• 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!

Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

Their considered Terrorists

Yes, they are. I take it yer gonna drop this "non-combatant" nonsense without admitting you were wrong.

>>and they are on the National Counter Terrorism Agency's List

The National Counterterrorism Center maintains a list of known and suspected terrorists. This is aka the "watch list." And the agency has indeed identified a number of groups (about two dozen) as terrorist organizations. I've never heard this collection referred to as a "list." Perhaps you can provide a link to someone who does.

>>Well that's what all those threads are about.....and what I have in them.

So you want me to wade through a lot of garbage to find out what I already know — that the Afghan Taliban has been identified by the NCTC as a terrorist group. Seems wholly unnecessary.

>>Eventually you will learn about who and who doesn't put content up around here.

Well I have learned in this thread that you put up a lot of confused nonsense.

You claim that there is some relevance in this context to the fact that the US IC has labelled the Taliban as terrorists. I say there is none. Have we been fighting a war in Afghanistan? Were we engaged in combat operations against the Afghan Taliban? If the answer is yes, I'm confident that it makes sense to call Bergdahl a POW.

Offer me some content here: Were Americans taken prisoner by the Viet Cong?
 
Yes, they are. I take it yer gonna drop this "non-combatant" nonsense without admitting you were wrong.

>>and they are on the National Counter Terrorism Agency's List

The National Counterterrorism Center maintains a list of known and suspected terrorists. This is aka the "watch list." And the agency has indeed identified a number of groups (about two dozen) as terrorist organizations. I've never heard this collection referred to as a "list." Perhaps you can provide a link to someone who does.

>>Well that's what all those threads are about.....and what I have in them.

So you want me to wade through a lot of garbage to find out what I already know — that the Afghan Taliban has been identified by the NCTC as a terrorist group. Seems wholly unnecessary.

>>Eventually you will learn about who and who doesn't put content up around here.

Well I have learned in this thread that you put up a lot of confused nonsense.

You claim that there is some relevance in this context to the fact that the US IC has labelled the Taliban as terrorists. I say there is none. Have we been fighting a war in Afghanistan? Were we engaged in combat operations against the Afghan Taliban? If the answer is yes, I'm confident that it makes sense to call Bergdahl a POW.

Offer me some content here: Were Americans taken prisoner by the Viet Cong?


In the Immortal words of every known Democrat.....I misspoke. Yeah No kidding that's what I told you. So you aren't telling anyone anything other than repeating what you were told.

No.....that's so you can become accustom as to who puts up content and who doesn't. Although we can see why you would want to avoid them. Not much those on the left can play with. My Norm wherever I roam.

Moreover he wasn't listed as POW......when he Deserted.

Also the Taliban are not the ruling governmental authority in Afghanistan.....ya can check it out with their Embassy people and their Affairs Office. No need to get back to me once you do.

Oh and all that are deflection, going off tangent and you writing books. You aren't the first and you wont be the last. Especially sporting that Liberal Coat you wearin. Just sayin.
 
I misspoke.

Don't feel bad. At least you had an excuse for that part of yer collection of errors.

>>content

Mindless drivel.

>>Moreover he wasn't listed as POW......when he Deserted.

The Pentagon has never labelled him a deserter. Yer full of it.

>>Also the Taliban are not the ruling governmental authority in Afghanistan

That is irrelevant. For two days Bergdahl was listed by the Pentagon as missing. Since then, he's been listed as captured — seized as the result of action of an unfriendly military or paramilitary force in a foreign country. You have yer view, and the Army has its view.

>>Just sayin.

With no import whatsoever.
 
"Charles Krauthammer"s real name is "Shekky Kraummer" or something. I wonder why he selected "Krauthammer" for his new name......

Fox News makes me want to vomit the way they worship him like he's some kind of an Einstein genius or something. And all you Foxnews viewers believe everything he says without question.

"Krauthammer" is nothing but a Pro-Israel (which is why he supports the exchange because Israel does it) neocon warmonger just like the rest of the Foxnews "Contributors".
 
"Charles Krauthammer"s real name is "Shekky Kraummer" or something. I wonder why he selected "Krauthammer" for his new name......

Fox News makes me want to vomit the way they worship him like he's some kind of an Einstein genius or something. And all you Foxnews viewers believe everything he says without question.

"Krauthammer" is nothing but a Pro-Israel (which is why he supports the exchange because Israel does it) neocon warmonger just like the rest of the Foxnews "Contributors".

Charles Krauthammer's given name is ... wait for it ... Charles Krauthammer.
 
Don't feel bad. At least you had an excuse for that part of yer collection of errors.

>>content

Mindless drivel.

>>Moreover he wasn't listed as POW......when he Deserted.

The Pentagon has never labelled him a deserter. Yer full of it.

>>Also the Taliban are not the ruling governmental authority in Afghanistan

That is irrelevant. For two days Bergdahl was listed by the Pentagon as missing. Since then, he's been listed as captured — seized as the result of action of an unfriendly military or paramilitary force in a foreign country. You have yer view, and the Army has its view.

>>Just sayin.

With no import whatsoever.

:lamo Try again!!!!!

I never said he was labeled a Deserter.....go back and look at what link I have up and it explains their investigation.

The Taliban isn't ruling Afghanistan and yet you call this irrelevant.....yeah whatever MMI :roll: Its clear you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

Trust me you will have to do a lot better at trolling than this.
smiley_ROFLMAO.gif
 
The Taliban isn't ruling Afghanistan and yet you call this irrelevant.....yeah whatever MMI :roll: Its clear you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

Were Americans taken prisoner by the Viet Cong?
 
Were Americans taken prisoner by the Viet Cong?

It has nothing to do with this issue.....The Taliban are terrorists.....Bergdahl is a deserter, and now we have a Body. Article 32 will take place. So you can keep your deflection and while you're at it. You can hang here thinking you know something something. Most who know whats up have moved on. :cool:

But really you might want to check out where things are at in current time. Just sayin! ;)
 
The Taliban isn't ruling Afghanistan

Were the Viet Cong "ruling" South Vietnam when they took Americans prisoner in that country and held them as POWs?

>>You can hang here thinking you know something

I know something you apparently don't know — how to be logically consistent. It's a concept taught in freshman philosophy classes.
 
Were the Viet Cong "ruling" South Vietnam when they took Americans prisoner in that country and held them as POWs?

>>You can hang here thinking you know something

I know something you apparently don't know — how to be logically consistent. It's a concept taught in freshman philosophy classes.


Well you haven't proven it here it all.....and again you correlation means nothing in comparison with this issue. Bottomline.....whether you like it or not.
 
Well you haven't proven it here it all

How are the two different? Did the Viet Cong capture and hold Americans as POWs — yes or no?
 
How are the two different? Did the Viet Cong capture and hold Americans as POWs — yes or no?

The Viet Cong weren't designated as a Terrorist group.....Oh and it was BO and his team that engaged the Afghan Taliban to get in touch with the Haqqani Network. Which puts it all into Perspective concerning negotiating with terrorists. The Taliban had broke off all talks 2 and half years ago.

Thanks for trying to play anyways. Like I said.....you might want to move to the other threads so you can catch up on things. :cool:
 
The Viet Cong weren't designated as a Terrorist group

We didn't make such calls back then. Are you saying they didn't act as terrorists? I suppose you'd have to know something about history to answer that, so forget it.

I take it yer now abandoning yer point about "ruling authority." A group that's not a "ruling authority" can take prisoners in a war. But if it's designated as a terrorist organization, it can't. This is hackery, not logic.

>>Thanks for trying to play anyways. Like I said.....you might want to move to the other threads so you can catch up on things.

Yeah, that's what yer doing — playing. War is an activity for adults. I guess that's why you have no understanding of it. It's all just a playground exercise t' you.
 
We didn't make such calls back then. Are you saying they didn't act as terrorists? I suppose you'd have to know something about history to answer that, so forget it.

I take it yer now abandoning yer point about "ruling authority." A group that's not a "ruling authority" can take prisoners in a war. But if it's designated as a terrorist organization, it can't. This is hackery, not logic.

>>Thanks for trying to play anyways. Like I said.....you might want to move to the other threads so you can catch up on things.

Yeah, that's what yer doing — playing. War is an activity for adults. I guess that's why you have no understanding of it. It's all just a playground exercise t' you.

The argument that you are trying to make really is absurd.

Just sayin'...
 
We didn't make such calls back then. Are you saying they didn't act as terrorists? I suppose you'd have to know something about history to answer that, so forget it.

I take it yer now abandoning yer point about "ruling authority." A group that's not a "ruling authority" can take prisoners in a war. But if it's designated as a terrorist organization, it can't. This is hackery, not logic.

>>Thanks for trying to play anyways. Like I said.....you might want to move to the other threads so you can catch up on things.

Yeah, that's what yer doing — playing. War is an activity for adults. I guess that's why you have no understanding of it. It's all just a playground exercise t' you.



Bottomline....The Viet Cong weren't classified terrorists. Your deflection and tangential exercise is noted.

No one said a group that was not a ruling authority couldn't take Prisoners..

Like I said thanks for playing.....and you do need to catch up with current time and catching that content you know nothing of.

Oh and thanks for showing a Vietnam Vet......what you think about War and what you think, you know. Especially about the Viet Cong. Your done with this issue here. Despite you not knowing it.
 
No one said a group that was not a ruling authority couldn't take Prisoners..

You said:

The Hammer got this one wrong.....he keeps saying POW exchange. He forgot one major important fact. The Taliban are not a Nation State. Nor are they the ruling governmental authority in Afghanistan.

How is the fact that the Taliban are not "the ruling governmental authority in Afghanistan" an "important fact"? It sure looks like yer saying that it's important because it makes the exchange of prisoners something that is not a "POW exchange." Yer saying that it's not a POW exchange, at least in part, and in fact in large part since this is an "important fact," because the Taliban are not the ruling authority.

You try to weasel out of this by qualifying it — saying in another thread that "[t]raditional prisoner swaps do not entail negotiating with a terrorist organization."

I said I would concede that this was a "non-traditional prisoner swap," non-traditional in the sense that the Taliban are not "the ruling authority." You ignored that.

You still have said nothing to effectively argue against my point that the Viet Cong, a terrorist group whether you understand that or not, and a group that was not "a ruling authority," captured and held American POWs.

>>Bottomline....The Viet Cong weren't classified terrorists. Your deflection and tangential exercise is noted.

"Classified"? The Viet Cong terrorized the population of South Vietnam. You don't know about that, first, because they were finished doing it fifteen years before you were born, but most importantly, because it doesn't play a useful role in yer little right-wing game of trying to score political points against the Obama administration. Try googling "Viet Cong" terrorists. You might learn something.

Here's something from the first page of that search return, written by a blogger who did not sleepwalk through his history and philosophy classes as you apparently did:

The GOP talking points in response to the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in a trade for five former officials of the 1990s Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (Taliban) focused on a few basic premises. !. You don’t negotiate with terrorists; 2. such a swap would encourage terrorists to capture Americans; 3. these officials are the worst the worst.

Tagging movements as “terrorist” and then refusing to deal with them is frankly stupid. The Taliban in Afghanistan are not a small terrorist group like, say, the Italian Red Brigades of the 1970s and 1980s. They are guerrillas belonging to a movement that at one point had captured the state and run it. The Taliban are now a guerrilla group, holding territory.

The US has all along negotiated with the guerrillas it has fought on the battlefield. William Howard Taft (later president) in the Philippines was all for negotiation with Filipinos who rejected US rule, and he created "attraction zones" to win them over. At the conclusion of the Aguinaldo resistance to US occupation in 1902, Teddy Roosevelt declared a general amnesty for the resistance fighters. These resistance fighters had committed some atrocities, including on captured US troops, but Roosevelt just let them walk free. Talk softly, carry a big stick, and let all the terrorists go, seems to have been his motto.

The US negotiated with the Viet Cong in South Vietnam, who were very much analogous to the Taliban and whom the US would now certainly term "terrorists." In 1973, the US used intermediaries to negotiate with the Viet Cong for release of captured US soldiers at Loc Ninh. Americans on the political right made a huge issue about 1300 US soldiers never having been released by the Viet Cong (only about 400 were), and the shame that these men were left on the battlefield by the Nixon and Ford administrations. Conservatives seem to want to have it both ways. If you negotiate the release of US captives with the enemy you are "negotiating with terrorists."_ If you don’t, then you have left soldiers behind on the battlefield. The fact is that the only way to have freed them was to have offered something for them in detailed negotiations. As for the Viet Cong "terrorists," many of them are in government now and the US has cordial relations with them.

In the 1980s radical Shiites in Lebanon took American hostages. In order to free them, the Reagan administration not only negotiated with Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini but actually stole T.O.W. anti-aircraft munitions from Pentagon warehouses and shipped them to Tehran, receiving the money for them in black bank accounts and sending it to right wing death squads in Nicaragua. Khomeini and his government were listed as terrorists by the State Department at the time, and selling weapons to Iran was highly illegal. Not only that, but the US was allied with Iraq at the time, so Reagan screwed over Baghdad this way. Reagan did it, in part to free US hostages in Lebanon (Iran put pressure on its clients for their release).

As for encouraging groups to take US hostages, if the GOP really is so worried about this outcome they should stop putting the idea in the minds of terrorists by trumpeting it all over the news media. There was no rash of hostage-taking of Americans after Reagan bribed Iran to have them released, so the expectation is ahistorical.

The Israelis did a prisoner swap, at 1000 to one, for Gilad Shalit, and it hasn’t caused more Israelis to be captured. Why do right wing Americans only hold up Israel as a model when it acts unwisely, rather than when it (as it often does) acts pragmatically?

In fact, groups like the Taliban are always trying to take US personnel captive. Every day all day. This agreement changes nothing. The reason they only had one American in captivity was not the US policy of not negotiating. It is because guerrilla groups find it difficult to kidnap people from hardened bases and other such relatively secure facilities.

Finally, as for the 5 Taliban officials being the worst of the worst, that is probably true. However, there are other worst of the worst out there– big Afghan warlords of the 1990s with massive amounts of blood on their hands– whom the US has left alone to operate freely in Afghanistan. Gen. Rashid Dostam was even a vice presidential candidate, and Abu Sayyaf serves in parliament. Look them up. US politicians appear not so interested in who committed massacres but in whether they are presently cooperative with the Karzai government. — Dear GOP: The US has negotiated with Terrorists and Amnestied Them all through History

>>Oh and thanks for showing a Vietnam Vet......what you think about War and what you think, you know. Especially about the Viet Cong.

What Vietnam vet? Not you, that's for sure.

>>Like I said thanks for playing.....and you do need to catch up with current time and catching that content you know nothing of.

Like I said, this may seem like a game to a dweeb like you, but it's actually a deadly business. Yer focus is on petty politics. The Obama administration is conducting foreign policy in an arena that involves considerations of life and death. It's well out of yer league.

>>Your done with this issue here. Despite you not knowing it.

Yer never started. Yer an uninformed blogger with very poor reasoning skills. I'm sure yer employers think yer a bright little boy, but I for one am not at all impressed.
 
You said:



How is the fact that the Taliban are not "the ruling governmental authority in Afghanistan" an "important fact"? It sure looks like yer saying that it's important because it makes the exchange of prisoners something that is not a "POW exchange." Yer saying that it's not a POW exchange, at least in part, and in fact in large part since this is an "important fact," because the Taliban are not the ruling authority.

You try to weasel out of this by qualifying it — saying in another thread that "[t]raditional prisoner swaps do not entail negotiating with a terrorist organization."

I said I would concede that this was a "non-traditional prisoner swap," non-traditional in the sense that the Taliban are not "the ruling authority." You ignored that.

You still have said nothing to effectively argue against my point that the Viet Cong, a terrorist group whether you understand that or not, and a group that was not "a ruling authority," captured and held American POWs.

>>Bottomline....The Viet Cong weren't classified terrorists. Your deflection and tangential exercise is noted.

"Classified"? The Viet Cong terrorized the population of South Vietnam. You don't know about that, first, because they were finished doing it fifteen years before you were born, but most importantly, because it doesn't play a useful role in yer little right-wing game of trying to score political points against the Obama administration. Try googling "Viet Cong" terrorists. You might learn something.

Here's something from the first page of that search return, written by a blogger who did not sleepwalk through his history and philosophy classes as you apparently did:

The GOP talking points in response to the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in a trade for five former officials of the 1990s Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (Taliban) focused on a few basic premises. !. You don’t negotiate with terrorists; 2. such a swap would encourage terrorists to capture Americans; 3. these officials are the worst the worst.

Tagging movements as “terrorist” and then refusing to deal with them is frankly stupid. The Taliban in Afghanistan are not a small terrorist group like, say, the Italian Red Brigades of the 1970s and 1980s. They are guerrillas belonging to a movement that at one point had captured the state and run it. The Taliban are now a guerrilla group, holding territory.

The US has all along negotiated with the guerrillas it has fought on the battlefield. William Howard Taft (later president) in the Philippines was all for negotiation with Filipinos who rejected US rule, and he created "attraction zones" to win them over. At the conclusion of the Aguinaldo resistance to US occupation in 1902, Teddy Roosevelt declared a general amnesty for the resistance fighters. These resistance fighters had committed some atrocities, including on captured US troops, but Roosevelt just let them walk free. Talk softly, carry a big stick, and let all the terrorists go, seems to have been his motto.

The US negotiated with the Viet Cong in South Vietnam, who were very much analogous to the Taliban and whom the US would now certainly term "terrorists." In 1973, the US used intermediaries to negotiate with the Viet Cong for release of captured US soldiers at Loc Ninh. Americans on the political right made a huge issue about 1300 US soldiers never having been released by the Viet Cong (only about 400 were), and the shame that these men were left on the battlefield by the Nixon and Ford administrations. Conservatives seem to want to have it both ways. If you negotiate the release of US captives with the enemy you are "negotiating with terrorists."_ If you don’t, then you have left soldiers behind on the battlefield. The fact is that the only way to have freed them was to have offered something for them in detailed negotiations. As for the Viet Cong "terrorists," many of them are in government now and the US has cordial relations with them.

In the 1980s radical Shiites in Lebanon took American hostages. In order to free them, the Reagan administration not only negotiated with Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini but actually stole T.O.W. anti-aircraft munitions from Pentagon warehouses and shipped them to Tehran, receiving the money for them in black bank accounts and sending it to right wing death squads in Nicaragua. Khomeini and his government were listed as terrorists by the State Department at the time, and selling weapons to Iran was highly illegal. Not only that, but the US was allied with Iraq at the time, so Reagan screwed over Baghdad this way. Reagan did it, in part to free US hostages in Lebanon (Iran put pressure on its clients for their release).

As for encouraging groups to take US hostages, if the GOP really is so worried about this outcome they should stop putting the idea in the minds of terrorists by trumpeting it all over the news media. There was no rash of hostage-taking of Americans after Reagan bribed Iran to have them released, so the expectation is ahistorical.

The Israelis did a prisoner swap, at 1000 to one, for Gilad Shalit, and it hasn’t caused more Israelis to be captured. Why do right wing Americans only hold up Israel as a model when it acts unwisely, rather than when it (as it often does) acts pragmatically?

In fact, groups like the Taliban are always trying to take US personnel captive. Every day all day. This agreement changes nothing. The reason they only had one American in captivity was not the US policy of not negotiating. It is because guerrilla groups find it difficult to kidnap people from hardened bases and other such relatively secure facilities.

Finally, as for the 5 Taliban officials being the worst of the worst, that is probably true. However, there are other worst of the worst out there– big Afghan warlords of the 1990s with massive amounts of blood on their hands– whom the US has left alone to operate freely in Afghanistan. Gen. Rashid Dostam was even a vice presidential candidate, and Abu Sayyaf serves in parliament. Look them up. US politicians appear not so interested in who committed massacres but in whether they are presently cooperative with the Karzai government. — Dear GOP: The US has negotiated with Terrorists and Amnestied Them all through History

>>Oh and thanks for showing a Vietnam Vet......what you think about War and what you think, you know. Especially about the Viet Cong.

What Vietnam vet? Not you, that's for sure.

>>Like I said thanks for playing.....and you do need to catch up with current time and catching that content you know nothing of.

Like I said, this may seem like a game to a dweeb like you, but it's actually a deadly business. Yer focus is on petty politics. The Obama administration is conducting foreign policy in an arena that involves considerations of life and death. It's well out of yer league.

>>Your done with this issue here. Despite you not knowing it.

Yer never started. Yer an uninformed blogger with very poor reasoning skills. I'm sure yer employers think yer a bright little boy, but I for one am not at all impressed.



Yes that's what I said and those in Washington said it to. As well as the Press. ...... and yes me a Vietnam Vet that will never allow you to paint out what you have no Clue of EVER!!!!! Oh, and your encyclopedia means nothing around here Nube.

No matter how many times you change tangent nor deflect.

Bergdahl is a Deserter and the Taliban are terrorists, and the Swap is Illegal.....oh and BO broke the Law. You will just have to live with those mistakes of his. Despite all your defenses. :lol:
 
You said:



Like I said, this may seem like a game to a dweeb like you, but it's actually a deadly business. Yer focus is on petty politics. The Obama administration is conducting foreign policy in an arena that involves considerations of life and death. It's well out of yer league.

>>Your done with this issue here. Despite you not knowing it.

Yer never started. Yer an uninformed blogger with very poor reasoning skills. I'm sure yer employers think yer a bright little boy, but I for one am not at all impressed.

The Obama administration doesn't have a clue about anything that doesn't involve domestic political consideration. How you can claim otherwise in the face of too many foreign policy debacles to mention is hilarious.
 
Yes that's what I said and those in Washington said it to. As well as the Press. ...... and yes me a Vietnam Vet that will never allow you to paint out what you have no Clue of EVER!!!!! Oh, and your encyclopedia means nothing around here Nube.

No matter how many times you change tangent nor deflect.

Bergdahl is a Deserter and the Taliban are terrorists, and the Swap is Illegal.....oh and BO broke the Law. You will just have to live with those mistakes of his. Despite all your defenses. :lol:

M, I know you're just having fun with this "rookie" and I know that you know he's just a small cog in a non-functioning noisy machine that's been reduced to trying to salvage something, anything, from Obama's latest self-inflicted f**kup.

Just keep that in mind before you spend much more time on it so he can get back to Ronan Farrow for further instructions.
 
M, I know you're just having fun with this "rookie" and I know that you know he's just a small cog in a non-functioning noisy machine that's been reduced to trying to salvage something, anything, from Obama's latest self-inflicted f**kup.

Just keep that in mind before you spend much more time on it so he can get back to Ronan Farrow for further instructions.



Yeah B.....Not even the Norse Gods with a Bolt of Lightning can help change the facts, huh! :lol:
 
M, I know you're just having fun with this "rookie" and I know that you know he's just a small cog in a non-functioning noisy machine that's been reduced to trying to salvage something, anything, from Obama's latest self-inflicted f**kup.

Just keep that in mind before you spend much more time on it so he can get back to Ronan Farrow for further instructions.

Heh. And to keep the editor happy, heh again.
 
yes me a Vietnam Vet

Well, I must apologize for my last post. I somehow got confused this morning and decided that yer OP in another thread:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ows-resume-violent-jihad-against-america.html

wasn't merely a regurgitation of some garbage written by little Guy Benson over at Townhall.com. I got the idea that you were Guy Benson.

This is an example of how Google can mess you up. I noticed the expression "contradictory parsing" in that OP. I'm a professional copyeditor and it struck me as a bizarre collocation, so I searched on it. If you leave out a few quirky pages, it's found twice: in Benson's blog post and in yer OP. I couldn't understand why Benson would be spending his time posting so much in this forum, but then I noticed he went to Northwestern and that yer located in Chicago. I put two and two together and got five.

Anyway, we're obviously never going to agree on this. But yer doing yerself a disservice listening to nerdy little you-know-whats like Guy Benson. "Contradictory parsing"? What the hell is that? He can't think and he can't write. His mind works in one direction: political hackery. He doesn't care about men like you fighting in the field to defend the lives and interests of innocent civilians. He's a DC nerd hired to play games deceiving people.

Bergdahl comes across to me as a flake. I think we can agree he didn't belong in that forward post with other men depending on him in a very high-risk environment. But in the end, I see him as a rather sad figure, someone who didn't fit in.

Did you want us to hold these militants, these terrorist killers, down there in Cuba forever? It's a war. It's wrapping up. Do you want us to fight it for another thirteen years?
 
Well, I must apologize for my last post. I somehow got confused this morning and decided that yer OP in another thread:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ows-resume-violent-jihad-against-america.html

wasn't merely a regurgitation of some garbage written by little Guy Benson over at Townhall.com. I got the idea that you were Guy Benson.

This is an example of how Google can mess you up. I noticed the expression "contradictory parsing" in that OP. I'm a professional copyeditor and it struck me as a bizarre collocation, so I searched on it. If you leave out a few quirky pages, it's found twice: in Benson's blog post and in yer OP. I couldn't understand why Benson would be spending his time posting so much in this forum, but then I noticed he went to Northwestern and that yer located in Chicago. I put two and two together and got five.

Anyway, we're obviously never going to agree on this. But yer doing yerself a disservice listening to nerdy little you-know-whats like Guy Benson. "Contradictory parsing"? What the hell is that? He can't think and he can't write. His mind works in one direction: political hackery. He doesn't care about men like you fighting in the field to defend the lives and interests of innocent civilians. He's a DC nerd hired to play games deceiving people.

Bergdahl comes across to me as a flake. I think we can agree he didn't belong in that forward post with other men depending on him in a very high-risk environment. But in the end, I see him as a rather sad figure, someone who didn't fit in.

Did you want us to hold these militants, these terrorist killers, down there in Cuba forever? It's a war. It's wrapping up. Do you want us to fight it for another thirteen years?


Yeah well, don't let those highlighted little blue words trick you about any references. Oh and trying to use the Media. Wont work. Just sayin. :lol:

But yeah that was another thread where you were wrong once again. Like here in this one. But you can play on for the rest of us.


the-best-popcorn-gifs-on-the-internet.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom