trump calls off Taliban negotiations

[Fort Fun Indiana]

My highlight above.

Indeed we did and we were proven to be RIGHT.

Bowe Bergdahl, a traitor, was traded for FIVE TALIBAN COMMANDERS.

Please show us where President Donald Trump is negotiating and releasing major Taliban Commanders who will return to the battle field.

Bowe Bergdahl was a mentally ill kid who the Army signed up because they couldn't get regular kids to sign up anymore.

When he wandered off, the Army lied and said he as captured in combat, and even kept promoting him while he was in captivity.

Obama traded five guys we had no legal reason to hold. (They weren't POW's, and they hadn't committed any crimes against America). To date, none of them returned to the battlefield because other people stepped into their jobs a long time ago. The Afghan Government ASKED to have these guys returned hoping they could use them to negotiate with the Taliban.

Now, let's look at what Trump did. He went behind the back of the Afghan Government to negotiate with these guys and get a promise that they wouldn't harbor terrorists. He didn't do this for any other reason so he could save face and withdraw, and the Taliban burned him.

Tragic, why are you sympathetic toward terrorists?

No valid legal reason to hold? Did you not read what they did and what they are a part of? They were and are enemy combatants.

Liar.
The Taliban are honest and honorable people who never did anything to anyone else.
Which is more than the US can say, considering we illegally invaded Iraq and Afghanistan on total lies that only an idiot would ever believe.
The Taliban never had any contract with the US except when the CIA created or supported them in 1979 thru 1988, when we wanted them to fight the Soviets.
Anyone claiming the Taliban are terrorist is just a liar.
There is more than enough proof they never were.

^^

Who is this freak? Do the jihadi turds have their own troll farm, now?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well, we already know that there were Russian trolls who used social media to try to influence the election.

With the way Rigby is posting, I wonder if they are a Taliban troll, trying to improve the optics of the organization with their posts?

Ha!

 

[Markle]

And so what?

here's the thing. There's only two LEGAL reasons to hold them.

One was that they committed crimes against Americans, in which case they would have been entitled to lawyers and a court date. They didn't.

The other would have been if they were classified as POW's, under which case they would be entitled to Geneva Convention protections. But even then, once the Afghan Government requested their release, we kind of had to release them.

NO legal reason was required to hold them. They were not American Citizens nor were they in America.

They were and are ENEMY COMBATANTS and therefore not entitled to any Geneva protections.

No, we did not have to "kind of had to" release them.

Wrong.
They had committed no crimes so legally did have to be given POW status or released.
There is no other third option, such as enemy combatant.
If they committed crimes, then they MUST be given a TRIAL!
If they did not commit crimes, they must be POWs.
You are reading the false propaganda from Washington.
There is absolutely no such category as enemy combatant.

You seem to be unaware of any legal principles.
All people must be given the exact same rights regardless of whether they are US citizens or not, or whether they are in the US or not, as long as it is US authorities who have jurisdiction over them.
The founders would be very unhappy if they had read the silly things you wrote.

 

[hadit]

As Republicans speak out against the plans of the Idiot in Chief...

Republican reps cite 9/11 anniversary in criticizing Trump decision to invite Taliban to US for peace talks - CNNPolitics

Sheesh, if I didn't know better, I'd say you didn't even vote for your president.

 

[pknopp]

The Taliban never committed any crimes at all.

Shameless lie. They provided material support to terrorists.

Dude, has this stupid act of yours EVER worked on ANYONE?

We armed, trained and supported those who carried out 9-11.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Taliban never committed any crimes at all.

Shameless lie. They provided material support to terrorists.

Dude, has this stupid act of yours EVER worked on ANYONE?

We armed, trained and supported those who carried out 9-11.

We did not arm and train the hijackers. We did not arm anyone with box cutters, or train anyone how to fly a passenger jet. We did not fund any of them. Take that tired, irrelevant talking point walking,bud.

 

[pknopp]

The Taliban never committed any crimes at all.

Shameless lie. They provided material support to terrorists.

Dude, has this stupid act of yours EVER worked on ANYONE?

We armed, trained and supported those who carried out 9-11.

We did not arm and train the hijackers. We did not arm anyone with box cutters, or train anyone how to fly a passenger jet. We did not fund any of them. Take that tired, irrelevant talking point walking,bud.

We did train them on how to fly airplanes. You can deny the rest all you want.

 

[Rigby5]

Well, we already know that there were Russian trolls who used social media to try to influence the election.

With the way Rigby is posting, I wonder if they are a Taliban troll, trying to improve the optics of the organization with their posts?

It is well documented that the Taliban had absolutely nothing at all to do with the secret terrorist activities of bin Laden.
And in fact, the US did not even attack Afghanistan first, but instead went after Saddam in Iraq.

 

[Rigby5]

And so what?

here's the thing. There's only two LEGAL reasons to hold them.

One was that they committed crimes against Americans, in which case they would have been entitled to lawyers and a court date. They didn't.

The other would have been if they were classified as POW's, under which case they would be entitled to Geneva Convention protections. But even then, once the Afghan Government requested their release, we kind of had to release them.

NO legal reason was required to hold them. They were not American Citizens nor were they in America.

They were and are ENEMY COMBATANTS and therefore not entitled to any Geneva protections.

No, we did not have to "kind of had to" release them.

Wrong.
They had committed no crimes so legally did have to be given POW status or released.
There is no other third option, such as enemy combatant.
If they committed crimes, then they MUST be given a TRIAL!
If they did not commit crimes, they must be POWs.
You are reading the false propaganda from Washington.
There is absolutely no such category as enemy combatant.

You seem to be unaware of any legal principles.
All people must be given the exact same rights regardless of whether they are US citizens or not, or whether they are in the US or not, as long as it is US authorities who have jurisdiction over them.
The founders would be very unhappy if they had read the silly things you wrote.

You may kiss our collective American asses.

Invading Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria were illegal war crimes.
Not to mention expensive fiascoes that caused the unnecessary death of US citizens.

 

[Rigby5]

The Taliban never committed any crimes at all.

Shameless lie. They provided material support to terrorists.

Dude, has this stupid act of yours EVER worked on ANYONE?

We armed, trained and supported those who carried out 9-11.

We did not arm and train the hijackers. We did not arm anyone with box cutters, or train anyone how to fly a passenger jet. We did not fund any of them. Take that tired, irrelevant talking point walking,bud.

So then you admit the Taliban had nothing at all to do with the 9/11 attack, because the US did arm, train, and fund the Taliban.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The Taliban never committed any crimes at all.

Shameless lie. They provided material support to terrorists.

Dude, has this stupid act of yours EVER worked on ANYONE?

We armed, trained and supported those who carried out 9-11.

We did not arm and train the hijackers. We did not arm anyone with box cutters, or train anyone how to fly a passenger jet. We did not fund any of them. Take that tired, irrelevant talking point walking,bud.

We did train them on how to fly airplanes. You can deny the rest all you want.

Saying that we trained them is not exactly honest. Yes, they did come to the US to attend a flight school, but that was something they paid money (provided by the Taliban) to learn. And, when they learned how to fly, but never bothered to learn to land, that should have set up alarms everywhere if people had been paying attention.

Saying that we trained them makes it sound like the USA intentionally picked those people to attend a flight school that we paid for. We didn't pay for their training, the Taliban did. We didn't pick who participated in the attack, the Taliban did. And the whole thing was planned out by Kahlid Shiek Mohammed.

Sorry, but the USA had zero to do with helping or arming these terrorists.

 

[Markle]

We did train them on how to fly airplanes. You can deny the rest all you want.

Yes. we did.

The reason it was not picked up on was that former President Bill Clinton had "erected" a wall of silence between our 17 intelligence agencies. As with all Progressive programs, the wall was intended to improve security. Instead, the result was that the agency who learned that these potential terrorists were taking flying lessons and only concerned with flying after take-off. That was not communicated who they were and what they were doing to the agency that knew they were dangerous.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So then you admit the Taliban had nothing at all to do with the 9/11 attack,

No you stupid fuck. I have clearly said the opposite of that.

 

[lennypartiv]

Trump is playing hardball during these negotiations with the Taliban. The Taliban will give in to Trump, the master negotiator. It's the art of the deal.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Trump is playing hardball during these negotiations with the Taliban. The Taliban will give in to Trump, the master negotiator. It's the art of the deal.

Youre goofy. Trump is trying to find cover for pulling out. There is no "hardball" to be played. There will be no troop surge, no increased efforts, as the Taliban control the most territory they've had since 2001.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

Just how bright is President Trump? The reader can be the judge.

Trump repeatedly condemned Bolton's suggestion (more than a year ago) that the U.S. pursue the "Libya model" for the denuclearization of North Korea.

Trump had no idea what Bolton was talking about. The Libyan deal as a model for North Korea’s own denuclearization was first mentioned by Trump’s national security adviser, John R. Bolton, and then by Vice President Mike Pence. How the ‘Libya Model’ Became a Sticking Point in North Korea Nuclear Talks

Then after revealing he had no idea what Bolton was referring to, the President then sided with the enemy. "What a disaster using that to make a deal with North Korea," Trump said. "I don't blame Kim Jong-un. ... He wanted nothing to do with John Bolton."

In-freaking-credible!!! Any other President who had a National Security Advisor who was disliked by the communist dictator of North Korea would have lauded the guy. Maybe even given him a raise. What does Trump do? He fires him. Kim and Trump have exchanged love letters.

But we all know why Trump fired Bolton and it has nothing to do with the Libyan model, North Korea, or Kim. Trump wanted to invite terrorists partly responsible for 9/11 days before the anniversary to Camp David to meet with him personally. Bolton knew what it was -- another photo op to glorify Trump and grab some headlines. Bolton wasn't alone. Several Republican lawmakers considered it a horrible idea and not one supported Trump's scheme.

Trump revealed his idea for the photo op late Saturday. By Monday morning Bolton was gone.

Trump couldn't fire the members of Congress, but he sure could fire Bolton.

 

[my2¢]

Before negotiations take place there first should exists some basic level of trust. I definitely don't feel it's there with the Taliban, North Korea, nor Iran. I'm glad Trump called off Taliban negotiations but don't ask me what's the end game to get us out of Afghanistan.

 

[JoeB131]

Tragic, why are you sympathetic toward terrorists?

No valid legal reason to hold? Did you not read what they did and what they are a part of? They were and are enemy combatants.

Enemy combatants are entitled to protections under the Geneva Convention that we weren't providing these guys. Yes, they did awful stuff to their enemies in Afghanistan... which totally wasn't our problem.

Bush released hundreds of guys from Gitmo, and usually didn't get anything for them. Some of them actually were caught on the battlefield again.

I'm not "sympathetic" towards terrorism... I'm pragmatic.

When the Taliban and Bin Laden were killing Russians in Afghanistan, Ronald Reagan called them "Freedom Fighters"

Nobody cared that they followed a medieval philosophy and oppressed women and all the other things you guys are suddenly concerned about now. Those Dirty Stinkin' Commies might teach girls how to read, dammit!

Then when they turned on us, they became terrorists.

 

[JoeB131]

Before negotiations take place there first should exists some basic level of trust. I definitely don't feel it's there with the Taliban, North Korea, nor Iran. I'm glad Trump called off Taliban negotiations but don't ask me what's the end game to get us out of Afghanistan.

Here's how we get out of Afghanistan.

President Warren "General, get those men out of there!"

General: "Yes, Ma'am, Madam President."

That's how we get out.

 

[JoeB131]

There was no reason, whatsoever to release these barbarian terrorists, none whatsoever!

Were they convicted of a crime in an American Court or an International Court?

Nope.

Then there was no reason to hold them.

Last time I checked, we lived under the rule of law.

Either you convict them of crimes, other than being on the losing side of a war, or we release them as part of the end of hostilities.

Should point out, we held these guys for 12 years. This is longer than we held most Nazi and Japanese war criminal after WWII. (By 1957, 12 years after the end of WWII, we were still only holding THREE high ranking Nazis. Only one actually died in prison.)

NO legal reason was required to hold them. They were not American Citizens nor were they in America.

They were and are ENEMY COMBATANTS and therefore not entitled to any Geneva protections.

You should read up on the Geneva Convention.

Customary IHL - Rule 3. Definition of Combatants

The US Manual for Military Commissions (2007) states:
“Lawful enemy combatant” means a person who is:
(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.

These guys qualify, as they were legitimate government leaders at the time of their capture.

The elephant in the room is that we violated the Geneva Conventions by interrogating and torturing these people.

We had no legal right to hold them as neither criminals nor POW's. But we did.