Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
negotiating with terrorists
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 2526793" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>I guess someone's gotta say it. What do you expect when you declare a war on "terrorism"? When your war on "terrorism" winds down, who do you exchange prisoners with, seeing how "terrorism" is a nameless, faceless entity with no home address? Here we've reaped what we've sowed. In order to ignore the Geneva Convention on POW's, we declared them "unlawful enemy combatants". That worked really well for as long as we wanted to commit international kidnapping, unlawful detention and torture. Now that we don't want to do that anymore, it's a little too restrictive. You know, it chafes and binds a bit...</p><p></p><p>So presto, changeo! They're no longer "unlawful enemy combatants"! They're enemy POW's so we can exchange prisoners (not hostages) with our suddenly lawful enemy. Except there's a few pesky details the administration forgot about, like the fact that the United States National Security Council lists the Taliban as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, and has since 2002. We also tend to not place $10M bounties on the leaders of legitimate enemy combatants. So now that we're done doing our "POW" swap, presto, changeo again! The Taliban is once again a FTO! You know, kind of like the Obamacare penalty wasn't a tax, but then suddenly it was?</p><p></p><p>Oh, and let's not forget that the Obama Administration has known since 2009 that Bergdahl was at best a deserter and at worst, a defector to the Taliban. Except that DoS propagandist Susan Rice is running around telling everyone that he "served with honor and distinction". Kinda like she told the world that Benghazi was because of a Youtube video with 12 hits worldwide?</p><p></p><p>Why is that old proverb running through my head? You know "Oh what a tangled web we weave..." <img src="/images/smilies/frown.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":(" title="Frown :(" data-shortname=":(" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 2526793, member: 1132"] I guess someone's gotta say it. What do you expect when you declare a war on "terrorism"? When your war on "terrorism" winds down, who do you exchange prisoners with, seeing how "terrorism" is a nameless, faceless entity with no home address? Here we've reaped what we've sowed. In order to ignore the Geneva Convention on POW's, we declared them "unlawful enemy combatants". That worked really well for as long as we wanted to commit international kidnapping, unlawful detention and torture. Now that we don't want to do that anymore, it's a little too restrictive. You know, it chafes and binds a bit... So presto, changeo! They're no longer "unlawful enemy combatants"! They're enemy POW's so we can exchange prisoners (not hostages) with our suddenly lawful enemy. Except there's a few pesky details the administration forgot about, like the fact that the United States National Security Council lists the Taliban as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, and has since 2002. We also tend to not place $10M bounties on the leaders of legitimate enemy combatants. So now that we're done doing our "POW" swap, presto, changeo again! The Taliban is once again a FTO! You know, kind of like the Obamacare penalty wasn't a tax, but then suddenly it was? Oh, and let's not forget that the Obama Administration has known since 2009 that Bergdahl was at best a deserter and at worst, a defector to the Taliban. Except that DoS propagandist Susan Rice is running around telling everyone that he "served with honor and distinction". Kinda like she told the world that Benghazi was because of a Youtube video with 12 hits worldwide? Why is that old proverb running through my head? You know "Oh what a tangled web we weave..." :( [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
negotiating with terrorists
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom