Bowe and Bob Bergdahl

Well we could always see if Ted Cruz's wants to exchange his sorry arse for this kids, since he feels so strongly about it. Personally I see it as a win win.

And I don't care if a kid was a perfect soldier or not I can't think of many parents who wouldn't want their kid back. Thanks for the article Bedell.
 
Glad the dudes parents have peace and can sleep but there's some questions here.

I'm not conspiracy theorist by any means, but he partook in Christian holidays with his Islamic kidnappers? Was he drunk or did he go AWOL? Did his commander not notice he was drunk in the tight quarters they have there. Didn't think alcohol would be allowed out there.
 
The irony is that he wouldn't have his son back if it weren't for the imprisoned Taliban soldiers he wants freed.

Something definitely stinks about this whole thing. I guess I should give Obama the benefit of the doubt on this and hope he thinks the CIA can track these 5 ex prisoners or he truly believes they aren't a threat going forward.

I'm not going to call him a deserter until it's proven, so I'll leave that aside.

But I guess the media wants us to put away any and all questions about this and instead be mindlessly happy for the soldier and his Dad. But this may have been a case where the emotional political stance defeated the logical one. Will we ever know the truth behind this? Lots of questions that need to be answered here.

This also feels like an episode of Homeland.
 
weso1 said:
The irony is that he wouldn't have his son back if it weren't for the imprisoned Taliban soldiers he wants freed.

Something definitely stinks about this whole thing. I guess I should give Obama the benefit of the doubt on this and hope he thinks the CIA can track these 5 ex prisoners or he truly believes they aren't a threat going forward.

I'm not going to call him a deserter until it's proven, so I'll leave that aside.

But I guess the media wants us to put away any and all questions about this and instead be mindlessly happy for the soldier and his Dad. But this may have been a case where the emotional political stance defeated the logical one. Will we ever know the truth behind this? Lots of questions that need to be answered here.

This also feels like an episode of Homeland.
Click to expand...

First thing I thought of was Homeland.
 
This is sickening. So we negotiate with terrorists? Released 5 prisoners? I hope these were low level scumbags.

This "soldier" voluntarily walked off the base. He knew what he was doing. I think this is bull****, this "soldier" also tried to join the French Army before settling for the U.S.

How do we know this guys was even tortured for 5 years? He was celebrating holidys, cooking, learning the language.
 
Through relationships I have I know a bit more of the back story to all this and will only say that it is very complex. I am grateful that he is coming home. May the military determine what it needs to determine. And I hope that following all that there can be some peace for this family. And the sooner we are out of Afghanistan the better. One can hope that close tabs will be placed on the 5 released detainees.
 
gilesfan said:
Not sure if accurate, but the 5 released don't sound like angels.

Oh, here is the wacko Dad:

http://allenbwest.com/2014/06/bombs...ather-white-house-arabic/#TkaM7McBUv7Q80FA.01
Click to expand...

Again, it's more complex than what West intimates. Yes, Bergdahl senior may be off the rails and is a not so subtle Muslim.

Or, he can be using an Arabic expression of greeting, with Qu'ranic origins, yet used by non-Muslims, knowing that his son has been immersed in Arabic and Pashto.

He himself has been immersed in culture, political, religious studies as a means to do all that he can to garner the release of his son. Does that mean he has become a Muslim? It could - but maybe not.

I'd caution against a rush to judgment.
 
Figuring out the Dad is a wack job doesn't take a rush to judgment. The rush to judgment is assuming the son is like the father (which seems very possible)
 
And why exactly is the father a "wack job"?

Because he is likely a libertarian? Because he disagrees with neocon foreign policy? Because he's been studying all he can to help him in seeking the release of his son?
 
To the political, and geopolitical points...

I have no desire to see the Taliban in power in Afghanistan. However, if you're remotely versed in the history of the region, you'll understand that there are going to be elements of that broadly-understood group who are going to be running big swathes of the country. Right now, they're the de-facto government in some areas. In the future, they'll probably be part of the actual government. For us to throw good money and good blood after bad to try to prevent that is foolish.

So, no one associated with our government is going to say it, but in negotiating that deal, we were ultimately negotiating with a quasi-government, not just "terrorists." They're fighting an asymmetrical, insurgent war against the US. There are any number of bad things that we could say about them. But to apply the term "terrorist," absent any context, is overly facile.
 
BedellBrave said:
And why exactly is the father a "wack job"?

Because he is likely a libertarian? Because he disagrees with neocon foreign policy? Because he's been studying all he can to help him in seeking the release of his son?
Click to expand...

A white American inIdaho converting to Islam
 
Julio3000 said:
To the political, and geopolitical points...

I have no desire to see the Taliban in power in Afghanistan. However, if you're remotely versed in the history of the region, you'll understand that there are going to be elements of that broadly-understood group who are going to be running big swathes of the country. Right now, they're the de-facto government in some areas. In the future, they'll probably be part of the actual government. For us to throw good money and good blood after bad to try to prevent that is foolish.

So, no one associated with our government is going to say it, but in negotiating that deal, we were ultimately negotiating with a quasi-government, not just "terrorists." They're fighting an asymmetrical, insurgent war against the US. There are any number of bad things that we could say about them. But to apply the term "terrorist," absent any context, is overly facile.
Click to expand...

I get that, but I'm still not sure what makes this a good deal for the US unless you make some assumptions or give the benefit of the doubt to a White House that maybe doesn't deserve it.
 
weso1 said:
I get that, but I'm still not sure what makes this a good deal for the US unless you make some assumptions or give the benefit of the doubt to a White House that maybe doesn't deserve it.
Click to expand...

Give up 5 dangerous terrorists for a trader that wanted to help the Taliban.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top