Bergdahl - The Hypocrisy and Hate Must End

06 Jun 2014 11:53 #61 by netdude
Ugly rw partisan bs in thread kinda what I would have expected form some of the characters here...

Former top Afghanistan commander retired Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal wants those critical of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl not to rush to judgment before “we know the facts.”

“We don’t leave Americans behind. That’s unequivocal,” McChrystal said during a Yahoo News interview published Wednesday. McChrystal was commander of the International Security Assistance Force and U.S. Forces Afghanistan when Bergdahl disappeared in June 2009.
He also pushed Americans not to “judge” the soldier until all the facts are settled.

“One of the great things about America is we should not judge until we know the facts,” he said.


This is how true American's SHOULD respond...

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/s ... z33smqoay6



http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/s ... 07466.html

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

06 Jun 2014 12:00 #62 by Cathy_Lee
Hey, if people didn't judge before they know the facts, all the Internet comments would be gone on everything. LOL

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

06 Jun 2014 12:06 #63 by FredHayek

ComputerBreath wrote: OK Guys...Bergdahl legally cannot be a deserter...EVER. You have to be AWOL for 30 days in a row before you are a deserter. We do not even know if his duty status was ever AWOL and if it was, he certainly was not AWOL for 30 consecutive days prior to being put into duty status POW/MIA.

Even if he was AWOL, that usually is not a court-martial offense. Unless they prove he was sabotaging the base or subverting his unit or spying for the Taliban.

IMO He may be charged with Article 15 offenses such as dereliction of duty or failure to follow orders and will be mustered out of the service.

I know from experience that if a military person doesn't fit in, they can and will be labeled by their co-workers and peers.

We do not know the whole story. We will likely not know the whole story...ever.

I am not defending Bergdahl and his actions...I am not defending what our President did. I am defending the system, knowing that it will take a while to get it all worked out.

Yes, I get angry when he is called a "deserter"...in some people's opinions he may be, but legally he is not. Period.

And I am getting more angry at people who don't know and who've never been anywhere near the military saying what our President did in getting him released was "stupid". We simply do not know the whole story.

Kinda reminds me of when Patricia Hearst was pardoned...I was very young but I remember the outrage about that.

OK, so the only reason Bergdahl doesn't count as a deserter is because he was captured before the 30 days was up by the Taliban? Pretty weak sauce you are bringing. Legally you are right, but it doesn't look the guy was just taking a three day bender in Kabul.

Like charging someone with attempted murder but only because he was a horrible shot.

Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

06 Jun 2014 12:24 #64 by LadyJazzer
If he's legally right, then it isn't "weak"... Your Obama-Derangement-Syndrome spin doesn't change it.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

06 Jun 2014 12:37 #65 by ScienceChic
Off-topic: I'm going to do a little exercise here, sorry to pick on you STDS, but you and PrintSmith tend to get each other worked up and provide great examples. :) As I mentioned in a previous post in this thread, thoughtful, respectful debate is something we all have control over right here and attracting more participants to this forum, and the site, is not only more fun for all of us who participate here, but helps support this business as well - a win-win for everyone.

One of the tools I posted in the Easy and Effective Tools To Deal With Internet Trolls thread specifically addresses this issue - when there is some good info, but it's presented with some less-than-desirable, turn-posters-off judgements. From this video , we get an idea of how to improve our posts.
In her job, the presenter has to help people with internet problems, which can mean dealing with testy people. This was an email that she received. It started off insulting, but had good info.


She decided to focus on, as she puts it, the "human" aspect of the troll. Rather than come back with Response #1, or even Response #2 (which I'm actually kinda doing here so my apologies for that, but deliberately don't do often, because as she says, it's still feeding the troll aspect of the person. Maybe they're just having a bad day? Maybe not, but really is there any need to fuel the negativity?), reply only to the good info with Response #3. Viola:


Now, if we apply that to STDS's post, here's what an improved response looks like. It still rebuts PS's claim with facts, providing great information that many others probably appreciate learning if they are passionate about politics, and we can have a dialog that encourages more people to participate here because they won't feel like they're going to be belittled and attacked for saying something.

Something the Dog Said wrote: [spoiler:1g9aip2e][s:1g9aip2e]Once again Printsmith makes up bs and tries to pass it off as his "facts". For example, he claims that[/s:1g9aip2e][/spoiler:1g9aip2e] the " law" requiring 30 day notice for Gitmo transfers was passed by Democrats to prevent Bush from moving detainees. Even though the rule was only passed last year as part of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013. Or that when signing the Act, the President, just as Reagan and Bush repeatedly did, added a statement that the Act did not apply on situations where it violated his constitutional powers as commander in chief. Or that even Boehner has admitted that the President informed congressional leaders of the transfer of the detainees as early as December in exchange for the POW.
[s:1g9aip2e][spoiler:1g9aip2e]But hey why let the facts get in the way.[/spoiler:1g9aip2e][/s:1g9aip2e]


As an added bonus, I'm going to do the same with my good friend netdude, who is very intelligent, generous, friendly, and caring, but you wouldn't know that unless you've gotten to know him in person because he gets frustrated easily when he perceives others attacking his friends. :biggrin: :Love:

netdude wrote: Ugly rw partisan bs in thread [s:1g9aip2e][spoiler:1g9aip2e]kinda what I would have expected form some of the characters here...[/spoiler:1g9aip2e][/s:1g9aip2e]

Former top Afghanistan commander retired Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal wants those critical of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl not to rush to judgment before “we know the facts.”

“We don’t leave Americans behind. That’s unequivocal,” McChrystal said during a Yahoo News interview published Wednesday. McChrystal was commander of the International Security Assistance Force and U.S. Forces Afghanistan when Bergdahl disappeared in June 2009.
He also pushed Americans not to “judge” the soldier until all the facts are settled.

“One of the great things about America is we should not judge until we know the facts,” he said.


This is how true American's SHOULD respond...

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/s ... z33smqoay6

Now, any of the above hidden comments aren't worthy of The Ring, but the little snarky asides, snide comments, and indirect labeling, on top of not being able to tell tone and it being far too easy to take things personally all adds up to driving people away from participating. These posts aren't Ring worthy, unless we wanted to go all polly-anna-ish like some sites do, and make this place dull and boring and restrictive, where people fear to say anything in passion. If we can all (and yes, even I) make more of an effort with our own posts, the returns could be awesome - anyone game? :ThumbsUp:

Back to our regularly scheduled topic. Thanks for listening!

"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

06 Jun 2014 12:46 #66 by FredHayek

LadyJazzer wrote: If he's legally right, then it isn't "weak"... Your Obama-Derangement-Syndrome spin doesn't change it.


Wouldn't that actually be Bergdahl derangement syndrome?

It sounds like the soldier had some issues with the American mission in Afghanistan. And after reading a story from a former pre-army roommate of him, it sounds like the man volunteered to help out the Afghan people but wasn't able to in the ways he wanted. But to abandon his post while on guard duty in a combat zone sounds like it should be treated more harshly than oversleeping on a three day pass.

Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

06 Jun 2014 12:55 #67 by ComputerBreath

FredHayek wrote: OK, so the only reason Bergdahl doesn't count as a deserter is because he was captured before the 30 days was up by the Taliban? Pretty weak sauce you are bringing. Legally you are right, but it doesn't look the guy was just taking a three day bender in Kabul.

Like charging someone with attempted murder but only because he was a horrible shot.


There is only one reason Bergdahl doesn't count, legally, as a deserter. How is a true legal meaning "weak sauce"? We do not know what Bergdahl was doing...we surmise--we guess based on what we've heard from others...but we do not know. He could have been sleep-walking or taking a nature walk because the latrines were all full.

If I do not kill you, even if it was my intent, I cannot be charged with any degree of murder, but I'll play your game: If I were to aim my weapon at you and fire and miss because I'm a horrible shot, would that be attempted second degree murder or attempted first degree murder? Or maybe attempted manslaughter? Or it could even be classified as self-defense. Each means a different thing...and yes, I'm splitting hairs...but we are talking about legalities here, not suppositions.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

06 Jun 2014 13:50 #68 by LadyJazzer

FredHayek wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: If he's legally right, then it isn't "weak"... Your Obama-Derangement-Syndrome spin doesn't change it.


Wouldn't that actually be Bergdahl derangement syndrome?


If I'd meant Bergdahl, I would have said Bergdahl... No, this is about your ODS, and your spin doesn't change it.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

06 Jun 2014 14:34 #69 by FredHayek
Oh, OK. Now can I pick on Susan Rice for walking back her Sunday talking points about Bergdahl being a very good soldier?
Or how now the new Team Obama talking point is that Bergdahl was going to be killed by the Taliban if we didn't trade for him right now secretly? Huxley said if the excuses keep changing or are added to, it is more likely they are lies. And Team Obama does that all the time, throw up trial balloons and when they are found not to hold air, they create new ones.

Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

06 Jun 2014 17:58 #70 by LOL
"If we can all (and yes, even I) make more of an effort with our own posts, the returns could be awesome - anyone game?

Back to our regularly scheduled [snarkfest]. Thanks for [playing] listening! "




Haha good luck with that one, the children will do what they do, and they don't give a flip! LOL

Such antics do not amount to a worthy response! They are like fusty nuts with no kernels.
And pribbling fly-bitten mumble-news spreaders! Surly flap-mouthed giglets! Warped motley-minded clack-dishes! Such bugs and goblins in the world. Go mend, go mend!

If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2

Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.169 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum
sponsors
© My Mountain Town (new)
Google+