It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

American Soldiers: Beware, you are only a hero if you are a right wing christian

page: 15
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 06:41 PM
a reply to: kruphix

NO ,I don't like that and I keep rifles against such a threat. NEO NAZIS come to mind...

posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 09:00 PM
a reply to: kruphix

Lol, he DID desert his post, maybe numerous times. I'm just waiting for an investigation to shed further light. According to those he served with, who would otherwise consider him a brother, have been quite outspoken about him, and it hasn't been positive.

posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 07:21 AM
a reply to: oldetimehockey4

Yea but out of the people who served with him the ones I saw said, that he was a good soldier who saw something jacked up and kinda mentally snapped. None have said he was wanting to fight for the Taliban. It's the difference between a coward and a traitor. Hell, it could have been a legitamet mental break down.

I feel sorry for the fact the right is so happy to attack Obamas decisions. They'll turn a coward or mental break down into a traitor to push there agenda. Obamas decision was questionable without trying to make bergdahl into secret spy.

posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 07:27 AM
a reply to: ArtemisE

No, that's not what I have heard. You are simply clinging to one small portion of one statement in the hopes that our government is not aiding and abetting the terrorists. And you are ignoring a lot in order to come to that one conclusion.

PS. I voted for Obama... and I want to see him impeached over this... Does that make me right? I used to be considered pretty center.

I'm also a Muslim and see an extremist in Bergdahl.... does that make me what?

You people need to realize there is nothing partisan about this....

Obama's decision to become a dictator and not to follow the law in order to give aid and comfort to our enemy is an impeachable offense in my book.
edit on 7-6-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 07:55 AM
a reply to: ArtemisE

Obama's decision wasn't questionable, it was flat out against the law.

posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 09:40 AM
a reply to: smithjustinb

The difference is, McCain's heroism can be debated, whereas, Bergdahl's heroism is non-existent and there's no debate.

But see that is where you are wrong and just shows how brainwashed you are from the partisan propaganda.

McCain's heroism and traitorous actions are debatable because we have the facts for his situation.

We don't have the facts yet for Bergdahl...we have about 3 or 4 different stories, and you are choosing to pick the one that suits your ideology the best. I'm fine with waiting to get all the facts and then call a spade a spade.

To claim you know absolutely everything about this situation to the point of there being no debate shows how very desperate you are to paint this situation in a certain light.

posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 09:42 AM

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: kruphix

Most of it was before ELECTRICITY so we are discounting it as a factor,We have BANKERS who do it now.

So atrocities committed before we had electricity don't count???

That might be the funniest and silliest thing I have ever read.

posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 10:15 AM
a reply to: OpinionatedB

You really think bergdahl is the best Obama could do to aid the enemy? Assuming Obama wanted to aid terrorism. The best the presedent of the most powerful country in the world could do is hand over five guys? If Obama wanted to he could give the enemy any info he wanted.. He does have it all.

Obama never would have pushed for the troop surge a few years back if that were the case. IMHO that's just crazy talk.

That said, discussing how horriblely one sided the prisoner swap was is 100% fair.

Discussing the thought that this could lead to more kidnappings for ransom is fair.

But acting like this is impeachable or proof Obama is secretly a terrorist plant and bergdahl is PROOF, is foolish.

I really don't think I'm picking and choosing. I think his comrades were mad at his weakness ( weather moral or mental) and furious at what his weakness lead to. The most credible soldiers interviewed, the ones who knew him. Said he was a good highly motivated soldier. Who saw something that caused him to become disillusioned with the war. Then seemed to wanna check out, Maybe roaming the mountains of china. If he wanted to fight for the other side, he's taking his gun and night vision goggles with him.... All the bad stuff I've seen people who knew him say was to do with him leaving and the result of soldiers hunting for him.

posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 06:00 PM

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: smithjustinb

To claim you know absolutely everything about this situation to the point of there being no debate shows how very desperate you are to paint this situation in a certain light.

Fact: Obama didn't notify congress 30 days in advance.

That's enough ammo already. That is controversy already. That could stand on its own. That is the law that was broke by the POTUS. A law that he signed into law!

This is clear as well:

Freed Taliban Commander Vows To Return To War Against the United States.

That's the second controversial fact.

Whether or not Bowe Bergdahl intentionally deserted his post or not is unclear. However, official military investigations have concluded that that was likely the case. Considering that he conspired to desert before he left and got captured, his case against the accusations aren't as strong as the accusations.

But it doesn't matter if he deserted or not. Obama broke the law. Obama succeeded in increasing a threat to our national security (which his job description is to decrease). In summary, only a fool would argue that Obama did the right thing.
edit on 7-6-2014 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 06:28 PM
a reply to: kruphix

The Law:

1033.Requirements for certifications relating to the transfer of detainees at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to foreign countries and other foreign entities
(a)Certification required prior to transfer
(1)In general
Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (d), the Secretary of Defense may not use any amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of Defense to transfer, during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on December 31, 2014, any individual detained at Guantanamo to the custody or control of the individual’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity unless the Secretary submits to Congress the certification described in subsection (b) not later than 30 days before the transfer of the individual.

Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any action taken by the Secretary to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to effectuate an order affecting the disposition of the individual that is issued by a court or competent tribunal of the United States having lawful jurisdiction (which the Secretary shall notify Congress of promptly after issuance).

Whenever the Secretary makes a determination under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress, not later than 30 days before the transfer of the individual concerned, the following:

(A)A copy of the determination and the waiver concerned.
(B)A statement of the basis for the determination, including—
(i)an explanation why the transfer is in the national security interests of the United States;
(ii)in the case of a waiver of subparagraph (D) or (E) of subsection (b)(1), an explanation why it is not possible to certify that the risks addressed in the paragraph to be waived have been completely eliminated; and
(iii)a classified summary of—
(I)the individual’s record of cooperation while in the custody of or under the effective control of the Department of Defense; and
(II)the agreements and mechanisms in place to provide for continuing cooperation.
(C)A summary of the alternative actions to be taken to address the underlying purpose of, and to mitigate the risks addressed in, the paragraph or subsection to be waived.
(D)The assessment required by subsection (b)(2).

Notice the part I put in bold. The law requires that a report be written to congress 30 days before a prisoner is released from Guantanamo Bay that includes "an explanation why the transfer is in the national security interests of the United States". What we have here is a situation where the release of prisoner DID increase the risk to national security and IS NOT in the interest of national seurity, which would have been mitigated had the president notified congress as the law PLAINLY STATES that he is required to do- 30 days in advance.
edit on 7-6-2014 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 05:56 PM
The lies from the Obama regime just never stop.

Though I think the whole negotiating with terrorist thing is disgusting, I am delighting in the backpedaling that is going on right now.

Obama is being made to look like the incompetent that he has been from the beginning.

2014 mid-term elections are going to go to Republicans in a massive tsunami wave election.

top topics

<< 12  13  14   >>

log in