American POW freed in prisoner swap. And the GOP doesn't like it.....

How much is Kerry's secretary paying you to patrol this thread?? $9.50/hr? Propaganda never sleeps!

 

Brilliant. So in your mind, because I'm not making this a partisan issue like you desperately want it to become, it means I'm being paid by a politician? Is that about right? Heh, you partisan fools are all the same, I'm not even a Republican.

The real joke would be that if this happened during the previous administration, your opinion would be completely different and some Republican idiot would be accusing me of being paid by some Democrat when I was saying the exact same things. You guys are ridiculous.

 

Just got back from a charlie murphy stand up comedy show in Dallas. (hilarious btw, if you ever get a chance, go see him)

Apparently Charlie is a veteran, was in the navy and is very passionate about this situation, he voiced how he was very happy this guy was brought home. He also said that the people who are saying we shouldn't have gotten him back, are probably mostly old men who'v never served, or have had any close relatives that have served. He brought up the point of, "what if it was your own son?". Crowd cheered and agreed.

 

typical anti-intellectual drivel to save your ass. you're a con artist, no different to v stiviano. leave the kids out of this though, would you? lure them into the army with promises of lollipops and sour punch then send em home bruised up and brainwashed.

i am a REPUBLICAN, but anti-war. that wasn't always my stance, but over the past 10 years, it most certainly has become one of my defining stance's.

 

That's a fair point, but what if your son died on a mission to detain one of the Taliban prisoners that were handed over for a deserter? Shocker, they'd probably think differently.

Parents aren't the most rational people when it comes to their kids, I'm sure there are parents that would give the world to get their kids back safe and sound.....however that makes for really stupid policy. We shouldn't be asking ourselves what completely biased people would do, we should ask what an impartial person thinks is the best course of action. Is the best PFC in the entire Army worth surrendering 5 high value Taliban leaders? No. Obviously not. Anyone who thinks otherwise is blinded by emotion.

 

Heh, accuse me of "anti-intellectual drivel" in in incoherent babbling post that's all over the place. That's special.

If you were paying attention, you would know that I see essentially no difference in a Republican partisan and a Democrat partisan so don't think you are saying anything by labeling yourself as one of them.

Being pro or anti war has nothing to do with this topic.

 

This:

is an "ad hominem" argument because it deviated from the topic and was made against the person making the argument. Link and definition are below for reference.

http://literarydevices.net/ad-hominem/

The only reason I'm persisting with you and ignoring tallanover and that other dude that keeps posting articles back to back to back is because I think you have an interest in this topic besides ideological zealotry and red vs. blue. I hope I'm right.

Yes, there are more facts that what I posted that point to desertion.

Conclusions drawn from a combination of facts is still an opinion, but a stronger one. For instance: The sun rises in the east and sets in the west, and all the world I see looks flat, therefore the entire world is flat and the heavens revolve around it. That was a very strong opinion that lasted a very long time. I also imagine this is why courts hand down "opinions" after being presented with facts: "after being presented with the facts of this case, it is the opinion of this court that blah blah blah ..."

There is very strong evidence that suggests desertion. We're missing Bergdahl's account of events and a medical opinion of his mental and physical health - which is reasonable considering the environment he was exposed to - and then we can claim with reasonable certainty that he did or did not in fact desert his post.

"Desertion" requires a judgement on his intent to return. Same stuff as above, we need his side of the story.

Posing the questions from my previous post is "speculation" only in the sense that I think those questions are worth contemplating and investigating, but not the type of speculation that draws conclusions.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/speculation

We agree that facts shouldn't be ignored and speculation (of the type that draws base-less conclusions) should be avoided. Whether he was abducted by a UFO can be investigated, if you think it's worth investigating, and I think there's sufficient information available to confirm or debunk that theory (... probably debunk).

We agree that "ignoring first hand testimony in favor of baseless speculation hurts your ethos, damages your argument, and is destructuve (sic) for debate." Nothing should be ignored and all available information should be considered - including testimony from the soldier himself.

Point 1 is a half truth, depending on who you consider the "military." There are a couple of officials that are reserving judgement until the whole story comes to light:

http://www.businessinsider.com/gen-mcchrystal-bergdahl-2014-6

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/questions-loom-over-bergdahl-taliban-swap/2014/06/02/59a9f9b2-eab7-11e3-b10e-5090cf3b5958_story.html

I don't know enough about what happened in 2011 to comment on point 2.

Point 3 is very probable and is not a good look for Obama.

Facts can be disputed, it's just very very hard.

I think this is important because the level of discourse is so low in the US, and everything devolves into red vs. blue so quickly that it's almost impossible to find a pragmatic "truth" that can keep our nation improving at any respectable rate. I don't believe there's anything wrong with having an opinion, but we have to keep ourselves and each other honest, own up to our opinions and not be so steadfast that we refuse to change given new evidence. That applies to everybody, not specifically directed at you. After we hold ourselves to this standard, maybe we can hold our politicians to this standard as well and cut through the miss-information and bull that spews nonstop.

ok, thanks for your attention. refer to your previous post to see the topics being responded to. If you have feedback, we can discuss that too.

This statement, and the one you made earlier about Truth Tunnels - I hope people noticed. It's "there is no spoon" Matrix-y stuff, but important to properly understand. Thanks txtony.

 

Nice try, but you really do need to brush up on your logical fallacies, I'll help you out by re-posting the definition you just posted with added emphasis to help your reading comprehension.

That one word shows you why what I wrote wasn't ad hominem...at least not the fallacy.

To break this down for you even further, your argument was

My counter-argument was

Adding on that I thought your idea of "teams" said a lot about you wasn't ad hominem because it wasn't a comment on or against an opponent to undermine him INSTEAD of a logically sound argument. It was a comment on and against an opponent to undermine him ALONG WITH a logically sound argument and that's not an example of an ad hominem fallacy.


At least you can say you learned something today.

 

Let me get this straight. Mr. Charlie is touting that he is a veteran in the Navy and some how feels closer to those who are actually on the front lines than these "old men who never served". Essentially, the guy went through boot camp and worked as a boiler technical for 6 years. Fisherman have a more dangerous job than this guy did.

To clarify, the few veterans I do know, albiet they do not speak for all veterans, are outraged. Now keep in mind, these are guys who were mortared daily, not some schmuck holed up safely in a ship during a time of peace. He has no clue what war is like anymore than people who never served.

 

With all that said i still bet if you have, had or will have a kid, and they were in this situation, that'd you'd drop your whole argument and do a 180 on your standing point. The blind emotion from the irrational biased parent that you are, will all of the sudden, be the most rational view to have.

If the parents want their kids back, who are any of us to deny that? Without those american parents, you would have absolutely no army. These kids and parents are making the ultimate sacrifices for this country, doing us the favor by putting their lives on the line. Their biased opinions matter the most. Not the people sitting behind the desks.

In my opinion.

 

He talked about his job as a boiler technician, he never said he put his life on the line or anything. Just said that he served the country and is a veteran, and is passionate about the situation. As i pointed out in my post above, he thinks that the people that matter are the ones on the front line and their parents, not the old men who never served.

 

Well absolutely, but I'd hope no one would take my opinion on the subject for more than it's worth.

Are we to deny it? Absolutely. I'm sure the families of thieves, rapists, and murderers want their kids back as well. That's the problem with being irrational. We ignore their biased opinion for the same reason, because it's irrational and foolish.

Impartial opinions are always more valuable than emotionally biased opinions.

Do I sympathize with them? Absolutely. Would I be the same type of irrational parent? Probably.

Their kid should go from Taliban confinement to military confinement and perhaps even execution. Desertion is a MAJOR crime and can't be overlooked simply because he has parents any more than any other major crime can be overlooked for the same reason.

The idea of getting him from Taliban captivity is a separate issue, I support the idea of bringing him home to face court marshal, but that doesn't mean I supported the awful trade that made it happen. It was simply foolish.

 

I am fine with all of that until the "old men who never served". All he left out was the words white and Republicans.

More Americans are against this swap than those who were for it. That is a pretty loud statement. I don't think this is just about old men and those who never served. Unfortunately, its not just the military that is being targeted, its the innocent men, women and children these people want to kill. Wouldn't you say all those who survived the Trade Center towers would be veterans of some sort?
Your boy Charlie is disrespecting the opinions of those who could be affected by this fall out.

 

Would you have the same view if this soldier did not go awol?

Because a soldier who is risking their life for you and this country, and his irrational parents, should absolutely not be treated as of those who are thieves, rapist and murders, they in fact should be treated completely opposite.

As for this particular situation, and him being awol, is a little different, but imo its no excuse to leave him for dead, to me.

Thing is, thieves, rapist and murders all steal from others. They steal their personal possessions, their innocence and their lives.

Most of the reasons for desertion im guessing, is due to mental collapse and discontent of the army, war or whatever of the situation the soldier was in. I would not mix that in with stealing in my personal principles, i respect your opinion if you view otherwise.

 

I understand your perspective, i'm not saying that the peoples voices should not be heard because they are old, white, republican and have never served, and i can't speak for Mr.Murphy, but what he might agree with, is that the soldiers and their family matter the most, they are the ones putting their lives at risk. They are the ones actually out on the front line fighting for us.

 

Thread title should be 'American Deserter & traitor that caused the death of his fellow servicemen freed in prisoner swap.'

Should've left him there to rot with those he loved most. Talk about being rewarded for sleeping with the enemy...hope he gets sent to prison & never sees the light of day.

 

It helped Bush win relection and he put in his multi-trillion tax resistribution scheme to the 1 percent. It kept little guys neo-con guys like you on board. Defense stocks soared and they own them all for practical purpose. The wars were privatized and a lot of Blackwater types made a lot of money.

 

Since a few have seem to almost equated Bergdahl's alleged desertion to the level of murder and rape....

Definition of desertion (wiki):

Most reports and his own email (if authenticated) suggested that he deserted. But, as can seen above, intent and reasoning is part of the determination. Thus, easy to said, but not as simple as it look. He, after all, did apparently left and came back a number of time so we do not know if he finally left and never intent to come back or go through one of his *mental* episode of leaving and coming back later.

Also notice the punishment - very few received sentence of more than 12M and the most is 24M since post 911. Many are never trialed. This is against a total desertion of ~20K since post 911 (highest in the 2007-9 years which also coincided with the surge I think).

It's also interesting that the UN actually have legal status of desertion called Conscientious objection (refuse military service on grounds of freedom of thought, conscience, and/or religion). This apply to non-voluntary force but still, there is a recognized legal status for it. I wonder why or even when (for example, those who are or turn religious while serving and hold strongly against killing) this could be a legally valid and socially acceptable reason for desertion.

 

LOL, a good number of the people who are saying we shouldn't have made this deal to get him back are vets - combat vets especially. They know what went into getting those 5 guys we gave away, they know the threat those guys pose, and they have different ideas about things like honor and duty. Desertion matters to them.

 

This may already have been posted, but...

EXCLUSIVE: Bergdahl declared jihad in captivity, secret documents show

U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl at one point during his captivity converted to Islam, fraternized openly with his captors and declared himself a "mujahid," or warrior for Islam, according to secret documents prepared on the basis of a purported eyewitness account and obtained by Fox News.

The reports indicate that Bergdahl's relations with his Haqqani captors morphed over time, from periods of hostility, where he was treated very much like a hostage, to periods where, as one source told Fox News, "he became much more of an accepted fellow" than is popularly understood. He even reportedly was allowed to carry a gun at times.

The documents show that Bergdahl at one point escaped his captors for five days and was kept, upon his re-capture, in a metal cage, like an animal. In addition, the reports detail discussions of prisoner swaps and other attempts at a negotiated resolution to the case that appear to have commenced as early as the fall of 2009.

The reports are rich in on-the-ground detail -- including the names and locations of the Haqqani commanders who ran the 200-man rotation used to guard the Idaho native -- and present the most detailed view yet of what Bergdahl's life over the past five years has been like. These real-time dispatches were generated by the Eclipse Group, a shadowy private firm of former intelligence officers and operatives that has subcontracted with the Defense Department and prominent corporations to deliver granular intelligence on terrorist activities and other security-related topics, often from challenging environments in far-flung corners of the globe.

Full Story:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/06/exclusive-bergdahl-declared-jihad-secret-documents-show/