• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Secret Joint Raid Captures Taliban’s Top Commander

Redress said:
I do not care who made the plans, or who pulled it off, except to say to them great job. If Bush and Cheney themselves planned this by hand, good job to them. Why we have to be all partisan about something that is just good news is beyond me. Let's just smile and enjoy that there is good news out of the middle east.
Click to expand...
No reason, except Obama and Co. trashed Bush during the campaign and then continued his policies once in office. If not for that, I wouldn't have said it.
 
Ethereal said:
I agree that this is very good news, but I suspect Obama's policy views will drain it of its full potential. This Taliban leader should be immediately and aggressively exploited for intel. Once the scumbag stops yielding useful information, he should be processed by a military tribunal and executed without delay.
Click to expand...

The article mentions he is being held and interrogated by Pakistani intelligence, who have a reputation for world class torture. If you really believe the best intelligence is obtained through torture, you should be delighted.
 
The CIA operatives are probably trying to remain anonymous for fear of being tried by Obama for giving their captive a bloody nose.

But what I find encouraging is the Pakistani involvement, which is less than consistent to say the least. Might we, or they, be getting closer to bin Laden?
 
WillRockwell said:
The article mentions he is being held and interrogated by Pakistani intelligence, who have a reputation for world class torture. If you really believe the best intelligence is obtained through torture, you should be delighted.
Click to expand...
Caught on their soil wasn't he? That means they have jurisdiction.
 
Captain America said:
Then cut his head off, put it in a sack, and play polo with it on camelback.

Ooo-rah.
Click to expand...

Goodness me. No trial? No evidence? No conviction. Calls for interrogate and then behead?

My my, what would the world think, no wonder they don't like us.
 
texmaster said:
Too bad under Obama he has the right to remain silent :roll:

Remember kids, you dont need to illegally cross the boarder to get US rights! Just kill a few people in Afghanistan and they are guaranteed by the Obama administration!
Click to expand...

See, text, when you don't read the story, you come off sounding like an idiot...

Mullah Baradar has been in Pakistani custody for several days, with American and Pakistani intelligence officials both taking part in interrogations, according to the officials.
Click to expand...

My theory, you far-right anti-Obama types are so caught up in your Beck-Hannity talking points, you can't even bring yourself to read a story that might contradict what you think you already know...

When you go around finding fault in anything that happens under Obama's watch, putting a negative spin on every single story -- you flush your credibility right down the toilet.
 
hazlnut said:
When you go around finding fault in anything that happens under Obama's watch, putting a negative spin on every single story -- you flush your credibility right down the toilet.
Click to expand...

Because Obama knows less about what a military operation involves than any president in U.S. history.

I bet he refused to play Stratego on principle as a kid.
 
hazlnut said:
See, text, when you don't read the story, you come off sounding like an idiot...



My theory, you far-right anti-Obama types are so caught up in your Beck-Hannity talking points, you can't even bring yourself to read a story that might contradict what you think you already know...

When you go around finding fault in anything that happens under Obama's watch, putting a negative spin on every single story -- you flush your credibility right down the toilet.
Click to expand...
Like you during Bush?
 
Erod said:
Because Obama knows less about what a military operation involves than any president in U.S. history.
Click to expand...

So, you're really criticizing the military advisors and commanders, as well as the soldiers carrying out the various operations.

It's not Obama, it's the U.S. Military that you don't like.

Got it.

In your pathetic attempt to find fault with Obama, you've become what you despise -- a far-left anti-war activist. Congratulations!:applaud
 
hazlnut said:
So, you're really criticizing the military advisors and commanders, as well as the soldiers carrying out the various operations.

It's not Obama, it's the U.S. Military that you don't like.

Got it.

In your pathetic attempt to find fault with Obama, you've become what you despise -- a far-left anti-war activist. Congratulations!:applaud
Click to expand...
Like you? I don't think so.
 
Erod said:
Because Obama knows less about what a military operation involves than any president in U.S. history.

I bet he refused to play Stratego on principle as a kid.
Click to expand...

So I guess its pure accident that he is having victories in Afg far beyond anything Bush accomplished in 8 years? Because he doesn't have a clue about military matters right? And he's just lucky that the troop casualties in Iraq have dropped to almost zero, because he just doesn't understand the military, right?
 
Welcome to The Pee-Wee Herman school of 2nd Grader Debate:

American said:
Like you during Bush?
Click to expand...

American said:
Like you? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

When the discussion is over your head, or you have no valid points to make, just do like Pee-Wee: "I know you are, but what am I."

Way to go, sparky:roll::roll::rofl
 
All of you owe me 20 Virtual dollars if Usama is hiding in China, as I've been saying for a year or so now.
 
Redress said:
Proof that no matter how good the news, some one will find something to whine about.
Click to expand...

Others would call it pointing out the reality.

And this coming from a party that whined incessantly about our "war mongering" is particularly amusing.
 
hazlnut said:
See, text, when you don't read the story, you come off sounding like an idiot...
Click to expand...

Coming from someone with so much experience in that area, I'll have to take it under advisement.

No, I'm right. Obama has promised civilian rights to terrorists.

See Underwear bomber. Next time, do some reading before inflicting yourself with another foot in mouth episode :2wave:

My theory, you far-right anti-Obama types are so caught up in your Beck-Hannity talking points, you can't even bring yourself to read a story that might contradict what you think you already know...When you go around finding fault in anything that happens under Obama's watch, putting a negative spin on every single story -- you flush your credibility right down the toilet.
Click to expand...

Please show us where in that article it states Obama has forgone his pledge to give terrorists civilian rights. Go ahead.

Not that I expect you to answer. You're more of a hit and run away type of debating.
 
WillRockwell said:
So I guess its pure accident that he is having victories in Afg far beyond anything Bush accomplished in 8 years?
Click to expand...

Thats like claiming you cooked the meal because you brought the dinner rolls. So typical.

Because he doesn't have a clue about military matters right?
Click to expand...

Now you're getting it!

And he's just lucky that the troop casualties in Iraq have dropped to almost zero, because he just doesn't understand the military, right?
Click to expand...

Right. He did that himself. It certainly wasn't the years of fighting before he ever got into office.

Nooooo. They all just magically got better when your Messiah got into office with his months of delay of putting in the troops the generals he asked to run things gave him their recommendations...

I love liberals like you :rofl
 
texmaster said:
Coming from someone with so much experience in that area, I'll have to take it under advisement.

No, I'm right. Obama has promised civilian rights to terrorists.

See Underwear bomber. Next time, do some reading before inflicting yourself with another foot in mouth episode :2wave:



Please show us where in that article it states Obama has forgone his pledge to give terrorists civilian rights. Go ahead.

Not that I expect you to answer. You're more of a hit and run away type of debating.
Click to expand...

And so did Bush. The shoe bomber was tried as a civilian. He is in prison. The 20th hijacker was tried as a civilian. He is in prison.

So what is the difference between the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber, you ask? The answer is simple. The difference is that one of them is being tried during a Democratic administration. Jeez, where was all the fake outrage when the shoe bomber and the 20th hijacker were being tried?

This whole fake outrage crap is getting a little old.
 
hazlnut said:
When you go around finding fault in anything that happens under Obama's watch, putting a negative spin on every single story -- you flush your credibility right down the toilet.
Click to expand...

Sounds familer, When you go around finding fault in anything that happens under Bush's watch, putting a negative spin on every single story -- you flush your credibility right down the toilet.
 
danarhea said:
And so did Bush. The shoe bomber was tried as a civilian. He is in prison. The 20th hijacker was tried as a civilian. He is in prison.
So what is the difference between the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber, you ask? The answer is simple. The difference is that one of them is being tried during a Democratic administration. Jeez, where was all the fake outrage when the shoe bomber and the 20th hijacker were being tried?
Click to expand...

Oh groan. Boy I wish you would do the smallest bit of research before posting this tired liberal argument.

We had not received the Supreme Court's ruling when the 20th hijacker and Richard Reed were charged. We have that ability now under the law to use military tribunals for enemy combatants. :roll:


This whole fake outrage crap is getting a little old.
Click to expand...

So is your severe understanding and knowledge of basic history.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
Others would call it pointing out the reality.

And this coming from a party that whined incessantly about our "war mongering" is particularly amusing.
Click to expand...

The reality is a dangerous man is behind bars and out of action. You have to search to find something to get all upset about, but you managed it. You now compound it by making a really stupid non sequitar. Most liberals supported the war in Afghanistan, and supported the war on terror. Further, I am not a party, I am a person. Lastly, your second comment has nothing at all to do with anything. it is, once again, just a mindless attempt to smear and dismiss. Your desperation is showing.
 
Redress said:
The reality is a dangerous man is behind bars and out of action. You have to search to find something to get all upset about, but you managed it.
Click to expand...

And you would dismiss the reality of what is wasted in the area of intelligence under Obama's new interrogation methods.

You're right. I'm not satisfied with just capturing terrorists which had nothing to do with Obama. I'm also concerned with how much information we get from them under Obama's new rules.

You now compound it by making a really stupid non sequitar.
Click to expand...

Thats a lie. Giving terrorists American civilian rights absolutely makes it harder to obtain information. What a shocker you have already ignored the underwear bomber fiasco.

Most liberals supported the war in Afghanistan, and supported the war on terror.
Click to expand...

Oh BULL****. Afghanistan yes but you are bald face lying when you claim liberals generally support the war on terror. Hell, you;ve got a president and VP who declared Iraq a failure before they were even elected when they refused to support the surge.

Further, I am not a party, I am a person.
Click to expand...

You are a person who follows a party.

Lastly, your second comment has nothing at all to do with anything. it is, once again, just a mindless attempt to smear and dismiss. Your desperation is showing.
Click to expand...

What a surprise you would ignore your party's past under Bush and how they viewed the war on terror then.

Your hypocrisy is showing Redress.

Again.
 
Last edited:
I got a few minutes, so what the hell, I will play the game.


texmaster said:
And you would dismiss the reality of what is wasted in the area of intelligence under Obama's new interrogation methods.[

You're right. I'm not satisfied with just capturing terrorists which had nothing to do with Obama. I'm also concerned with how much information we get from them under Obama's new rules.
Click to expand...


And you have no proof, no solid evidence we won't get everything we want from him, nor that there is any likelihood we will get more using methods Obama does not allow. You are, in fact, just throwing a hissy to hide the fact that something good has happened, which does not fit the narrative you like.


Thats a lie. Giving terrorists American civilian rights absolutely makes it harder to obtain information. What a shocker you have already ignored the underwear bomber fiasco.
Click to expand...

Proof that this is true? Show some way that it is relevant to anything I have said.


Oh BULL****. Afghanistan yes but you are bald face lying when you claim liberals generally support the war on terror. Hell, you;ve got a president and VP who declared Iraq a failure before they were even elected when they refused to support the surge.
Click to expand...

The war in Iraq was not the war on terror. It distracted from the war on terror.



You are a person who follows a party.
Click to expand...

Oh BULL****(to quote you)! I belong to a party, because it most closely matches my beliefs. I have also, with some frequency, disagreed with my party. The party I choose comes from my beliefs, my beliefs do not come from my party. It's one of those differences between us. This difference means I am capable of, and have, spoken highly of those in other parties, given credit to them when they do right, and generally avoid the role of ideologue. You however, as this thread shows, cannot manage this simple exercise in critical thinking. When something good happens under a president you don't like, you find something to get upset about.



What a surprise you would ignore your party's past under Bush and how they viewed the war on terror then.

Your hypocrisy is showing Redress.

Again.
Click to expand...

What a surprise, you ignore how the whole country came together after 9/11, supported Bush right up until he started getting stupid again and wanting to invade Iraq. We supported Bush in Afghanistan, we supported the war on terror. Not all of us, but I think most, in fact far and away most. This is not hypocrisy.

Further, even though I did not agree with the war in Iraq, I still was please when Saddam was captured. I was still proud of our troops and the job they did over there, and did not find ways to throw a fit every time they did things well and had a large success. I will leave such things to you.
 
WillRockwell said:
The article mentions he is being held and interrogated by Pakistani intelligence, who have a reputation for world class torture. If you really believe the best intelligence is obtained through torture, you should be delighted.
Click to expand...

And you should be expressing mock outrage.
 
danarhea said:
This whole fake outrage crap is getting a little old.
Click to expand...

Maybe its old because you wore it out for 8 years.

I DO agree that there are far too many conservatives that hate Obama simply because his politics. Please dont be so stupid or dishonest as to state it didnt happen throughout Bush's presidency from the left.
 
texmaster said:
So is your severe understanding and knowledge of basic history.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The liberal argument also pretends this is happening in isolation that the attorney General isn't trying to hold civilian trials for enemy combatants even captured abroad.

This lack of knowledge on history a valid criticism by Tex here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom