News Stories

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Oh since you have nothing else to say, let's just keep the conversation one side in my part then.

I guess at least you admitted to the fact that you can’t tell the difference between a soldier who got capture in battle and a deserter who got caught after he ran away.

Ever wondered why the White House, not the military who can make decision for prisoner exchange? Because the government is responsible for its citizen, while the army is not. If you disagree with it, then feel free trying to pass legislation/ law or whatever that prevent White House from carrying out prisoner exchange.

First off, that was in direct rebuke of YOUR factually false claim that the Army had authorized and was behind the prisoner exchange. Second, by law, Congress also needed to be involved, it’s not solely on the discretion of the executive branch, something they also conveniently disregarded.

But hey, good attempt at trying to put words in my mouth, it always amuses me when people try to pretend like they were on the right side all along after they get corrected.

And please do not speak like the military has same universal mindset on every front.

Please do point out where I claim to be speaking for the entire military. While you’re working on that, please do also tell us what kind of personal experience and knowledge you’re drawing on for YOUR claims, because….

You do sounds like military propaganda at how easily soldiers jump on grenades for each other and how every of them have that beehive mindset of always watching their back and following order.

…as a 10 year vet of the USMC, I ask you in the most polite term possible to please shove that down the rear end you pulled that out of.

Easily? Since where did I say it was easy? Nobody ever finds it easy to throw oneself to almost certain death, but people do it anyway, it’s not something you sit there and think about for 15 minutes, you do it because those people next to you are your fking brothers. It’s why people jump on grenades, it’s why people repeatedly expose themselves to enemy fire to recover wounded men, it’s why people have gone to certain death to save their fellow troops.

Before you decide how incredulous the things that the men and women in the military would do for one another based on the ****-all you know about them, maybe you should’ve tried to read the history behind some of those MoH, Army/Navy Cross, Silver/Bronze Stars etc., and then realize that those only represent a tiny fraction of the things that people have done for each other.

But I will give you this, not everyone is like that, there are plenty of shitbags in the military as well. A perfect example would be Mr. Deserter right here.

If they care little about how much their life worth, and only follow order to accomplish their mission, then why did they voice their anger toward this dude then? They followed the mission to search for this guys and 6 soldiers were KIA. That's unfortunate, but you have to do what you have to do

You know what I just wrote about you shoving it back where you get it? Feel free to do it here as well.

I value my life just fine thank you, but unlike you I actually understand the fact that mission accomplishment comes first because others are depending on me to do my part, and that more lives can be lost if I don’t. Imagine if people like you were the ones in Normandy, the whole damn invasion fleet would’ve went “LOL NOPE, not doing this! Funny Mustache guy can keep this continent, Peace out!” and turned tailed and ran.

People are angry because one, good men died as a result of looking for this shitbag. Second, five senior enemy leaders were given up for this shitbag, all but certain to get back in the fight and likely costing more lives. Third, the shitbag gets treated as a fking hero.

It’s rather obvious that you don’t know much about military culture in general, as I don’t think you appreciate just how ignorant and offensive some of the shit you wrote here is.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

We both know it is easier to simply set up a law on ink and paper so they no longer need to be grilled ever again.

With all due respect, speak for yourself.

I think a good case can be made that the Pentagon (and/or the White House) would prefer to have flexibility over situations like this, and hence would consider that the easier and better course to maintain, rather than writing a new law. So public backlash is arguably most likely to just result in them making a different choice the next time a situation much like this one arises.

I think that this situation probably demonstrates that these sorts of "grey area" situations should be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Officially the reason they decided to get him back, was because he needed medical attention or he would die. Until he is charged with desertion, there is no legal protection for letting someone drop dead.

Are you sure about that? So every time an American POW dies in enemy captivity, it's considered cause to have the Pentagon charged with a crime?

I'm certainly no legal expert on this, but I find this hard to believe. I mean, suppose his captives weren't willing to do a prisoner exchange at all. Would the US government then be legally obligated to do a rescue operation regardless of how dangerous that would be to the soldiers carrying it out?

[Solace]

Originally Posted by kyp275

People are angry because one, good men died as a result of looking for this shitbag. Second, five senior enemy leaders were given up for this shitbag, all but certain to get back in the fight and likely costing more lives. Third, the shitbag gets treated as a fking hero.

I'd say the "facts" are way too murky for the kneejerk reactions this story is getting. This is why I mentioned my suspicions a few posts back. There are too many questions at hand:

1. What exactly were the terms being discussed between the US and the Taliban? How did they arrive at this agreement?

2. How much value do the detainees actually have? Are they actually a risk?

3. Why was there so much emphasis on getting this particular POW back? It's noted in several sources that this debate is not new in Washington, and political leaders in both parties were willing to go to extreme lengths for his return.

4. How accurate is the testimony that those men died because of him? Is it simply verbal, or were there investigations into the deaths that implicated him?

There's more questions, but these are the kinds of things people should be discussing. Not the end result of him showing up in a press conference with Obama while the media spins up the 24/7 misinformation distraction department while both parties bicker at each other trying to score election points. I mean, I'm pretty sure the erection meter at Fox News is set on "this is like Benghazi after a bottle of Viagra" at the moment.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Solace

1. What exactly were the terms being discussed between the US and the Taliban? How did they arrive at this agreement?

2. How much value do the detainees actually have? Are they actually a risk?

3. Why was there so much emphasis on getting this particular POW back? It's noted in several sources that this debate is not new in Washington, and political leaders in both parties were willing to go to extreme lengths for his return.

4. How accurate is the testimony that those men died because of him? Is it simply verbal, or were there investigations into the deaths that implicated him?

1. I’m not sure if the full terms would ever be disclosed.

2. Chances are if you have to ask, it’s something you’ll never find out either. For what it’s worth, the 5 detainees were deemed high-risk by the DoD, and frankly, if you’re the Taliban, are you really going to spend your one valuable chip to trade for nobodies?

3. Who knows, personally I think it’s primarily a PR issue, as it looks bad if you don’t at least try to rescue a POW. They may have been able to suppress the fact that he had likely deserted, but they can’t stop the Taliban from reminding people they’re holding an American prisoner.

4. I don’t know how much more clear cut that can be, he deserted, people were sent to look for him, and some died as a result. If he hadn’t left, there would’ve been no search missions to begin with.

There's more questions, but these are the kinds of things people should be discussing. Not the end result of him showing up in a press conference with Obama

Not to the people in the military and veterans. To have your commander in chief stand next to a deserter and praise him would be a gigantic kick to the balls.

[Sugetsu]

As are all the republicans spinning the news about this rescue, and it is all Just to get the president. How can all of these people be so hypocritical?

Although it is hardly surprising, had a republican president freed this soldier the fox news machine wouldn't be conflating any single problem. These politicians could care less about anyone or anything so long as it benefits them at a political level. It is truly disgusting.

The same applies to the NRA and the republicans doing their best to stop smart guns, which could save lives, from taking a foothold in the US market. The conservative machine spins the news by claiming that smart guns are against freedom... etc etc, while the general conservative public just mindlessly agrees to anything that comes out of the chain of spinners.

If I could brainwash these people I would make them say a mantra every day they wake up:
"I am tolerant.
I respect my fellow human beings.
I empathize with the fortunes and misfortunes of my neighbors."

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

as are all the republicans spinning the news about this rescue, and it is all Just to get the president. How can all of these people be so hypocritical?

I consider myself independent, though lately I’ve voted primarily democrat, yes, including that guy in the Oval Office right now, want to try that again?

And no, this was not a “rescue”, this was a prisoner swap.

The same applies to the NRA and the republicans doing their best to stop smart guns, which could save lives, from taking a foothold in the US market. The conservative machine spins the news by claiming that smart guns are against freedom... etc etc, while the general conservative public just mindlessly agrees to anything that comes out of the chain of spinners.

And this has what to do with the news topic being discussed?

[Solace]

Originally Posted by kyp275

1. I’m not sure if the full terms would ever be disclosed.

But it would be useful to at least know the train of thought.

2. Chances are if you have to ask, it’s something you’ll never find out either. For what it’s worth, the 5 detainees were deemed high-risk by the DoD, and frankly, if you’re the Taliban, are you really going to spend your one valuable chip to trade for nobodies?

They've also been stuck in a prison for years. Deeming them a high risk doesn't mean much considering the resistance toward doing anything with the detainees beyond letting them rot in a cell. Besides, if they specifically wanted these five, that's intel in itself.

3. Who knows, personally I think it’s primarily a PR issue, as it looks bad if you don’t at least try to rescue a POW. They may have been able to suppress the fact that he had likely deserted, but they can’t stop the Taliban from reminding people they’re holding an American prisoner.

I highly doubt the public knew who this guy was until a few days ago. He had been held for five years.

I seriously doubt it's a PR problem. I believe they knew what the PR risks were and decided the trade was more valuable than how it looked.

4. I don’t know how much more clear cut that can be, he deserted, people were sent to look for him, and some died as a result. If he hadn’t left, there would’ve been no search missions to begin with.

Except it's not clear cut.

Not to the people in the military and veterans. To have your commander in chief stand next to a deserter and praise him would be a gigantic kick to the balls.

I'm sure for some of them, it probably is. But personally I just see a man in a suit who might have to make some difficult decisions but never has to actually get his hands dirty. It's awfully easy to fire a missile or tell other people to die when the conflict is halfway around the world. Bush gets to retire, have a fancy library, and sit in his nice home painting pictures of cats. Pat Tillman gets a heartbroken family and a posthumous award. Forgive me for being bitter about how the world is run.

Too much tail wagging the dog, unfortunately.

[Sugetsu]

Originally Posted by kyp275

And this has what to do with the news topic being discussed?

Seriously, are you capable of contributing anything beyond regurgitating partisan bs? There are posts that least have substances that is worth discussion/debate with, like rising’s.

Yours, not so much.

Because, this shouldn't be a big issue. The guy hasn't even arrived at US soil and he hasn't even spoken on his own defense in the first place. A rescue is rescue no matter what your beliefs are. Like I said, this is just political theater.

[Solace]

Discuss civilly, or not at all.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Solace

But it would be useful to at least know the train of thought.

Well, I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.

They've also been stuck in a prison for years. Deeming them a high risk doesn't mean much considering the resistance toward doing anything with the detainees beyond letting them rot in a cell.

Not sure how one leads to the other tbh.

I highly doubt the public knew who this guy was until a few days ago. He had been held for five years.

I seriously doubt it's a PR problem. I believe they knew what the PR risks were and decided the trade was more valuable than how it looked.

Eh, it was no more or less than any other captured Americans, but it was bound to become a problem once the pullout from Afghanistan begins in earnest.

Except it's not clear cut.

I don’t see anything in there other than attempts to say “well, it was a shitty time at a shitty place, who knows what would’ve happened if they didn’t search, and these reports we have doesn’t say much”.

Well, reports aren’t story novels, they’re for documenting events that occurred during the mission, nothing more, nothing less. Not to mention there are tons of stuff that simply don’t make it into the written reports.

I’m sorry, but coming from personal experience, if one wants to know what actually happened, you go to the rank and file enlisted, few things ever get past the lance corporal underground. The thing that carried the most weight in that whole article was at the end, where the anonymous soldier says they were angry because too often that summer, the purpose of their patrols into dangerous areas was not ordinary wartime work like reconnaissance, maintaining a security presense, or humanitarian projects, but rather “to go look for this guy.”

I'm sure for some of them, it probably is. But personally I just see a man in a suit who might have to make some difficult decisions but never has to actually get his hands dirty. It's awfully easy to fire a missile or tell other people to die when the conflict is halfway around the world. Bush gets to retire, have a fancy library, and sit in his nice home painting pictures of cats. Pat Tillman gets a heartbroken family and a posthumous award. Forgive me for being bitter about how the world is run.

Too much tail wagging the dog, unfortunately.

Not sure how that’s supposed to relate to what I said.

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

Because, this shouldn't be a big issue.

More than a few people considers releasing 5 top Taliban commanders a “big issue”, or setting a very public precedent of directly negotiating with terrorists and putting a price on American heads a “big issue”, and for others still, the attempts to treat someone who abandoned his brothers in arms as some sort of hero, a very fking “big issue”.

The guy hasn't even arrived at US soil and he hasn't even spoken on his own defense in the first place.

Which is why he is not officially a “deserter”, since he hasn’t said what his intention was. What is not in dispute however, is that he went AWOL and left the base intentionally.

A rescue is rescue no matter what your beliefs are. Like I said, this is just political theater.

No, a word’s definition is what it is regardless of what YOUR beliefs are. Jessica Lynch? She was rescued. The people that were held in concentration camps? They were rescued. That dog that fell into the pond or the cat stuck on a tall tree? They were rescued.

Berdahl, who were directly handed over by enemy forces to our people because we decided to given them back their leaders? That’s not a rescue, it’s a prisoner exchange. It’s just like in a bank robbery or any other hostage situation. When the police go in and take out the bad guys, that’s when you’ll see people say the hostages were rescued. When the hostages were let go in exchange for concessions from the authorities? You won’t see the word rescue used, but rather “release” or “exchange”

[LoveYouSaber]

I wonder what the backlash would have been, if say, Obama refused the deal, and the Taliban started chopping off the guy's limbs and then eventually beheads him. And posts it on Youtube.

I don't think there ever was a "right" or "winning" solution for Obama and his government. I'm also not convinced that those 5 leaders are going to prove to be a problem now after being freed. They may have been dangerous when they were captured, but I believe their value and usefulness deteriorate with the passage of time.

[Sugetsu]

^ Exactly, no matter what Obama does, he is dammed if he does and dammed if he doesn't as the republican strategy since his election has always been, and always will be, to fight him on everything he stands for. Although, Obama has been smart enough to then embrace previously dear republican policies in order to make them look like hypocrites.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Well, I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.

I'll make a note of that.

Not sure how one leads to the other tbh.

Because:

1. They've been there for an extremely long time. Time changes people, including those you haven't seen in years.

2. There's just as much reason to believe they are a threat as reason to believe that aren't.

3. Releasing them has strategic value for military operations. For example, using them to flush out bigger fish.

Eh, it was no more or less than any other captured Americans, but it was bound to become a problem once the pullout from Afghanistan begins in earnest.

This makes no sense. If he's a known deserter, and the trade is bad, why would you agree to it? No man left behind? Right, I can see how sympathetic everyone is about it. Even if he wasn't a deserter, the trade itself still looks bad. There's a PR issue either way.

The trade was done knowing the risk of backlash. This means the trade held more value than the risk, or it wouldn't have been done.

I don’t see anything in there other than attempts to say “well, it was a shitty time at a shitty place, who knows what would’ve happened if they didn’t search, and these reports we have doesn’t say much”.

Well, reports aren’t story novels, they’re for documenting events that occurred during the mission, nothing more, nothing less. Not to mention there are tons of stuff that simply don’t make it into the written reports.

I’m sorry, but coming from personal experience, if one wants to know what actually happened, you go to the rank and file enlisted, few things ever get past the lance corporal underground. The thing that carried the most weight in that whole article was at the end, where the anonymous soldier says they were angry because too often that summer, the purpose of their patrols into dangerous areas was not ordinary wartime work like reconnaissance, maintaining a security presense, or humanitarian projects, but rather “to go look for this guy.”

If that's the case you missed the point of the article. There is no evidence by documentation that his search was directly responsible for the deaths of servicemen. All evidence is circumstantial and at best you can say it is possible. However it is documented that the time frame he deserted was also a period of escalating conflict. It wasn't a matter of if the Taliban attacked, but when and how fiercely. You can't say the two are related without evidence, such as intercepted communications.

If there are "tons of stuff that simply don't make it into the written reports", that's a problem even outside of this event. But given that even this information had to be leaked to know about it (thanks Manning), I guess you have a point about how information isn't what it seems.

As for the anonymous solider, this conflicts with other reports that state that they were focusing on the mission over his search, but that they would investigate information leading to his discovery if they were on a mission. I'm sure there were missions focused just on searching for him. The question is if the deaths were the result of that, or if they coincided with the time frame. Again, anecdotal evidence is not enough to ascribe responsibility.

Not sure how that’s supposed to relate to what I said.

You made a generalized statement about how military members and veterans feel. My point was that it's not true for all. I've personally known members and veterans who did their job but definitely have no love or respect for the men who sent them there. You can only be "kicked in the balls" so many times before you become numb to the pain.

You may feel the press conference was an insult. And honestly, I agree. But it's another in a long line of insults to the uniform and the people who serve it dutifully, and at this point getting outraged over it matters less than digging for the truth. Until then it's just a pointless distraction, like wasting commentary on his father's beard making him look like a Taliban:

“I mean, he says he was growing his beard because his son was in captivity. Well, your son’s out now. So if you really don’t want to no longer look like a member of the Taliban, you don’t have to look like a member of the Taliban, are you out of razors?”

Stay classy, Fox News. Excellent investigative journalism.

Also, Duck Dynasty.

[Fireminer]

Maybe the American does deserved this dilemma - After all, they brought their troop to a foreign ground.

Don't expect much bravery from these cases. Vietnam is the example.

[SaintessHeart]

I think I can guess where these 5 Taliban commanders are heading.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

The conservative machine spins the news by claiming that smart guns are against freedom... etc etc, while the general conservative public just mindlessly agrees to anything that comes out of the chain of spinners.

If I could brainwash these people I would make them say a mantra every day they wake up:
"I am tolerant.
I respect my fellow human beings.
I empathize with the fortunes and misfortunes of my neighbors."

Nice irony there...

Originally Posted by Solace

They've also been stuck in a prison for years. Deeming them a high risk doesn't mean much considering the resistance toward doing anything with the detainees beyond letting them rot in a cell.

I don't follow your point here.

Originally Posted by Solace

2. There's just as much reason to believe they are a threat as reason to believe that aren't.

On what basis do you make this comment?

3. Releasing them has strategic value for military operations. For example, using them to flush out bigger fish.

Do you have proof of this?

This makes no sense. If he's a known deserter, and the trade is bad, why would you agree to it? No man left behind?

Sure, that is a possibility. A person who strongly believes in this principle, no matter what, may go ahead with it even if they suspect it would be bad PR.

The trade was done knowing the risk of backlash. This means the trade held more value than the risk, or it wouldn't have been done.

I think you're being presumptuous here. I mean, you seem to be just assuming competency on the part of the White House/Pentagon on this particular issue. But governments do make bad decisions sometimes.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Solace

They've been there for an extremely long time. Time changes people, including those you haven't seen in years.

Last time I checked, religious fundamentalists don’t usually change their mind, much less the kind that leads terrorists. Hell, just look at how many of those run-of-the-mill criminals jump right back into their old trade as soon as they’re out after years or decades in prison, yet you think hardened terrorists will suddenly change?

2. There's just as much reason to believe they are a threat as reason to believe that aren't.

3. Releasing them has strategic value for military operations. For example, using them to flush out bigger fish.

IMO, #2 is better suited to describe #3.

This makes no sense. If he's a known deserter, and the trade is bad, why would you agree to it? No man left behind? Right, I can see how sympathetic everyone is about it. Even if he wasn't a deserter, the trade itself still looks bad. There's a PR issue either way.

The trade was done knowing the risk of backlash. This means the trade held more value than the risk, or it wouldn't have been done.

Just look at what Saber wrote above, it wouldn’t matter whether he was a deserter or not if the Taliban decide to dispose of him in the same manner as Daniel Pearl (hell, just look at some people in here, they don’t care that he’s a deserter period, IMO it’s simply something your regular civilians simply don’t get). It would be a massive PR liability, much more so than what’s going on at the moment.

If that's the case you missed the point of the article. There is no evidence by documentation that his search was directly responsible for the deaths of servicemen. All evidence is circumstantial and at best you can say it is possible. However it is documented that the time frame he deserted was also a period of escalating conflict. It wasn't a matter of if the Taliban attacked, but when and how fiercely. You can't say the two are related without evidence, such as intercepted communications.

I don’t think you quite understand the point I was trying to make. Trying to piece together what happened from the outside via some action reports is akin to trying to figure out what the passengers on a party bus was doing from the bus’s ECU datalog, you’re not gonna get anywhere, because…

If there are "tons of stuff that simply don't make it into the written reports", that's a problem even outside of this event. But given that even this information had to be leaked to know about it (thanks Manning), I guess you have a point about how information isn't what it seems.

…those information are simply not something that would be included in those kind of reports, which is not some sort of all-encompassing record that you seem to think they are.

Conversations, emails, mission briefings, etc. aren’t on those reports. It’s not as if the troops get their orders on a piece of paper, a significant amount of information is simply passed on verbally. A proper investigation is going to require correspondence from the higher levels and interviews of those who were actually on the ground, things that article simply do not have access to(and would be extremely worrying if it did).

The question is if the deaths were the result of that, or if they coincided with the time frame. Again, anecdotal evidence is not enough to ascribe responsibility.

To ascribe legal responsibility? No, not that such a thing is possible to begin with regardless of the result. Moral responsibility? The amount and the vehemence of the outrage from those whom served with him is good enough for me. Like I said before, POWs are generally held in high regards by fellow service members, for them to come out against him so harshly speaks volumes to me, especially when you consider they have nothing to gain from this, and were told to sign NDA forms to not talk about it.

You made a generalized statement about how military members and veterans feel. My point was that it's not true for all. I've personally known members and veterans who did their job but definitely have no love or respect for the men who sent them there. You can only be "kicked in the balls" so many times before you become numb to the pain.

I see what you’re trying to say, but I think you misunderstood mine. It’s a kick to the nuts not because of the troops give two shits about the politicians, but rather because it’s something done with the weight of the authority of that office. There’s a saying - “You may not respect the man, but respect the uniform/rank”. Frankly, everyone in the service have probably been screwed by the “green monster” at one point or another, but the thing is while you may learn to brush it off when it’s you, it’s a different story when the one that you feel is being wronged is your fallen buddy.

[Solace]

Yeah I'm not responding to two posts with that many quotes. Honestly I've already said my peace. I'm not really that interested in writing a novel sized reply.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

I don't see the point of bashing the Pentagon for the prisoner exchange; why not target the prisoner instead?

I think it would be prime time viewing to have him explain why he deserves to be rescued in exchange for 5 Taliban leaders. I think that is punishment in itself; that he had to face his actions and what his survival had entiled. And put himin the court of public opinion.

I don't know if he's got fairness coming to him or not, but that's not very fair. He didn't make the decision to have this exchange. Why should he be held responsible for it? Let whoever made the call defend their reasoning.

It is hard to say, definitively, that the Pentagon shouldn't have saved him. There is no rules on what they should or should not do. I just think the beneficiary, the prisoner himself, deserve to defend his own right to live. He would probably fail the argument, but I want to see him try. I want to hear what he has to say about why he deserve to live while others died. It would certainly be enlightening.

I find that wording unfortunate at best. "Right to live"? "While others died"? You could ask that of anyone, and who the hell would pass that test? Better men than me have died, I know that. Worse ones have lived and prospered, too.

[Xellos-_^]

Since he is the one who walk away first how would the US gov be leaving him behind if they negotiate for his release?


someone earlier made a post about people not being stuipd enough to go to afghan as tourist.
well....

WASHINGTON (AP) — The family of a pregnant American woman who went missing in Afghanistan in late 2012 with her Canadian husband received two videos last year in which the couple asked the U.S. government to help free them and their child from Taliban captors, The Associated Press has learned.
The videos offer the first and only clues about what happened to Caitlan Coleman and Joshua Boyle after they lost touch with their families 20 months ago while traveling in a mountainous region near the capital, Kabul. U.S. law enforcement officials investigating the couple's disappearance consider the videos authentic but say they hold limited investigative value since it's not clear when or where they were made.
The video files, which were provided to the AP, were emailed to Coleman's father last July and September by an Afghan man who identified himself as having ties to the Taliban but who has been out of contact for several months. In one, a subdued Coleman — dressed in a conservative black garment that covers all but her face— appeals to "my president, Barack Obama" for help.


http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-ex...ld-afghanistan

you should never ever underestimate how stupid can be.


i can't really decide which is more stupid, hiking in Iraq near the Iranian border or going to Afghanistan with pregnant wife as a tourist.