Author Topic: Trading Terrorists for One of Our Own  (Read 33928 times)

Archer77

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14174
  • Team Shizzo
Re: Trading Terrorists for One of Our Own
« Reply #250 on: June 08, 2014, 07:44:27 AM »
Yeah.  You tried to.

Want to keep backpedaling or want to explain your previous Einstein-ish claim.  Here just to save a bit of brainwattage for you, I will repeat it.

PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW A DETAINEE OF OVER 10 YEARS COMPLETELY ISOLATED FROM ALL CONTACT WITH HIS FORMER COMRADES WOULD HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF "THE INNER WORKINGS OF THE CURRENT TALIBAN AND MULTIPLE SITUATIONS THAT THEY WERE NOT EVEN DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN"  (your words and claim)

Have fun.  Gotta run to Publix for more BBQ sauce for the cookout I'm doing today.  Will check back and see how what weak excuse you offer up.  If any.  Most likely will not address your own statement and instead ignore it, hoping everyone else does too.  

Youre obviously upset.  You shouldn't be.  This all in good fun.  The terrorists will not have direct knowledge of current operations (never said they did) but their experience with the inner workings of taliban can provide context and understanding of the talibans current activities.   Essentially they act as translators who can interpret what the actions mean and possible information as to what may happen.
A

Archer77

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14174
  • Team Shizzo
Re: Trading Terrorists for One of Our Own
« Reply #251 on: June 08, 2014, 07:45:57 AM »
I'm not playing any military cred card.  I'm saying that as former military it's always been my opinion that if a soldier is being held by enemy forces, you do all you can to free him.  And you DON'T first make sure his record is clean.  Do you get this?

Be clear here, please.  Are you saying that Bergdahl should not have been freed because of allegations of his desertion?

Was the gov't trying to milk this situation for good PR?  Duh, par for the course. 

But, I've gotta say that getting your panties in a twist about it is to seem near laughably ignorant of how innocuous this situation is compared to other military situations in the not-so-distant past.  Remember Jessica Lynch?  Shit, remember Pat Tillman? 

If you wanna freak out about "being lied to and manipulated" you should probably do it about something more substantial than goofy Bergdahl's conscience and lack of good sense causing him to desert in Afghanistan, imo.

Any of this make sense?

You should make sure his record is clean before you trump his story in the media. 
A

RRKore

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2628
Re: Trading Terrorists for One of Our Own
« Reply #252 on: June 08, 2014, 07:46:36 AM »
I never used the word current.    Anyone with knowledge of an organization is useful.

Oh shit, with weak sauce like that, you've got to just be trolling here.  

Sorry to have taken you seriously.

Archer77

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14174
  • Team Shizzo
Re: Trading Terrorists for One of Our Own
« Reply #253 on: June 08, 2014, 07:48:22 AM »
Oh shit, with weak sauce like that, you've got to just be trolling here.  

Sorry to have taken you seriously.

Why so angry?  I explained further what I meant.  Now get on your lurker account and back yourself up.
A

RRKore

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2628
Re: Trading Terrorists for One of Our Own
« Reply #254 on: June 08, 2014, 07:50:16 AM »
You should make sure his record is clean before you trump his story in the media. 

What does "trump" mean in this context?

And why does one need to make sure his record is clean?;  And how important is this consideration in your world?

RRKore

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2628
Re: Trading Terrorists for One of Our Own
« Reply #255 on: June 08, 2014, 07:51:51 AM »
Why so angry?  I explained further what I meant.  Now get on your lurker account and back yourself up.

I'm not angry.   I just think you're mostly trolling now.

(Fuck, if that kind of thing made me angry, how could I ever look at 90% of SC's posts? lol)

RRKore

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2628
Re: Trading Terrorists for One of Our Own
« Reply #256 on: June 08, 2014, 07:54:12 AM »
Why so angry?  I explained further what I meant.  Now get on your lurker account and back yourself up.

LOL.  Just caught the "lurker" part.

Do you really think we're the same person?  lol

Weren't you just saying something about folks seeing everything in black and white?

Archer77

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14174
  • Team Shizzo
Re: Trading Terrorists for One of Our Own
« Reply #257 on: June 08, 2014, 07:54:19 AM »
What does "trump" mean in this context?

And why does one need to make sure his record is clean?;  And how important is this consideration in your world?

Its important when the government tries to sell the public and the media a story that is clearly not 100% factual.  I would be less offended if they hadnt attempted to make a spectacle out of the situation.
A

Archer77

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14174
  • Team Shizzo
Re: Trading Terrorists for One of Our Own
« Reply #258 on: June 08, 2014, 07:55:56 AM »
I'm not angry.   I just think you're mostly trolling now.

(Fuck, if that kind of thing made me angry, how could I ever look at 90% of SC's posts? lol)

Im not trolling.  Im bringing up issues is all.  Nothing I've said is unreasonable.   Im not yelling traitor or Obamas a homo.
A

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6799
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Re: Trading Terrorists for One of Our Own
« Reply #259 on: June 08, 2014, 07:56:01 AM »
I'm not playing any military cred card.  I'm saying that as former military it's always been my opinion that if a soldier is being held by enemy forces, you do all you can to free him.  And you DON'T first make sure his record is clean.  Do you get this?

Be clear here, please.  Are you saying that Bergdahl should not have been freed because of allegations of his desertion?

Was the gov't trying to milk this situation for good PR?  Duh, par for the course. 

But, I've gotta say that getting your panties in a twist about it is to seem near laughably ignorant of how innocuous this situation is compared to other military situations in the not-so-distant past.  Remember Jessica Lynch?  Shit, remember Pat Tillman? 

If you wanna freak out about "being lied to and manipulated" you should probably do it about something more substantial than goofy Bergdahl's conscience and lack of good sense causing him to desert in Afghanistan, imo.

Any of this make sense?

All these episodes are about PR, not like this is something new been going on since there have been wars. Lynch a lot of fabrication, wrong turn into Nasiriyah. Tillman blue on blue, he was a recognized name back in the world. Spin to cover up incompetence.  This is just another in a long line of Obama miscalculations on who should be paraded out as a hero. You don't hear about the real hero's, guess it doesn't make good propaganda for what ever administration is in office at the time.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Archer77

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14174
  • Team Shizzo
Re: Trading Terrorists for One of Our Own
« Reply #260 on: June 08, 2014, 07:57:00 AM »
LOL.  Just caught the "lurker" part.

Do you really think we're the same person?  lol

Weren't you just saying something about folks seeing everything in black and white?

Your comments are nearly identical.  Youre both upset and defensive. 
A

RRKore

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2628
Re: Trading Terrorists for One of Our Own
« Reply #261 on: June 08, 2014, 07:58:41 AM »
Its important when the government tries to sell the public and the media a story that is clearly not 100% factual.  I would be less offended if they hadnt attempted to make a spectacle out of the situation.

What part wasn't 100% factual?  Are you referring to the characterization of Bergdahl?

RRKore

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2628
Re: Trading Terrorists for One of Our Own
« Reply #262 on: June 08, 2014, 08:03:03 AM »
Your comments are nearly identical.  Youre both upset and defensive. 

That you think they're nearly identical is revealing. 

I can't speak for lurker but I'm not upset. 

And you seem to be playing a lot of defense here (which means nothing, btw).

Archer77

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14174
  • Team Shizzo
Re: Trading Terrorists for One of Our Own
« Reply #263 on: June 08, 2014, 08:07:54 AM »
What part wasn't 100% factual?  Are you referring to the characterization of Bergdahl?


Absolutely.

That you think they're nearly identical is revealing. 

I can't speak for lurker but I'm not upset. 

And you seem to be playing a lot of defense here (which means nothing, btw).


Im not defensive in the least.  Im genuinely trying to have a discussion.  I voted for Obama.   I thought benghazi wasn't a legitimate scandal.  I dont have a vested interest in defending the Republicans.  Ive never voted Republican in my life.  I argued with coach and 333 during the bush years way more than I have over the obama administration.
A

RRKore

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2628
Re: Trading Terrorists for One of Our Own
« Reply #264 on: June 08, 2014, 08:58:01 AM »
Absolutely.

Im not defensive in the least.  Im genuinely trying to have a discussion.  I voted for Obama.   I thought benghazi wasn't a legitimate scandal.  I dont have a vested interest in defending the Republicans.  Ive never voted Republican in my life.  I argued with coach and 333 during the bush years way more than I have over the obama administration.

Fair enough. 

For the record, sorry if I may have been  a little bit uncivil -- Although it goes against my nature, lol, I try not to get too insulting with those I disagree with here -- with exceptions made for a select few, of course.

Mawse

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2585
Re: Trading Terrorists for One of Our Own
« Reply #265 on: June 08, 2014, 11:15:24 AM »
Lol, outside of government media how exactly is the talban "no longer a threat" ? .. in a few months of the NATO troops withdrawing they'll be running the country again. Then attacks on Pakistan will intensify, and the area will continue to devolve back to the stone age. They are down in number but have been at war for a decade and have learned a lot about terror campaigns during that time. Other radicals will swarm in from Syria etc, armed with US supplied weapons to assist them and the us will have to spend billions more in back door "aid" aka buying Viagra and jeeps for tribal chiefs and arming militias to try to counter them

It doesn't matter if the terrorists have been held in insulation for a decade, what matters is they are a rallying point for thousands of new recruits in a tribal, proud culture.

Bear in mind there is absolutely no way the us can ever "win" in that region no matter how many billions we bleed out, so this is all pointless in the long run. All were doing is creating more death And pain for our so called allies next door.

IMO we should have told canada to fuck off and mined the entire border then pulled out a decade ago.


headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: Trading Terrorists for One of Our Own
« Reply #266 on: June 08, 2014, 11:30:19 AM »
We'll be taking bets on how long the central government lasts. The various army units will dissolve or come under the control of the various tribal chiefs. The Taliban will have to decide what they want to do about the narco's as they've very powerful now. I suspect they'll have to allow them some autonomy. Those 5 guys will assimilate back into the power structure and do what they did before. Its been a mess and will always be a mess.
L

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 33696
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: Trading Terrorists for One of Our Own
« Reply #267 on: June 08, 2014, 11:39:28 AM »
Yeah.  You tried to.

Want to keep backpedaling or want to explain your previous Einstein-ish claim.  Here just to save a bit of brainwattage for you, I will repeat it.

PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW A DETAINEE OF OVER 10 YEARS COMPLETELY ISOLATED FROM ALL CONTACT WITH HIS FORMER COMRADES WOULD HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF "THE INNER WORKINGS OF THE CURRENT TALIBAN AND MULTIPLE SITUATIONS THAT THEY WERE NOT EVEN DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN"  (your words and claim)

Have fun.  Gotta run to Publix for more BBQ sauce for the cookout I'm doing today.  Will check back and see how what weak excuse you offer up.  If any.  Most likely will not address your own statement and instead ignore it, hoping everyone else does too.  

Any reason you are avoiding your own statements and words?

Other than you are full of shit and got exposed?  If you feel otherwise please elaborate on what YOU SAID.

LOL @ anyone "being angry".  We are not the ones back pedaling, running in circles and talking out of our asses.  Good luck at making yourself feel better with that lie.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Trading Terrorists for One of Our Own
« Reply #268 on: June 08, 2014, 04:07:11 PM »
Posted on June 7, 2014 at 8:41:35 AM EDT by GregNH

As more revelations emerge about Bergdahl’s disappearance, it becomes clearer that the White House has something really big to hide. Here are three clues:

1. In predictable fashion, those who question the official story must be discredited. The Soldiers who are providing their own on-the-ground recollections must be “psychopaths,” as an Obama administration official at HUD referred to them. State Department spokesperson Marie Harf has attacked their integrity, and now the media has resurrected “swift-boating” — all meant to disparage, demean, and discredit these brave American Soldiers. This is what liberals do — and I speak from experience.

2. The Soldiers who served alongside Bergdahl and were on the ground with him when he disappeared were forced to sign non-disclosure agreements. Why? Would that be anything like the muzzling of the Benghazi survivors?

3. The classified Pentagon report from 2010 on Sergeant Bergdahl should by now be de-classified, but it’s not. Why? What’s in it?

Oh, and then there’s the case of Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings who wrote about Bergdahl’s disappearance in 2012 and ended up dead in 2013.

(Excerpt) Read more at allenbwest.com ...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Trading Terrorists for One of Our Own
« Reply #269 on: June 09, 2014, 04:59:01 AM »
If you thought President Obama’s release of five top Taliban commanders in exchange for POW Bowe Bergdahl was bad, wait until you see what his Gitmo parole board plans.

Desperate to empty the Guantanamo Bay prison by the end of his term, Obama quietly is giving “get out of jail free” cards for the flimsiest of excuses.

One al Qaeda suspect captured in Afghanistan is considered reformed because he took up yoga and read a biography of the Dalai Lama. Another is eligible for release because of his “positive attitude.”

And one longtime detainee, a former bodyguard for Osama bin Laden, is now harmless because he’s going to start a “milk and honey farm.”

The Periodic Review Board already helped clear 78 of the remaining 149 prisoners for release, documents show, and has scheduled more hearings for this summer.

Many of these men were dubbed “forever prisoners” because of the threat they posed to the US — with intelligence officials warning that, if free, they would return to the jihad to kill Americans.

Based on past cases, that’s a good bet.

In a report on detainee recidivism, Obama’s own director of national intelligence this year documented that 178, or 29 percent, of the 614 prisoners already transferred from the prison have been confirmed to have, or are suspected of having, re-engaged in terrorism.

That means for every three freed from Gitmo, one has rejoined the war against us. Intelligence analysts admit their ability to track all former detainees is limited, so the recidivism rate may, in fact, be much higher.


Modal Trigger

A detainee in an orange jumpsuit is seen being led by US Army military police.
Photo: AP

One notorious recidivist, Abdullah Gulam Rasoul, became the Taliban’s operations commander in southern Afghanistan soon after his 2007 release from Gitmo. He was blamed for masterminding a surge in roadside attacks against American troops and organizing assaults on US aircraft in Afghanistan.

Another repeat terrorist is Said Ali al-Shihri, who after his 2007 release ran al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch and helped plan the deadly bombing of the US Embassy there.

Already, one of the five Taliban leaders freed last week in exchange for Bergdahl — Mullah Noorullah Noori — has pledged to return to fight Americans in Afghanistan.

Obama’s terrorist parole board was established in 2011. He appoints its members — officials from the Justice Department, Pentagon, State Department and Homeland Security — without a congressional confirmation process. It is secretive and lacking in accountability.

In setting up the Periodic Review Board, meanwhile, Obama prohibited members from relying on information that has been obtained as a result of “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (in order) to support a determination that continued law of war detention is warranted for a detainee.”

The bias against interrogation evidence potentially opens up the release of some of Gitmo’s hardest cases, including al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah, 2002 Bali bombing mastermind “Hambali,” and Mohammed al-Qahtani, the suspected 20th hijacker of the 9/11 attacks.

But these releases won’t cause the same outcry, because it’s being done in virtual secrecy. Already, more than 600 prisoners have been transferred out of Gitmo with little fanfare. Two hundred of them were sent back to Afghanistan.

As defense lawyer David Remes explained to Al Jazeera news network, “The Periodic Review Board is likely to be predisposed to approval to transfer because the idea here is to close down Guantanamo.”

The inmates slated for release include:

GHALEB NASSER AL-BIHANI, 34


Modal Trigger

Ghaleb Nasser al-Bihani

“He loves yoga”

What he did: Classified as an “indefinite detainee” in 2010 because of the danger he posed to the US. The Yemeni national was captured in 2001 fighting in Afghanistan. The military said he was a troublemaker while in custody, even inciting riots. He was uncooperative in interviews, showing “ill intentions toward the US.” One of his brothers in Yemen is a leader in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the terror group’s most lethal branch.

What they say now: His government-appointed lawyer argued he was merely an assistant cook for an unspecified military group. “He has asked for yoga magazines and self-help books,” lawyer Pardiss Kebriaei told the parole board in April, noting he practices yoga in his cellblock and has read biographies of the Dalai Lama and Martin Luther King Jr.

In his own plea to the board, Bihani suggested his hostility comes from losing his parents as a boy, saying, “It was hard growing up without a mother or father.” He promised to start a family and live a peaceful life if freed. “I look forward to the day when I can hold my baby in my hands,” he said. Last month, the board said it found his story “credible” and declared al-Bihani “no longer…a threat to the security of the United States.”

MAHMUD ABD AL AZIZ AL MUJAHID, 33


Modal Trigger

Mahmud Abd Al Aziz Al Mujahid

“Wants a milk & honey farm”

What he did: Served as Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard and was captured after 9/11. The military warns that, if freed, he would likely hook up in Yemen with his brother, “another former bin Laden bodyguard.”

Without explanation, the board blacked out a large section of Mujahid’s testimony dealing with al Qaeda.

What they say now: “Mujahid is a peacemaker,” his lawyer David Remes insisted, adding he “requires no rehabilitation when he returns.”

Mujahid called a character witness — another detainee — who testified that Mujahid had told him he wants to start a “milk and honey farm” in Yemen.

In November, the board cleared Mujahid for release, reasoning he would maintain his good behavior through “extensive family support in Yemen.” Panelists were impressed with his personal statement that, while growing up, “in our household, we were taught politeness, decency and human being [sic].”

ALI AHMAD MOHAMED AI-RAZIHI, 33


Modal Trigger

Ali Ahmad Mohamed ai-Razihi

“Has a positive attitude”

What he did: Served as an Osama bin Laden bodyguard. There’s evidence he wrote to his family boasting of his commitment to jihad. The military cautioned officials against believing that “his stated intentions are genuine.”

Curiously, the board withheld Razihi’s written testimony and hearing transcript.

What they say now: In taking him off the threat list, the board cited his “positive attitude.” His personal representative convinced board members that Razihi “has keen business acumen” and seeks to take over the family’s “fruit and vegetable business” in Yemen.

Added the unnamed government advocate: “He’s ready to live out the rest of his days as a peaceful man, a family man and an entrepreneur, and no longer should be considered a continued significant threat to the United States.”

Prisoners in Gitmo at height in 2003: 684

Prisoners left: 149

Cleared for transfer but not yet released: 78

Prisoners, including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who are considered “high-value detainees” charged with war crimes: 16

Recidivism rate for released prisoners: 29%

Paul Sperry is a Hoover Institution media fellow and author of “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington.”

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Trading Terrorists for One of Our Own
« Reply #270 on: June 09, 2014, 05:25:12 AM »
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/08/us/bergdahl-search-soldiers


6 soldiers dies looking for this deserting pos

Archer77

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14174
  • Team Shizzo
Re: Trading Terrorists for One of Our Own
« Reply #271 on: June 09, 2014, 06:49:03 AM »
Fair enough. 

For the record, sorry if I may have been  a little bit uncivil -- Although it goes against my nature, lol, I try not to get too insulting with those I disagree with here -- with exceptions made for a select few, of course.

I respect and appreciate your contributions, kore.  We probably agree on 99% of issues.
A

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 33696
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: Trading Terrorists for One of Our Own
« Reply #272 on: June 09, 2014, 08:24:33 AM »
I respect and appreciate your contributions, kore.  We probably agree on 99% of issues.

How is that possible if he and I are the same person?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Trading Terrorists for One of Our Own
« Reply #274 on: June 09, 2014, 10:33:07 AM »
I think the only problem I have with GITMO.... is how we determine who is a POW and who is an enemy combatant.  I mean, because of where they're standing on the street, if they have a uniform or not?

And not because I really give a shit about the people locked up there - but because I would hate to think, if North Korea invaded Hawaii, and people living there came out of their homes with guns to protect themselves on the streets where they live (without uniforms of training), then NK could lock them up in Siberia for over a decade, even after the war actually ends lol.

That's the weird part... lock their asses up, totally cool there... but we're decalaring a win there.  It's a huge dangerous precedent to set globally... "We think these dudes are bad dudes, so yeah, we're just going to lock them up for years after the war is over".   Would hate to see thousands of US soldiers from Vietnam still sitting in POW camps because "We think they might be dangerous when we let them go".

If that's the case, make a change and execute them back in 2003 or 2004 when you caught them.  But locking them up for decades - to me, that puts our troops at risk.