A prisoner of war or a deserter...soldiers from his platoon say he deserted and lives were lost looking for him...if he did desert he should be punished according to military law....Y did he have a hard time speaking English?

http://www.nbcnews.com/#/storyline/bowe-bergdahl-released/not-everyones-hero-soldiers-question-bowe-bergdahls-bravery-n120051

And once again as Obama by-passed congress was this the way for him to start to try to close Gitmo?....since 2008 he could not close it.

I'm glad I didn't have to make the decision as I'd have to weigh the fact that he was an Amercian citizen/soldier who voted D and seems like he deserted which caused many (I read at least 5) other soldiers to die searching for him.

I hope they put a chip in each of the five they exchanged for him and lead the drones right to them......

I hope they put a chip in each of the five they exchanged for him and lead the drones right to them......

Funny, I was thinking the same thing.

I think this was an effort to close the book. We can't claim to leave Afghanistan when there are POW's regardless of the reason. Lesson learned…

The 5 transferred to Qatar don't appear to be hardcore terrorists and may actually help the Afghani government make amends.

Welcome to 2014.

-spence

I was thinking the same thing about chipping those bad guys... I would not be surprised if they did

Or could it be the plot line for the next season of Homeland

they don't have to chip them

they just have to add a certain special and rare element

that is traceable by Drone since chips can be seen and removed

Funny, I was thinking the same thing.

I think this was an effort to close the book. We can't claim to leave Afghanistan when there are POW's regardless of the reason. Lesson learned…

The 5 transferred to Qatar don't appear to be hardcore terrorists and may actually help the Afghani government make amends.

Welcome to 2014.

-spence

What are you on, Jeff? Have you read their bios? I have taken the following from Reuters story posted 3 hours ago;

Senior officials at the Afghan intelligence agency said they believed the men would return to the battlefield and bolster the insurgency just as most foreign combat troops prepare to exit by the end of this year.

All five were classed as "high-risk" and "likely to pose a threat" by the Pentagon and held senior positions in the Taliban regime before it was toppled by a U.S.-led coalition in 2001.

At least two of them are suspected of committing war crimes, including the murder of thousands of Afghan Shi'ites, according to leaked U.S. military cables.

I just don't see how you can draw your conclusion

The 5 transferred to Qatar don't appear to be hardcore terrorists and may actually help the Afghani government make amends.

-spence

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/02/look-at-five-taliban-commanders-set-free-in-prisoner-exchange/

Yes, I thought of the chip also. Those were real bad guys.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Total BS. This was treasonous . He appears to be a traitor and the deal smells of treason .
The results will be more American deaths and an emboldened Taliban
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What are you on, Jeff? Have you read their bios? I have taken the following from Reuters story posted 3 hours ago;

Senior officials at the Afghan intelligence agency said they believed the men would return to the battlefield and bolster the insurgency just as most foreign combat troops prepare to exit by the end of this year.

All five were classed as "high-risk" and "likely to pose a threat" by the Pentagon and held senior positions in the Taliban regime before it was toppled by a U.S.-led coalition in 2001.

At least two of them are suspected of committing war crimes, including the murder of thousands of Afghan Shi'ites, according to leaked U.S. military cables.

I just don't see how you can draw your conclusion
Yes I'd read their bios and why I said they're not hardcore terrorists rather than Taliban militants. Looks like they're going to be held in Qatar for a year and by then we'll be gone.

Sounds like Congress has been informed of a potential deal but the timing was accelerated given a window of opportunity.

This is certainly an interesting story but not worthy of mind-bending outrage. They guy was a US citizen and still a member of the Army. Sounds like he became pretty disillusioned and may have cracked.

-spence

He's not the only one that "cracked ."
It appears his dad is a little bit cracked too
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Of course the flip side is if he died in prison at the hands of the Taliban people would be screaming that Obama let a brave soldier go at the hands of the enemy...he could have done more...he should have done more etc...

-spence

He's not the only one that "cracked ."
It appears his dad is a little bit cracked too
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Perhaps he was just playing along? Don't know but knowing your son was in prison for 5 years would be a bit stressful don't you think?

-spence

Perhaps he was just playing along? Don't know but knowing your son was in prison for 5 years would be a bit stressful don't you think?

-spence

Of course
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/02/look-at-five-taliban-commanders-set-free-in-prisoner-exchange/

Yes, and this is backed by Senator Chambliss ( Senate select Committee on Intelligence) that the 5 released were the most dangerous terrorists in Gitmo.

Yes, and this is backed by Senator Chambliss ( Senate select Committee on Intelligence) that the 5 released were the most dangerous terrorists in Gitmo.

The 5 were detailed early in the war because of their relationship with the Taliban not alQaeda. I believe the rational was that considering they don't have the networks they used to and that Qatar -- a strong US ally -- has pledged to ensure they keep clean the overall risk was mitigated. Additionally, I've also read that under international law we'd have to let them go anyway once US forces leave Afghanistan.

There was a good remark I heard by a senior Pentagon official who said don't let the workings of the military get mixed up with the politics of the White House.

Watching FOX you'd think that Obama was personally handing them bomb vests as they walked out the gate...

-spence

A prisoner of war or a deserter...soldiers from his platoon say he deserted and lives were lost looking for him...if he did desert he should be punished according to military law....Y did he have a hard time speaking English?

Back to the OP.

It certainly looks like he did desert his post, but why he wasn't declared a deserter is still a mystery...so technically he would certainly be considered a POW.

Given that what he did was extremely reckless it would make you think that he cracked. Perhaps the Army didn't want to change his status until they had a chance to understand the motivation.

-spence

Interesting remarks from a former Bush official from a FOX Interview...that I for some reason went missing on their website :hihi:

“I don’t see how these particular Taliban officials could ever have been tried in the southern district of New York,” John Bellinger, who served as an adviser to President George W. Bush explained during an appearance on Fox News Tuesday. “They’re certainly some Al Qaeda detainees who committed actual terrorist acts against Americans who perhaps could have been tried in a federal court because they committed federal crimes, but these particular Taliban detainees I think could never have been tried in federal court.” Although some of the released prisoners posed a danger to the United States when they were captured in 2002, especially toward soldiers serving in Afghanistan, several of the detainees did not commit crimes against Americans.

“I’m not saying this is clearly an easy choice but frankly I think a Republican, a president of either party, Republican or Democratic, confronted with this opportunity to get back Sgt. Bergdahl, who is apparently in failing health, would have taken this opportunity to do this,” he added. “I think we would have made the same decision in the Bush administration.”

Back to the OP.

It certainly looks like he did desert his post, but why he wasn't declared a deserter is still a mystery...so technically he would certainly be considered a POW.

Given that what he did was extremely reckless it would make you think that he cracked. Perhaps the Army didn't want to change his status until they had a chance to understand the motivation.

-spence

I think the bigger question is why Obama was hell bent on returning these 5 from Gitmo . I firmly believe this had little to do with a POW except as a politcal reasons
It was an excuse to return these 5 against the recommendations of all
Involved.
Maybe you can answer that Spence and come up with a plausible explanation ( excuse) for possible 14 dead great Americans looking for a deserter
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think the bigger question is why Obama was hell bent on returning these 5 from Gitmo . I firmly believe this had little to do with a POW except as a politcal reasons
It was an excuse to return these 5 against the recommendations of all
Involved.
Maybe you can answer that Spence and come up with a plausible explanation ( excuse) for possible 14 dead great Americans looking for a deserter
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
If he was "hell bent" on releasing the 5 he could have tried to do it long ago.

The decision to move forward appears to be supported by many senior officials in the Administration and Military. Why do you say is against the "recommendations of all involved?"

It appears he may have been a deserter, but if this was the result of stress or traumatic disorder does that make him any less of an American?

It appears like this decision was thought through pretty well and supported by the military. Many republicans -- including John McCain -- publicly supported the idea of a GTMO prisoner swap.

For what political reasons would Obama do something he knows is going to wind up the GOP conspiracy machine?

Unless, Obama has a personal equity stake in FOX News! :hihi:

-spence

Here's a question for Spence...why shouldn't the Taliban, or any group of criminals/terrorists, now be convinced that in order to get what they want, they just need to start snatching Americans and trading for them. Presidents used to say "we don't negotiate with terrorists". There is a very good resason that Presidents used to say that. It sets a terrible, terrible precedent. Please explain to me whty this doesn't put every single American at greater risk of being kidnapped? It incentivizes terrorists to do this sgain.

I don't get it, I just don't get it. Meanwhile, the Pakistani doctor who helped us get Bin Laden is still in a Pakistani prison, and until recently (just back from vacation, don't know the latest), that jailed Marine was still in mexico.

We are so much weaker.

Here's a question for Spence...why shouldn't the Taliban, or any group of criminals/terrorists, now be convinced that in order to get what they want, they just need to start snatching Americans and trading for them.
A response to this I heard from a military leader basically dismissed this notion by stating they're trying to snatch Americans all the time already...

Presidents used to say "we don't negotiate with terrorists". There is a very good resason that Presidents used to say that. It sets a terrible, terrible precedent. Please explain to me whty this doesn't put every single American at greater risk of being kidnapped? It incentivizes terrorists to do this sgain.
Yes, presidents used to "say" that but most of them do it any way.

Bush certainly did it in Iraq and I'd wager it happens a lot more frequently than most people are aware.

-spence

SPENCE!!!!

He is an American...he was not left behind.....now lets try him as a deserter....they will have enough evidence from his once comrades in arms... this is the 2nd biggest crime a military man can make...the 1st is turning his weapon on fellow military personal

A response to this I heard from a military leader basically dismissed this notion by stating they're trying to snatch Americans all the time already...


Yes, presidents used to "say" that but most of them do it any way.

Bush certainly did it in Iraq and I'd wager it happens a lot more frequently than most people are aware.

-spence

"A response to this I heard from a military leader..." Spence, you can usually find someone out there who will offer a quotethat supports your defense of Ogama. That doesn't make it right. How about telling us what you think.

"dismissed this notion by stating they're trying to snatch Americans all the time already"

OK. So everyone is wrong who says that if you reward people for bad behavior, you will encourage more bad behavior. I want to be clear, that's what you are saying? It's not reasonable to assume that anyone out there will see that the Taliban was handsomely rewarded for kidnapping this American, and be more likely to follow suit?

"Bush certainly did it in Iraq "

He negotiated with terrorists? Please explain...Prisoner exchanges happen all the time, in accordance with the Geneva Convention. That's not what this was, not by a long shot.

"I'd wager it happens a lot more frequently than most people are aware."

Shocker. You'll wager that what your hero did here, wasn't stupid.

SPENCE!!!!

He is an American...he was not left behind.....now lets try him as a deserter....they will have enough evidence from his once comrades in arms... this is the 2nd biggest crime a military man can make...the 1st is turning his weapon on fellow military personal

I think the military will investigate and try him as a deserter if they find he was in control of his actions. If they think he cracked then got nabbed they may not go there.

But in the mean time Fox will politicize the hell out of it to make a ton of money regardless.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, you can usually find someone out there who will offer a quotethat supports your defense of Ogama. That doesn't make it right. How about telling us what you think.
There's policy and there's exception. If it's your policy to always offer ransom then you'll likely see an effect. That's not our policy...

OK. So everyone is wrong who says that if you reward people for bad behavior, you will encourage more bad behavior. I want to be clear, that's what you are saying? It's not reasonable to assume that anyone out there will see that the Taliban was handsomely rewarded for kidnapping this American, and be more likely to follow suit?
Soldier walks off base in full uniform into town and is captured. That's not a kidnapping, it was an opportunity in a theater of war. We would have done the exact same thing...

He negotiated with terrorists? Please explain...Prisoner exchanges happen all the time, in accordance with the Geneva Convention. That's not what this was, not by a long shot.
Bush certainly cut deals with Sunni insurgents in Iraq including those who had targeted/attacked/killed Americans. Before 9/11 Bush helped pay 300 grand to a terror group to free missionaries in the Philippines (Note, it didn't end well). Hell Reagan sent arms to Iran after they were declared a State Sponsor of Terrorism!

-spence

There ya go blaming fox news....my home page MSN had qoutes from two soldiers that were in his outfit....we will C what if anything is done to him.

There ya go blaming fox news....my home page MSN had qoutes from two soldiers that were in his outfit....we will C what if anything is done to him.
It's all about politicization and money. Back when a swap was discussed 2 years ago consultants were already trying to figure out how to manipulate it.

They'll seek these guys out, then the PR firms coordinate interviews with the most receptive media. Because it's getting attention everybody feels they have to cover it.

Frankly I'd put a lot more faith in what our military leadership is saying about this whole event than the media. The coverage on most outlets has been lame and the coverage on Fox outright reprehensible. Really, really ugly.

-spence

Frankly I'd put a lot more faith in what our military leadership is saying about this whole event ...
-spence

Me too. So go listen to what they are all saying, not just the ones you happen to agree with.

Me too. So go listen to what they are all saying, not just the ones you happen to agree with.

And a common theme, was get him back, then sort out details (captured, AWOL, deserter) and deal with him as appropriate.

I don't think his desertion status is the major question in this .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think his desertion status is the major question in this .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think it is a big variable. If this guy was a McCain style POW, the 5 for 1 swap wouldn't be the issue it is now...

I think it is a big variable. If this guy was a McCain style POW, the 5 for 1 swap wouldn't be the issue it is now...
The 5 for 1 swap is an issue primarily for political reasons. These guys were going to be let go within a year regardless. The military used them while they still held value.

-spence

Me too. So go listen to what they are all saying, not just the ones you happen to agree with.
Do you know of active military leadership condemning the action?

-spence

I think it is a big variable. If this guy was a McCain style POW, the 5 for 1 swap wouldn't be the issue it is now...

Apples and oranges. When we did prisoner exchanges with the North Vietnamese, they were soldiers of a nation that signed the Geneva Convention (I presume). Back then, we released soldiers. These guys are terrorists, and there's a difference.

You're right to call out hypocrisy directed at Obama for things that wouldn't get criticized if a Republican was in the Oval Office. I'm not sure this is a good example of that. I saw Senator Feinstein being very critcal of how it was handled, she's hardly a right-wing hack.

I'm glad the guy is back, let's find out what happened and let him face justice if necessary...

Spence I really think U R right...he only put his weapon down and walked away to find the Taliban and the first person he came across he asked, " can U tell me how to seek out the Taliban." I think he wanted to learn how to grow poppy's knowing that when he got back to the good ole U S he could start farming a cash crop....want to hear another? LMAO...:)

I think that carrot juce I have been drinking fermented...LOL...:)

The 5 for 1 swap is an issue primarily for political reasons. These guys were going to be let go within a year regardless. The military used them while they still held value.

-spence

Source?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm really conflicted over the whole thing. He may or may not have been crazy. His actions may have caused possibly up to 6 soldiers deaths. We have had to negotiate with terrorists.

I think this may be one of those times you hold your nose and do something.

I'm sure there will be hearings.

I agree with buckman they were only pons use them while U can...if it is not them killing Americans there will be others...it is time the military gets to the deserter....do their investigation and bring the deserter to trial and if found guilty he would not be shot as was Eddie Slovik....this guy will just be put in prison to get fat and lazy.....oink! oink!!

Source?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I've read it several places, one I quoted earlier who was a Bush adviser.

Given the Geneva conventions ruled to apply I don't think we can keep it open indefinitely once we're out of Afghanistan. They'd have to bring these guys to trial in the US which would go nowhere.

The whole process has been a joke. I read that the military commissions have only gotten 7 convictions, 2 were overturned at a cost of 120 million dollars EACH.

-spence

Spence I really think U R right...he only put his weapon down and walked away to find the Taliban and the first person he came across he asked, " can U tell me how to seek out the Taliban." I think he wanted to learn how to grow poppy's knowing that when he got back to the good ole U S he could start farming a cash crop....want to hear another? LMAO...:)

I think that carrot juce I have been drinking fermented...LOL...:)
Evidence appears to indicate he wanted to help Afgan children, not switch teams...we'll see what they determine from his re-entry.

-spence

Apples and oranges. When we did prisoner exchanges with the North Vietnamese, they were soldiers of a nation that signed the Geneva Convention (I presume). Back then, we released soldiers. These guys are terrorists, and there's a difference.
These guys were Afgan Taliban, I don't think they were involved in any international terrorism. Doesn't mean they're nice chaps, but not the same as if they were alQaeda leadership.

You're right to call out hypocrisy directed at Obama for things that wouldn't get criticized if a Republican was in the Oval Office. I'm not sure this is a good example of that. I saw Senator Feinstein being very critcal of how it was handled, she's hardly a right-wing hack.

Some of this is genuine I'm sure but also some anger by Dems is a response to the GOP outrage machine they know these actions will provoke. It's amazing how fast they can get in front of a story and cement a false narrative that's pretty soon assumed as fact by everyone.

Fox's relentless attacks toward his parents is particularly disturbing.

-spence

This too will pass with many questions to remain unanswered . No charges will be filed for desertion and the 5 will go back to killing only this time they have more cred
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

God, imagine the let down if they determine he was mentally unstable at the time he left and decide not to court martial.

-spence

God, imagine the let down if they determine he was mentally unstable at the time he left and decide not to court martial.

-spence

Or imagine your back pedaling if we find out Fox was right :)
Pretty pathetic that this may be his biggest foreign-policy achievement!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Or imagine your back pedaling if we find out Fox was right :)
Pretty pathetic that this may be his biggest foreign-policy achievement!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fox is right about what?

-spence

These guys were Afgan Taliban, I don't think they were involved in any international terrorism. Doesn't mean they're nice chaps, but not the same as if they were alQaeda leadership.



Some of this is genuine I'm sure but also some anger by Dems is a response to the GOP outrage machine they know these actions will provoke. It's amazing how fast they can get in front of a story and cement a false narrative that's pretty soon assumed as fact by everyone.

Fox's relentless attacks toward his parents is particularly disturbing.

-spence

"These guys were Afgan Taliban, I don't think they were involved in any international terrorism"

Do you not see the contradiction in that statement? Afghan Taliban are necessarily tied to Al Queda. Afghan Taliban have been in bed with Al Queda, giving them a safe haven, for years and years.

"not the same as if they were alQaeda leadership. "

True on its face, but the organization they belong to is closely affiloiated with Al Queda.

"Fox's relentless attacks toward his parents is particularly disturbing"

If they are attacking his parents, I agree 100%.

Do you not see the contradiction in that statement? Afghan Taliban are necessarily tied to Al Queda. Afghan Taliban have been in bed with Al Queda, giving them a safe haven, for years and years.
It's not contradictory, I just don't think the word "terrorist" is tossed around without consideration. Because you're Taliban doesn't automatically make you a terrorist. Even if Afghanistan did manage to stabilize the Taliban will most likely continue to be a political component of it's government.

True on its face, but the organization they belong to is closely affiloiated with Al Queda.
I don't believe that's necessarily the case in 2002 when the 5 were captured.

Read this it's really interesting.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/09/01/bin-ladens-revenge

-spence

If he is found guilty of desertion and he should be held accountable for the lives of the men that were lost looking for him. There are children growing up without fathers and wives growing up without husbands because of his actions. There was no need to parade the parents out in the Rosegarden other than for Obamas grandstanding.
The five that were released will guarantee loss of future lives of women and children in Afghanistan.
These women and children did not make a bad decision to put them in harms way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If he is found guilty of desertion and he should be held accountable for the lives of the men that were lost looking for him. There are children growing up without fathers and wives growing up without husbands because of his actions. There was no need to parade the parents out in the Rosegarden other than for Obamas grandstanding.
Today he's an active member of the US Army. To not recognize his return because he "could" have been a deserter would be finding him guilty before a trial. We don't do that. Every single military official I've seen has said get him home then we'll sort it out.

The five that were released will guarantee loss of future lives of women and children in Afghanistan.
1) You have no way of knowing this. 2) Considering the 10+ years of war in the area do you really think that 5 people, even if they were mid to high level Taliban, are going to make any difference?

-spence

Today he's an active member of the US Army. To not recognize his return because he "could" have been a deserter would be finding him guilty before a trial. We don't do that. Every single military official I've seen has said get him home then we'll sort it out.


1) You have no way of knowing this. 2) Considering the 10+ years of war in the area do you really think that 5 people, even if they were mid to high level Taliban, are going to make any difference?



-spence

" Recognize "??? I'm surprised the President didn't dress up as Rambo and claim he went in there and single-handedly save this poor dying soldiers life who was only trying to help the children ( pure speculation on your part )

You are one naïve person if you think these guys are not going to go back to the Taliban .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

" Recognize "??? I'm surprised the President didn't dress up as Rambo and claim he went in there and single-handedly save this poor dying soldiers life who was only trying to help the children ( pure speculation on your part )
Considering your view of the POTUS i'm not surprised at your surprise.

You are one naïve person if you think these guys are not going to go back to the Taliban .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Eventually I'm sure they will, that's not the point. The issue is should we detain them if it's likely they're not a significant threat to the USA. It brings up the larger question of what the Taliban is, was and what could be.

-spence

[QUOTE=spence;

Eventually I'm sure they will, that's not the point. The issue is should we detain them if it's likely they're not a significant threat to the USA. It brings up the larger question of what the Taliban is, was and what could be.

-spence[/QUOTE]

I'm going to have to ask you to quote the source that says that these guys are not a threat to the United States.
The Taliban are bad guys Spence hate to break the news to ya . I'm sure they're right behind the Republicans on the "war on women"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm going to have to ask you to quote the source that says that these guys are not a threat to the United States.
The Taliban are bad guys Spence hate to break the news to ya . I'm sure they're right behind the Republicans on the "war on women"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Not a threat is an absolute, nobody here including Obama is dealing in absolutes.

-spence

Not a threat is an absolute, nobody here including Obama is dealing in absolutes.

-spence

Well could you give us an educated guess as to whether you think they will become a threat to the United States in the future?
I'm sorry I just read back in your posts where you said it is not likely they will become a significant threat to the United States
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trial by Court Martial. If found guilty of conspiring with the enemy and desertion I would say Firing Squad, especially since others died trying to "rescue" him.

On the matter of releasing now 6 terrorists. IMPEACHMENT

To not recognize his return because he "could" have been a deserter would be finding him guilty before a trial. We don't do that.

True, we don't do that. Or at least we should't.

But it's equally speculative of you to assume that these guys aren't a threat, or to assume that the soldier wandered off to feed hungry kids.

Well could you give us an educated guess as to whether you think they will become a threat to the United States in the future?
I'm sorry I just read back in your posts where you said it is not likely they will become a significant threat to the United States
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Become a significant threat to the US? No, I don't think the odds of that are very high. Yes, they were Taliban leaders, but their followers are long since dead or onto other things.

I think once we're out of Afghanistan the government will likely cut a deal with the Taliban anyway.

-spence

True, we don't do that. Or at least we should't.

But it's equally speculative of you to assume that these guys aren't a threat, or to assume that the soldier wandered off to feed hungry kids.
The evidence available certainly indicates he became disillusioned by the wars impact on the Afghan civilians and particularly the children.

-spence

Trial by Court Martial. If found guilty of conspiring with the enemy and desertion I would say Firing Squad, especially since others died trying to "rescue" him.

On the matter of releasing now 6 terrorists. IMPEACHMENT

a conspiracy to aide the terrorists would have to be proven
fat chance of that.... no witnesses
a terrorist label for deserting ...that's a stretch
firing squad is too barbaric for such a passive crime... he was ascared
wasn't like he was shooting back at his own troops... not seen
he was milked for info i'm sure over 5 years -a given
life in prison more likely considering how many lives were lost trying to find him ...thinking he was kidnapped

impeachment .... i think is do-able considering that he was asked specifically by a person in the audience when going for election
if he would attach a letter and circumvent congress and he said absolutely NOT - which proves him to be a complete Liar
and a far worse offense than Clintons oval office BJ or nixon's
cheating to get intel ....

Nobody is going to try and impeach a US President for getting a captive soldier home alive.

Reality check...

-spence

Desertion in time of war. I believe if you check the Manual of Courts Martial is a crime punishible by death.

The evidence available certainly indicates he became disillusioned by the wars impact on the Afghan civilians and particularly the children.

-spence

And to a person not blinded by love of the sitting president, there is equally strong evidence that by virtue of being a "Taliban leader", these guys represent a serious threat.

I'm sure all the Afghan children, especially the little girls, will face better future prospects under the Taliban.

And to a person not blinded by love of the sitting president, there is equally strong evidence that by virtue of being a "Taliban leader", these guys represent a serious threat.
I'll bet they all have book deals by the end of the month :devil2:

-spence

And to a person not blinded by love of the sitting president, there is equally strong evidence that by virtue of being a "Taliban leader", these guys represent a serious threat.

I'm sure all the Afghan children, especially the little girls, will face better future prospects under the Taliban.

So how would you have handled it differently? left him over there? Doesn't seem your MO, whatever his status was....

So how would you have handled it differently? left him over there? Doesn't seem your MO, whatever his status was....

A fair question.

The answer is, you try as hard as you can to get him back on your own, but you don't negotiate with terrorists to do it, even if it means you lose the ability to get him back. And that applies whether he is a suspected deserter, or if he's Audie Murphy. Because if all the terrorists around the world see that we now are willing to trade 5 for 1, who (except Spence) would deny that incentivizes more terrorists to do the same thing?

If we have to kill a lot of people to get him back, fine. But you don't negotiate with these people, or reward them, for their behavior. That encourages more similar behavior, and that's exactly why we came up with the phrase "we don't negotiate with terrorists".

It's not the same as a prisoner exchange, because subsequengt to a prisoner exchange, after th ewar is over, the released prisoners pose to further threat. A child knows that's not the case with the Taliban or Al Queda.

Rockhound, when you tell your children "no" and they throw a fit, do you cave in and give them what they want? No. Why? Because even a kid can connect those dots and realise he can now get what he wants by doing the same thing.

It's not that complicated. It's horrible for the people who would be lost by not negotiating with those people, but there's no other way.

Your question assumes (incorrectly) that the only 2 choices were to cave in, or accept that we can't ever get him back. There is a 3rd alternative, and that's what I'd choose, and that's you use your brains and your brawn to get him back on our own terms.

When that ship captain got kidnapped by pirates off Somalia, why didn't we give the pirates a dump truck full of money like they wanted? Had we done that, the probably would have let him go, right? But we didn't, we let the SEALs take him back by force, even though th ecaptain easily could have been hurt during the exchange of gunfire. And the reason is exactly the same, because that would encourage more piracy. That was one of the very few that this Bolshevik Klown got right.

A fair question.


Rockhound, when you tell your children "no" and they throw a fit, do you cave in and give them what they want? No. Why? Because even a kid can connect those dots and realise he can now get what he wants by doing the same thing.

1. Sometimes, my kids win, yes.

2. If these guys were scheduled to be released; I've read mixed stuff on that, and they spend the next year in Quater, they don't seem to pose an immediate threat. My hunch is if they show up in intelligence at all, a drone will be over their shoulder pretty damn fast...

If we have to kill a lot of people to get him back, fine. But you don't negotiate with these people, or reward them, for their behavior. That encourages more similar behavior, and that's exactly why we came up with the phrase "we don't negotiate with terrorists".
It's good you recognize that it's only a phrase. Terrorists are negotiated with all the time. Hell, Israel once release over a thousand Palestinians (we'll assume they were all terrorists right?) for a single low-level military captive...and they're supposed to be tough right?

Your question assumes (incorrectly) that the only 2 choices were to cave in, or accept that we can't ever get him back. There is a 3rd alternative, and that's what I'd choose, and that's you use your brains and your brawn to get him back on our own terms.
I don't think they could determine exactly where he was. Looks like he was being moved around western Pakistan. That's not an easy rescue.

When that ship captain got kidnapped by pirates off Somalia, why didn't we give the pirates a dump truck full of money like they wanted? Had we done that, the probably would have let him go, right? But we didn't, we let the SEALs take him back by force, even though th ecaptain easily could have been hurt during the exchange of gunfire. And the reason is exactly the same, because that would encourage more piracy. That was one of the very few that this Bolshevik Klown got right.
Totally different situation. With the Somali pirates we knew exactly where the captive was. The order to shoot was given as they thought the Captain was about to be killed.

-spence

Desertion in time of war. I believe if you check the Manual of Courts Martial is a crime punishible by death.
Here's the thing…this entire event 5 years ago has been thoroughly investigated by the Army. The media frenzy wants to pretend it's happening in real-time.

I'd wager they have a pretty good idea of where it's all going.

-spence

1. Sometimes, my kids win, yes.

2. If these guys were scheduled to be released; I've read mixed stuff on that, and they spend the next year in Quater, they don't seem to pose an immediate threat. My hunch is if they show up in intelligence at all, a drone will be over their shoulder pretty damn fast...

"they don't seem to pose an immediate threat"

Based on what?

It's good you recognize that it's only a phrase. Terrorists are negotiated with all the time. Hell, Israel once release over a thousand Palestinians (we'll assume they were all terrorists right?) for a single low-level military captive...and they're supposed to be tough right?


I don't think they could determine exactly where he was. Looks like he was being moved around western Pakistan. That's not an easy rescue.


Totally different situation. With the Somali pirates we knew exactly where the captive was. The order to shoot was given as they thought the Captain was about to be killed.

-spence

"Terrorists are negotiated with all the time." What you don't do, is give in to them.

Spence, it's really too bad for Hitler that Obama wasn't President in 1938. What would he have conceded in the face of that threat?

"I don't think"..."Looks like "...

Looks to me like you're grasping at straws.

"That's not an easy rescue."

Since when do we abandon the right course once we conclude it's "not easy"? Since January 2009, I guess...

"The order to shoot was given as they thought the Captain was about to be killed."

You sure about that? I thought the order to shoot was given when they had a clear shot. How could they (or you) have known he was about to be killed? Did the pirates announce over loudspeaker that he was about to be killed?

It appears you take a lot of liberties, and make a ton of assumptions, and 100% of them paint Obama in a favorable light. Do you deny that?

Spence, it's really too bad for Hitler that Obama wasn't President in 1938. What would he have conceded in the face of that threat?
Look at what's happening in Ukraine. You don't think Obama wasn't playing chicken with Putin and for the most part appears to be winning?

Looks to me like you're grasping at straws.
Ok Scottw.

Since when do we abandon the right course once we conclude it's "not easy"? Since January 2009, I guess...
Do you not think if the military had a feasible plan before they wouldn't have tried it? Oh I forgot, Obama hates the troops.

You sure about that? I thought the order to shoot was given when they had a clear shot. How could they (or you) have known he was about to be killed? Did the pirates announce over loudspeaker that he was about to be killed?
My understanding is that they had a weapon pointed at his head which prompted the action.

The more I think about this whole Bergdahl situation the more it disturbs me. This is a propaganda campaign to lash out at Obama using an active service member as the proxy.

-spence

seeing him in that leather bomber jacket made me ILL

Look at what's happening in Ukraine. You don't think Obama wasn't playing chicken with Putin and for the most part appears to be winning?


Ok Scottw.


Do you not think if the military had a feasible plan before they wouldn't have tried it? Oh I forgot, Obama hates the troops.


My understanding is that they had a weapon pointed at his head which prompted the action.

The more I think about this whole Bergdahl situation the more it disturbs me. This is a propaganda campaign to lash out at Obama using an active service member as the proxy.

-spence

"Do you not think if the military had a feasible plan before they wouldn't have tried it?"

I never said they'd abandon him. You were the one who said it wouldn't be easy to get him back on our own terms, and I pointed out, correctly, that doing what's right is more important than doing what's easy.

"Obama hates the troops.Obama hates the troops.

He doesn't hate them, but he is completely oblivious to the type of person who answers the call to serve. Hence the repugnant "cling to their guns and religion because they are bitter and racist..." remark. I'll say this, I thank God I didn't serve under him.

"My understanding is that they had a weapon pointed at his head "

regardless of your skewed understanding, the fact is he was in a tiny raft with 3 armed pirates and he would necessarily had guns pointed at him repeatedly. Instead of giving me your understanding, how about either some facts to support your claim, or admit it was pure speculation.

Look at what's happening in Ukraine. You don't think Obama wasn't playing chicken with Putin and for the most part appears to be winning?




-spence

Oh, I missed that one. Yeah, Putin is really on the ropes. Assad too.

seeing him in that leather bomber jacket made me ILL

Yuck. Maybe he visited a "corpse-men". Yeah, he's a huge fan of the military...

It is being reported that 2 of the 5 released detainees are currently wanted by the UN for war crimes. Not sure if it's true. Why wouldn't we have handed them over if we had them?

30 posts defending terrorists, a traitor/deserter and a lawless president...hit the trifecta on this one...good job Spence :)

--"I am ashamed to be an american."
-- "The US army is the biggest joke ... It is the army of liars, backstabbers, fools and bullies."
-- "These people need help, yet what they get is the most conceited country in the world telling them that they are nothing and that they are stupid."
-- "The horror that is america is disgusting."
-quoted from emails sent by Bowe Bergdahl to his parents, three days before he walked away from his unit in search of the Taliban.

The true horror in this? This country that Bergdahl decribed as "ashamed" of, that he called a "joke", "conceited", and a "horror"...that terrible country sacrificed several young men in the search for Bergdahl. When his brother in arms voluntarily put themselves in harm's way trying to find him, was that conceited, horrible, a joke? Was it "disgusting"?


I hope we get to the facts here. I can certainly sympathize with a troubled person, inflicted with any of the typical human frailties, many of which are exacerbated in combat. But part of me is disgusted at the price we paid to get him back, especially the young American lives sacrificed to help what could be a disgrace of an American.

I wonder if Obama has learned any of this on the news yet.

30 posts defending terrorists, a traitor/deserter and a lawless president...hit the trifecta on this one...good job Spence :)

Hey, it looks like you wrote your own post!

-spence

The true horror in this? This country that Bergdahl decribed as "ashamed" of, that he called a "joke", "conceited", and a "horror"...that terrible country sacrificed several young men in the search for Bergdahl. When his brother in arms voluntarily put themselves in harm's way trying to find him, was that conceited, horrible, a joke? Was it "disgusting"?


I hope we get to the facts here. I can certainly sympathize with a troubled person, inflicted with any of the typical human frailties, many of which are exacerbated in combat. But part of me is disgusted at the price we paid to get him back, especially the young American lives sacrificed to help what could be a disgrace of an American.


He certainly wouldn't be the first person to be challenged with the reality of war. How many commit suicide or worse, lash out against others? I'd be curious to see what the internal investigation said about his direct leadership.

I'll let the Army make the call on this one.

To enlist to serve our country and then later walk unarmed into enemy territory isn't behavior you'd associate with a stable person. What I still can't calculate is how an active duty soldier help captive for 5 years could be so pilloried before the full story is even known. Wait, I can calculate it...

-spence

He certainly wouldn't be the first person to be challenged with the reality of war.

All of his comrades in arms were challenged by that reality. They did not desert their oath or duty.

How many commit suicide or worse, lash out against others?

So few compared to those that don't as to become an insignificant number. Yet their individual actions, which are so few, can have greater consequence than most of the individual actions of those who do their duty. The renegades can disrupt the cohesion of their units and of the entire mission. Even more so if they turn over to the enemy.

I'd be curious to see what the internal investigation said about his direct leadership.

What leadership? Wasn't he a private when he abandoned his post. Wasn't he promoted while in "captivity"? Perhaps he displayed "direct leadership" while with the Taliban.

I'll let the Army make the call on this one.

The Army isn't waiting for your permission. It might, however, be influenced by the desires of the Commander in chief. That's why, at this politically loaded point, the "call" may be highly suspect.

To enlist to serve our country and then later walk unarmed into enemy territory isn't behavior you'd associate with a stable person. What I still can't calculate is how an active duty soldier help captive for 5 years could be so pilloried before the full story is even known. Wait, I can calculate it...

-spence

You imply that all such action would be associated with an unstable person. Are most traitors unstable? Or do they rationally choose to change sides. If you don't discount what he has said about this country, the military, Afghanistan and its people, it rings more of a rational decision to do what he did than an unstable one.

Your dot . . . dot . . . dot implication seems to leave what you call pillorying out of the "full story". He was "pilloried" by his fellow soldiers, then and now, more than by anybody else.

The Devil's Advocate persisting beyond reason becomes . . . how do you put it . . . vapid.

The Devil's Advocate persisting beyond reason becomes . . . how do you put it . . . vapid.

"Devil's Advocate"....that's just perfect isn't it?...

'it's not the bad guys(terrorists, deserters, lawless president), in fact they aren't even really that bad(hardcore), it's those horrible people who "appear" to have it in for the bad guys, they are the ones that are really "disturbing" '....

good grief.....someone is unstable alright:uhuh:....

now he states that he was beaten and tortured....what did he expect to be welcomed with open arms even though he was not carrying any weapons....I believe that he was...history shows that in every war american prisoners were beaten, tortured and some were shot.... he is a lucky boy.

You imply that all such action would be associated with an unstable person. Are most traitors unstable? Or do they rationally choose to change sides. If you don't discount what he has said about this country, the military, Afghanistan and its people, it rings more of a rational decision to do what he did than an unstable one.
Or it simply bolsters the position that he had lost it.

Your dot . . . dot . . . dot implication seems to leave what you call pillorying out of the "full story". He was "pilloried" by his fellow soldiers, then and now, more than by anybody else.
I'm sure his peers felt betrayed. I don't fault them for that.

The Devil's Advocate persisting beyond reason becomes . . . how do you put it . . . vapid.
I still haven't reconciled the justification for the outright venom directed at an active duty service member on limited information. Is that reasonable?

-spence

now he states that he was beaten and tortured....what did he expect to be welcomed with open arms even though he was not carrying any weapons....I believe that he was...history shows that in every war american prisoners were beaten, tortured and some were shot.... he is a lucky boy.
According to FOX he was a turncoat who swore an oath to Allah to destroy America. His father, a suspected Muslim (i.e. the beard) is likely running a sleeper cell...

To be fair and balanced I can't say it's all of FOX. Shep!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGMEJiLkLmM#t=62

-spence

According to FOX he was a turncoat who swore an oath to Allah to destroy America. His father, a suspected Muslim (i.e. the beard) is likely running a sleeper cell...

To be fair and balanced I can't say it's all of FOX. Shep!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGMEJiLkLmM#t=62

-spence

Is that where U get most of your information?...LOL

Or it simply bolsters the position that he had lost it.

How so? I don't see any bolstering of such a position by his actions or words. Please clarify.

I'm sure his peers felt betrayed. I don't fault them for that.

What was the "limited information" which caused those peers to "feel" betrayed?

I still haven't reconciled the justification for the outright venom directed at an active duty service member on limited information. Is that reasonable?

-spence

So, on the one hand you don't fault his peers for "outright venom", but if someone else responds as they do, then the "outright venom" is not justified. And, what was the "limited information" which informed Susan Rice to say that Bergdahl served with "distinction"? How have you "reconciled the justification" for all that?

Can the truth be considered "outright venom"? And if the truth is relative to "context" and "perception," then who are you to pronounce someone else's perception "outright venom"?

And is "outright" an absolute?

Is that where U get most of your information?...LOL


it would explain much.....but you'd better not post a You Tube video from a politically motivated website/organization with pieced together out of context clips assembled to attack and smear those that disagree philosophically or have a different view point because he will simply dismiss it as such and question your intelligence and motivations :rotf2:

Is that where U get most of your information?...LOL
Found it while searching, it's pretty funny.

-spence

How so? I don't see any bolstering of such a position by his actions or words. Please clarify.
It could be interpreted as a sign of his mental state.

What was the "limited information" which caused those peers to "feel" betrayed? So, on the one hand you don't fault his peers for "outright venom", but if someone else responds as they do, then the "outright venom" is not justified. And, what was the "limited information" which informed Susan Rice to say that Bergdahl served with "distinction"? How have you "reconciled the justification" for all that?
I never said his peers were showing outright venom, that was a broader remark.

As for Rice's words. I think she was just trying to state that signing up to serve your country is certainly an honorable thing that deserves merit. She could have followed with...and then something went wrong, but we're not really sure what happened. Perhaps this was implied.

Can the truth be considered "outright venom"? And if the truth is relative to "context" and "perception," then who are you to pronounce someone else's perception "outright venom"?

And is "outright" an absolute?
Truth can certainly be venomous depending on how it's used. A bit of truth is often used to mask a bigger lie.

-spence

Great remark from Gen. McChrystal.

“I think the key thing in a case like Sgt. Bergdahl’s is you first understand there’s a responsibility to our service members, and that’s very clear-cut and nobody should argue about that,” McChrystal said. “We know we have a responsibility to get them or their remains, and we go to great efforts to do that.

“And then, there’s a responsibility on individuals, service members, back toward their nation and their comrades, and we should demand that and we should check into that. But we as a nation, instead of politicizing something like this, we as a nation, should look at it and say: Okay, [it’s a] complex problem, how do we handle this in a way that brings us together? Because it actually makes us look weaker to our allies, it makes us look confused to our foes, and if we were very united on something like this and we just said: ‘America doesn’t leave its people but we do have a high standard,’ then I think we’d come out better.”

As for Rice's words. I think she was just trying to state that signing up to serve your country is certainly an honorable thing that deserves merit.
-spence

If she was trying to state that, she would have stated that, correct? I mean, I presume she's not a moron, right?

No limits to how far you'll bend over backwards when these people say stupid things, God forbid you just admit the truth. She said he "served" with honor and distinction. Simple words, with only one possible meaning. You "serve" after you enlist.

This is yet another fiasco resulting with egg on his clueless face. Raise the concept of "inept" to an art form...the whole administration, it's actually staggering.

. A bit of truth is often used to mask a bigger lie.

-spence

no kidding...we read your posts :uhuh:

Spence: "Great remark from Gen. McChrystal."


Quote:
McChrystal: “I think the key thing in a case like Sgt. Bergdahl’s is you first understand there’s a responsibility to our service members, and that’s very clear-cut and nobody should argue about that,” McChrystal said.

Who's arguing that there's not a responsibility to our service members? Actually, we have a responsibility to every U.S. citizen. That is the reason we have service members--to help enforce that responsibility. And we should enforce that responsibility with equal force and ferocity when any service member or citizen is denied legal due process or is illegally held captive by any foreign power. And we should not bargain with those who illegally or unjustly hold our citizens, whether they hold them for ransom or for ideology. We should demand their return or they should be prepared to fight to the death to keep them.

Quote McChrystal: “We know we have a responsibility to get them or their remains, and we go to great efforts to do that."

Yes, "great efforts", not capitulation.

Quote McChrystal: “And then, there’s a responsibility on individuals, service members, back toward their nation and their comrades, and we should demand that and we should check into that. "

Yes, as there is a responsibility on all of us, not only on service members, to back our nation and our fellow citizens against tyranny, foreign AND DOMESTIC. And we should check into that. When we allow our own government to hold us captive to a central bureaucratic state which constantly erodes the freedoms and form of government on which our nation was founded, and we argue over some token exchange which pleases and emboldens as well as fortifies our enemies instead of demanding the restoration of our greater collective and individual freedom, we are swapping that freedom to embolden and fortify the whims of the ruling class which continues to diminish individual private spaces and choices.

Quote McChrystal: "But we as a nation, instead of politicizing something like this, we as a nation, should look at it and say: Okay, [it’s a] complex problem, how do we handle this in a way that brings us together? Because it actually makes us look weaker to our allies, it makes us look confused to our foes,"

When we have divided the nation against itself by abandoning the Constitution which bound us together, we have already become weaker--to our allies, to our enemies, and to ourselves. There can be nothing but confusion if we have no common societal or governmental basis. The idea that "bringing us together" can be accomplished by all having the same opinion on a prisoner swap is childish, at best.

We have been looking weaker and confused to the rest of the world for some time. We have voluntarily capitulated to "world" views, and more and more are being led to believe that we are guilty of much, if not most, of the world's problems. We are told that we must apologize for our hubris, mass murders, and rape of the rest of the world. That we must sacrifice our comforts and well being in order to redistribute those things to others who have been blocked by us from getting them. That we are destroying the planet. That we are retrogrades stuck in some ancient faith in individual rights which sap the collective rights of the earth's people to share equally in the planet's bounty. That we cling to guns and quaint religion, instead of allowing the State to have the total power it needs to protect us, and instead of bowing to the religion of an all-powerful State. We kill so many babies in the womb that there are not enough new generations to grow the economy necessary to support the aging population with it's medical and retirement fiscal needs. So we replenish demographic growth with illegal immigrants who are invited by the crony relationship of government and business low wage desires and necessities. And our government constantly spends more than it gets, so has to get more, and has to inflate the money supply in order to devalue the currency to barely keep up with its debt. Which has the negative effect on the savings and wages of the people as well as raising the prices of the goods they need, as well as allowing the top .1% to accumulate even greater money wealth which expands the "income inequality" the government rails against.

We are at such odds with ourselves that these little government manipulations, deals, swaps, policies, in terms of making us look unified to the rest of the world, are a pathetic and destructive joke.

Quote McChrystal: "and if we were very united on something like this and we just said: ‘America doesn’t leave its people but we do have a high standard,’ then I think we’d come out better.”

No wonder Spence thinks McChrystal's remark is "great." That last sentence is the same kind of incoherence that fills much of Spence's posts.

It could be interpreted as a sign of his mental state.

His words clearly express his mental state. If they were incoherent, that might be "a sign" which might be interpreted as a confused mental state. But that would have to be "bolstered," as you put it, by a pattern of incoherence. As well as a pattern of strange behaviors. His statements were coherent, and his actions coincided with his words. Where is the "sign" of an irrational or mentally disturbed state?

I never said his peers were showing outright venom, that was a broader remark.

Yes, the "broader context" of "outright venom" supposedly spewed by others, were mostly reiterations of remarks by his peers. So the "broader context" of "outright venom" was quite homogenous amongst his peers and non-peers. I would assume, then, that his peers were showing "outright venom."

As for Rice's words. I think she was just trying to state that signing up to serve your country is certainly an honorable thing that deserves merit. She could have followed with...and then something went wrong, but we're not really sure what happened. Perhaps this was implied.

Refer to what Jim in CT said.

Truth can certainly be venomous depending on how it's used.

Venomous, in the context of human discourse, means "malicious, malignant, spiteful, etc. Are you saying that those who believe they are telling the truth about Bergdahl, including his peers, are being malicious, malignant, spiteful? Could you please explain how that works?


A bit of truth is often used to mask a bigger lie.

-spence

Refer to what scottw said.

BTW, is "outright" an absolute?

No wonder Spence thinks McChrystal's remark is "great." That last sentence is the same kind of incoherence that fills much of Spence's posts.
It's not incoherent when read in context of his full remark. To parse things line by line is the same news by sound bite syndrome we've become far too accustomed to.

-spence

His words clearly express his mental state. If they were incoherent, that might be "a sign" which might be interpreted as a confused mental state. But that would have to be "bolstered," as you put it, by a pattern of incoherence. As well as a pattern of strange behaviors. His statements were coherent, and his actions coincided with his words. Where is the "sign" of an irrational or mentally disturbed state?
So being in a bad metal position means you can't articulate your feelings? He signed up for the service which is a rational and honorable thing, then walks unarmed into a dangerous situation which is a very irrational thing.

Yes, the "broader context" of "outright venom" supposedly spewed by others, were mostly reiterations of remarks by his peers. So the "broader context" of "outright venom" was quite homogenous amongst his peers and non-peers. I would assume, then, that his peers were showing "outright venom."
You're just making that up. His peers certainly were critical of him as a deserter and had suspicions about his later actions that don't appear to have merit according to the military. This doesn't go nearly as far as some in the media who were quick to take this to an extreme and personal place.

Venomous, in the context of human discourse, means "malicious, malignant, spiteful, etc. Are you saying that those who believe they are telling the truth about Bergdahl, including his peers, are being malicious, malignant, spiteful? Could you please explain how that works?
Little is known about the "truth" so how could those think they're speaking to it?

The event became politicized overnight in an attempt not to understand but to attack. Malicious, malignant and spiteful all seem to fit.

-spence

Detbuch -

"Venomous, in the context of human discourse, means "malicious, malignant, spiteful, etc. Are you saying that those who believe they are telling the truth about Bergdahl, including his peers, are being malicious, malignant, spiteful? Could you please explain how that works?"

I'll explain it for him.

In Spenceworld, when the truth paints Obama in a favorable light, that is truthful, honest, forthright, and courageous. When the truth paints Obama in a negative light, that is malicious, malignant, and spiteful. And you forgot 'racist'...

It's not incoherent when read in context of his full remark. To parse things line by line is the same news by sound bite syndrome we've become far too accustomed to.

-spence

This is yet another example of the incoherent posts I was talking about.

So being in a bad metal position means you can't articulate your feelings?

Clearly articulating your ideas is not a "sign" of a bad mental position. I asked you where is the "sign" of an irrational or mentally disturbed state.

He signed up for the service which is a rational and honorable thing, then walks unarmed into a dangerous situation which is a very irrational thing.

According to "reports," as you like to say, he said or wrote things which were fulfilled by his walking into a dangerous situation--a calculated and desired action. Again, without a pattern of mixed and contradictory behavior, not a sign of an irrational mental state.

You're just making that up. His peers certainly were critical of him as a deserter and had suspicions about his later actions that don't appear to have merit according to the military. This doesn't go nearly as far as some in the media who were quick to take this to an extreme and personal place.

The truth can be (actually is) extreme. And your perception of a "personal place" is your business. But it is not your business to decide for others what a "personal place" is. And to do so would certainly not cohere with the relativistic view you seem to espouse. "Personal place" would, to a relativist, depend on point of view. And even more, for you, on "context." Others may be speaking from a different context than yours and from a different point of view. Who are you to cast extreme aspersions to what other's have to say? Similarly, re my previous question, "Can the truth be considered "outright venom"? And if the truth is relative to "context" and "perception," then who are you to pronounce someone else's perception "outright venom"?"



Little is known about the "truth" so how could those think they're speaking to it?

How could you think you're speaking to it? Aren't you and they speaking what they perceive as truth concerning what "little is known"?

The event became politicized overnight in an attempt not to understand but to attack. Malicious, malignant and spiteful all seem to fit.

-spence

Their you go again--the all-knowing Spence. You know what is in their minds and what their motives are in spite of knowing little or nothing about their true beliefs and convictions. I think they could accuse your attacking them as being "malicious, malignant and spiteful."

As for politicizing, "reports" (those sources to which you often like to refer) opine that the swap itself was a political, or politicized, calculation. I guess you and those "reports" speak from different contexts and perceptions.

Oh, BTW, is "outright" an absolute?