Moderator: Community Team
Gillipig wrote:Include a link you lazy sob, a picture doesn't actually say a thousand words.
Phatscotty wrote:Gillipig wrote:Include a link you lazy sob, a picture doesn't actually say a thousand words.
Sorry, I forgot about the people who live under a rock. You are just as lazy, since you could have got your own link even quicker than the time it took you to write 'lazy slob'.
PLENTY of links to come! Be patient!
Gillipig wrote: and people who live outside of America definitely don't care.
Gillipig wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Gillipig wrote:Include a link you lazy sob, a picture doesn't actually say a thousand words.
Sorry, I forgot about the people who live under a rock. You are just as lazy, since you could have got your own link even quicker than the time it took you to write 'lazy slob'.
PLENTY of links to come! Be patient!
I'm not the thread owner, I can be however lazy I like, the thread owner is supposed to put in some effort into his own thread however.
betiko wrote:we have no idea of what you're talking about because your country isn't the center of the universe scotty. we are already nice enough to click on your link, we ain't googleing shit.
Do you know who Mehdi Nemmouche is? if not, you are living under a rock.
Gillipig wrote:And also, why is it such big news who the U.S is ransoming for who? I doubt most americans care and people who live outside of America definitely doesn't care. For you to be accurate in the living under a rock comparison this would have to be as big a news as the Mars landing or something similar, which it clearly is not.
Phatscotty wrote:
Because Obama negotiated with terrorists,
Phatscotty wrote:It's huge news here in America and certainly all over the Arab world, pretty much most of the world.
patches70 wrote:Phatscotty wrote:
Because Obama negotiated with terrorists,
With all due respect, sir, there are plenty of things to be riled up about with this deal Obama made but this is not one of them.
When a guy goes into a bank to rob it and the cops show up before he can leave and the robber takes hostages, what is the first thing the cops do?
They call in a negotiator.
Did not the US negotiate with the Chinese who held our POWs, who tortured and brainwashed those POWs, during the Korean war?
Did not the US negotiate with with the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong who killed some 3,000 civilians during the Tet Offensive?
Did not Carter negotiate with the Ayatollah on behalf of our embassy hostages?
Did not Reagan send TOW missiles to Iran in exchange for our hostages to be released in Lebanon?
Yes, we negotiate with terrorists. We've negotiated with the Taliban for years. We've negotiated with the Syrian rebels, who are certainly terrorists. And since "terrorist" is a subjective term, that further muddies the waters.
Was not Yasser Arafat once labeled a terrorist?
Was not Menachem Begin once labeled a terrorist?
Was not Nelson Mandela once labeled a terrorist?
All three of those men have another thing in common. All three have won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Just sayin', man. This "we don't negotiate with terrorist" nonsense is just that. Nonsense.
muy_thaiguy wrote: Obama also went over the Senate's heads with this (he's supposed to run it by them before actually doing things like this).
saxitoxin wrote:I'm okay with Obama negotiating with the Taliban. The Taliban are obviously not a state but it's reductive to call them terrorists. They're somewhere in the middle. In the U.S. Civil War the Confederacy was not recognized by the U.S. as a state, but it also wasn't considered a terrorist outfit. The U.S. conducted prisoner exchanges with the CSA army despite not recognizing the CSA government.
I also have no issue with Obama bypassing the 30-day notification law because it does seem to be an unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority in restraining the executive's supremacy over the armed forces.Despite that, this does underscore the hypocrisy of Obama on numerous points, among them: (1) the U.S. government can't continue to call the Taliban terrorists and yet it most certainly will, (2) Obama can no longer seriously claim [but he will and his supporters won't blink] he can't fulfill his campaign promise to close Gitmo because of Congress, as he's just established he can release or transfer any prisoner whenever he wants.
patches70 wrote:As for Bergdahl, the issue is now whether or not he deserted, defected and/or collaborated with the enemy. I do not know, but it should be investigated.
For if it is not investigated or even worse it is shown proven true and Bergdahl avoids all punishment, then it deals a blow to military morale and shows an even wider gulf between the CIC and the military.
muy_thaiguy wrote:In short, and without Phat Scotty's own bigoted views, the guy went AWOL (was a loner throughout his military career which raises flags on its own) and had been a prisoner of the Taliban for years. In order to release him, Obama and his closest advisors/supporters sent off 5 highly dangerous terrorists from Gitmo to trade for him (why they didn't do this years ago or didn't mount a rescue op instead of letting 5 dangerous terrorists go, I doubt we'll ever know). Obama also went over the Senate's heads with this (he's supposed to run it by them before actually doing things like this).
Most likely, he'll be questioned for whatever information they can get on the Taliban cells he was transferred between, medically and psychologically examined, and most likely court martialed for going AWOL which led to the deaths of 6 soldiers who were out searching for him.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: mookiemcgee