It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Taliban Commander: More Kidnappings to Come After Bergdahl Deal

page: 5
26
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Oh Noes, Evil Democrat Obama does something the GOP has done too, but let's demonize him and let bygones be bygones huh?
edit on 6-6-2014 by mymymy because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: mymymy

Hopefully, stupid democrats invade afghanistan and are kidnapped - maybe we can trade obozo, holder, pelosi, ried - my god, there's a whole long list of democrats we could trade for kidnappees.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Makes me sick that the president of the United States would even consider negotiations with terrorists.

What are you doing Obama?

If this guy really left the base he was stationed at by his own free will, and was trying to find Al Queada / Taliban, I say let him rot.

He must of known a little somethin somethin for him to be so confident they wouldn't just behead him and post it on youtube.

Same goes for Obama trading how many terrorists? 5? For a single deserter..

I don't know, the whole situation just seems a little sketchy.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 11:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: mymymy
Oh Noes, Evil Democrat Obama does something the GOP has done too, but let's demonize him and let bygones be bygones huh?


funny how how your source doesn't give any specific incidents/occasions where people that have sworn a oath to attack and kill U.S. citizens that were in U.S. custody after being captured in battle, were released.

it only links to four incidents/occasions.

1. Carter, who only agreed to unfreeze 11 billion in iranian assets after a failed rescue attempt. notice that he attempted to rescue them first. after the failure the element of surprise was gone so the risk of harm to the 52 rose.
Carter had to be one of the worst presidents ever, but after the failed attempt to rescue them that was the smartest thing he could have done.

2. Reagan, although he did authorize the sell of weapon to iran, he did not release or help terrorist in any form or fashion.
here is a quote from the very liberal PBS The American Experience.



In 1985, while Iran and Iraq were at war, Iran made a secret request to buy weapons from the United States. McFarlane sought Reagan's approval, in spite of the embargo against selling arms to Iran. McFarlane explained that the sale of arms would not only improve U.S. relations with Iran, but might in turn lead to improved relations with Lebanon, increasing U.S. influence in the troubled Middle East. Reagan was driven by a different obsession. He had become frustrated at his inability to secure the release of the seven American hostages being held by Iranian terrorists in Lebanon. As president, Reagan felt that "he had the duty to bring those Americans home," and he convinced himself that he was not negotiating with terrorists. While shipping arms to Iran violated the embargo, dealing with terrorists violated Reagan's campaign promise never to do so. Reagan had always been admired for his honesty.
General Article: The Iran-Contra Affair


no matter what you think Reagan's involvement was in the whole contra part, again at no time did he release any terrorist that have sworn a oath to kill U.S citizens.

3. Clinton, he never did any deals with The IRA. he only allowed their political wing to raise money in the states after the after the I.R.A. declared a cease-fire in Northern Ireland.

here is a a little article.



Until last year, the United States maintained a generation-long ban on official contacts with Sinn Fein, which it had condemned as a terrorist organization for condoning decades of bombings, assassinations and other violence by the I.R.A. Mr. Clinton ended that blanket prohibition after the I.R.A. declared a cease-fire in Northern Ireland last September, but until today he had deferred to British sensitivities by barring Mr. Adams from raising money here. The President has now lifted that final barrier, aides said, because he felt that Sinn Fein was living up to its commitment to seek peace by peaceful means. Today Mr. Adams sent a statement to the White House saying his party would discuss disarmament with British ministers. [ Page A12. ] The aides said Mr. Clinton also believed that the United States might gain some leverage with the Sinn Fein that could help to open the way to direct talks between Sinn Fein and the British Government.Clinton to Permit Fund-Raising In the U.S. by Top I.R.A. Figure


again no terrorist that swore a oath to kill U.S. citizens were released.

4. Bush, the talks and deal making done with the Sunnis, was done to try and unite the iraqi people.



This new concept, known as “bottom-up reconciliation,” has increasingly crept into White House and Pentagon talking points — reframing a plan that was originally supposed to tamp down sectarian conflict and pave the way for deal making by securing Baghdad and creating a stable national government.


now the article calls this a talking point, but you got to look at the source and wonder what their leanings are.
and again there were no terrorist released that swore a oath to kill U.S. citizens.

no at no time in the history of the United States has a president ever put his fellow citizens at risk like this.
edit on 7-6-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

The Taliban are not the official government of Afghanistan and never have been. They are a terrorist organization so all previous comparison to other Presidents are off base. In all of those instances the US government was dealing with a foreign government. The Taliban are not a nation state.

That is not so in this case.

Further evidence of that is the issue we have had when it comes to dealing with these groups when we capture them. The title POW does not apply (imo but Obama disagrees) since they meet absolutely none of the requirements for that designation. Hence the enemy combatant bew haha.

If these groups want their captured back then I say do it. We will fly them back to the country they are from, slide open the door at 20k feet and have them deplane.
edit on 6-6-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Did anybody really believe they'd just go home.
Obama is an Idiot!


One of the five Taliban leaders freed from Guantanamo Bay in return for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's release has pledged to return to fight Americans in Afghanistan, according to a fellow militant and a relative.

"After arriving in Qatar, Noorullah Noori kept insisting he would go to Afghanistan and fight American forces there,” a Taliban commander told NBC News via telephone from Afghanistan.



Noori pushed to return to Afghanistan after learning that the U.S. had provided written assurances that no country would arrest any of the five freed for a year as long as they lived peacefully, one of his relatives told NBC News by telephone from Afghanistan.

Linky



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

The Taliban are not the official government of Afghanistan and never have been. They are a terrorist organization so all previous comparison to other Presidents are off base. In all of those instances the US government was dealing with a foreign government. The Taliban are not a nation state.

That is not so in this case.

Further evidence of that is the issue we have had when it comes to dealing with these groups when we capture them. The title POW does not apply (imo but Obama disagrees) since they meet absolutely none of the requirements for that designation. Hence the enemy combatant bew haha.

If these groups want their captured back then I say do it. We will fly them back to the country they are from, slide open the door at 20k feet and have them deplane.


well technically the taliban were not a world recognized government, but they were for all practical purposes,the government of most of afghanistan before the U.S. invasion.

from the wiki, the date they took control.



The Taliban entered Kabul on September 27, 1996, and established the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.
Taliban


that's who and why bush tried to get the taliban to give up bin laden.


edit on 6-6-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Well I think I know why he acted unilaterally without seeking senate approval. .He knew they'd have said no.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 02:00 AM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

right.. Only a few governments recognized them as the government in Afghanistan. THe United Nations and the other remainder of the world did not.

Secondly the Taliban did not control the entire country and we know this because of the northern Alliance.

We negotiated with terrorists, not a nation state or government.

The ramifications Obama just created are going to be lost on him due to his level of arrogance and ignorance in areas he knows absolutely nothing about.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 01:37 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan




Meanwhile the 6 soldiers that died trying to find AWOL Private Bergdahl are still dead.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 04:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan
TIME - Taliban Commander: More Kidnappings to Come After Bergdahl Deal

A Taliban commander close to the negotiations over the release of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl told TIME Thursday that the deal made to secure Bergdahl’s release has made it more appealing for fighters to capture American soldiers and other high-value targets.

“It’s better to kidnap one person like Bergdahl than kidnapping hundreds of useless people,” the commander said, speaking by telephone on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media. “It has encouraged our people. Now everybody will work hard to capture such an important bird.”

The commander has been known to TIME for several years and has consistently supplied reliable information about Bergdahl’s captivity.


OK so a taliban commander who has been known to TIME for several years and has consistently supplied reliable info.. ok so how the hell are TIME in touch with the taliban? They have anonymous phone conversations with this taliban commander, what the f***? Someone wants to ask TIME why they are more interested in conversing with the taliban for a story rather than help bring them down... this stinks



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: pr0ph3t

The same way Daniel Pearl was in contact with them prior to them murdering him. Media is not supposed to be an instrument of the state (like Doctors).

Secondly I think -
Come left 5 degrees and fire for effect should follow up any of those meetings.

Finally these groups, just like governments, want their 15 minutes on the evening news to spin. The infidels must die but not before one of the reporters gets the Taliban story out.
edit on 8-6-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   

One of the five Taliban leaders freed from Guantanamo Bay in return for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's release has pledged to return to fight Americans in Afghanistan, according to a fellow militant and a relative.


Someone send John Kerry the memo .... the freak'n idiot said this ...

Kerry "Baloney' To Think Released Taliban Will Kill More Americans
I swear to God this guy is an absolute moron.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan


One of the five Taliban leaders freed from Guantanamo Bay in return for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's release has pledged to return to fight Americans in Afghanistan, according to a fellow militant and a relative.


Someone send John Kerry the memo .... the freak'n idiot said this ...

Kerry "Baloney' To Think Released Taliban Will Kill More Americans
I swear to God this guy is an absolute moron.


Part of the problem FF. The politicians we have in office today, for the most part. Are disconnected from the reality of the people they work for. The live in a bubble of networking with their own kind, for gain of money and power. They have lost sight of what their job was in the first place. To serve, we the people.

They feel totally protected in their gold lined bubble, only rubbing elbows with the other bubble dwellers. They can't conceive of any danger to themselves, other being caught in some slimy backroom deal. Their biggest fear is losing their position, so spend most of their time, weaving the structure to keep them in office, or sucking up to those who can further their goals.

The thought of any personal harm coming to them, from the release of very powerful Taliban leaders, isn't even in their bubble of reality. Only the little masses have to worry about that....not the rich and powerful.

Des



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Another day.... another lie by the Whitehouse.

The White House has pissed Feinstein (D-CA Intelligence Committee) off so bad she is not hiding her anger.

When the exchange occurred the White House stated they did not notify Congress because of Bergdahl's health. When it came out he was fed and cared for they changed the story. They did not notify Congress because if they had and it leaked out, the Taliban would have killed Bergdahl. Why kill the guy who is allowing you to get 5 top commanders in exchange?

Sen. Feinstein questions White House claims on Bergdahl's health, death threat


The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee raised questions Sunday about the Obama administration argument that Congress wasn’t informed about the prisoner swap for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl because he might have been killed if the deal was made public.

The California Democrat told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that she and the committee’s top Republican, Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss, had been briefed previously about the operation and kept that information confidential.

“We understand the security of that, we have never violated that," said Feinstein, who has raised doubts about the so-called “credible threat” on Bergdahl’s life several times since Congress was briefed about his June 5 release in exchange for five Taliban detainees at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

“I have heard of none,” she continued.

Feinstein also raised questions about the administration’s original argument that Bergdahl’s health was in imminent danger, considering the Defense Department told Fox News and other news organizations this weekend that he is being treated for some nutritional deficits that would be considered normal after being in captivity for five years.

“I think his rapid recovery now may indicate he wasn’t close to death,” she said.

Chambliss said he also has heard no intelligence that supports the argument.


Click link for remainder of article.

This administration lies so much I honestly don't know how they can keep track.
edit on 8-6-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   


Tune in Monday night @ 10pm EST on atsliveradio.com



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Top intelligence official claims: Obama admin. funded terror network ‘for the next ten years’



.......................A senior intelligence official with intimate knowledge of the years-long effort to locate and rescue Bergdahl told the Washington Free Beacon that the details of that exchange do not add up.

The official, who requested anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the press, speculated that a cash ransom was paid to the Haqqani Network to get the group to free the prisoner.

The Obama administration taliban-bergdahl-trade-officials-say/” target=”_blank”>reportedly considered offering cash for his release as late as December 2013. The State Department has repeatedly refused to say whether the deal that released Bergdahl involved any cash payment.

The ransom plan was reportedly abandoned, but the intelligence official insisted that there is reason to believe that cash changed hands as part of the deal.

“The Haqqanis could give a rat’s ass about prisoners,” the official said, referring to the Haqqani Network, a designated terrorist group in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the five Guantanamo Bay prisoners who were freed in exchange for Bergdahl’s release.

“The people that are holding Bergdahl want[ed] cash and someone paid it to them,” he said.


Click link for remainder of article

The other shoe drops...

Apparently their is a difference between the Taliban and the Haqqani network. The Taliban are an ideology and the Haqqani are apparently highway robbers using religion as a means to get personal wealth.

The 2 groups apparently don't get along either, so releasing 1 Haqqani and 4 Taliban prisoners has some scratching their heads.

I am starting to wonder if we are seeing the end of Obama's administration. We are seeing senior Democrats who are now publicly criticizing the President and contradicting White House Statements on what was going on.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Obama statement ... OH. MY. GOD.

Obama on Bergdahl Release


I make no apologies for it. It was a unanimous decision among my principals in my government, and a view that was shared by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This is something I would do again and will continue to do whenever I have an opportunity.


It was a unanimous decision among my principals in my government


Unanimous?? Hell no.

HIS GOVERNMENT??? HIS?? He is the king of his own government????

AND HE SAID HE'D CONTINUE TO DO THIS WHENEVER HE HAS THE OPPORTUNITY. HE JUST SIGNALED THE TALIBAN TO TAKE MORE HOSTAGES BECAUSE HE'S GOIING TO RELEASE ALL THE TERRORISTS WHENEVER HE CAN


edit on 6/9/2014 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 06:22 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

In all fairness it is HIS government. He stopped using the other 2 branches a year or more back. He rules by Executive orders. The cabinet was unanimous in that they said no to this ACME scheme of Obama's going back to when it was first suggested during his 1st term in office.

Exactly at what point will impeachment be taken seriously?



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join