sho nuff
Footballguy
My thoughts are the same as before.
Those guys are bad dudes.
Does not answer his question of if they had already been replaced nor what their release really means.
HTH
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
American held hostage by al Qaeda appeals to Obama... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter VA703
- Start date
Those guys are bad dudes.
Does not answer his question of if they had already been replaced nor what their release really means.
HTH
tommyboy
Footballguy
https://wikileaks.org/gitmo/pdf/af/us9af-000007dp.pdf
Mohammad Fazl
https://wikileaks.org/gitmo/pdf/af/us9af-000006dp.pdf
Mullah Norullah Noori
https://wikileaks.org/gitmo/pdf/af/us9af-000832dp.pdf
Mohammed Nabi
https://wikileaks.org/gitmo/pdf/af/us9af-000579dp.pdf
Khairullah Khairkhwa
https://wikileaks.org/gitmo/pdf/af/us9af-000004dp.pdf
Abdul Haq Wasiq
Mohammad Fazl
https://wikileaks.org/gitmo/pdf/af/us9af-000006dp.pdf
Mullah Norullah Noori
https://wikileaks.org/gitmo/pdf/af/us9af-000832dp.pdf
Mohammed Nabi
https://wikileaks.org/gitmo/pdf/af/us9af-000579dp.pdf
Khairullah Khairkhwa
https://wikileaks.org/gitmo/pdf/af/us9af-000004dp.pdf
Abdul Haq Wasiq
johnnycakes
Footballguy
Chaka
Footballguy
I never suggested they were boy scouts but that link doesn't provide much depth at all. "High ranking official", "...in direct communication with..." are about as vague as it gets. They have all been out of the region since at least 2002 so it seems likely that their roles have been filled for a long time. My question still stands, what strategic and tactical benefit would they add (anyone know if they have left Qatar?) above and beyond what these groups already have?
I probably just put myself on a couple dozen government watch lists but I have been reading the wikileaks files on these guys, again they are bad people but I still question what they bring back to the Taliban (or al qaeda or ISIS or whatever) that they don't already have in place.
Chaka
Footballguy
Just posted that I have been reading these, they don't really provide as much meat as I was hoping for.
I completely concede that they are bad dudes what I don't yet understand is what strategic and tactical advantage they could provide, over and above what already exists, if they got out of Qatar?
Last edited by a moderator:
Chaka
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
They were specifically requested to be released by the terrorists. Do you think they did that simply because these were foot soldiers?
Chaka
Footballguy
No I don't. That still doesn't answer my question. Do we think that the Taliban lost ground since they were captured?
Some of these guys were only involved with the Taliban since 1999 before being captured in 2001, that seems like the kind of organization where it is pretty easy to advance through the ranks. I am sure if they got out of Qatar that they would be welcomed with open arms and given command positions but what is the advantage gained by the Taliban by giving commands to guys who have been out of the game since 2002?
I have conceded that they were bad guys but I am looking for some meat on this bone, not the standard Fox News screed of "They were bad m'kay. And they're still gonna be bad, m'kay."
Give me details of the tactical and strategic advantage they provide to the Taliban.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Is it really necessary to make your point to show they are valueless? Fazi was their chief general, and the minister of defense. How many people are more valuable than that in any army?
What if they had value? What if they had maxium value to the Taliban? That would then make a difference to you? How?
jonessed
Footballguy
I think he's fishing.It doesn't matter if their positions were replaced. Effective leaders are hard to find. They will simply be plugged into other leadership roles when they return.
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Pretty much agree with you Chaka. This isn't like letting LeBron back on the court after he has fouled out, the trade likely had little to no affect moving forward, IMO.
jamny
Footballguy
What a bizarre line of thinking. How could former high ranking officials in the Taliban not be an asset to them moving forward?
Detainee traded for Bergdahl may have contacted Taliban: officials
Detainee traded for Bergdahl may have contacted Taliban: officials
avoiding injuries
Footballguy
Ought to release everyone involved in drug trading since they're replaced as soon as someone is locked up.
Chaka
Footballguy
What if they had zero value (say they never leave Qatar or support our enemies in any way), would it make a difference to you (or others)? How?
There is a calculus to determine the value of Bergdahl, some wouldn't give up a used condom for him others would have no problem giving the Taliban 5 "deputy leaders". I would like to know if these guys are of true material value or are really more of a pebble thrown into an ocean before changing my stance on getting Bergdahl back.
Chaka
Footballguy
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Why wipe your ### if you are just going to poop again tomorrow?
I'm late to the party here, but hasn't America's policy always been one of "No soldier left behind?"
Like I told you last night the terrorists specifically asked for these guys to be released. Why would they ask for them by name if they had no value? I swear sometimes in today's world it's like common sense doesn't exist.
Chaka
Footballguy
We asked for Bergdahl back. He must be very valuable, right?Like I told you last night the terrorists specifically asked for these guys to be released. Why would they ask for them by name if they had no value? I swear sometimes in today's world it's like common sense doesn't exist.
Last edited by a moderator:
Why did you change your post? But yes, clearly this guy had value. To Obama. Which is why he broke the law to get him back. He knew if he'd followed the law it never would have happened.We asked for Bergdahl back. He must be very valuable, right?Like I told you last night the terrorists specifically asked for these guys to be released. Why would they ask for them by name if they had no value? I swear sometimes in today's world it's like common sense doesn't exist.
jamny
Footballguy
Chaka
Footballguy
Changed it because I thought it was a bit inflammatory and that is not my intent here.Why did you change your post? But yes, clearly this guy had value. To Obama. Which is why he broke the law to get him back. He knew if he'd followed the law it never would have happened.We asked for Bergdahl back. He must be very valuable, right?Like I told you last night the terrorists specifically asked for these guys to be released. Why would they ask for them by name if they had no value? I swear sometimes in today's world it's like common sense doesn't exist.
Aren't the Taliban and the family members of detainees allowed to want their people back just for the mere reason that they have been detained for 13 years?
Do you really want to get into a back and forth on the legality of these things? The detainee program at Gitmo can at best be considered of questionable legality.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
It is a dumb move to make deals with terrorists.
Chaka
Footballguy
Has that ever been a defined policy of the United States? This isn't the first time we have done it and it won't be the last.
Even Israel has negotiated with terrorists.
Why do you keep countering arguments with irrelevant other arguments? Whether Gitmo is legal or not is a completely distinct discussion to whether what Obama did in this trade. All bringing that up does is try to confuse things. Sorry, not playing that game. What I can tell you is this - one has been declared illegal and the other has not. And the one that has been declared illegal was the process Obama used to make this trade. Quite honestly, I can't believe people aren't bothered by that. But whatever.Changed it because I thought it was a bit inflammatory and that is not my intent here.Why did you change your post? But yes, clearly this guy had value. To Obama. Which is why he broke the law to get him back. He knew if he'd followed the law it never would have happened.We asked for Bergdahl back. He must be very valuable, right?Like I told you last night the terrorists specifically asked for these guys to be released. Why would they ask for them by name if they had no value? I swear sometimes in today's world it's like common sense doesn't exist.
Aren't the Taliban and the family members of detainees allowed to want their people back just for the mere reason that they have been detained for 13 years?
Do you really want to get into a back and forth on the legality of these things? The detainee program at Gitmo can at best be considered of questionable legality.
matuski
Footballguy
I am trying to update my list of things other people think I should be angry about.Why do you keep countering arguments with irrelevant other arguments? Whether Gitmo is legal or not is a completely distinct discussion to whether what Obama did in this trade. All bringing that up does is try to confuse things. Sorry, not playing that game. What I can tell you is this - one has been declared illegal and the other has not. And the one that has been declared illegal was the process Obama used to make this trade. Quite honestly, I can't believe people aren't bothered by that. But whatever.Changed it because I thought it was a bit inflammatory and that is not my intent here.Aren't the Taliban and the family members of detainees allowed to want their people back just for the mere reason that they have been detained for 13 years?Why did you change your post? But yes, clearly this guy had value. To Obama. Which is why he broke the law to get him back. He knew if he'd followed the law it never would have happened.We asked for Bergdahl back. He must be very valuable, right?Like I told you last night the terrorists specifically asked for these guys to be released. Why would they ask for them by name if they had no value? I swear sometimes in today's world it's like common sense doesn't exist.
Do you really want to get into a back and forth on the legality of these things? The detainee program at Gitmo can at best be considered of questionable legality.
What others can you help me with?
Chaka
Footballguy
Isn't the question of the legality of the trade outside of the point I was discussing? Which was merely about the material value of the assets we traded for Bergdahl.Why do you keep countering arguments with irrelevant other arguments? Whether Gitmo is legal or not is a completely distinct discussion to whether what Obama did in this trade. All bringing that up does is try to confuse things. Sorry, not playing that game. What I can tell you is this - one has been declared illegal and the other has not. And the one that has been declared illegal was the process Obama used to make this trade. Quite honestly, I can't believe people aren't bothered by that. But whatever.Changed it because I thought it was a bit inflammatory and that is not my intent here.Why did you change your post? But yes, clearly this guy had value. To Obama. Which is why he broke the law to get him back. He knew if he'd followed the law it never would have happened.We asked for Bergdahl back. He must be very valuable, right?Like I told you last night the terrorists specifically asked for these guys to be released. Why would they ask for them by name if they had no value? I swear sometimes in today's world it's like common sense doesn't exist.
Aren't the Taliban and the family members of detainees allowed to want their people back just for the mere reason that they have been detained for 13 years?
Do you really want to get into a back and forth on the legality of these things? The detainee program at Gitmo can at best be considered of questionable legality.
And even though it doesn't matter to you in this discussion tons of #### relating to Gitmo has been determined to be unconstitutional. But I am sure you know that.
jonessed
Footballguy
I know there are some things that have been stopped and others in the courts, but I'm not aware of anything currently being done that has been deemed definitively unconstitutional. What specifically are you referring to?Isn't the question of the legality of the trade outside of the point I was discussing? Which was merely about the material value of the assets we traded for Bergdahl.And even though it doesn't matter to you in this discussion tons of #### relating to Gitmo has been determined to be unconstitutional. But I am sure you know that.Why do you keep countering arguments with irrelevant other arguments? Whether Gitmo is legal or not is a completely distinct discussion to whether what Obama did in this trade. All bringing that up does is try to confuse things. Sorry, not playing that game. What I can tell you is this - one has been declared illegal and the other has not. And the one that has been declared illegal was the process Obama used to make this trade. Quite honestly, I can't believe people aren't bothered by that. But whatever.Changed it because I thought it was a bit inflammatory and that is not my intent here.Aren't the Taliban and the family members of detainees allowed to want their people back just for the mere reason that they have been detained for 13 years?Why did you change your post? But yes, clearly this guy had value. To Obama. Which is why he broke the law to get him back. He knew if he'd followed the law it never would have happened.We asked for Bergdahl back. He must be very valuable, right?Like I told you last night the terrorists specifically asked for these guys to be released. Why would they ask for them by name if they had no value? I swear sometimes in today's world it's like common sense doesn't exist.
Do you really want to get into a back and forth on the legality of these things? The detainee program at Gitmo can at best be considered of questionable legality.
jonessed
Footballguy
White people (self-loathing is acceptable)I am trying to update my list of things other people think I should be angry about.What others can you help me with?Why do you keep countering arguments with irrelevant other arguments? Whether Gitmo is legal or not is a completely distinct discussion to whether what Obama did in this trade. All bringing that up does is try to confuse things. Sorry, not playing that game. What I can tell you is this - one has been declared illegal and the other has not. And the one that has been declared illegal was the process Obama used to make this trade. Quite honestly, I can't believe people aren't bothered by that. But whatever.Changed it because I thought it was a bit inflammatory and that is not my intent here.Aren't the Taliban and the family members of detainees allowed to want their people back just for the mere reason that they have been detained for 13 years?Why did you change your post? But yes, clearly this guy had value. To Obama. Which is why he broke the law to get him back. He knew if he'd followed the law it never would have happened.We asked for Bergdahl back. He must be very valuable, right?Like I told you last night the terrorists specifically asked for these guys to be released. Why would they ask for them by name if they had no value? I swear sometimes in today's world it's like common sense doesn't exist.
Do you really want to get into a back and forth on the legality of these things? The detainee program at Gitmo can at best be considered of questionable legality.
Religion
George W. Bush
The Koch brothers
Wal-Mart
The oil industry
People that make more money than you
Clowns
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Monsanto.
Widbil83
Footballguy
I didn't see this kind of support for the guys the Democrats left behind in Benghazi.
squistion
Footballguy
Maybe because no one was left behind, if one is to believe the report issued by the Republican-led House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence http://correctrecord.org/the-points/tp-new-benghazi-report-proves-right-wing-wrong/
From the media reaction section at the link:
"There was neither a stand down order nor a denial of available air support, and no American was left behind," the panel concluded. The panel found that "there was no evidence of an intelligence failure prior to the attack the CIA did not have tactical warning that it was imminent." [Washington Post Editorial Board, 11/29/14]
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyboy
Footballguy
Widbil83
Footballguy
I'm sure it wasn't brought on by a YouTube video either.
Widbil83
Footballguy
Dude, a couple Republicans in the House who literally have a 7% approval rating said it so it must be true!
squistion
Footballguy
I understand why you might find it hard to trust the findings of a Republican-led House Committee, but as skeptical as I also might be of their objectivity, I do believe their conclusions here (which were pretty much in line with the other official inquires into this).
Last edited by a moderator:
Apple Jack
Footballguy
Unreal.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Doctor Detroit
Please remove your headgear
Yet you believe some tertiary site espousing that the German pilot had just converted to Islam.
Yeah, best of luck with that common sense barometer.
Apple Jack
Footballguy
Sounds more like not jaded enough. The presumptive nominee is sitting fat in their crosshairs. They're not going to take the shot? Please.
Chaka
Footballguy
I would hope so.Chaka said:
I'd like to hear your thoughts about their value as assets to the Taliban.
tommyboy
Footballguy
No i just posted a report and said it was german media. I never said i believed it.
Turns out the report was wrong. Turns out the guy was nuts and murdered 150 people.
Doctor Detroit
Please remove your headgear
MC Gas Money
Footballguy
Lets assume terrorism is real.
Is anyone really scared?
They cant take over america with terrorism. We have guns.
Now look up the definition of "terrorism" and read between the lines.
Is anyone really scared?
They cant take over america with terrorism. We have guns.
Now look up the definition of "terrorism" and read between the lines.
Doctor Detroit
Please remove your headgear
Is it possible for someone to run over themselves in a car? If it is, I'd look into that if I were you.
