Bowe Bergdahl

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

PP, do you know what a freedom fighter is? To them, the U.S.A. Is an aggressive force, who invaded and occupied their land in an aggressive force. A freedom fighter resists against an illegitimate or oppressive force or government. We are that force in Afghanistan. It's a war I get it, but do you really expect the entire citizenry to just sit back without attempting to fight back. And because it was/is a war of aggression POWs occur. Or do you think that anyone who fights back against the US is an automatic terrorist. I know people like you think that we, the united states of America, are omnipotent and omniscient, everybody else should bow down and heal, but thats not reality

So, this lovely gentleman is a “freedom fighter?” If he is a “freedom fighter” then Charles Manson is a mercy killer.

Mullah Mohammad Fazl was a senior commander in the Taliban army in the 1990s, rising to become its chief of staff. He is thought by many to have supervised the killing of thousands of Shiite Muslims near Kabul between 1998 and 2001. According to WikiLeaks documents, he was also present at the 2001 prison riot that killed CIA operative Johnny Micheal Spann, the first U.S. citizen killed in the Afghan war.

Interesting that "thought by many" and "present at" are now grounds for 12 year confinement. The same people complaining about America becoming a dictatorship have surprisingly low bars for burdens of proof. At this rate, "looked at me funny" will be grounds for execution. Oh, I forgot, it already is in "stand your ground" states.

Equally interesting that members of Congress, who evidently have a lot more detail about these 5 “upstanding individuals” also refer to them as TERRORISTS. Except maybe Pelosi and Reid who will stand behind Obama regardless of his actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've really come to believe that conservatives hate America. They see it as a place where it's necessary to carry a gun to defend their homes or potentially over throw the government.

They don't hate America. They hate Americans who are not like them. They hate minorities and poor people, and generally don't think highly of women. They don't like non-Christians.

That's why they think the current govt needs to be overthrown - all this protection of historically disadvantaged groups threatens their privilege and control.

I view myself as a Conservative voter re fiscal issues, and you have in no way described me--or those who share my views. I'm also a Christian and a southerner and an educator who doesn't even remotely hate minorities and poor people. You've made some astonishingly ignorant generalizations here.

+1000. I guess it simply makes the poster feel better/superior by chatergorizing all conservatives as haters of America, etc. this kind of ignorance contributes to the division in this country and it is pitiful.

Isn’t it wonderful how Obama has brought this country together?

Obama and Joe Biden will "turn the page on the ugly partisanship in Washington, so we can bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda that works for the American people."
Source:
Barack Obama remarks in Springfield, Ill., Aug. 23, 2008

The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.
Source:
Mitch McConnell remarks in the National Journal, November 4, 2010

[Anonymous]

Yes, and no US President should ever negotiate with terrorists. Unless it's to bring home Iranian hostages. Or drug money for weapons. Or the Bush Administration releasing 500+ prisoners from Gitmo. Sorry no President who is... special in whatever way Obama is special.... should negotiate with terrorists.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

PP, do you know what a freedom fighter is? To them, the U.S.A. Is an aggressive force, who invaded and occupied their land in an aggressive force. A freedom fighter resists against an illegitimate or oppressive force or government. We are that force in Afghanistan. It's a war I get it, but do you really expect the entire citizenry to just sit back without attempting to fight back. And because it was/is a war of aggression POWs occur. Or do you think that anyone who fights back against the US is an automatic terrorist. I know people like you think that we, the united states of America, are omnipotent and omniscient, everybody else should bow down and heal, but thats not reality

So, this lovely gentleman is a “freedom fighter?” If he is a “freedom fighter” then Charles Manson is a mercy killer.

Mullah Mohammad Fazl was a senior commander in the Taliban army in the 1990s, rising to become its chief of staff. He is thought by many to have supervised the killing of thousands of Shiite Muslims near Kabul between 1998 and 2001. According to WikiLeaks documents, he was also present at the 2001 prison riot that killed CIA operative Johnny Micheal Spann, the first U.S. citizen killed in the Afghan war.

Interesting that "thought by many" and "present at" are now grounds for 12 year confinement. The same people complaining about America becoming a dictatorship have surprisingly low bars for burdens of proof. At this rate, "looked at me funny" will be grounds for execution. Oh, I forgot, it already is in "stand your ground" states.

Equally interesting that members of Congress, who evidently have a lot more detail about these 5 “upstanding individuals” also refer to them as TERRORISTS. Except maybe Pelosi and Reid who will stand behind Obama regardless of his actions.

The term "terrorist" means absolutely nothing. It is simply used to describe someone we don't like. By any normal definition of the word, most of the Syrian opposition would be "terrorists" and the US would be a state supporter of terrorism and we would have to sanction ourselves. For that matter, when Afghan jihadists were fighting Soviets, we supplied them with weapons and funding. The Taliban was born in Pakistani training camps that the US supported. But, now they are terrorists.

Time was that when you said that someone was a "killer of Americans," you had some evidence that they had killed Americans. These days, you can just randomly call anyone a killer of Americans without the slightest proof. Then, accuse others of not being factual. Must be nice being a conservative and not being troubled by facts.

[Anonymous]

Yes, and no US President should ever negotiate with terrorists. Unless it's to bring home Iranian hostages. Or drug money for weapons. Or the Bush Administration releasing 500+ prisoners from Gitmo. Sorry no President who is... special in whatever way Obama is special.... should negotiate with terrorists.

You really believe that? You think that is all this is about? You would be wrong.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

PP, do you know what a freedom fighter is? To them, the U.S.A. Is an aggressive force, who invaded and occupied their land in an aggressive force. A freedom fighter resists against an illegitimate or oppressive force or government. We are that force in Afghanistan. It's a war I get it, but do you really expect the entire citizenry to just sit back without attempting to fight back. And because it was/is a war of aggression POWs occur. Or do you think that anyone who fights back against the US is an automatic terrorist. I know people like you think that we, the united states of America, are omnipotent and omniscient, everybody else should bow down and heal, but thats not reality

So, this lovely gentleman is a “freedom fighter?” If he is a “freedom fighter” then Charles Manson is a mercy killer.

Mullah Mohammad Fazl was a senior commander in the Taliban army in the 1990s, rising to become its chief of staff. He is thought by many to have supervised the killing of thousands of Shiite Muslims near Kabul between 1998 and 2001. According to WikiLeaks documents, he was also present at the 2001 prison riot that killed CIA operative Johnny Micheal Spann, the first U.S. citizen killed in the Afghan war.

Interesting that "thought by many" and "present at" are now grounds for 12 year confinement. The same people complaining about America becoming a dictatorship have surprisingly low bars for burdens of proof. At this rate, "looked at me funny" will be grounds for execution. Oh, I forgot, it already is in "stand your ground" states.

Equally interesting that members of Congress, who evidently have a lot more detail about these 5 “upstanding individuals” also refer to them as TERRORISTS. Except maybe Pelosi and Reid who will stand behind Obama regardless of his actions.

The term "terrorist" means absolutely nothing. It is simply used to describe someone we don't like. By any normal definition of the word, most of the Syrian opposition would be "terrorists" and the US would be a state supporter of terrorism and we would have to sanction ourselves. For that matter, when Afghan jihadists were fighting Soviets, we supplied them with weapons and funding. The Taliban was born in Pakistani training camps that the US supported. But, now they are terrorists.

Time was that when you said that someone was a "killer of Americans," you had some evidence that they had killed Americans. These days, you can just randomly call anyone a killer of Americans without the slightest proof. Then, accuse others of not being factual. Must be nice being a conservative and not being troubled by facts.

Would you prefer terms like "individual sought by the U.N. for suspected gross human rights violations in the deaths of thousands of Shiite Muslims" ?? That description fits in this case.

In any event stop arguing semantics to try to minimize the crimes of these 5 individuals.

[Anonymous]

So why is Bergdahl being hidden away on a closed military base? Why can't his parents see him, or the media talk to him? The administration claims he forgot how to speak English and that he needs to be reintegrated into western society? What B.S !! No one forgets their language entirely - especially this quickly.

More likely is the possibility he has become such a Taliban supporter that he refuses to speak English.

As for keeping him hidden and muzzled, the more rational explanation is that his anti-American agenda is so foul that the government can't dare show him in public for the disgrace of giving 5 terror leaders to the enemy in exchange for a deserter who apparently hates the country that "rescued" him from the "captors" he sought out.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

PP, do you know what a freedom fighter is? To them, the U.S.A. Is an aggressive force, who invaded and occupied their land in an aggressive force. A freedom fighter resists against an illegitimate or oppressive force or government. We are that force in Afghanistan. It's a war I get it, but do you really expect the entire citizenry to just sit back without attempting to fight back. And because it was/is a war of aggression POWs occur. Or do you think that anyone who fights back against the US is an automatic terrorist. I know people like you think that we, the united states of America, are omnipotent and omniscient, everybody else should bow down and heal, but thats not reality

So, this lovely gentleman is a “freedom fighter?” If he is a “freedom fighter” then Charles Manson is a mercy killer.

Mullah Mohammad Fazl was a senior commander in the Taliban army in the 1990s, rising to become its chief of staff. He is thought by many to have supervised the killing of thousands of Shiite Muslims near Kabul between 1998 and 2001. According to WikiLeaks documents, he was also present at the 2001 prison riot that killed CIA operative Johnny Micheal Spann, the first U.S. citizen killed in the Afghan war.

Interesting that "thought by many" and "present at" are now grounds for 12 year confinement. The same people complaining about America becoming a dictatorship have surprisingly low bars for burdens of proof. At this rate, "looked at me funny" will be grounds for execution. Oh, I forgot, it already is in "stand your ground" states.

Equally interesting that members of Congress, who evidently have a lot more detail about these 5 “upstanding individuals” also refer to them as TERRORISTS. Except maybe Pelosi and Reid who will stand behind Obama regardless of his actions.

The term "terrorist" means absolutely nothing. It is simply used to describe someone we don't like. By any normal definition of the word, most of the Syrian opposition would be "terrorists" and the US would be a state supporter of terrorism and we would have to sanction ourselves. For that matter, when Afghan jihadists were fighting Soviets, we supplied them with weapons and funding. The Taliban was born in Pakistani training camps that the US supported. But, now they are terrorists.

Time was that when you said that someone was a "killer of Americans," you had some evidence that they had killed Americans. These days, you can just randomly call anyone a killer of Americans without the slightest proof. Then, accuse others of not being factual. Must be nice being a conservative and not being troubled by facts.

Guess you don’t believe John McCain either:
John McCain welcomed the release of soldier Bowe Bergdahl, who was held for five years by Islamic Islamists, but said the men being freed had 'the blood of Americans on their hands'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2644959/These-terrorists-blood-Americans-hands-McCain-leads-Republicans-hit-illegal-Guantanamo-Bay-prisoner-release-exchange-Americas-prisoner-war.html#ixzz33nZNB1Pb
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

The five freed detainees, McCain said, "are the hardest of the hard-core. These are the highest high-risk people.” (CBS Face the Nation)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, and no US President should ever negotiate with terrorists. Unless it's to bring home Iranian hostages. Or drug money for weapons. Or the Bush Administration releasing 500+ prisoners from Gitmo. Sorry no President who is... special in whatever way Obama is special.... should negotiate with terrorists.

You really believe that? You think that is all this is about? You would be wrong.

It's hard to see how. The poster's comparisons are totally valid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

PP, do you know what a freedom fighter is? To them, the U.S.A. Is an aggressive force, who invaded and occupied their land in an aggressive force. A freedom fighter resists against an illegitimate or oppressive force or government. We are that force in Afghanistan. It's a war I get it, but do you really expect the entire citizenry to just sit back without attempting to fight back. And because it was/is a war of aggression POWs occur. Or do you think that anyone who fights back against the US is an automatic terrorist. I know people like you think that we, the united states of America, are omnipotent and omniscient, everybody else should bow down and heal, but thats not reality

So, this lovely gentleman is a “freedom fighter?” If he is a “freedom fighter” then Charles Manson is a mercy killer.

Mullah Mohammad Fazl was a senior commander in the Taliban army in the 1990s, rising to become its chief of staff. He is thought by many to have supervised the killing of thousands of Shiite Muslims near Kabul between 1998 and 2001. According to WikiLeaks documents, he was also present at the 2001 prison riot that killed CIA operative Johnny Micheal Spann, the first U.S. citizen killed in the Afghan war.

Interesting that "thought by many" and "present at" are now grounds for 12 year confinement. The same people complaining about America becoming a dictatorship have surprisingly low bars for burdens of proof. At this rate, "looked at me funny" will be grounds for execution. Oh, I forgot, it already is in "stand your ground" states.

Equally interesting that members of Congress, who evidently have a lot more detail about these 5 “upstanding individuals” also refer to them as TERRORISTS. Except maybe Pelosi and Reid who will stand behind Obama regardless of his actions.

The term "terrorist" means absolutely nothing. It is simply used to describe someone we don't like. By any normal definition of the word, most of the Syrian opposition would be "terrorists" and the US would be a state supporter of terrorism and we would have to sanction ourselves. For that matter, when Afghan jihadists were fighting Soviets, we supplied them with weapons and funding. The Taliban was born in Pakistani training camps that the US supported. But, now they are terrorists.

Time was that when you said that someone was a "killer of Americans," you had some evidence that they had killed Americans. These days, you can just randomly call anyone a killer of Americans without the slightest proof. Then, accuse others of not being factual. Must be nice being a conservative and not being troubled by facts.

Would you prefer terms like "individual sought by the U.N. for suspected gross human rights violations in the deaths of thousands of Shiite Muslims" ?? That description fits in this case.

In any event stop arguing semantics to try to minimize the crimes of these 5 individuals.

Don’t you know - they are “Enemy Combatants.” This administration is full of euphemisms.

[Anonymous]

I've been reserving judgment on this while I learned more about it. I read the Rolling Stone profile from 2012, and that portrait, along with everything being reported this week, has led me to believe that this "swap" was a huge, huge mistake. I'm sorry, but the guy joined the Army to have an "adventure." He was raised by parents who were proud to live "off the grid." I support the right of anyone to live the way they want to, but when you are raised to be a free-thinker and a free-spirit and seek adventure, you have no business joining the Army, through which you become accountable to your fellow soldiers and your country. The Army is not a game where you join up to see the sights and maybe do some good along the way. This is just an incredibly naive way to think. And his actions and his attitude about his service were incredibly selfish. His experience of the Army, his capture and detainment were all a result of choices he made. The results are unfortunate, but they are his to own. The security and safety of our country and our that of our allies should not be compromised because his choices turned out to be catastrophic for him. I am bitterly disappointed in our President and whichever advisors supported this move.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Guess you don’t believe John McCain either:
John McCain welcomed the release of soldier Bowe Bergdahl, who was held for five years by Islamic Islamists, but said the men being freed had 'the blood of Americans on their hands'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2644959/These-terrorists-blood-Americans-hands-McCain-leads-Republicans-hit-illegal-Guantanamo-Bay-prisoner-release-exchange-Americas-prisoner-war.html#ixzz33nZNB1Pb
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

The five freed detainees, McCain said, "are the hardest of the hard-core. These are the highest high-risk people.” (CBS Face the Nation)

Unfortunately, John McCain, just like you and any number of other conservatives, has no problem spreading unsupported allegations. Which Americans did these guys kill? If they are known to have killed Americans. why were they never charged while being held in American custody?

Words are cheap. In today's America, the right wing willingly spreads lies. You called these guys "killers of Americans" but have not presented a single fact to support the allegation. In a normal world, you would simply say, "okay, they may not have killed Americans but they are still pretty bad." But, in the world in which we live, you just continue to stand by the false allegation.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Guess you don’t believe John McCain either:
John McCain welcomed the release of soldier Bowe Bergdahl, who was held for five years by Islamic Islamists, but said the men being freed had 'the blood of Americans on their hands'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2644959/These-terrorists-blood-Americans-hands-McCain-leads-Republicans-hit-illegal-Guantanamo-Bay-prisoner-release-exchange-Americas-prisoner-war.html#ixzz33nZNB1Pb
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

The five freed detainees, McCain said, "are the hardest of the hard-core. These are the highest high-risk people.” (CBS Face the Nation)

Unfortunately, John McCain, just like you and any number of other conservatives, has no problem spreading unsupported allegations. Which Americans did these guys kill? If they are known to have killed Americans. why were they never charged while being held in American custody?

Words are cheap. In today's America, the right wing willingly spreads lies. You called these guys "killers of Americans" but have not presented a single fact to support the allegation. In a normal world, you would simply say, "okay, they may not have killed Americans but they are still pretty bad." But, in the world in which we live, you just continue to stand by the false allegation.

And, I still contend that terrorists (yes, that is what they are) who train other terrorists to kill innocent people AND Americans are killers of Americans. Just like a person who is collaborating with a person who murders, but does not directly pull the trigger, is guilty of first degree murder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've been reserving judgment on this while I learned more about it. I read the Rolling Stone profile from 2012, and that portrait, along with everything being reported this week, has led me to believe that this "swap" was a huge, huge mistake. I'm sorry, but the guy joined the Army to have an "adventure." He was raised by parents who were proud to live "off the grid." I support the right of anyone to live the way they want to, but when you are raised to be a free-thinker and a free-spirit and seek adventure, you have no business joining the Army, through which you become accountable to your fellow soldiers and your country. The Army is not a game where you join up to see the sights and maybe do some good along the way. This is just an incredibly naive way to think. And his actions and his attitude about his service were incredibly selfish. His experience of the Army, his capture and detainment were all a result of choices he made. The results are unfortunate, but they are his to own. The security and safety of our country and our that of our allies should not be compromised because his choices turned out to be catastrophic for him. I am bitterly disappointed in our President and whichever advisors supported this move.

Five people do not jeopardize crap. It's complete nonsense. Unless one of them is carrying in his head the plans for a super weapon to beat all super weapons, he's just a soldier, maybe a decent leader, who has been out of play for years.

Unclench, people.

[Anonymous]

Five people do not jeopardize crap. It's complete nonsense. Unless one of them is carrying in his head the plans for a super weapon to beat all super weapons, he's just a soldier, maybe a decent leader, who has been out of play for years.

No. Not just a soldier. The equivalent of five three and four star generals.