Five of the Most Dangerous Taliban Commanders in U.S. Custody Exchanged for American Captive

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

" hostages in the Lebanon. " how did they get too Lebanon, by the way, from Iran.

1035.84 miles away.

originally posted by: BobAthome
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

" hostages in the Lebanon. " how did they get too Lebanon, by the way, from Iran.

1035.84 miles away.

(Facepalm)
I see that I must educate this evening. Iran was then - and still largely is - a backer of Hezbollah in the Lebanon, which had the hostages.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: BobAthome
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

" hostages in the Lebanon. " how did they get too Lebanon, by the way, from Iran.

1035.84 miles away.

(Facepalm)
I see that I must educate this evening. Iran was then - and still largely is - a backer of Hezbollah in the Lebanon, which had the hostages.

ahhh you missed it,,,(Facepalm)




right,,,

and by Hezbola u mean PLO,,

1979. PLO leader Yasser ARAFAT with Ayatollah MONTAZARI.



see he's waving the PEACE SIGN,, big smile as well,,

ahhh

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Has anyone thought that this might be the first step by OB to shut down Gimo? If he can clear the place out one way or another he can then say it is obsolete now.

Should be relatively easy to shut it down compared to a month
ago, Xtro: the five biggest reasons to keep it open are gone now.
I don't know about that one way or another, though... it seems
kind of anticlimactic after the teachers are sprung out of detention

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: OpinionatedB

What I'm seeing is a dichotomy for military and civilian.

If you are a civilian, and have sided with terrorists, then you lose your rights.

If you are with the government (in the form of the military) you retain your rights.

Is this setting precedent?

I'll further stipulate that you are correct in that the government is doing nothing to WIN the war on terror, but is doing what it can to CONTINUE the war on terror.

And mighty fuzzy one, forever may you be combed by those 72
playbunnies who know what they're doing. Twice. More Julienne
carrots over here

Double standard, maintain the profit center at all costs, and throw out
Black's and Bouvier's dictionaries to boot. Triple win situation for the
globalists... and all we get in return anyway is a little more mud slung
onto an invulnerable lame duck. I'm sure that some matured flavors of
total evil have to start out at drooling insanity... or at least dead stupid.

I wonder in the long run if this guy was an asset they had to extract
in order to crank down the heat on something major, or divert attention.

a reply to: derfreebie
Jack Bauer, James Bond, Chuck Norris, and now this guy?

(bacon martini, shaken, not stirred)

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: derfreebie
Jack Bauer, James Bond, Chuck Norris, and now this guy?

(bacon martini, shaken, not stirred)

This is beginning to remind me of Rich Clarke's
blurb, if it was indeed him.. but notable,
"The CIA will have succeeded if everything the general public
knows is a lie."
I probably blew the quote too-- but the intent shows itself with
the culture of disinfo that shields ALL the secret orgs. How much
more these guys are doing in the dark is definitely not in our
interests, especially this op. But can you even imagine what's
going through that fly's head on the wall at Langley now? I can't.

It was dinner--- the lady of the house fried extremely salty
loin chops in the pan. I'm pulling NaCl cubes from my tear ducts
as we type, each slightly larger than a '62 455 Olds thickwall.
How old am I NOW? Bacon-- it's just for breakfast and interrogations
anymore. Quote me.. "The FAT o' nine tails." I am terrible..ROFL

EDIT:: and a PS.. if reasonable transparency ever becomes a reality
on that Hill; I will personally ship a dusty bottle of single malt to
some General Delivery just under 54-40 of your choice. It's the
least I can do for your occasionally peeling my eyes for me....

originally posted by: jimmyx
well I guess this is settled....should have left him there to die.....oh by the way for all of you other servicemen in war zones....don't walk off the base and get captured, because the decision to bring you back will depend on whether republicans think you are worthy of it....if not, you are on your own.

How cute!

I see what you're doing there - trying to turn it all partisan!

Here's a clue for ya sonny - I'm not a Republican, and I've already said I would have left his ass for the crows to eat. It's not a partisan issue, however much you would like it to be.

As far as his chances of dying go, he didn't have any. Had he been subject to death, he'd have not made it through the first week in "captivity".

There were complexities at play involving Afghan customs and politics, and propaganda opportunities that he probably wasn't even aware of - or he may have been. If he was, God help the people in his hometown when he gets equilibrium back, because if he was that means he went in as "one of them".

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: jimmyx
well I guess this is settled....should have left him there to die.....oh by the way for all of you other servicemen in war zones....don't walk off the base and get captured, because the decision to bring you back will depend on whether republicans think you are worthy of it....if not, you are on your own.

How cute!

I see what you're doing there - trying to turn it all partisan!

Here's a clue for ya sonny - I'm not a Republican, and I've already said I would have left his ass for the crows to eat. It's not a partisan issue, however much you would like it to be.

As far as his chances of dying go, he didn't have any. Had he been subject to death, he'd have not made it through the first week in "captivity".

There were complexities at play involving Afghan customs and politics, and propaganda opportunities that he probably wasn't even aware of - or he may have been. If he was, God help the people in his hometown when he gets equilibrium back, because if he was that means he went in as "one of them".

I dont think its a partisan issue but reading through here people are attempting to make it one. I see this as simple if terrorists think all they have to do to get people released is capture a US citizens than were going to see alot more grabbed by terrorists. I know if i were a terrorists capturing Americans would become a priority. So im not understanding why anyone would think this is a good idea you dont negotiate with terrorists it causes them to comit more acts of terrorism.

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: tadaman

republicans think everything Obama does is bad...so what else is new. I think all of you should write a letter to his parents and express how their son should have been killed or left to die. you all seem to know the facts, and have reached that conclusion....so put up or shut up.

What on Earth is it that you think hate mail for the sake of hate mail accomplishes?

I'll tell ya what I'll do - if they prosecute and execute, I'll write the first letter edged in black to his folks.

Fair enough?

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

well, I just wish those that oppose this just come out and say that Obama should have left this soldier to die...it's pretty clear to me that is what is being said...

I've already said it, multiple times. I ain't shy, and don't make any bones about it. He should have been left to die, or live as an Afghan, or whatever would have happened... ANYTHING other than brought home, much less releasing 5 mass murderers into the wild for him. He made his choice, and should have been left to abide by it on his own dime. He should have NEVER been allowed back inside US borders unless it was in chains.

as a side note, to all of you active soldiers, and those that are thinking about signing up for military service, if you are captured by any enemy, your life will depend on whether right-leaning leaders think you are worthy of being saved.

"Captured by the enemy" is not the issue, however much you wish it was. WILLINGLY walking away from your own and into the arms of the enemy is what's at issue.

You can try to spin it any way you like, but in the end it's all still just political spin coming from you.

a reply to: nenothtu

but but..Susan Rice said he was captured on the field of battle!

Oh..Yeah..she said Benghazi was about a video too.

Great, honest, upstanding bunch of folks we have now huh? We could have George Washington at the top, and the rot is so bad below the top now, it may not matter much.

originally posted by: amazing
a reply to: nenothtu

Good reply. One point though. You basically said that the Taliban/Afghan's won't stop fighting no matter what. However, they aren't really fighting the Russians anymore after that war is over. So, that point isn't quite right.

Fair enough. While the Taliban won't likely be fighting too many direct actions against us, they WILL be busy fighting Afghans to retake Afghanistan. That, I suppose, is an Afghan problem, for Afghans to deal with. They will also likely reopen (and have to rebuild, in most cases) the clandestine training bases, to train other folks to fight us, some of whom will likely find their way here for the fight. THAT is what happened to Russia after the Taliban took control. Where do you think a large percentage of the Uzbeks and Chechens taking direct action against Russia IN Russia were trained?

This is why I specified that the Taliban are but a single facet of wahabbism. The Taliban will give aid to the wahabbis that want to take us on, but will likely be too busy trying to subdue Afghanistan to put much effort into directly fighting us.

While comparing the two wars may have some points of congruence, they do not directly correlate. The Russians were not fighting the Taliban, for example, since the Taliban did not exist until 5 years after the Russians had left Afghanistan, and were foreigners to boot. Still, the Mujahideen had their hands full fighting the Taliban, and trying to reduce the chaos the war left their country in to do much to the Russians.

We still invaded a foreign country and the war's over, we should get out. We have enough resources to get back in there if we ever need to.

Might as well. If we aren't going to fight to win, we ought not to play at fighting at all. Where I come from they have a saying involving either defecating or getting off the pot. Do one or the other, don't just sit there for no good reason.

There are far more terrorists against the US in other countries, like Pakistan than Afghanistan now.

Doesn't matter, until they start harboring and aiding the ones that come here to get us. They can do whatever they want on their own turf... until it creates or threatens an injury here. That's where the Taliban went off the rails and got themselves all invaded and stuff.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: spirited75

Obama forgot that respect is a two way street.

This so called man thinks he can do whatever he wants without approval from the rest of the government.

All hail King Obama.

well, Reagan negotiated with terrorists,

I'm not so sure about that - but I'll look into it. I thought he was negotiating with Iran.

sent US made missiles to Iran,

Yeah. To zap Iraqi tanks. Sounds like a win-win to me. It was probably only fair, since the US also sold some of the gas to Iraq that they were gassing Iranians with.

and ousted a democratically elected government, all done in secret and without approval from congress. all hail king Reagan!!

Which "democratically elected government" did Reagan oust?

Ok, the part about not ever negotiating with terrorists....this is just wise....that till we come to where we are today and the high tech means to tag and track someone. That to me is a game changer.
I have to say i am stunned in wondering if obama (well his handlers) actually just pulled a fast one on the world. I am in no way a fan of obama but what if they rfid chipped these taliban generals? They could track them and watch all their contacts and movements till it comes time to send in a drone strike. So is it possible they wanted to set them free, and this trade is actually a set up? And they get a deserting traitor to prosecute as well. a reply to: nenothtu

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: nenothtu

but but..Susan Rice said he was captured on the field of battle!

Well, I guess technically she was right - in unconventional or asymmetrical or irregular warfare, every place you set your foot or lay your head is "the field of battle". I do, however, resent her implication that he was actually fighting, rather than running towards the Taliban with open arms and ready to plant a big wet sloppy kiss on them.

Oh..Yeah..she said Benghazi was about a video too.

Great, honest, upstanding bunch of folks we have now huh? We could have George Washington at the top, and the rot is so bad below the top now, it may not matter much.

That's why I don't run for president - the raw material that's been left to work with is substandard. Well, that and the fact that I can't compare well with Washington... I have less hair and better teeth.

a reply to: manna2

I'm not placing much stock in the various "he must have chipped them" theories. The target has to be too close to the interrogation signal for one thing - a matter of feet. Surely If it was that close, they would see the drone coming and duck...

originally posted by: manna2
Ok, the part about not ever negotiating with terrorists....this is just wise....that till we come to where we are today and the high tech means to tag and track someone. That to me is a game changer.
I have to say i am stunned in wondering if obama (well his handlers) actually just pulled a fast one on the world. I am in no way a fan of obama but what if they rfid chipped these taliban generals? They could track them and watch all their contacts and movements till it comes time to send in a drone strike. So is it possible they wanted to set them free, and this trade is actually a set up? And they get a deserting traitor to prosecute as well. a reply to: nenothtu

Yeah i dont have much faith in government tracking remember the guns they handed over to the drug dealers in Mexico those were supposed to be tracked as well.

a reply to: nenothtu

lol... Neither of us would stand a hope of running for elected office. I think we'd both come to the same conclusion as the first order of business any executive position would require be done.

A purge of government from middle management to the top management so complete, Stalin's ghost comes around to admire the approach. That's what would be required.

All but the shooting and death of course. Retirement at half pension at most (hey..tough times..isn't that what we keep being told?) is quite enough.

They say there are a couple to a few million total people in civilian Government service at one level or another. I say there are MORE than enough unemployed with qualifications right now to replace damn near all of them and do it with people capable of performing the jobs with little to no serious effort beyond specific orientation to the work at hand.

Flush them all I say...because like mold? If we don't get all of the corruption, it'll taint any replacement in due time.

So..Nope..I've never entertained the illusion that folks like me could ever hold office as something it sounds we do have in common.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: nenothtu

lol... Neither of us would stand a hope of running for elected office. I think we'd both come to the same conclusion as the first order of business any executive position would require be done.

A purge of government from middle management to the top management so complete, Stalin's ghost comes around to admire the approach. That's what would be required.

All but the shooting and death of course. Retirement at half pension at most (hey..tough times..isn't that what we keep being told?) is quite enough.

They say there are a couple to a few million total people in civilian Government service at one level or another. I say there are MORE than enough unemployed with qualifications right now to replace damn near all of them and do it with people capable of performing the jobs with little to no serious effort beyond specific orientation to the work at hand.

Flush them all I say...because like mold? If we don't get all of the corruption, it'll taint any replacement in due time.

So..Nope..I've never entertained the illusion that folks like me could ever hold office as something it sounds we do have in common.

If you tried to get criminals out of Washington the place would be a ghost town. And if you were president im sure you would wind up dead somehow before you even started investigating.