Soldier from Bergdahl's unit tweets specific details about desertion; So what was really traded?

originally posted by: Battleline
There is no way Obama did not have the info that was put out in 2010 and knew full well that Bergdah was a deserter . This whole thing has nothing to do with Bergdah except as a patsy to free 5 high level Taliban.

There are two traders here, the POTUS and Bergdahl.

Thats pretty much my contention as well..........

A lot of people are just coming wise to this information, but its been out there since he went missing all those years ago....

I lived in Idaho when this went down, and it wasnt days after this, that people were coming forward saying the guy had intentions of taking off and that he made several remarks sympathizing with the Taliban......

Again this information is NOT NEW, some of the details are yes.......

If WE knew this about this guy, you KNOW Obama had to have known..........

Hell he always claims he finds out crap on the news half the time anyway, well it was on the news........

I find it hard to believe hes so inept as POTUS that he didnt not know this guys background..........

Something smells rotten.........

The Punitive Articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice are quite clear.

First, the man can be charged with Article 86 (Unauthorized Absence:

Any member of the armed forces who, without authority—
(1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;
(2) goes from that place; or
(3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Because his Unauthorized Absence was longer than 30 days, he can also be charged with Article 85 - Desertion:

(a) Any member of the armed forces who—
(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;
(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or
(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another one of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States;
is guilty of desertion.

This is not a case of:

He was taken by people while on patrol, kidnapped from his post, etc.

The man simply walked off.

I saw this happen many times when I was in the Navy, and had to help process those brought back (or came back on their own) when I had to stand DMAA on my ships I served on.

This person is not a hero, nor should he be treated as such. He was a prisoner of others completely due to his own actions. And that action was: he deserted.

Does that mean he should not have been brought home? No. By all means, he is still an American citizen.

However, the cost of bringing him home needs to be questioned. And he still needs to go through a court martial, because regardless, he still can be charged with article 86 and 85 of the UCMJ.

He should NOT be given special treatment. That would be completely unfair to all other military personnel, and would be spitting on the graves of the 6 solders who lost their lives looking for him. Something that happened, only because he left his post.

He wanted out? He didn't want to be there?

Then why in gods name did he sign up? We do NOT have conscription in this country right now.

He could have claimed to be a Conscientious Objector. Had plenty of people get out of the first Gulf War on that one when I was in.

The man was still bound by his military contract where he signed on the dotted line. His actions were what caused him to become a POW. His actions caused the death of 6 other solders.

He needs to be held accountable for that. Period.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Battleline
There is no way Obama did not have the info that was put out in 2010 and knew full well that Bergdah was a deserter . This whole thing has nothing to do with Bergdah except as a patsy to free 5 high level Taliban.

There are two traders here, the POTUS and Bergdahl.

right.....(rolls eyes), because you have such an unbiased command of the facts....again I ask, why would a deserter be held in captivity for 5 years?....other true deserters are out fighting along side the enemy, not being held as a prisoner...can you grasp this idea?

This question has been answered adnauseum on other threads by you, but you keep spewing the same crap......

You also DONT KNOW that he didnt fight along side of them........

There is evidence that he in the least gave them intelligence that allowed them to attack strategic points they wouldnt have other wise known about, dates and times etc.......

You just refuse to see the facts for whatever reason........

or and I never use this world lightly ........your shilling........ive seen you on other threads simply throw out facts regardless of how many sources they were presented on.......just to keep following this line of thought you continually repeat........

And then you make it political.......

Look you can make up your own ideas, and you can toss around conjecture and what ifs..........

But there are some FACTS that we know about this case that are coming out, and you dont get to make those up.......

Good ol Oliver North says he knows a ransom was paid.

a reply to: jimmyx

so, if all that you say is the absolute truth, than he shall be judged by our military court, not some Taliban wielding an AK, or....is that too liberal for you?

He walked into the mess that he was in.
It is possible that American servicemen were wounded/killed trying to find him.

Now that he is in our hands, he should be tried by a Courts Martial.

I do not know why the POTUS thought that he should break the law by trading Bergdahl for five Taliban terrorists.

I also wonder if the "romantic" views of Bergdahl about the Taliban, turned into caca and he had regrets once he joined the enemy and found out what they really stand for and what they represented.

It happens you know people.

a reply to: Brandyjack

I was in 25 years, and served in DS as well as OIF and OEF and have been in combat. Thus, credentials established, this individual is a deserter and Mr. Obama did the wrong thing, violated the law, and gave over very dangerous enemy POWs in exchange for a deserter and deserves to be called out on it.

a reply to: NavyDoc

He is been called out, but so far he has not given any explicit statements for his decision.

Kind of arrogant to me, but them again I am still waiting when the deserted heads home and arrive in the US.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: MentorsRiddle
What was being truly traded is the American people's trust, and security - for nothing more than a turn-coat, coward.

This is a despicable thing that has happened - and should be noted for annuals of history.

you get stars for this?......you don't know crap what he was, and I don't either. but, I do know from listening to other soldiers, being out in the field of battle day after day, can have detrimental affects to the soul and mind, that civilians know nothing about.. the American soldiers should trust that this president is taking a lot of crap for getting this soldier back to America, regardless of the reason. it's disgusting that there are so many on the right that are calling this soldier a traitor, and that they should have left him there...they even went after this soldiers family....what putrid, viscous, vomit of a human do you have to be to do that.

When you leave your post on the battlefield and go seek out the enemy, you are a traitor, regardless if you took up arms for them or not. The description is apt.

Soldier from Bergdahl's unit tweets specific details about desertion; So what was really traded?

So what was traded ?

'The full faith, and trust' in the US government.

For those who still had any for it.

Others wised up long ago.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
I am pretty sure if you try to pick this fight on this board you will lose.

There is only one truth. I do not expect you to open your eyes to the realities of America's and Europe's abuses...not until it is too late.

While the US may have picked a fight, nobody deserved to die like they did in 911.

Stop being so ethnocentric. NO BODY DESERVES TO HAVE BOMBS DROPPED ON THEM! PERIOD! So instead of dropping 911, you should use the first bombings by America (which killed innocent Muslims and was BEFORE 911).

By the way, you speak of Muslims as if they are all the same, have the same rules, etc....there may be one "bible" they read from, but plenty interpret it the way they want to fit their needs.

All Muslims serve the same God. There is only one truth. There is no need for the Imams to tell Muslims what that one truth is. It would be too much of a liability. In addition, when a Muslim interprets the Koran as being a Holy Book of Peace (which, it is), and Americans drop bombs on him or her, then it can be said, Americans killed a peace-loving, innocent Muslims, which America has killed THOUSANDS of. Many more innocent Muslims have died over the years than "innocent" Americans have (which, there is no such thing as an innocent American. You allow your government to wipe its ass with your very own Laws. Despicable sheep those Americans are.)

a reply to: BobAthome

Perceiving Muslims as war-mongering is complete ignorance. The Muslims correctly own Israel; however, the Jews would not honor this. (Israel was to go to the first-born son of Abraham or whichever patriarch it was, which was Ischmel, a Muslim child.) Therefore, if the Muslims did strike first, it was to protect what is rightfully theirs. But I do not think the Muslims struck first, but either way, it is a moot point. You need to look at the origins of violence. There is the saying that goes, "We've been fighting for so long, but we have long since forgotten what we've been fighting for." We will never forget. We will never forget. Injustice will be answered with justice.

originally posted by: jimmyx
why would it be bad for Obama?....it's his sworn duty to bring back prisoners.

No it is not. It's his SWORN DUTY to uphold the laws of this country. It's in his oath of office. That's it.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

See that? He swears to be FAITHFUL to the laws of this country. When he let his five terrorist buddies in GITMO go in order to bring back his other deserter buddy .. he BROKE THE LAW.

Oh .... and the deserter wasn't a 'prisoner'. He walked off his duty station and went looking for English speaking Taliban. He joined up. He was there because he wanted to be. CNN - Commander Intercepted Radio Chatter that Bergdahl Sought English Speaking Taliban

a reply to: iosolomon

Servants can't inherit the house of their master. Abrahams offspring come from the line of Isaac not Ischmel. If you believe in the mythologies that is.

originally posted by: iosolomon
Maybe this thread has already been started, but I would bet that Allah's soldiers we traded were injected with microchips, or they even ate some sort of tracking device in their food. Come on, hasn't anyone taken a crash course on military deception? This reeks of it. I sure hope Allah's soldiers are smart enough to realize that the Americans would pull something like that.

So, you hope the dudes blowing themselves up and killing my countrymen get one over on the USA?

Allah's soldiers? He must not be that great of a god if he needs humans to blow themselves up for him.

These morons aren't smart enough to know to leave the bomb somewhere and then leave and then blow it up, you're obviously on the wrong side of history.

Terrorist sympathizers

originally posted by: iosolomon
Perceiving Muslims as war-mongering is complete ignorance. The Muslims correctly own Israel; however, the Jews would not honor this. (Israel was to go to the first-born son of Abraham or whichever patriarch it was, which was Ischmel, a Muslim child.)

Oh stop it. Prove that Abraham even existed. You can't ATS Thread - Did Abraham Ever Really Exist? And fighting over land rights supposedly handed down 4500 years ago by a guy who may or may not have existed DOES make a people war-mongers. This is 2014 AD ... not 2500 BC.

originally posted by: iosolomon
We will never forget. We will never forget. Injustice will be answered with justice.

See that ??? That's war mongering over a myth (Abraham) from 4500 years ago ...


This thread is about Bergdahl .... not Israel. Let's keep it on topic

originally posted by: [post=17994424]

Don't even bother with that guy. He says he is GOD. Literally....LOL

If only I was paid $10 every time someone used the ad hominem fallacy... buddy, I suggest you look up your fallacies, and steer clear of using them. It's just not good etiquette. It does not matter what my beliefs are, address the substance of my argument, which, Vasa Croe did, but hey, you just want to impose your backwards-thinking will onto others. I bet you are white. What else is new?

He often goes off about hating Americans and such.

Is there anything to love about America? America attacks the Muslims for their oil instead of investing in renewable energy sources, especially in the 1980s when the good people in the solar energy industry were begging for investment (but, good ole' American lobbyists, they blocked that funding...and so much more to other society betterment). So now the Muslims get pissed off, and retaliate against us, blows up the Twin Towers, and the sheep are too blind to take a hard look in the mirror to realize that their Nation has become a corrupt Land. Yeah, so let me ask, why don't you hate Americans or Europeans or Jews (who, originally stole Israel from the Muslims, since, according to the old Law, Israel rightfully belongs to Ischmel's descendants, which is not the Jews)?

He's just a hateful ignorant little man full of contempt and scared words being uttered from a scared frustrated person.

I may not be the most intelligent or astute, but I am far from ignorant, especially if I compare myself to you.

I bet you he lives in the US too....LOL

Hmm. I don't see what's so funny about that. Of course, if you look anything like your avatar (or even remotely), it would all make sense.

Just ignore the crazy.

Yes, please take your own advice. Ignore the crazy. That means, don't bring up my claim as God. Do you see how that works? Instead, address the substance of my argument. Vasa Croe actually did that. I would very much appreciate it if you could show some decorum and courtesy, and posts like this are not appreciated. Thank you for (possibly) growing up...hey, it's never too late.

I can't get over why some people are defending those people in the middle east 'clinging to the guns, and religion'.

Or suicide vests, stones, truck bombs, and guns and 'religion'.

Why Bergdhal is even still alive should raise anyone's suspicions.

Because the Taliban are the people who go around beheading people.

originally posted by: iosolomon
a reply to: BobAthome

Perceiving Muslims as war-mongering is complete ignorance. The Muslims correctly own Israel; however, the Jews would not honor this. (Israel was to go to the first-born son of Abraham or whichever patriarch it was, which was Ischmel, a Muslim child.) Therefore, if the Muslims did strike first, it was to protect what is rightfully theirs. But I do not think the Muslims struck first, but either way, it is a moot point. You need to look at the origins of violence. There is the saying that goes, "We've been fighting for so long, but we have long since forgotten what we've been fighting for." We will never forget. We will never forget. Injustice will be answered with justice.

ok lets start,,
"Ischmel, a Muslim child." sorry ,,he traded his first born birth right, for a bowl of porrage,,

2.Ischmel, a Muslim child,,, islam is Not the promised Nation,,promised by God,,when he told Ischmel, (NOT a Muslim child')
Ischme's,,, MOTHER,,that not to worry, that he the Lord of Hosts, would also give Nations to her son.

"it was to protect what is rightfully theirs." nope sorry sold the right,,like modern day Arabs selling there humanity for oil dollars.

3."You need to look at the origins of violence",,got a stone?

4. "Injustice will be answered with justice" well at least let it be based on FACT. not misinformed opinions.

a reply to: neo96

i think its #e blow stuff up.
Sunni cut heads off.

its a franchise trademark kind of thing,,,they do have royalties to collect u know.

lol shiite is two i's lol