What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

SERIAL podcast season 2 - Bowe Bergdahl: hero, deserter, both? (1 Viewer)

FUBAR

FUBAR

Footballguy
https://serialpodcast.org/

In May 2014, a U.S. Special Operations team in a Black Hawk helicopter landed in the hills of Afghanistan. Waiting for them were more than a dozen Taliban fighters and a tall American, who looked pale and out of sorts: Bowe Bergdahl. Bergdahl, a U.S. soldier, had been a prisoner of the Taliban for nearly five years, and now he was going home.

President Obama announced Bergdahl’s return in the Rose Garden, with the soldier's parents at his side. Bergdahl's hometown of Hailey, Idaho, planned a big celebration to welcome him back. But then, within days—within hours of his rescue, in fact—public reaction to his return flipped. People started saying Bergdahl shouldn’t be celebrated. Some of the soldiers from his unit called him a deserter, a traitor. They said he had deliberately walked off their small outpost in eastern Afghanistan and into hostile territory.

Hailey canceled its celebration. The army launched an investigation. Finally, in March, the military charged Bergdahl with two crimes, one of which carries the possibility of a life sentence. Through all of this, Bergdahl has been quiet. He hasn’t spoken to the press or done any interviews on TV. He’s been like a ghost at the center of a raucous fight.

Now, in Season Two, we get to hear what he has to say.

For this season, Sarah Koenig teams up with filmmaker Mark Boal and Page 1 to find out why one idiosyncratic guy decided to walk away, into Afghanistan, and how the consequences of that decision have spun out wider and wider. It’s a story that has played out in unexpected ways from the start. And it’s a story that’s still going on.
Click to expand...
Post comments about the podcast or other related matters.

 
I don't believe his story. He had become very friendly with the locals, and OPMest where he was stationed was a hell hole with an incredibly low quality of life. Sounds to me like he'd had enough of his military life, and decided to desert his company in an attempt to somehow blend in with the locals that he thought he had befriended. He couldn't handle the situation he was in militarily and he cracked. He probably thought that the locals would take him in and he could somehow assimilate to their community and lifestyle. Didn't quite turn out that way.

He says he decided to roam nearby local homes to try to catch someone planting IED's. BS. My guess is that what really happened is that he approached those homes hoping one of the locals would take him in. They did and called the taliban.

His story of being captured by the taliban in the middle of the desert sounded very unconvincing to me. I mean, he purchased local garb to blend in. Why the heck would he then think it was a good idea to walk alone in the open desert rather than try to make the journey by blending in through more heavily populated areas?

 
satch said:
I don't believe his story. He had become very friendly with the locals, and OPMest where he was stationed was a hell hole with an incredibly low quality of life. Sounds to me like he'd had enough of his military life, and decided to desert his company in an attempt to somehow blend in with the locals that he thought he had befriended. He couldn't handle the situation he was in militarily and he cracked. He probably thought that the locals would take him in and he could somehow assimilate to their community and lifestyle. Didn't quite turn out that way.

He says he decided to roam nearby local homes to try to catch someone planting IED's. BS. My guess is that what really happened is that he approached those homes hoping one of the locals would take him in. They did and called the taliban.

His story of being captured by the taliban in the middle of the desert sounded very unconvincing to me. I mean, he purchased local garb to blend in. Why the heck would he then think it was a good idea to walk alone in the open desert rather than try to make the journey by blending in through more heavily populated areas?
Click to expand...
This is pretty much where I stand so far. I don't buy his story at all. Now, things could change throughout this podcast to make me change my mind, but so far, it's going to take alot of evidence to convince me otherwise.

 
i gave to think the CIA will be interested in that cliff hanger. Kind of odd to think we can communicate so easily with the enemy

 
MattFancy said:
satch said:
I don't believe his story. He had become very friendly with the locals, and OPMest where he was stationed was a hell hole with an incredibly low quality of life. Sounds to me like he'd had enough of his military life, and decided to desert his company in an attempt to somehow blend in with the locals that he thought he had befriended. He couldn't handle the situation he was in militarily and he cracked. He probably thought that the locals would take him in and he could somehow assimilate to their community and lifestyle. Didn't quite turn out that way.

He says he decided to roam nearby local homes to try to catch someone planting IED's. BS. My guess is that what really happened is that he approached those homes hoping one of the locals would take him in. They did and called the taliban.

His story of being captured by the taliban in the middle of the desert sounded very unconvincing to me. I mean, he purchased local garb to blend in. Why the heck would he then think it was a good idea to walk alone in the open desert rather than try to make the journey by blending in through more heavily populated areas?
Click to expand...
This is pretty much where I stand so far. I don't buy his story at all. Now, things could change throughout this podcast to make me change my mind, but so far, it's going to take alot of evidence to convince me otherwise.
Click to expand...
While I (mostly) agree with you, the problem is the lack of evidence to contradict his story. A reasonable person wouldn't do what he did, and your guess is as good as any, but nothing indicates Bowe to be a reasonable person.

 
FUBAR said:
MattFancy said:
satch said:
I don't believe his story. He had become very friendly with the locals, and OPMest where he was stationed was a hell hole with an incredibly low quality of life. Sounds to me like he'd had enough of his military life, and decided to desert his company in an attempt to somehow blend in with the locals that he thought he had befriended. He couldn't handle the situation he was in militarily and he cracked. He probably thought that the locals would take him in and he could somehow assimilate to their community and lifestyle. Didn't quite turn out that way.

He says he decided to roam nearby local homes to try to catch someone planting IED's. BS. My guess is that what really happened is that he approached those homes hoping one of the locals would take him in. They did and called the taliban.

His story of being captured by the taliban in the middle of the desert sounded very unconvincing to me. I mean, he purchased local garb to blend in. Why the heck would he then think it was a good idea to walk alone in the open desert rather than try to make the journey by blending in through more heavily populated areas?
Click to expand...
This is pretty much where I stand so far. I don't buy his story at all. Now, things could change throughout this podcast to make me change my mind, but so far, it's going to take alot of evidence to convince me otherwise.
Click to expand...
While I (mostly) agree with you, the problem is the lack of evidence to contradict his story. A reasonable person wouldn't do what he did, and your guess is as good as any, but nothing indicates Bowe to be a reasonable person.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I see the problem.

There's a lack of evidence to support his story, and many reasons to doubt it. If we agree that he is not a reasonable person, his "story" is of little value to us and does not deserve the benefit of doubt with regard to believability. Therefore, we must use facts, logic and common sense to determine his true motives and punishment. With no evidence to support his "story", it is nothing more than that, a "story".

The only facts we seem to have are that after careful planning, he knowingly and unnecessarily left his post,which appears to have eventually lead to the deaths of US soldiers searching for him. Unless he can provide more than an unsubstantiated "story", he should be held fully accountable and punished accordingly.

 
Do the reasons even matter? You don't leave your post, ever, that's a court martial offense, period, full stop.

Iirc they have added an additional charge though, an old one which iirc concerns willful endangerment of others, something like that?

 
As far as Hero, Deserter, or Both is concerned, is it even a question? He's very obviously a deserter. I guess the catch for me is did he desert because he was scared, because he actually was trying to shine a light on poor leadership, or because he's got something more sinister in mind. He's very obviously guilty regardless of his intent.

In my quick 45 minutes of education on this, I'm not buying what he's selling, but he also seems too dumb to pull of anything grand. More than likely, I think he just got spooked and then caught himself in a predicament.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This just isn't a story that resonates with me, and I suspect ultimately it won't come close to the popularity of season 1. I think picking a well-known story was a mistake. Also, his interviews didn't do much for me. He doesn't come across as very likable, like the defendant in season 1. But her calling the Taliban is cool enough to keep most people at least hooked for the next episode.

 
shader said:
This just isn't a story that resonates with me, and I suspect ultimately it won't come close to the popularity of season 1. I think picking a well-known story was a mistake. Also, his interviews didn't do much for me. He doesn't come across as very likable, like the defendant in season 1. But her calling the Taliban is cool enough to keep most people at least hooked for the next episode.
Click to expand...
Definitely won't be as popular, but I'm willing to roll with it for now. It'll just be different. It's not a whodunnit at all, more of a whyhedunnit?

If the story is interesting and fleshes it out, I'll stick. Even season 1 dragged horribly in the second half.

 
For those interested in the bigger story: https://lawfare.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/staging/Final%20Report%20Compiled%20with%20Dissent.pdf

Finding I: The transfer of the Taliban five violated several laws, including the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. The constitutional arguments offered to justify the Department of Defense's failure to provide the legally-required notification to the Committee 03 days in advance are incomplete and unconvincing. The violation of law also threatens constitutional separation of powers.

Finding II: The Committee was misled about the extent and scope of efforts to arrange the Taliban Five transfer before it took place. The Department of Defense's failure to communicate complete and accurate information severely harmed its relationship with the Committee, and threatens to upend a longstanding history and tradition of cooperation and comity.

Finding III: Senior officials within the Department of Defense best equipped to assess national security risks associated with the detainee transfer were largely excluded from the Taliban Five efforts. This greatly increased the chance that the transfer would have dangerous consequences.

Finding IV: The Department of Defense has failed to tke sufficient precautions to ensure the ongoing national security risks posed by the Taliban 5 are mitigated, consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding with Qatar.

SaintsInDome2006 said:
The trial is underway, right? I'm surprised there hasn't been more coverage.
Click to expand...
not yet.

SaintsInDome2006 said:
Do the reasons even matter? You don't leave your post, ever, that's a court martial offense, period, full stop.

Iirc they have added an additional charge though, an old one which iirc concerns willful endangerment of others, something like that?
Click to expand...
The reasons matter as they pertain to his intent, to remain away permenently or to shirk important service. They would also matter big tme for the sentence. Imagine the difference (at least to other Soldiers or the judge) between someone proven to walk away to support the Taliban vs. someone who went to warn others of a leader who is getting Soldiers killed.

The other charge is (paraphrasing) that he endangered the safety of his unit when he walked away (fewer Soldiers to defend the outpost among other reasons) and caused his unit to search after him.

bigmarc27 said:
As far as Hero, Deserter, or Both is concerned, is it even a question? He's very obviously a deserter. I guess the catch for me is did he desert because he was scared, because he actually was trying to shine a light on poor leadership, or because he's got something more sinister in mind. He's very obviously guilty regardless of his intent.

In my quick 45 minutes of education on this, I'm not buying what he's selling, but he also seems too dumb to pull of anything grand. More than likely, I think he just got spooked and then caught himself in a predicament.
Click to expand...
hasn't been proven yet in a court of law.

He appears to be guilty of something, the question is what.

 
bigmarc27 said:
FUBAR said:
hasn't been proven yet in a court of law.

He appears to be guilty of something, the question is what.
Click to expand...
He left the base and admits he left the base... Why do I need a trial to tell me he deserted his post?
Click to expand...
Because he's an American and Americans are entitled to due process. Even in the military (I think).

I'm surprised that people seem to not be interested. By about the 15 minute mark, I was totally hooked.

Also I'm REALLY surprised his lawyer let him do all those interviews.

 
whoknew said:
bigmarc27 said:
FUBAR said:
hasn't been proven yet in a court of law.

He appears to be guilty of something, the question is what.
Click to expand...
He left the base and admits he left the base... Why do I need a trial to tell me he deserted his post?
Click to expand...
Because he's an American and Americans are entitled to due process. Even in the military (I think).

I'm surprised that people seem to not be interested. By about the 15 minute mark, I was totally hooked.

Also I'm REALLY surprised his lawyer let him do all those interviews.
Click to expand...
You're missing my point. I'm not saying he shouldn't be given a trial and isnt entitled to due process. I'm saying he said "I left the base." So why are we quibbling over that as if it's an unknown. I'm not talking about saying he should go to prison tomorrow for being a deserter, I'm saying we can lay down that as a basis for the rest of the story.

Edit: the only reason I said anything about a trial was in response to "it hasn't been proven in a court of law."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bigmarc27 said:
whoknew said:
bigmarc27 said:
FUBAR said:
hasn't been proven yet in a court of law.

He appears to be guilty of something, the question is what.
Click to expand...
He left the base and admits he left the base... Why do I need a trial to tell me he deserted his post?
Click to expand...
Because he's an American and Americans are entitled to due process. Even in the military (I think).

I'm surprised that people seem to not be interested. By about the 15 minute mark, I was totally hooked.

Also I'm REALLY surprised his lawyer let him do all those interviews.
Click to expand...
You're missing my point. I'm not saying he shouldn't be given a trial and isnt entitled to due process.I'm saying he said "I left the base." So why are we quibbling over that as if it's an unknown. I'm not talking about saying he should go to prison tomorrow for being a deserter, I'm saying we can lay down that as a basis for the rest of the story.

Edit: the only reason I said anything about a trial was in response to "it hasn't been proven in a court of law."
Click to expand...
His statement, taken by itself without proving anything else, would show AWOL, not desertion.

Understand you're almost certainly not using the word "deserter" in the legal tense.

ETA: a viable defense here is he left his place of duty and intended to walk to the CG's headquarters. He never intended to remain away permenently but was captured and became a POW. Admit to 24-72 hours of AWOL but to nothing else. Aside from any trial, his attorney will try to set things up for the VA; which is going to be tough. For any injuries to be covered, he had to be in the line of duty; [SIZE=medium]Requirements as to line of duty are not met if at the time the injury was suffered or disease contracted the veteran was a[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]voiding duty by desertion, or was absent without leave which materially interfered with the performance of military duty. (his defense team has a tough fight) [/SIZE]

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FUBAR said:
bigmarc27 said:
whoknew said:
bigmarc27 said:
FUBAR said:
hasn't been proven yet in a court of law.

He appears to be guilty of something, the question is what.
Click to expand...
He left the base and admits he left the base... Why do I need a trial to tell me he deserted his post?
Click to expand...
Because he's an American and Americans are entitled to due process. Even in the military (I think).

I'm surprised that people seem to not be interested. By about the 15 minute mark, I was totally hooked.

Also I'm REALLY surprised his lawyer let him do all those interviews.
Click to expand...
You're missing my point. I'm not saying he shouldn't be given a trial and isnt entitled to due process.I'm saying he said "I left the base." So why are we quibbling over that as if it's an unknown. I'm not talking about saying he should go to prison tomorrow for being a deserter, I'm saying we can lay down that as a basis for the rest of the story.

Edit: the only reason I said anything about a trial was in response to "it hasn't been proven in a court of law."
Click to expand...
His statement, taken by itself without proving anything else, would show AWOL, not desertion.

Understand you're almost certainly not using the word "deserter" in the legal tense.
Click to expand...
Fine, awol. Whatever. He left.

 
Trump says he's a deserter who should be executed, so my guess is he's probably a hero who saved our country from annihilation.

 
whoknew said:
bigmarc27 said:
FUBAR said:
hasn't been proven yet in a court of law.

He appears to be guilty of something, the question is what.
Click to expand...
He left the base and admits he left the base... Why do I need a trial to tell me he deserted his post?
Click to expand...
Because he's an American and Americans are entitled to due process. Even in the military (I think).

I'm surprised that people seem to not be interested. By about the 15 minute mark, I was totally hooked.

Also I'm REALLY surprised his lawyer let him do all those interviews.
Click to expand...
I am in this camp. I listened to the podcast but thought it was kinda meh.

To me it is missing a couple elements that made the start of the 1st one so great. 1) is that we know he did it, so it is just the why, and personally I am not sure that I care all that much. Combine that with 2) she tells us in the first episode that he is pulling office duty and awaiting (maybe) a trial. So, just like the first season, this one is probably not going to end up anywhere conclusive. On top of that a lot of people felt that they had trouble keeping the pace all the way through the last season, I was one of them, so while I will listen to the podcast, I am not going to be chomping at the bit to download and listen to it right away like I was the first 4-5 episodes last year.

 
The story doesn't interest me much, but I assume the Serial team will work their magic.

Fell asleep on two attempts to listen to episode 1. :bag:

 
I really liked the first episode. I'm not sure why so many think it won't be interesting.

A US soldier leaves his post in Afghanistan to wander through the desert either because he's a traitor or he's genuinely trying to out some corrupt/bad bosses. He gets captured for 5 years, then returned, leaving everyone to wonder if he's a hero or treasonous scum.

On the surface, it has far more potential than last year's, which was a basic whoodunnit that Sarah milked for everything it was worth. This story could have even more to work with.

 
pollardsvision said:
I really liked the first episode. I'm not sure why so many think it won't be interesting.

A US soldier leaves his post in Afghanistan to wander through the desert either because he's a traitor or he's genuinely trying to out some corrupt/bad bosses. He gets captured for 5 years, then returned, leaving everyone to wonder if he's a hero or treasonous scum.

On the surface, it has far more potential than last year's, which was a basic whoodunnit that Sarah milked for everything it was worth. This story could have even more to work with.
Click to expand...
Fwiw, I'll be shocked if they can prove he's a traitor on the podcast. More so if she tries to.

 
Finally made it through the first episode. I don't get it. I hope they plan on pushing him harder about this alleged "plan" because it sounds completely asinine, especially in light of some of the other backstory that makes him sound pretty clearly mentally unstable

 
pollardsvision said:
I really liked the first episode. I'm not sure why so many think it won't be interesting.

A US soldier leaves his post in Afghanistan to wander through the desert either because he's a traitor or he's genuinely trying to out some corrupt/bad bosses. He gets captured for 5 years, then returned, leaving everyone to wonder if he's a hero or treasonous scum.

On the surface, it has far more potential than last year's, which was a basic whoodunnit that Sarah milked for everything it was worth. This story could have even more to work with.
Click to expand...
I think there is less grey area with this story, making it less interesting to start with.

 
shader said:
This just isn't a story that resonates with me, and I suspect ultimately it won't come close to the popularity of season 1. I think picking a well-known story was a mistake. Also, his interviews didn't do much for me. He doesn't come across as very likable, like the defendant in season 1. But her calling the Taliban is cool enough to keep most people at least hooked for the next episode.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I wish they focused on a murder case/mystery in the US.

This doesn't really interest me.

 
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/15/us/bowe-bergdahl-to-face-court-martial-on-desertion-charges.html?_r=0

A top Army commander on Monday ordered that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl face a court-martial on charges of desertion and endangering troops stemming from his decision to leave his outpost in 2009, prompting a huge manhunt in the wilds of eastern Afghanistan and landing him in nearly five years of harsh Taliban captivity.

The decision by Gen. Robert B. Abrams, head of Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg, N.C., means that Sergeant Bergdahl, 29, faces a possible life sentence, a far more serious penalty than had been recommended by the Army’s own investigating officer, who had testified that a jail sentence would be “inappropriate.”

In a terse statement after the decision, Sergeant Bergdahl’s chief defense lawyer, Eugene R. Fidell, said that General Abrams “did not follow the advice of the preliminary hearing officer who heard the witnesses.” Mr. Fidell said that the hearing officer had also previously recommended against a prison sentence. .


The decision followed a recommendation from the Army lawyer who presided over Sergeant Bergdahl’s preliminary hearing in Texas in September that the sergeant face neither jail time nor a punitive discharge and that he go before an intermediate tribunal known as a “special court-martial” where the most severe penalty possible would be a year of confinement.

That recommendation, made by Lt. Col. Mark Visger, came after the Army’s investigating officer, Maj. Gen. Kenneth R. Dahl, testified for the defense that prison would be “inappropriate.”

General Dahl, whose report formed the basis for the Army’s prosecution, also said that no troops died specifically searching for Sergeant Bergdahl and that no evidence was found to support claims that he intended to walk to China or India or that he was a Taliban sympathizer.

Sergeant Bergdahl, 29, was freed in May 2014 after President Obama approved trading him for five Taliban detainees who were being held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The exchange drew condemnation from Republicans and widespread claims that the sergeant had been a defector and that a half-dozen or more American troops had died searching for him.

The Army originally charged Sergeant Bergdahl in March with one count of desertion that carried a maximum penalty of five years in prison and one count of endangering the troops sent to search for him, which carried a maximum of life imprisonment.

At the Texas hearing, an Army prosecutor, Maj. Margaret Kurz, described a frantic but fruitless search for Sergeant Bergdahl in the weeks after he disappeared.

“For 45 days, thousands of soldiers toiled in the heat, dirt, misery and sweat with almost no rest, little water and little food to find the accused,” Major Kurz said. “Fatigued and growing disheartened, they search for the accused knowing he left deliberately.”

The prosecution’s witnesses included Sergeant Bergdahl’s former platoon leader and company and battalion commanders, who all recounted the scramble to find the soldier after he was reported missing early on June 30, 2009.


He and the other commanders said soldiers searched almost nonstop, never knowing when the ordeal would end, while their underlying mission to support Afghan security forces fell by the wayside. The manhunt involved thousands of troops across thousands of square miles.

General Dahl described Sergeant Bergdahl as a truthful but delusional soldier, who identified with John Galt, the hero of Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged,” and left to hike 18 miles to a larger base so he could tell a senior commander about what he felt were serious leadership problems that had placed his platoon in danger.

Another defense witness, Terrence Russell, who debriefed Sergeant Bergdahl after his release, testified that the sergeant had suffered more in captivity than any American since Vietnam, including beatings with rubber hoses and copper cables, and uncontrollable diarrhea for more than three years.

The defense team, led by Eugene R. Fidell, argued that the worst thing Sergeant Bergdahl had done was go AWOL for one day — since he was captured within hours of leaving, and because General Dahl determined he had intended to hike to another base.

Mr. Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale Law School, also argued that Sergeant Bergdahl did everything an American serviceman was supposed to do in captivity, trying to escape numerous times despite the harsh treatment the attempts brought him, and never revealing secrets.

He also suggested the Army was partly responsible, because it enlisted Sergeant Bergdahl even though he had washed-out of Coast Guard basic training because of an “adjustment disorder with depression.
Click to expand...
 
FUBAR said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/15/us/bowe-bergdahl-to-face-court-martial-on-desertion-charges.html?_r=0

A top Army commander on Monday ordered that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl face a court-martial on charges of desertion and endangering troops stemming from his decision to leave his outpost in 2009, prompting a huge manhunt in the wilds of eastern Afghanistan and landing him in nearly five years of harsh Taliban captivity.

The decision by Gen. Robert B. Abrams, head of Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg, N.C., means that Sergeant Bergdahl, 29, faces a possible life sentence, a far more serious penalty than had been recommended by the Army’s own investigating officer, who had testified that a jail sentence would be “inappropriate.”

...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
.... So uh not much discussion here then? He's facing LIFE.

The Rose Garden press conference is going to go down as perhaps the weirdest press conference of Obama's administration but also one of the weirdest by any president ever.

It just gets weirder with time.

And Rice calling Bergdahl "honorable"? This is just one reason I look back at the events in Libya and think Rice just says what she is told, she was a political creature who was involved in Obama's campaign, a trusted political soldier, not a lifelong diplomat or intelligence officer or anything like that. Meanwhile the main core of the administration shapes how it views facts with its worldview, first comes how it wants to see the world, then come the conclusions and statements, and then later, sometimes much, much later, the facts come out that reveal that worldview to be completely screwed up in relation to reality. It's like the intelligence, military and diplomatic briefings they receive are entirely separate from whatever they are doing.

Weird and weirder really fit.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Pickles said:
Finally made it through the first episode. I don't get it. I hope they plan on pushing him harder about this alleged "plan" because it sounds completely asinine, especially in light of some of the other backstory that makes him sound pretty clearly mentally unstable
Click to expand...
Nah, I'm sure they'll just take his word for it and move on.

 
Apple Jack said:
satch said:
McGarnicle said:
Trump says he's a deserter who should be executed, so my guess is he's probably a hero who saved our country from annihilation.
Click to expand...
Trump's miles closer to the truth than you.
Click to expand...
And you know the truth?
Click to expand...
Yes. Based on the facts we know Bergdahl admittedly carried out a premeditated plan to leave his post and desert his comrades, some of whom died trying to find him. Therefore, Trump's assessment is clearly miles closer to the truth than McGarnicle's assessment that Bergdahl is somehow a hero who saved our country from annihilation. If you can make a case based on facts that McGarnicle's conclusion is closer to the truth than Trumps, please do.

 
pollardsvision said:
Mr. Pickles said:
Finally made it through the first episode. I don't get it. I hope they plan on pushing him harder about this alleged "plan" because it sounds completely asinine, especially in light of some of the other backstory that makes him sound pretty clearly mentally unstable
Click to expand...
Nah, I'm sure they'll just take his word for it and move on.
Click to expand...
They're not off to a good start.

I assume that Sarah's position is that his story is basically legit, given her commentary on it.

 
KarmaPolice said:
pollardsvision said:
I really liked the first episode. I'm not sure why so many think it won't be interesting.

A US soldier leaves his post in Afghanistan to wander through the desert either because he's a traitor or he's genuinely trying to out some corrupt/bad bosses. He gets captured for 5 years, then returned, leaving everyone to wonder if he's a hero or treasonous scum.

On the surface, it has far more potential than last year's, which was a basic whoodunnit that Sarah milked for everything it was worth. This story could have even more to work with.
Click to expand...
I think there is less grey area with this story, making it less interesting to start with.
Click to expand...
This entire story is grey area.

Even if what seems to be the case now remains clearly the case at the end (that he's a traitor/was running), I'm still plenty interested to figure out why he might have.

 
pollardsvision said:
KarmaPolice said:
pollardsvision said:
I really liked the first episode. I'm not sure why so many think it won't be interesting.

A US soldier leaves his post in Afghanistan to wander through the desert either because he's a traitor or he's genuinely trying to out some corrupt/bad bosses. He gets captured for 5 years, then returned, leaving everyone to wonder if he's a hero or treasonous scum.

On the surface, it has far more potential than last year's, which was a basic whoodunnit that Sarah milked for everything it was worth. This story could have even more to work with.
Click to expand...
I think there is less grey area with this story, making it less interesting to start with.
Click to expand...
This entire story is grey area.

Even if what seems to be the case now remains clearly the case at the end (that he's a traitor/was running), I'm still plenty interested to figure out why he might have.
Click to expand...
Isn't the only grey area the truth about his motivation for leaving? Seems like the rest is known.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

sublimeone
Evil
Replies
4
Views
452
Reg Lllama of Brixton
Reg Lllama of Brixton
D
The Battle of Boz Qandahari
Replies
0
Views
516
Don't Toews Me
D
NCCommish
Soldiers Told to Ignore Sexual Abuse of Boys by Afghan Allies
2
Replies
94
Views
2K
Chadstroma
Chadstroma

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top