The Gitmo 5

Black Mamba

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
62
What do you think about Obama trading 5 terrorists at Gitmo for Bergdahl?

Some conservatives I know think its "treason" that Obama did that... what do you guys think?
 
What do you think about Obama trading 5 terrorists at Gitmo for Bergdahl?

Some conservatives I know think its "treason" that Obama did that... what do you guys think?

Glad to know 5 men are out of that place..

Now set the rest of them free and close it down.
 
True, but aren't the ones who just got released part of the Taliban? So why would we let them go if they're terrorists and enemies of the U.S.?

WTH should we care if they are Taliban? no Taliban ever did anything to me. I suppose if I made my living off of opium derivatives or liked to bang bacha boys the Taliban might bother me; but I don't.
 
Last edited:
WTH should we care if they are Taliban? no Taliban ever did anything to me. I suppose if I made my living off of opium derivatives or liked to bang bacha boys the Taliban might bother me; but I don't.
The Taliban terrorists are enemies to the U.S., they will target Americans if we let them go free. Are you ok with that?

Also: should we be in the habit of negotiating with terrorists? I think NOT.
 
The Taliban terrorists are enemies to the U.S., they will target Americans if we let them go free. Are you ok with that?

Also: should we be in the habit of negotiating with terrorists? I think NOT.

Go tell it to Reagan and all the others who apparently had no problems at all when it came to "negotiating" with Taliban "terrorists" - erm, excuse me, I mean mujahideen "freedom fighters" - when it suited their purposes to do so. Or you could just go back to drinking whatever flavor of Kool-Aid the US government happens to be passing around at the moment ...

(And who is this "we" of whom you speak? I haven't "negotiated" anything with anybody.)
 
The Taliban terrorists are enemies to the U.S., they will target Americans if we let them go free. Are you ok with that?

Also: should we be in the habit of negotiating with terrorists? I think NOT.

You mean they'll target Americans in their nation.

The Taliban doesn't care one damn bit about the United States. They do, however, get seriously irate over foreign nations sending troops into their country.
 
We practically have terrorists running our Government, and they have far more power than five dudes we had locked up in Gitmo.
 
The Taliban terrorists are enemies to the U.S., they will target Americans if we let them go free. Are you ok with that?
Also: should we be in the habit of negotiating with terrorists? I think NOT.

I fail to see how members of a political group in Afghanistan are anything I should worry about.
 
We can actually get at Bill Richardson, Christina Rocca and George W. Bush. Let's throw them in Gitmo...

December 4, 1997: Taliban Representatives Visit Unocal in Texas
Representatives of the Taliban are invited guests to the Texas headquarters of Unocal to negotiate their support for the pipeline. Future President George W. Bush is Governor of Texas at the time.
The Taliban appear to agree to a $ 2 bn pipeline deal, but will do the deal only if the US officially recognizes the Taliban regime. The Taliban meet with US officials. According to the Daily Telegraph, "the US government, which in the past has branded the Taliban's policies against women and children 'despicable,' appears anxious to please the fundamentalists to clinch the lucrative pipeline contract."

A BBC regional correspondent says that "the proposal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan is part of an international scramble to profit from developing the rich energy resources of the Caspian Sea." [BBC, 12/4/1997; Daily Telegraph, 12/14/1997]
It has been claimed that the Taliban meet with Enron officials while in Texas (see 1996-September 11, 2001). Enron, headquartered in Texas, has a large financial interest in the pipeline at the time (see June 24, 1996).
The Taliban also visit Thomas Gouttierre, an academic at the University of Nebraska, who is a consultant for Unocal and also has been paid by the CIA for his work in Afghanistan (see 1984-1994 and December 1997). Gouttierre takes them on a visit to Mt. Rushmore. [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 328-329]

February 12, 1998: Unocal VP Advocates Afghan Pipeline Before Congress
Unocal Vice President John J. Maresca -- later to become a Special Ambassador to Afghanistan -- testifies before the House of Representatives that until a single, unified, friendly government is in place in Afghanistan, the trans-Afghan pipeline will not be built.
He suggests that with a pipeline through Afghanistan, the Caspian basin could produce 20 % of all the non-OPEC oil in the world by 2010. [US Congress, 2/12/1998]

Mid-April 1998: US Official Meets with Taliban; Promote Afghan Pipeline
Bill Richardson, the US Ambassador to the UN, meets Taliban officials in Kabul. (All such meetings are illegal, because the US still officially recognizes the government the Taliban ousted as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan.)
US officials at the time call the oil and gas pipeline project a "fabulous opportunity" and are especially motivated by the "prospect of circumventing Iran, which offers another route for the pipeline." [Boston Globe, 9/20/2001]
Richardson tries to persuade the Taliban to hand over bin Laden to the US, promising to end the international isolation of the Taliban if they cooperate. [Reeve, 1999, pp. 195]

July 21, 2001: US Official Threatens Possible Military Action Against Taliban by October if Pipeline Is Not Pursued
Three former American officials, Tom Simons (former US Ambassador to Pakistan), Karl Inderfurth (former Deputy Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs), and Lee Coldren (former State Department expert on South Asia) meet with Pakistani and Russian intelligence officers in a Berlin hotel. [Salon, 8/16/2002] This is the third of a series of back-channel conferences called "brainstorming on Afghanistan."
Taliban representatives sat in on previous meetings, but boycotted this one due to worsening tensions. However, the Pakistani ISI relays information from the meeting to the Taliban. [Guardian, 9/22/2001]

At the meeting, Coldren passes on a message from Bush officials. He later says, "I think there was some discussion of the fact that the United States was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action." [Guardian, 9/26/2001]
Accounts vary, but former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik later says he is told by senior American officials at the meeting that military action to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan is planned to "take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest." The goal is to kill or capture both bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar, topple the Taliban regime, and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place. Uzbekistan andRussia would also participate.

Naik also says, "It was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taliban." [BBC, 9/18/2001]
One specific threat made at this meeting is that the Taliban can choose between "carpets of bombs" -- an invasion -- or "carpets of gold" -- the pipeline. [Brisard and Dasquie, 2002, pp. 43]
Naik contends that Tom Simons made the "carpets" statement. Simons claims, "It's possible that a mischievous American participant, after several drinks, may have thought it smart to evoke gold carpets and carpet bombs. Even Americans can't resist the temptation to be mischievous." Naik and the other American participants deny that the pipeline was an issue at the meeting. [Salon, 8/16/2002]

August 2, 2001: US Official Secretly Meets Taliban Ambassador in Last Attempt to Secure Pipeline Deal
Christina Rocca, Director of Asian Affairs at the State Department, secretly meets the Taliban ambassador in Islamabad, apparently in a last ditch attempt to secure a pipeline deal. Rocca was previously in charge of contacts with Islamic guerrilla groups at the CIA, and oversaw the delivery of Stinger missiles to Afghan mujahidin in the 1980s. [Irish Times, 11/19/2001; Brisard and Dasquie, 2002, pp. 45; Salon, 2/8/2002]

http://www.gasandoil.com/news/n_america/1dbd3d05d004167aae755fd6bb11264d
 
Last edited:
Also: should we be in the habit of negotiating with terrorists? I think NOT.

Perhaps,, but we do, We vote for them,, hire them and pay tax to support them..

The only terrorists that concern me are the ones right here.
The US Government and agents of the US Government terrorize me daily.

And the last time I negotiated with them I got a couple months probation and another Felony on my record.

But I was able to keep my farm and stay out of prison.
 
The Taliban terrorists are enemies to the U.S., they will target Americans if we let them go free. Are you ok with that?

Also: should we be in the habit of negotiating with terrorists? I think NOT.
How do you know what they will do in the future? Where is the morality in locking people in cages for actions they haven't done yet?
 
Back
Top