Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If you had watched On The Record, you would know just how messed up the roads in the area were...
Do you consider prison the proper accountability for making an honest mistake where no one was harmed?Cherry pick all you like, but neither of those cases are of someone taken prisoner while serving in a warzone. They were both on their own time doing their own thing.
edit: enjoying watching the usual suspects with their mantra of "personal accountability" falling over themselves to excuse the guy in Mexico.
So personal accountability, except where roads are messed up. Sure, why not?
Because an off duty guy committing a crime in a foreign country is totally comparable to a PW captured while serving in a war zone.
Mincing words and playing semantics will not convince anybody that these people captured were not soldiers. They are soldiers for their cause, and they don't need a slick uniform to tell them they are soldiers.
There is a war because Bush told us there was...
This was started by Bush, and there is a good chance he will burn in hell for releasing such destruction onto the world.
You really did not read much about what was going on in the 70's, did you? Iran took a bunch of Americans hostage, hence becoming an enemy of America.
Reagan did approve, and he is safe because his minions took the brunt of the blame.
It's hilarious to see how rapidly Republicans are flipping on this and changing their tunes.
Bin Laden to some, was a hero. Do you deny this truth?
You are moving the goalposts. You talked about negotiating with terrorists, now you have added quite a list of specific criteria.
I wasn't aware that Reagan was president for the entirety of the 80's and 90's.
When I was reading on this topic I found an article that talked about this. Intent is critical to desertion.
However Taliban operatives are not Afghan Army soldiers. As such they are not the recognized soldiers representing the Afghan government or nation. You want to sympathize with terrorist, fine. Just be honest about it.
Not to detract from Boondock's post, which I think deserves response, but this idea here really needs to be cleared up for the purposes of this thread. IF the Taliban was the legal, recognized Gov't of AF at the time of US attack, that would change quite a few things, including the status of the Gitmo detainees just released. Armoured has made the claim that since Taliban claimed control of AF, that they were the de facto Gov't. I suspect you know a whole lot more about this than I do, and I have been unable to set him straight on this. I thought it would be easy, but it has proven not to be.
1. Mexico is not a terrorist org, and he's in prison, not in captivitySeriously, if the Obama administration honestly thought that, then the Marine that is in a Mexican Prison right now for making a wrong turn on a highway would be back in the United States.
Let's be honest about this, Obama wanted to release these 5 high-ranked terrorists, and he thought this would give him political cover.
Seek out TIEoA and up comes this:
"Last Friday on 29/12/1392 Islamic Emirates valiant Mujahideen attacked Serena Hotel ..."
And they go on to talk about who all they killed. Valiantly, of course.
Look at that date. That would be March 23rd of this year, for the rest of us. Maybe that's the problem, they really think this is 1392?
They held the capital and 90% of the countryside. That constitutes "control" in any reasonable discussion. They are absolutely an extremist far right organisation, and savage and bloodthirsty into the bargain. But that doesn't detract from the fact that they were the government of Afghanistan at the time, and even had international recognition as such.The argument that the Taliban terrorist organization was the defacto government of Afghanistan holds no merit whatever.
The Taliban are an extremist far-right militant organization. They established the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in 1996.Their rule of a limited area of Afghanistan ended in 2001.
The Taliban did not control all of Afghanistan. Not by a long shot. Therefore, to call the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan the government of Afghanistan under the Taliban is in error of the actual facts of history. People can argue against that but history proves they will always be wrong.
Stanford: Mapping Militant Organizations
The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan even has a website dedicated to Jihad. And if you seek out TIEoA in an images search you'll find very graphic images that represent their doctrine. But remember now, that isn't proof they're terrorists. (cough)
Would it surprise you to learn that Muslims don't base their dating system on the birth of Christ? Shocking, I know.Seek out TIEoA and up comes this:
"Last Friday on 29/12/1392 Islamic Emirates valiant Mujahideen attacked Serena Hotel ..."
And they go on to talk about who all they killed. Valiantly, of course.
Look at that date. That would be March 23rd of this year, for the rest of us. Maybe that's the problem, they really think this is 1392?
You know they are in talks about that, but when the guy was off duty, him being a marine doesn't mean much. It is the same as if you or me went down there.
They held the capital and 90% of the countryside. That constitutes "control" in any reasonable discussion. They are absolutely an extremist far right organisation, and savage and bloodthirsty into the bargain. But that doesn't detract from the fact that they were the government of Afghanistan at the time, and even had international recognition as such.
Once again, I ask, if the Taliban weren't the government of Afghanistan between '96 and '01, who was?
A few Arab nations recognized them. So? You're trying to re-write history. Read this:
"In power for five years, the Taliban regime was an "oxymoron of an Islamist state," wrote Gilles Kepel, a scholar of political Islam. The Taliban's exclusive interests, he wrote, were imposing Deobandi norms in Afghanistan while waging jihad on the country's periphery, and so it neglected basic state functions."
As in, not a legitimate Gov't. How is it you do not know this?
Yes. A few Arab nations recognised them. That's international recognition.
I'm not saying they were nice, I'm not saying the were good at performing the basic functions of governance. I'm just telling you that they were the only contender worth considering as being the Afghani government at the time.
Yes. A few Arab nations recognised them. That's international recognition. You still haven't answered my question, by the way. If the Taliban weren't the government of Afghanistan at the time, who was?
I'm not saying they were nice, I'm not saying the were good at performing the basic functions of governance. I'm just telling you that they were the only contender worth considering as being the Afghani government at the time.
What do you think "international" means?No, that's not Int'l recognition. That's a few Arab Countries.
Hey, don't get mad at me because you can't answer the question.Their opinion doesn't matter and neither does your incessant question suggesting that the Taliban was legal Gov't by default.
Wrong. They weren't worth considering. And these 5 recently released weren't soldiers. That's Int'l law. The Taliban are still a blight on their own people.
So what,who cares?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?