfunctional America

You forgot about the future first rounder though. It is top 5 protected so we have to hope the Taliban wins a few games this year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, which scandal will Fox News and its lemmings tie their horses to? This or benghazi? it can't be both. Neither will gain enough steam. having two going at once will water them both down. there's only so much fake outrage to go around. They need to have a meeting and rally around each other and decide on one. Any guesses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, yes you are.

 

You have tried this twice and failed.

Or perhaps you can post something that refutes anything I said.

One hack tried and was destroyed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President Obama's claim Tuesday that the U.S. would "be keeping eyes" on five hardened Taliban leaders traded for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's freedom was immediately challenged by a Middle East official quoted as saying they'd actually be allowed to move freely -- and even "go back to Afghanistan if they want to."

 

The source, identified as a senior Gulf official, reportedly told Reuters that the five Taliban members would not be treated like prisoners while staying in Qatar, where they were released. Rather, they'd be allowed to "move around freely" in the country and then be allowed to travel outside Qatar after one year.

 

The official, seemingly contrary to Obama's claims, also said U.S. officials would not be involved in monitoring their movements.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/03/traded-taliban-leaders-free-to-roam-in-middle-east-claim-undercuts-obama/

 

Nobody every said otherwise on the one year thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sending them to Qatar under security is "getting them back".

Why do some keep glossing over that fact...these guys are not just free to walk and go anywhere at this point.

:clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:clap:

 

So they can walk right on over to Iraq or Afghanistan right now?

Yeah, I had time to beat you down one more time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So they can walk right on over to Iraq or Afghanistan right now?

Yeah, I had time to beat you down one more time.

Um, despite what Obama said about them being supervised, they are not. They are free to move around Qatar at will.

 

Surely even you aren't dumb enough to believe the Qatar boarders are sealed up so tight they can't get across them, right? Please tell us you aren't that dumb. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, despite what Obama said about them being supervised, they are not. They are free to move around Qatar at will.

 

Surely even you aren't dumb enough to believe the Qatar boarders are sealed up so tight they can't get across them, right? Please tell us you aren't that dumb. :(

 

So basically...you didn't actually refute what I said at all.

Because they can't just leave the country at this point.

Plus you pretty much ignore the quote I had about the possibility of these guys going "missing".

But hey...some unnamed guy said they are not supervised at all and you saw a video...so have at it.

 

I already know you are this dumb.

You probably should have just left the thread in shame after the last beat down...but we all know you love to keep coming back for more and even think you are "winning".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So basically...you didn't actually refute what I said at all.

Because they can't just leave the country at this point.

Plus you pretty much ignore the quote I had about the possibility of these guys going "missing".

But hey...some unnamed guy said they are not supervised at all and you saw a video...so have at it.

 

I already know you are this dumb.

You probably should have just left the thread in shame after the last beat down...but we all know you love to keep coming back for more and even think you are "winning".

We have several reports since they got to Qatar about them free to move about the country. Even the leaders of that sh!thole say they can. We have video of them driving around in SUVs unsupervised.

 

You have Obama saying they will be supervised.

 

Hmmmmm..........reality or something Obama claims. I think I will go with reality, Sport. I will let you continue to swing from his nutsack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have several reports since they got to Qatar about them free to move about the country. Even the leaders of that sh!thole say they can. We have video of them driving around in SUVs unsupervised.

 

You have Obama saying they will be supervised.

 

Hmmmmm..........reality or something Obama claims. I think I will go with reality, Sport. I will let you continue to swing from his nutsack.

 

I have never claimed they could not move about Qatar. Nor did I say a word about "supervised" in an SUV.

 

How is continually proving you to be talking out your ass swinging from Obama's nutsack.

I have not even quoted Obama...or said a word about him...or even praised this move by him.

In fact, I have talked about it with caution other than factually disagreeing with those who just claim these guys were "released" as it makes it sound like they are free to go wherever they want. Which, is not actually the case.

 

Reality is...you hate all of this because Obama is president and everyone here knows it.

You would probably be the first to almost celebrate if one of these focks does something so that you could whine more about Obama over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the investigation over already? Has he been declared a deserter? Have they found him guilty of being a traitor also? I think I'll wait till the investigation is over before I condemn a US soldier, who was out fighting a war, out risking his life, who volunteered to do so, who might have made a simple mistake. Who might have had ill affects from combat...mentally. As stated earlier, leaving base is not a crime unless he was forbidden to do so, or he was on duty or watch. People so quick to condemn off others opinions and not facts. Guilty till proven otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the investigation over already? Has he been declared a deserter? Have they found him guilty of being a traitor also? I think I'll wait till the investigation is over before I condemn a US soldier, who was out fighting a war, out risking his life, who volunteered to do so, who might have made a simple mistake. Who might have had ill affects from combat...mentally. As stated earlier, leaving base is not a crime unless he was forbidden to do so, or he was on duty or watch. People so quick to condemn off others opinions and not facts. Guilty till proven otherwise.

 

I think we have an ok image of a soldier who looks like he walked away because he was tired of violence from all sides of it from the bit I have read about him and his leaving.

 

Traitor? I don't t know and that remains to be seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

..their 5 are under security restrictions in Qatar.

 

 

 

 

Sending them to Qatar under security is "getting them back".

 

 

 

 

Nearly every normal article that is not out to just whine about Obama will tell you they are under security restrictions.

 

I think someone is keeping tabs on them based on the little bit of details of the "release" to Qatar that we have.

 

 

I have never claimed they could not move about Qatar. Nor did I say a word about "supervised" in an SUV.

 

 

:clap:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think we have an ok image of a soldier who looks like he walked away because he was tired of violence from all sides of it from the bit I have read about him and his leaving.

 

Traitor? I don't t know and that remains to be seen.

And that might be the case. My only point was people shouldn't be so quick to judge until all the facts are out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that might be the case. My only point was people shouldn't be so quick to judge until all the facts are out.

As a PFC in that MOS he wouldn't have access to much. I wouldn't call him a traitor, sounds like a kid who thought he was above the real world ugliness of a war. Thought he was that bear grylls guy, got in over his head.

 

For him an his family's sake, glad he's back home and safe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

:clap:

 

Why parse the first quote where you leave off "Now, what those restrictions really are...or how confident anyone is in them not going "missing" is another story."

Again...not being able to leave the country is a restriction.

Not one quote in what you posted says they cannot move about in Qatar.

 

Once again you are a giant failure...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm certainly not nearly as smart as you boys but I'm thinking we just might just have been a bit worried about the opposition getting a hold of this Bergdahl guy and all that he knew. We just might have kept our enemies from gaining a lot of information that could have hurt us. If so, we'll never hear anymore about it. If not, the Foxnewshounds will be talking about it through the elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There's little that's actually new here," said Mitchell Reiss, who worked in the State Department under President George W. Bush and served as national security adviser to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. "It may be new to certain individuals. Whether it's new or not is not as important as whether it's sound policy and promotes national security. That's the ground where there's a more legitimate debate."

 

In his book, Negotiating with Evil, Reiss wrote that America actually has a detailed history of negotiating with terrorists and rogue regimes that support terrorist activity.

 

[...]

 

· After the North Koreans captured the U.S.S. Pueblo in 1968, President Lyndon Johnson apologized for spying as part of negotiations to secure the release of 83 American prisoners.

 

· In 1970, President Richard Nixon pressured Israel, Switzerland, West Germany and Britain to release Palestinian prisoners after two airlines were hijacked by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

 

· During the Iran hostage crisis of 1979 to 1981, President Jimmy Carter agreed to unfreeze $8 billion in frozen Iranian assets after more than a year of negotiations with the Iranian revolutionaries.

 

· In perhaps the most famous swap, after seven Americans were captured in Beirut, Lebanon, President Ronald Reagan agreed to send missiles to Iran in what became known as the Iran-Contra scandal.

 

· President Bill Clinton's administration sat down with Hamas in attempts to negotiate peace with Israel. His administration also worked directly with the Taliban nearly two decades ago on several occasions to see if the group would hand over Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders.

 

Reiss also noted that President George W. Bush engaged in negotiations with Iran and North Korea even after decreeing them part of the "Axis of Evil." [PolitiFact, 6/1/14]

 

 

"The Pentagon is making the argument that American soldiers would become targets for kidnapping," says a senior administration official. "We pushed back on that. They already are - the Taliban and Al Qaeda have been using their resources to kidnap Americans for years." Prisoner exchanges take place at the ground level all the time in Afghani­stan, and Gen. David Petraeus, now the head of the CIA, has pointed out in discussions about Bowe that U.S. forces made distasteful swaps in Iraq - including one involving Qais Khazali, a Shiite extremist who orchestrated the kidnapping and execution of four U.S. soldiers in Karbala in 2007. Even a hard-line Israeli nationalist like Benjamin Netanyahu has recognized the value of a single soldier: In October, the prime minister agreed to free 1,027 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the release of Gilad Shalit, an Israeli corporal who had been held captive by Hamas for five years. The move was overwhelmingly supported by the majority of Israelis. "The Israelis really care about the value of one life," says a senior U.S. official. "Does the American public?" [Rolling Stone, 6/21/12]

 

 

 

 

"This is a legitimate prisoner swap," said Peter Mansoor, a retired Army colonel and professor of military history at Ohio State University.

 

He pointed out that the Taliban was ruling Afghanistan when U.S. forces went in to topple the government after Sept. 11, 2001. "I would have much more heartburn if these were al-Qaeda leaders" that were released, Mansoor said. [uSA Today, 6/2/14]

 

 

I found these interesting as far as the negotiating with terrorists argument. Seems to me we've had a history of negotiating with terrorists long before this president. The precedent has been set long before Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm certainly not nearly as smart as you boys but I'm thinking we just might just have been a bit worried about the opposition getting a hold of this Bergdahl guy and all that he knew. We just might have kept our enemies from gaining a lot of information that could have hurt us. If so, we'll never hear anymore about it. If not, the Foxnewshounds will be talking about it through the elections.

Like I said, him being a PFC when he was taken, he won't know much. Most of what he knows could be found on google

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the investigation over already? Has he been declared a deserter? Have they found him guilty of being a traitor also? I think I'll wait till the investigation is over before I condemn a US soldier, who was out fighting a war, out risking his life, who volunteered to do so, who might have made a simple mistake. Who might have had ill affects from combat...mentally. As stated earlier, leaving base is not a crime unless he was forbidden to do so, or he was on duty or watch. People so quick to condemn off others opinions and not facts. Guilty till proven otherwise.

There's a worms quote some where that you should read. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm certainly not nearly as smart as you boys but I'm thinking we just might just have been a bit worried about the opposition getting a hold of this Bergdahl guy and all that he knew. We just might have kept our enemies from gaining a lot of information that could have hurt us. If so, we'll never hear anymore about it. If not, the Foxnewshounds will be talking about it through the elections.

Look who tries to come to the libturd rescue. :lol:

 

 

Now you phage know your focked. :wave:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have several reports since they got to Qatar about them free to move about the country. Even the leaders of that sh!thole say they can. We have video of them driving around in SUVs unsupervised.

.

In theory, can these guys be free to move about the country as they please, AND have their locations monitored?

 

Just curious if you even see it as a possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×