This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Does The US Negotiate With Terrorists?
"We don't negotiate with terrorists"
- Every US president in history
It was a good weekend for the friends and family of Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl: after five years of being held captive by the Taliban in Afghanistan, on Saturday morning it was reported that the 28-year-old native of Hailey, Idaho was finally freed. In exchange for his freedom, the US agreed to also set free five Taliban militants - among which the Afghanistan deputy defense minister under Taliban rule and others who was said to be involved in the September 11 attack - held at Guantanamo. In other words, this was a pre-negotiated settlement or, stated otherwise, a negotiation.
Adding fuel to the fire is the realization that Obama was transacting largely alone: instead of abiding by a legal requirement to give Congress advance notice when prisoners are released from the detainee facility at Guantanamo Bay, Obama once again took unilateral action. Actually it wasn't completely unilateral: it was revealed that the deal was bartered by America's new middle east BFFs (courtesy of the false flagged Syria conflict): officials from Qatar who agreed to keep the detainees in their country for a year.
And then the media circus took over.
On one hand, it was Republicans bashing Obama for keeping the prisoner swap secret and also for negotiating with terrorists. From the WSJ:
Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), himself a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, voiced fears that the five prisoners sent to Qatar in exchange for Sgt. Bergdahl could rejoin terrorist networks. "It is disturbing that these individuals would have the ability to reenter the fight," Mr. McCain said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "And they are big, high-level people, possibly responsible for the deaths of thousands."
Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.), a potential presidential candidate in 2016, released a statement Sunday saying, "The release of five senior Taliban commanders to Qatar under unspecified conditions is very troubling and may endanger American lives. In the coming days the Congress must examine the circumstances under which Sgt. Bergdahl's release was achieved, and what conditions, if any, the administration secured to ensure these enemy combatants do not return to the battlefield."
Fellow Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, also a possible GOP presidential candidate, suggested in an appearance on ABC's "This Week" that there were better ways to free Sgt. Bergdahl.
"How many soldiers lost their lives to capture those five Taliban terrorists that we just released?" Mr. Cruz said. "What does this tell terrorists, that if you capture a U.S. soldier, you can trade that soldier for five terrorists we've gone after."
* * *
Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Mich.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said administration officials indeed told Congress about a year ago that such prisoner negotiations were a possibility. "They didn't get a very warm reception from either party in the national security committees," Mr. Rogers said.
Mr. Rogers added that the administration was required "to keep Congress currently informed."... "Some notion that this was so secret and so sensitive that that couldn't happen is just wrong."
On the other hand, democrats scrambled to defend Obama's actions.
First and foremost, it was Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who on NBC's "Meet the Press" in a live feed from Afghanistan where he had made a surprise visit, said prisoner exchanges are a standard practice of warfare and added that "We didn’t negotiate with terrorists." He added that "America’s record is pretty clear on going after terrorists, especially those who take hostages, and I don’t think what we did in getting our prisoner of war released in any way would somehow encourage terrorists to take our American servicemen prisoner or hostage.”
The excuse: the swap had been worked out by the government of Qatar (to whose Amir, none other than the president gave his thanks yesterday).
Another person defending Obama was White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice who appeared earlier on CNN and said the Obama administration informed Congress after Sgt. Bergdahl was in U.S. hands. She said the urgency of the mission, coupled with concerns about Sgt. Bergdahl's health, made it necessary to rescue him without giving the required 30 days advance notice.
Wait, he was in captivity for 5 years, but suddenly 30 days was a matter of urgency?
Ms. Rice said that defense officials, however, consulted with the Justice Department before the operation. "It was determined that it was necessary and appropriate not to adhere to the 30-day notification requirement because it would have potentially meant that the opportunity to get Sgt. Bergdahl would have been lost," she said.
One wonders what other decisions are made in the secrecy of bilateral talks between Obama and the DOJ, which skip America's elected legislative body entirely.
And then the excuses branch out in the outright surreal: "The Taliban prisoners released weren’t mere bargaining chips: It’s quite possible that, as influential figures, they’ll facilitate a broader negotiated settlement,” in Afghanistan, said Blank, a former staff member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Hagel said today it’s possible the agreement could lead to a new round of negotiations between the U.S. and the Taliban about the organization’s rule in Afghanistan. “We have strongly supported an Afghan-led effort to come to an agreement with the Taliban,” Hagel said on NBC. “Maybe this will be an opening that can produce an agreement.”
Indeed: now that America is said to be departing Afghanistan (we will believe it when we see it), someone who is friendly to the US should maintain the record opium production: after all the poppy seed, and heroin, must flow and keep western populations drugged up and happy.
Recall the following charts: first, the surge in Heroin use in the US:
And then the following chart which shows opium cultivation in Afghanistan:
Surely there is no relation between soaring US heroin use, soaring Afghanistan opium production (under US supervision) and recent developments in Afghanistan.
But even more perplexing than the simple question of whether Obama negotiates with terrorists - he clearly does - is another question: are we now rerunning an episode of Homeland.
Recall the back in August 2010 when the news of Bergdahl's capture were first making the rounds, that the Sunday Times reported "a captured American soldier is training Taliban fighters bomb-making and ambush skills, according to one of his captors and Afghan intelligence officials. Private Bowe Bergdahl disappeared in June 2009 while based in eastern Afghanistan and is thought to be the only U.S. serviceman in captivity. The 24-year-old has converted to Islam and now has the Muslim name Abdullah, one of his captors told The Sunday Times."
The rabbit hole gets deeper:
A Taliban deputy district commander in Paktika, who called himself Haji Nadeem, told the newspaper that Bergdahl taught him how to dismantle a mobile phone and turn it into a remote control for a roadside bomb.
Nadeem claimed he also received basic ambush training from the U.S. soldier. 'Most of the skills he taught us we already knew,' he said. 'Some of my comrades think he's pretending to be a Muslim to save himself so they wouldn't behead him.'
Afghan intelligence officials also believe that Bergdahl is 'cooperating with the Taliban' and is acting as adviser to fighters at a base in the tribal area of Pakistan.
And then there was Bergdahl's video:
The seven-minute video of Bergdahl shows him sporting a beard and doing a few press-ups to demonstrate he's in good physical condition.
There was no way to verify when the footage was taken or if he is still alive.
In the sometimes choppy video, Bergdahl talked about his love for his family, his friends, motorcycles and sailing.
'I'm a prisoner. I want to go home,' he said. 'This war isn't worth the waste of human life that has cost both Afghanistan and the U.S. It's not worth the amount of lives that have been wasted in prisons, Guantanamo Bay, Bagram, all those places where we are keeping prisoners.'
At times speaking haltingly, as if holding back emotions, Bergdahl - clad in what appeared to be an Army shirt and fatigues - clasped his hands together and pleaded: 'The pain in my heart to see my family again doesn't get any smaller.
'Release me. Please, I'm begging you, bring me home.'
The good news is that four years later he is finally home. The questions remain.
»
- 25816 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
The mob always negotiates with other families when they need to. Sure they'll do a fly by drone shooting later, but they'll negotiate when it's convenient. Snark aside, glad they let this soul come home from the banker war. I'm pretty sure that whomever they had in Gitmo were just some pissed off allah praising clowns, any one of which is replaceable in their homeland.
5 Taliban Commanders for one soldier who deserted his post?
GO TEAM OBAMA!
I guess "Bush did it too, or both parties are the same".....
Who cares? The Taliban was originally funded by the U.S., led by our guy Osama Bin Laden. Are you really afraid that the Taliban "commanders" are going to hurt you? I'd trade 100 Taliban "commanders" for any American citizen being held overseas any day. Or make that any number you want more than 100.
Sorry, Rand, but straight from the gut, I'm with RevRex on this one. This is a dangerous precedent to set. And he did it without the (legally required) notification to Congress. Now, I know Obama breaking the law is just an average Tuesday for him, but this one's going to have consequences for average Americans overseas (not just soldiers in a combat theatre) later.
Seriously? Now we're at real war? Obama traded an American citizen for a guy that wears sandals and has a strap-on (bomb). Obama is a war criminal like Congress. The whole controversy is a distraction. Does the girl with the red dress have a gun? This kid went over to fight a fake enemy for good reasons or fucked up reasons, I don't care. He's an American citizen. Glad he's coming home from a stupid banker war.
So why would Obama release five of most dangerous Taliban Commanders in U.S. custody in exchange for a guy who went AWOL in Afghanistan five years ago and was captured?
The answer is simple.. to keep the terror threat alive and justify continued Orwellian U.S. state surveillance.
Knowing all that they know and who represents the threats, I wonder if they will be any better at preventing an attack than they were on 9/11 or at the Boston Marathon.
I've never been threatened by a Taliban Commander, dangerous or otherwise.
I'm with you on this Rand......itsa joke ....they've always done back door deals for swaps and the deeper the cover the asset is the more dealing they do if you get my drift
you really think this guy was brought back for mommy and daddy because he was just a lonely GI that walked off his post......BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Some thing is not right. Gilad Shalit was released in return for the release of 1,027 Palestinian prisoners
5 Taliban commanders for a deserter...yup, another great deal negotiated by his imperial highness all by his lonesome. The best thing is he gets to take all the credit when the shit blows up.
And I'm sure we're not tracking the release-ees, right?
I'm sure they are RFID'd, tracked all the way.
But more scarily, are we seeing the manufacturingof a McCain replacement in this new release, Dahl.
Berghdal 2022.
First he'll become the Governor of Idaho.
Just because he was a POW.
POW!
You can't grow good weed in washington, so they have no other choices but to turn to the hard stuff, all because our gvt is that dumb.
This most certainly comprises a negotiation, though the taliban's terrorist designation is debatable, as they never harmed us before we invaded Afghanistan. The frequent deliberate conflation of taliban with AQ continues unabashedly, but this in no way adds material substance to the hyperbole of "negotiating with terrorists."
Obviously the unilateral nature of negotiations is of concern, and should be accounted for (although it won't, as we know).
McCain's claim "these are big, high-level people posible responsible for the deaths of thousands" presents an egregiously tenuous assertion of responsibility for 9/11 despite the glaring fact we've been unable to build a case against them for the past 13 years, and weren't about to anytime soon.
Keep your eyes on the June 15th false flag prize. The six week cycle strikes mid june and this is shaping up to be a doozy because when your distraction from VA scandal is a whole new scandal then you gotta triple down on the staged [controlled] distraction.
The comments to this article are enlightening in a really fucked up kind of way.
hehehehheheeheh.........too much MSM conditioning to overcome
I wonder how many US soldiers we could get released if we gave them our leader?
May be Taliban secured the sole distribution of opium.
Gee...I didn't know we even HAD a leader !
From the article:
"On the other hand, democrats scrambled to defend Obama's actions."
Hence, LTER's comments.
You are fully immersed in the matrix.
No, I've just paid attention to your comments for years.
So if I am for releasing the soldier from captivity in a bullshit banker war, I'm a democrat. If I'm against releasing the soldier, what does that make me? Hint: there are options other than black and white. You obviously need the hint given your immersion in the matrix of Red and Blue.
No, this goes well beyond this current issue. I just felt like making a joke in my original comment.
Anybody who has read you for years knows. Not really fooling anybody.
;)
... crickets ... chirp - chirp - chirp
Fuck you. How is that for circket fuckhead?
Kinda hard to distinguish the terrorists anymore isn't it? Congress has taken far more liberties with a pen (and a couple of planes) than any taliban with an AK-47.
Much like your comments in a way.
Why are we there? Why are we in any of these places letting our kids get blown up?
Oh yeah - banksters, elites, MIC, billionaires. Need those billions to buy losing basketball teams and to feed the locust with EBT/WIC cards.
There is a much better name to use for a President who always acts unilaterally...
DICTATOR
What's the big deal?
The US is a terrorist nation. Why shouldn't it negotiate with its fellow terrorist organisations?
Did someone say it's against the law? Well so is storing everyone's emails, texts, chats, Google searches and monitoring our webcams
Since when does a terrorist nation care about the law or the constitution?
Trading a sargeant for (the equivalent) of 5 captains?
Maybe a chess analogy: trading 1 pawn for 2 knights, 2 bishops and a rook?
A food analogy: trading 5 steaks for a loaf of bread?
trading 5 houses for a tent?
1) it is a terrible trade
2) it goes against "no negotitation with terrorists" and sets bad precedent
3) It seems to be another illegal, imperial action
For 3 reasons it is a bad move.
At least from now on,"we don't negotiate with terrorist" thing is over.
It is an American loaf. Fuck Afghanistan. Time to roll the hell out of there and never look back. We are taking our wayward whatever-the-fuck with us. The Taliban commanders won't be a problem unless we go back into Afghanistan for some fucked up reason.
" Time to roll the hell out of there and never look back"
That's what precisely will happen.
Americans will scrub it from the collective mind and they shall be washed whiter than snow. Any wayward theorist who interjects the uncomfortable, like how much ordinace we dropped on Vietnam or the use of depleted uranium in the Middle East, shall be met with derision and dismissal from polite society.
bull fucking shit
With all the physical and psychological torture they've been through in gitmo these knights, bishops and rook may be completely, blitheringly mad at this point. I'm surprised ZHers give a shit given what they should know by now. The local gang- the taliban- were placeholders who never should have cut back on the opium flow. Plus a couple bases in afghanistoo might come in handy down the road for the world's only-hanging on by a thread- superpower. The taliboo will be back in power eventually. A little older. A little wiser. And swimming in opium.
well here's how it's gonna spill out for the next couple of weeks ... better than a missing plane anyway- http://nypost.com/2014/05/31/the-bizarre-tale-of-americas-last-known-pow/
at first i thought we were just givin' back 5 of the twenty or so that have been labelled "innocent but we still gotta hold you in an orange suit and shove tubes down your thoat", but it doesn't appear that way. so we are sending back exactly what quus-ant describes as "blithering mkultra'd up the yingyang" via quatar (shit are they just gonna make it easier for everyone and drop them straight into syria for us?). for-
that poor kid-as soon as as he can stop speaking pushtan will still be labled as "walking away in the night dissillussioned by how fucked up what he was doing and the war were". just the kind of hero a whithering presidency needs to stand behind. sheesh-
helluva trade barry! if you are still shitting your shoes over what they did to m.l.k. you should gone with the one wild card you had and praised and pardon snowden instead. but nooooo ... you're just gonna let 'them' slowly shame you (and us.)with shit like this poor kid rubbing our nose deeper and deeper into own colapse.
postyscript- if he does finally pardon snowden on his way out- definitely controled psyopposition.
Maybe it's not about the value of the pieces, but about the fact that an exchange is possible at all. The move shows the US that there is a command structure within the Taliban that will negotiate and achieve tangible, measurable results (a returned POW, even if a deserter, is still a tangible result), not just talk (which is about all that Hamid Karzai was ever good for). In return, it shows the same to the Taliban, namely that the US interlocutors can achieve results on their end. It also shows that the Qataris are useful intermediaries.
This wasn't about Bergdahl or the five who were traded for him, but about proving to each side that a channel is now open for negotiations. It's not about the pieces, but about whether there's a game to be played.
The US is trying to withdraw from Afghanistan, and the Taliban is almost certainly going to be in a position to retake large swaths of it. Now each side knows that they at least can meaningfully negotiate if they want to.
Plus, the presidential elections in Afghanistan are in runoffs, and the new guy, either Abdullah (former foreign minister) or Ghani (World Banker), is also going to have to negotiate with the Taliban from the get-go, provided that he survives the election in two weeks, which happens to coincide with Afghan Spring Offensive Season. Pakistan is also getting tired of the same old shit, so their army chief just visited Kabul as well.
It might not have been a bad move to prove to the Taliban that talks can have tangible results. It doesn't change the worst-case scenario (a disorderly exit from Afghanistan, which could have happened without the exchange), but it does up the odds for a negotiated settlement.
NoDebt giving Taliban Stinger Missles set a bad precedent and Ronald Reagan is the guy who did that. He also left the Taliban in the vaccum created by the Russians leaving Afghanistan and that lead to the rise of Osama Bin Laden. So hang your right wing hat on that fact jack!
We've given weapons to a lot of groups over the years that we shouldn't have. I fear we're doing it in Syria right now.
However, past stupidity is no excuse for making poor decisions in the present that can (and likely will) affect things moving into the future. This was a stupid trade made for the wrong reasons and there will be consequences.
The Soviet puppet gov fell in April 1992. Taliban began no earlier than 1991 in the Madrassas of the NWFP of Pakistan, with Mullah Omar getting his start in Kandahar in 1994. Only in 1994 did waves of those Madrassa students flow into AFG to join Omar's team. The most likely recipient of the Stingers of the 1980s was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hezb-e-Islami (HIG), as they were the ISI's cat's paw during the Soviet occupation, and the U.S. used the ISI as the funnel for U.S. support to the Mujahhadeen (along with the precursor to "the Base" of Bin Laden).
Either you're confusing the Taliban of 1994 with the Mujahadeen of the 1980s, or you're a standard Team D useful idiot spouting a few lines you can be taught during your 30-second attention span when you're sober. Based on the cheesy last line, I'd guess the latter. Oh well, looks like one lucky sperm got past the Planned Parenthood human gene improvement program. Lucky you...
Releasing prisoners isn't going to cause as much danger to Americans overseas as our foreign policy that is focused on building a hegemony. Additionally the true source of terrorism (other than the U.S.) is Saudi Arabia; which is supposedly one of our "allies". Quite a few people around the world do like Americans, but they absolutely hate how our government is dipping it's wick into every sovereign nation's affairs, and that is also the primary reason why "terrorists" are fighting us. They want us out, many Americans here want out, but it's the 0.1% that want in, and the 0.1% are who our government listens to -the laws reflect that.
"I am not weak."
-guess who, just the other day
Not you, too! Who cares if they traded in some fucking asshole Taliban for an American soldier. Last time I checked, the whole thing is a sham and Congress voted for the fucking thing. Why should this guy suffer?
LTER you are coming at this from the aspect of whether or not it should have been done. I'm pretty much with you. I gotta believe at this point they can put a chip in these guys asses and track them if they want to. I think Obama did this more to flex his dictatorship muscles and prove there is nothing anyone can do about it when he wants to something, even if it's never been done by a pres before. I find that a bit scary.
Fonz, I'm quite sure that Obama didn't dream this up and make the military do it on his own. I'm also quite sure that prisoner exchanges have happened thousands of times without Congressional oversight. The controversy over who approved it is just as fake as the war that caused this guy to be a prisoner. But hats off to these guys for making a bunch of people who believe 9/11 was fake and the Afghan war is a banker war suddenly see massive danger because "Obama" did not get approval from a corrupt Congress to let a few sandal wearing clowns go that were taken in a banker war, in exchange for a U.S. citizen who was fighting said war.
I don't disagree with you. I actually don't think it's that big of a deal. I just think it's one decision on a long list of decisions that will make it easier for a standing pres to skank the retirement funds and stuff em into govvie bonds should the day come when they deem it necessary. It is being presented as "he did this without consulting anyone" because they want you to know he does not need to, and if you don't like it, tough titties. The other directions this thread has taken I want no part of.
"It is being presented as "he did this without consulting anyone" because they want you to know he does not need to, and if you don't like it, tough titties."
I agree that's part of it, but that ship sailed a long time ago. The bigger point to me is the oligarch controlled MSM rallying Americans back into world police mode, where Obama is "weak" because he's not invading Russia and letting some poor soldier be tortured by a bunch of assholes. This weekend I've read at least a dozen articles making the point that 1) Syria should have been invaded and Obama is weak for not doing so; 2) this soldier should have been kept overseas because the Taliban are oh so scary and evil; 3) Russia is going to invade us any minute if we don't get tough, etc.
Rand- name the time a US president that did a hostage exchange out in the open for the whole world to see. I'm not saying it hasn't happend, I'm just saying I don't remember a previous instance.
If you got one laying readily at hand, I'm ready to give more credence to your argument.
This is a made up controversy. Name a single time that Congress approved an exchange of POWs in WWII.
Congress was not involved with this one (they almost never are, which is why the President is so important in matters of foreign policy). This was all Obama on this one.
I'm still trying to find a parallel.
If you think it's a made-up controversy, then it shouldn't bother you as much as it does. Let it go, it'll go away on it's own.
Once again you must have been spoon fed as an adult, there are many instances as seen in this link, go to section 6, the ones after WW2 and eat your heart out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war#Post-World_War_II
They've done it hundreds/thousands of times It used to be a weekly occurrence during the "cold war" in Berlin and in Korea on the DMZ I could go on into the 80s but whats the point......no one give a shit
BTW it IS NOTHING but a fochin distraction........Bread and circus ....bread and circus......look over here
"I don't disagree with you. I actually don't think it's that big of a deal. I just think it's one decision on a long list of decisions that will make it easier for a standing pres to skank the retirement funds and stuff em into govvie bonds should the day come when they deem it necessary. It is being presented as "he did this without consulting anyone" because they want you to know he does not need to, and if you don't like it, tough titties. The other directions this thread has taken I want no part of."
The crux of the matter. Not impeaching the dicktator means Congress agrees with every violation of the law.
Obama showed that he's a humanitarian by getting the guy home. He also got rid of five very troublesome Gitmo detainees. That simplifies him making good on his promise to shut it down before he leaves office.
For Team Obama, it's all win.
Fuck everybody else.
The bottom line is that we should never have been sending our troops into an undeclared meatgrinder of a war. Bergdahl should never have been over there. We shouldn't have been running a Gitmo.
Now we've got a generation of mentally fucked up vets, billions in healthcare bills and a bunch of Islamists who've been tortured and turned loose.
Fucking shitshow from the get go.
"We shouldn't have been running a Gitmo. "
I have to share one thing I found just today. Apparently the US has been running "Gitmos" for a long time. Please note Ft Jefferson in the Dry Tortugas. Some of the lesser Lincoln assasination conspirators were imprisoned there, also likely tortured. This place is truly in the middle of nowhere.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Fort+Jefferson+Visitor+Center/@24.6279...!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x88ce56652f700987:0xdaf578f2269f0531
Did Congress approve it? Jesus fucking Christ. If you still think that's the issue let me suggest a steak sauce.
Who? Are we still voting??
LTER-
Just because they give it the blind eye, doesn't mean we should stop taking score at home.
Respectfully disagree with you on this...and not on the merits of what you argue, but the arguments chosen.
You are caught in the micro....step back a bit and really take in this one.
It's gotta be a big deal because IT'S MOTHERFUCKING WEIRD AS HELL!
Five of "their" brain scrambled idiots for one of "our" equally brain scrambled Manchurian Candidates?
Fuck. There's a lot of really crazy shit in this story.
Bet these 5 are already in flight school down in FL to pilot the "missing" jet, while our soon to be returned "hero" hits the hate on America campus tour circuit.
This situation is surreal.
What American Soldier? All we got was a POS with US parents.
The "rebel fighters" are lacking qualified leaders in Syria, McLame is secretly giddy as a gimp at the morgue. Speaking of gimps, congress yawns.
Despite the absurdity of the entire situation, I'm also not with you on this one. For me, it was benevolent dictator Obama once again ignoring the law to the cheers of the "progressives" in Congress and the media. The "takers" and "bankers" of this country want this dictatorship.
I don't give two squirts of piss about the Taliban commanders. Obama needs to be impeached for the congressional run around.
This needs to be the last straw.
After all the shit that's gone down it would be pitifully sad if this- THIS were the last straw. But whatever.
True. Contempt of Congress to this degree is the difference. I don't recall another president in my lifetime erecting as brazen of middle finger to congress as this.
So just like Nixon then?
And almost like Clinton?
Heh, I still chuckle whenever I think of the lady carrying the sign that read:
SOMEBODY PLEASE GIVE BUSH A BLOWJOB SO WE CAN IMPEACH HIM
Talibanana=Mullah Omar
Al-CIAda=Bin Laden
Above=Not the same.
So, ZH really is just another GOP blogsite. Most here follow along lockstep with the GOP talking points, not even waiting to the SAVED AMERICAN to make it home, to see family he hasn't seen for 5 years.
I bet you will get a chance to vote for Romney in 2016, again.
I would even dare to bet that majority of ZH are not Americans in the first place.
You are a black and white idiot, basically.
His father is an islamost as is he. This is an epic prick job tbat even the most jaded "awake" person shakes their head at.
To the haters and downvoters see link.
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/06/143437-american-soldier-served-bowe-berg...[143437]/19/
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/06/01/awol-traitor-traded-taliban-terr...
His dad has pro islamist tweets and spoke arabic beside obama. You traded 5 radicals for a guy who is a traitor.
Was his father cheertweeting Islam before or after his son was captured?
If you had a son being tortured I doubt there is much you would not do if you thought it had the slightest chance of keeping him alive awhile longer. (I would hope)
And, come on, ankle bracelet tracking is so ...
1994
His father is a traitor
Obama is a traitor
Wouldn't you like to be a traitor too?
Every American (military, civilian, or other) working in an islamo-hotspot is in greater danger today then they were on Friday.
I was initially pissed about Hagel and Rice claiming they did not negotiate with terrorists. Did they actually think it wasn't negotiating if you work through an intermediary?!? Having had some time to think, I realize they are 100% accurate and truthful. 'Negotiating' implies give and take, proposals and counter-proposals, etc. What happened here was the Taliban made a demand and the Obama administration met it. No fuss, no muss, no negotiation.
As for Sergeant Bergdahl (and I use that term under protest as he should not have been promoted while there were UCMJ charges pending against him. DoD did the promotion to maintain the BS story that he got separated from a patrol), I'm glad he's coming home.
With that said, a lot of people died trying to find him when he deserted. A lot more people died capturing the 5 terrorists (including 2 who are under indictment by the UN for fucking war crimes) who were exchanged for him. And a lot more Afghanis are going to die when those scumbags go back to their Taliban ways. I hope you can live with that on your conscience.
Oh, almost forgot- this whole exchange was smoke and mirrors to get the VA scandal out of the news. Obama administration thought it would be a feel good story that would get them a jump in the polls (see Osama bin Laden, death of.) Not working out as they planned.
When Obama wanted to meet with Karzai back on May 26, and Karzai said go piss up a rope? Guess what bad news Barry was coming to break? Sort of jams up his timeline story about not having sufficient time to notify congress. Whoops!
How is it that POW Bergdahl, who could have been 'negotiated' free at any point in the last five years, suddenly is freed while Obama's facing investigations of the VA, the Head of the VA is forced to step down, his press secretary steps down, and there's a serious inquiry into Benghazi?
And, his party is facing a nasty mid-term Congressional election this Nov.
Anyway, its all theater.
Very nice way to tie it together. It is late. TY.
He was reportedly near death, could not speak english, and they were a week away from sending home a dead body and celebrating in the ME. So a humanitiarian exchange was made, some thing you don't approve of, or was it the disinformation campaign you got tricked on?
Yes... next question
Do ursine creatures defecate in the arborial wilderness?
Why is everyone so surprised? Of course the US government negotiates with terrorists. Al Qaida has unionized under FFFFF (Federation of False Flag Freedom Fighters). This is all just labor relations.
I can answer that!
obanana emasculates congress every chance he gets. they are all on the same team (and you're not on it)
In reality most of them aren't on the team either. They just believe they are. The team is making lists for us. Be certain they are making lists for them too. Purgers purge the purged and it is as addictive as heroine.
The real question is how the Taliban could stoop so low as to negotiate with the Administration. I hope they took a long, hot shower after.... yuck!
"Adding fuel to the fire is the realization that Obama was transacting largely alone: instead of abiding by a legal requirement to give Congress advance notice when prisoners are released from the detainee facility at Guantanamo Bay, Obama once again took unilateral action"
The President has once again proven that at least one stereotype holds true: Black people don't follow the law.
Obama and Eric Holder constantly pontificate on why so many black people are in jail. Define irony.
When asked by one of my uber liberal progressive CA buds the other day about the country coming to a financial settlement with blcsk people because all of their ancestors were slaves at one point in the past, I stated that I do not believe in original sin and thus, no.
He said they we should.
So I respectfully asked then why is it not that all blacks were in jail?
Original sin....
Another inconvenient truth...
You know what's really funny about black people in the US as it pertains to slavery?
i. The slaves from the US were slaves in Africa first. White people negotiated with tribal leaders for slaves in Africa with things like sugar and rum. In fact once they became the slaves of white people they were probably treated better. The worst atrocities against humans occur in Africa RIGHT NOW (we're talking everything from genocide to child slavery, rape, genital mutilation, etc.) The fact that some black person in the US had a slave relative from 200 years ago is probably a godsend.
ii. For all the strife that black people in the US give about slavery they sure have NO problem buying products made by slaves in Asian countries. Check ya iphone bro - Made by slaves (many instances slaves that are children).
I think white people need some reparations for all the crime, disease, and poverty the black people have been spreading around the US.
"In fact once they became the slaves of white people they were probably treated better."
This is so fucked up on so many levels I can't even begin to respond. Was there some kind of meteor tonight where all of you fuckers are actually speaking your mind?
So you think they are (or were) better off in Africa?
Boku Haram. Kony. Rowanda. Do you know what's going on there or what?
Americans of African descent that live in America today are LUCKKKKYYY their ancestors were slaves.
Don't feed the Offical ZH troll.
I'm now officially a troll for questioning someone who says that Africans were done a favor by being made U.S. slaves. Pure Evil Bless America.
They were slaves to begin with in Africa. Conditions in the US were better.
They had to pick cotton and drink from different water fountains. Big deal. Better than getting your dick cut off and starving to death while being a slave in some hot shitty village hut community.
No, LTER you're the offical ZH troll.
Damn, why do I keep feeding this guy.
Poor black people here in the US. boo hoo. I'm going to crying so fucking hard I'm gona have to put my pillow cases in the dryer.
http://www.vice.com/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-guide-to-liberia-2
I'm sure you have a lot of pillow cases, but most probably have eye holes in them.
As usual, you are long on ad hominems and short on factual response.
i can't believe you ign'ant muther fuckers .... he's got you lapping up the dry smegma from the withered snatch of greenspan's bitches' corpse.
take an a carabbean island, draw an imaginary line across it and punish half of it for 100 years for being uppity and throwing off the chains of slavery. look at the results. now conduct the same thought experiment with an entire continent for three times as long-
back to the topic of the thread: you dumb fuckerz! i got a bad feeling about this. enjoy your biden!
I love how you're debating me on slavery as you type on your computer that was probably made by some 10 year old Chinese Foxconn slave. Hopefully the little girl that made your computer lived long enough to send her parents enough money to eat before she jumped off of the factory she worked in.
She jumped, but it didn't work too well. Employee safety nets caught her and sent her right back to the line. She will work that job until her hands fall off or stop working out of seizures.
I would actually like a slave.
Let's assume I go to Africa....
I find some tribe and negotiate a trade of say an iphone for one of his tribespeople who's getting beaten/starved/and forced to work. So I buy the guy/girl. I bring that person to America and don't pay him but I put him up in a nice spare bedroom, I develop a relationship with him and make sure he's taken care of (food, clothing, safety, healthcare). However, I make him cut my lawn, do my dishes, and laundry.
I'm not paying him but making him work for me.
I would be villified as a slave owner and sent to jail yet I would have increased the quality of life of a person's life 100 fold.
So right or wrong?
Naturally right, legally wrong. Legality trumps natural order in this realm. All is lost.
edit: long mail-order servants, the legally approved channel of "slavery" (hey, that makes recursive slavery) in the future.
/
A slave is a slave no matter how soft the whip. Do you or don't you agree with the basic concept of having to pay fealty to the overbearing government and the need to pay taxes in order to support bankers and other corprocats and cronies as a kind of slavery or serfdom? If no, why are you here? If so, you are not consistent.
I think slavery is blown out of proportion and that black people leverage that issue against white people. White people have guilt about it and feed into it. The reality is - it sucks to be a slave. But the slaves that white people owned probably lived better than if they were to have stayed in Africa.
It's obvious that slavery sucks but we all still buy products from slaves. So we're all guilty of being.....
IN Fact There Were Plenty Of White Slaves Too.
SO I Wants Me Sum Reperayshuns Too!
Every race have been slaves at some point in history.
It's not a racial issue, it's a elitist class issue.
Even if what you say is true (all U.S. slaves were originally African slaves, which is demonstrably false), there's the whole thing that slavery is fucking evil and the U.S. should have had no fucking part of it and that giving a slave a drink of water does not make it okay to enslave him. You fucking asshole.
Just trying to get your hackles up dude.
Thought for minute there you were gonna get a good tirade going on the Waltons on another thread earlier in the day.
Fuck the Walton heirs who never worked a day in their lives and who own more assets than 1/4 of all Americans combined because they were born into it. Sounds like modern day royalty to me. How does Kate keep so thin with her baby? The future king must be happy with that. She's so cute, and her husband served in the military and the Queen is so proper. Happy now?
Coming down is the hardest part.
This is the dumbest thing I've read since..... I don't even know. Loooong time.
Thank you.
Thank you! Your commment was so apt. Please, more of these.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
= A huge percentage of the worlds population which are enslaved to the banksters debt traps.
Just stay out of their debt traps. Don't buy more than you can afford. Work, save, be happy with what you have.
Do either of you actually have any evidence as to where the slaves were treated better, or is this just another pissing contest that Rand has to inject himself into since he can never actually form a coherent argument?
"WOW, that is SO wrong and I am SHOCKED that you would say that. You are so wrong that I can't even tell you how wrong you are with my vast knowledge of the living standards of slaves in both the US and Africa. Rather, I will just throw shit at the wall and start ridiculous arguments!"
It's very simple, asshole. Slavery is evil. Anyone who justifies it for any reason is a fucking douche.
EDIT: Forget it. I'm not getting entangled in this stupid argument.
Nobody is justifying anything. He was just pointing out the obvious fact that black slaves in the US were better off than black slaves in Africa.
Anybody with a shred of intellectual objectivity understands this to be true.
Just because an institution is morally wrong doesn't mean we cannot discuss it objectively.
Try to get your panties un twisted for crying out loud.
"Do either of you actually have any evidence as to where the slaves were treated better"
Yes. Look at modern day Africa.
Rand is flustered because white people treat black people better than black people treat black people.
You're spoiling LTER's white guilt pity party.
Don't let douche bagery get to you.
i think it's safe to say the thread has gone slightly OT.
>> This is so fucked up on so many levels
But it's pretty much zh comment section standard fare.
The meteor must have taken off the usual sheen that usually covers it in ideological bullshit about freedom. As I've always suspected, these guys believe in freedom for themselves and everyone else can just go to the slave drinking fountain and be fucking happy they aren't slaves somewhere else.
Welcome to right wing populism.
It's funny, I just took that politcal compass test and ended up dead center, yet everybody calls me a right wing extremist.
Something's wrong here....I'm going to go out on a limb here and say....propaganda?
You sure it was a political compass test? Sounds like you were playing darts.
Nice shot btw.
Douche party.
Ok. I define 'irony' as 2 negative votes.
Yes. But they won't negotiate about admitting they do.
When a mobster finished their time, right back to business as usual.
It would appear that Barry has run off and weakened the POTUS once again.
New Barry policy: terrorists get compensation when the terrorize.
Bergdahl is at best a deserter, and at worst - a traitor. He should be brought back in an orange jumpsuit and handcuffs.
Or, better yet, left right in the situation he was in to begin with.
Many died for his ass.
He should share a cell with Barry
...
There are no words adequate to describe the treason exhibited by this asshole!
He is/was just a pawn in a bigger game.
I don't think you have the right to make that judgement. You weren't there.
My son was.
Said right at the start that the guy walked off like he had some sort of plan. That he was 'one weird mother fucker'.
He said, immediately, that he was a deserter who probably thought he could trade what little he knew with the Taliban.
While I want every serviceperson home, including my non-serviceperson son (thirteen fucking years in Afghanistan as a DOD contractor) what Obama has done is reversed the 'no negotiation' policy that has been in effect since numbnuts Carter was in the seat. That means that everyday dumbasses in any country can feel free to snatch an American and demand ransom from the government.
That means a lot of unhappy families in the future.
>> that has been in effect since numbnuts Carter was in the seat.
Uhh, didn't Reagan cut a deal with the Iranians to hold the the hostages until he got elected?
quit confusing this thread with facts
I protect my son. He did not go killin' on the other side of the world 'cause I said; "no, you will not go." But I did have to bail him out of Cook County Jail after he was in there for three days over a bag of weed.
My boy has never been wrong.
I have no doubt that he was a weird motherfucker. Look at his parents. Buncha dried up loser hippys.
Seems like everytime some fucked up kid does some stupid bullshit - he's got a bunch of fucked up parents or comes from a broken home. School shooter, Hollyweird murderer, cannibal serial killer, deserter - just look at the parents. Usually fucked up liberals and most of the time divorced.
No right to make that judgement? Last I checked this guy wasn't drafted. He chose to enlist, and as far as I can tell he enlisted after the wars began. He then chose to walk away from that committment because "oh no war is bad!" leading to the deaths of those ordered to find him . He's a class A jackass.
Are you speaking of our smiling dictator or the low-life grunt?