(ISIS) and US...

Your principle is based on a totally false premise, (an Obama lie) that our only option to get our deserter back was to surrender to all their wishes and demands. Obama has been looking for an excuse to turn loose these high level terrorists since the failed attempt to kidnap of our embassador in Benghazi. Besides never leaving a deseerter behind, we also never negotiated with terrorists until you put one in the Whitehouse.
 
TimSr90 said:
Your principle is based on a totally false premise, (an Obama lie) that our only option to get our deserter back was to surrender to all their wishes and demands. Obama has been looking for an excuse to turn loose these high level terrorists since the failed attempt to kidnap of our embassador in Benghazi. Besides never leaving a deseerter behind, we also never negotiated with terrorists until you put one in the Whitehouse.
Click to expand...
Go look up Peter Moore, a Brit. He was released after George Bush II released Qais al-Khazali, a spokesman for Moqtada al-Sadr.

The US has a long history of negotiating with terrorists, this is just the first one that came to my feeble mind. I do recall Nixon pressuring a bunch of countries to release some Palistinians when I was in high school. Take a look at what Israel does to make sure that their soldiers come back. If they are deserters, they can then be dealt with. I sincerely hope Bergdahl is given his day in court and if guilty, is given just punishment.
 
Clint1991 said:
Don't waste your time Hersey, they ask for facts and you give them and they still say where are the facts?!? I want to know what a fact is since what myself being a decorated combat vet and federal law enforcement officer says from first hand experiences is not factual.....
Click to expand...
Thank you for your service !!
 
That article is speculation, not fact. So the warmongers are trying to get us all amped up again to go to war. Shocking. Here is one interesting bit from the article though:

But, Morell added, if it looks like the U.S. influence in Iraq is increasing once again, the threat from ISIS could also rise.
"That's one of the downsides of U.S. involvement," he told CBS News. "The more we visibly get involved in helping the [Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki] government fight these guys, the more we become a target."

So according to this guy, the US involvement over there CAUSES more problems for our actual country. Sounds about right. No doubt some goat molesting, cave dwelling fucktards will always wish the US harm, but how about if we stay out of their shithole countries and let them figure out their own problems.
 
Because the problem is they are not just fucktards any more. As they article states and IS FACT ..... these groups are no longer a random group of amateurs, they are highly trained and sophisticated terrorist groups. Evidenced by the fact they are taking over Iraq and the other conquests in the past years. He also went on to say that involvement by the US would increase our targeting in the near future but not a couple years out where we are going to be a main target. And they are allies with Al Quaida which will only help to increase their desire to attack us.

I cant understand how a person could feel comfortable leaving alone a terrorist group of this magnitude to let them build and train...plan and then without warning execute another 9/11 attack ............... or worse. Because in their minds WE are one of their "problems they need to figure out". All these people have known since the times of the Old Testament is war in the name of their god. They will never stop
 
Those "cave dwellers" are not stupid, they are highly trained, organized, committed, and unconventional. And do you know how they got that way? Our special forces trained them, and yes that is a fact. And they took what they learned and trained more, and more. That's how these organizations became such a threat. Do you even know why they hate us? I do first hand, they have no intention of ever stopping, and also it's not just us either. We are just their biggest threat.
 
I'm all for the least amount of American forces casualties . However , it's blatantly clear if we don't fight the battle overseas it will simply come here . One solution comes to mind, however that's another thread in it's self .
 
Raptor519 said:
I'm all for the least amount of American forces casualties . However , it's blatantly clear if we don't fight the battle overseas it will simply come here . One solution comes to mind, however that's another thread in it's self .
Click to expand...
Their ain't a bomb big enough to solve the problem, it's world wide. We have members of terrorist organizations living among us in our own country, they may not be physicly harmfull but they do their part through cyber terrisom and funding of extreamist groups.
 
On the other hand (back to the original ISIS thread we hijacked), I believe the articles various sources' opinion
that The Islamic State (still cracks me up to type that) is a threat to US interests. And that their religion, like
all religions, forces them in some weird way to create enemies where there shouldn't be any. It's all back to crazy
religious leaders and their crazy religious dictates.
 
Exactly, I will state a fact that is the real reason they as a whole are a threat. They hate the united states, our way of life, how we don't let them do whatever they want. A very large part of the region is illiterate but very religous, they do what they believe the quran tells them because the extreamist leaders are telling them what they say the book says and they follow without reason to question. The muslum religion is a very peacefull religion, but when your raised thinking your god wants you to destroy all infidels and nobody tells you different and you think thats what you have to do to make it to the holy after life, what do you think they are going to do?
 
You left one part out of the equation and that is those five would have been released eventually anyway because we had no solid evidence in which we could convict them on. Sad but true.
 
footlogicracing said:
You left one part out of the equation and that is those five would have been released eventually anyway because we had no solid evidence in which we could convict them on. Sad but true.
Click to expand...
Not likely, and "we" are not in charge of their judicial process nor do we convict. Once the afghan judicial system concludes a guilty verdict the detainee then gets turned over to their prison where the conditions are horrable and they take a chance on getting a bullet in the head as soon as we drop them off. Their govt does not tolorate them, they do not have a fair judicial system and most all are found guilty weather they are or not. That is all fact.
 
When wars end, prisoners taken custody must be released. These five Guantanamo detainees were almost all members of the Taliban, according to the biographies of the five detainees that the Afghan Analysts Network compiled in 2012. None were facing charges in either military or civilian courts for their actions. It remains an open question whether the end of U.S. involvement in the armed conflict in Afghanistan requires that all Guantanamo detainees must be released. But there is no doubt that Taliban detainees captured in Afghanistan must be released because the armed conflict against the Taliban will be over.
 
footlogicracing said:
When wars end, prisoners taken custody must be released. These five Guantanamo detainees were almost all members of the Taliban, according to the biographies of the five detainees that the Afghan Analysts Network compiled in 2012. None were facing charges in either military or civilian courts for their actions. It remains an open question whether the end of U.S. involvement in the armed conflict in Afghanistan requires that all Guantanamo detainees must be released. But there is no doubt that Taliban detainees captured in Afghanistan must be released because the armed conflict against the Taliban will be over.
Click to expand...
That is not completly true, some of it close. It all comes down to not everything the media is told is completly true, there are always contingenties in place and the rules can almost always be bent and ran through loopholes. I can't give specifics but I used to work detainee opperations in the military and know first hand the media is not any more of a reliable sorce then some random guy on the internet.
 
footlogicracing said:
What, in that statement is not true?
Click to expand...
That when the war ends the detainees must be released, do you know how long Gbay has been around and what it was being used for before the "war"? The same thing with no war, war or no war if there is grounds to detain someone it will be done. Notice I use the word detainees and not prisoners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top