the Taliban

[CUDA]

So now it seems the White house says the Taliban is not a terrorist group but is actually an armed insurgency. That is what they are using as justification for swapping 5 Taliban "freedom fighters" for an American deserter.

but correct me if I'm wrong. Wasnt the Taliban involved in the 9/11 attacks? Dont they blow up girls schools? Dont they drive vans with explosives into crowded market place?
sounds like terrorists to me.

[callmeslick]

sad to say my friend, you ARE wrong. The Taliban, at that point in time was the established government of Afghanistan, supported by the US, as an aside by mutual agreements. Being short on cash after decades of war, they sold themselves to Al Qaeda, flush with Saudi and Egyptian hard cash. The DID allow Al Q to essentially take over large swaths in the Eastern provinces, but had ZERO involvement in the training, planning or execution. I'm not winging a guess here. There is massive documentation by historians and other scholars.

[callmeslick]

now, as to current status, were I from the Pakistan/Afghanistan border regions, I would consider them terrorists. They are NOT, in any way, International terrorists, as they have never acted in any known fashion outside their native region.

[woodchip]

But they do pass between Pakistan and Afghanistan thus are international in scope.

[callmeslick]

in that region(and, in fact, this is a Western mindset that causes problems from Palestine eastward), those boundry lines are mere Western constructs.
To the minds of those people, the tribal land crosses those mountains to the valleys on either side.

[CUDA]

sad to say my friend, you ARE wrong. The Taliban, at that point in time was the established government of Afghanistan, supported by the US, as an aside by mutual agreements. Being short on cash after decades of war, they sold themselves to Al Qaeda, flush with Saudi and Egyptian hard cash. The DID allow Al Q to essentially take over large swaths in the Eastern provinces, but had ZERO involvement in the training, planning or execution. I'm not winging a guess here. There is massive documentation by historians and other scholars.

The Taliban's claim that it had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attack is fantastic, as Osama bin Laden, the slain emir of al Qaeda who ordered the attack, and his organization were based in Afghanistan when the attack took place. Bin Laden himself admitted in an interview that he helped plan the attack. A video of the interview was found in Nangarhar province in eastern Afghanistan after the US invasion [see PDF transcript here], and is believed to have been recorded in Kandahar province, where bin Laden had a compound.

In the interview, bin Laden admitted that he was "at a camp of one of the brother's guards in Kandahar" when the "brother" told him of the dream he had about an attack that seemed to describe 9/11. Bin Laden said he was "was worried that maybe the secret would be revealed if everyone starts seeing it in their dream" and ordered the brother not to discuss it.

All of the 9/11 hijackers were trained in al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. These same camps were used to train Taliban fighters, as well as al Qaeda operatives who fought alongside the Taliban. Similarly, terrorists involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, al Qaeda's millennium bomb plots, the failed Dec. 2001 shoe bomb attack and numerous other plots were all trained in the Taliban's Afghanistan.

UHM you were saying??

[callmeslick]

umm, I was SAYING exactly what you just posted. NOTHING in that says a damn thing about Taliban involvement past the government providing the Saudi and Egyptian nationals a place to live and train. As I said, they sold out land and oversight out of a desperation for money. You provided, CUDA, no proof whatsoever of Taliban involvement with the planning, nor the attack itself. You'll never grasp the real issues if you cannot even figure out who the real players were.

[callmeslick]

blaming the taliban for 9/11 is like blaming Montana for the Unibomber

[Spidey]

I wouldn’t have a problem with that definition…if:

1. They attacked only military or government targets
2. They didn’t use terrorist tactics to suppress the local populations.

So, definition shemefinition…if it looks like a duck….

[callmeslick]

if you look at how the Taliban acted, when they were an actual governing body, after the Russians beat it out of town, they conducted themselves the same way. Not terrorism there, either, just sheer brutality. They represent an extreme type of conservatism in that area of the world that wishes to keep everything as it was in 1500 or so. Sadly, the area for several centuries was one of the more enlightened parts of the Muslim world, due to trade and commerce with other cultures(Silk Road, etc). Tragic, and I'm not excusing for a moment what they do. All that relates to CUDAs initial post is that they aren't really a threat to us over here, and anyone we're still holding from a decade ago ought to be allowed home. Sadly, what tendency they would have to want to attack us outside the region would likely have been a result of how they were treated BY us.

[woodchip]

Slick they are a threat if they allow other terrorist organizations to base out of their country...which is what they did with AQ.

[Will Robinson]

It's a silly debate.

'The Taliban engage in terrorist activities but they aren't terrorists' -The Obama Administration

Other than being able to say they traded five captured insurgents for a deserter instead of saying they traded five captured terrorists for one deserter what purpose is served by changing the classification?

[CUDA]

Interestingly. The Pakistan taliban is listed on the U.S. State department FTO (foreign terrorist organization) list.

so the administration calls them the terrorists without being the terrorists.
They harbored AQ and Bin Ladin who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks.
they actively trained in camps alongside AQ
they are separated by a mountain range from a listed (samename)terrorist group the just murdered 132 school kids.
yadda yadda yadda.

but now suddenly when we trade 5 TERRORISTS for an American solder / deserter, who is about to be charged with desertion. The administration stumbles (if you watch the video you'll see) over its words the try and classify them as something other then what they really are. Pathetic

[vision]

I think it's a great idea to stop calling everyone a terrorist because the word is losing it's power. Today, anyone who works against US interests is a terrorist and that makes no sense. The line between terrorist, terrorist organization, political movement, and legitimate party rule will always be blurry and people need to understand this. In some cases, any given group of people can be both at the same time. We need to stop the "War on Terror" because it is impossible to win, just like the war on drugs. The word terrorist is simply a buzzword these days and it is a step in the right direction for US leaders to recognize the problem with classifying everyone that way. Naturally, all the haters will scream "it's just Obama's smooth politics and lies" but yeah, that's THE ★■◆●ing POINT of labeling someone a terrorist or not in the first place, and it has always been that way, with every administration, and will continue to be that way.

[Will Robinson]

I think it's a great idea to stop calling everyone a terrorist because the word is losing it's power. Today, anyone who works against US interests is a terrorist and that makes no sense. The line between terrorist, terrorist organization, political movement, and legitimate party rule will always be blurry and people need to understand this. In some cases, any given group of people can be both at the same time. We need to stop the "War on Terror" because it is impossible to win, just like the war on drugs. The word terrorist is simply a buzzword these days and it is a step in the right direction for US leaders to recognize the problem with classifying everyone that way. Naturally, all the haters will scream "it's just Obama's smooth politics and lies" but yeah, that's THE **** POINT of labeling someone a terrorist or not in the first place, and it has always been that way, with every administration, and will continue to be that way.

I agree wholeheartedly with the premise. We destroyed the tenuous merit of having a death penalty the same way.

But that doesn't excuse temporarily re-classifying a group to: 'non-terrorist-group-that-does-carry-out-terrorist-attacks', a group that our government's official designation for otherwise is, in both policy and rhetoric, clearly a "terrorist group". All in an attempt to deflect criticism for some stupid decision they made.

That is the stuff that should cause a fair amount of ridicule. And any self proclaimed 'objective media' outlets that jump to carry that leaky water bucket for the administration by not reporting on that tactic should be ashamed.

[sigma]

I think it's a great idea to stop calling everyone a terrorist because the word is losing it's power. Today, anyone who works against US interests is a terrorist and that makes no sense. The line between terrorist, terrorist organization, political movement, and legitimate party rule will always be blurry and people need to understand this. In some cases, any given group of people can be both at the same time. We need to stop the "War on Terror" because it is impossible to win, just like the war on drugs. The word terrorist is simply a buzzword these days and it is a step in the right direction for US leaders to recognize the problem with classifying everyone that way. Naturally, all the haters will scream "it's just Obama's smooth politics and lies" but yeah, that's THE **** POINT of labeling someone a terrorist or not in the first place, and it has always been that way, with every administration, and will continue to be that way.

[vision]

But that doesn't excuse temporarily re-classifying a group to: 'non-terrorist-group-that-does-carry-out-terrorist-attacks', a group that our government's official designation for otherwise is, in both policy and rhetoric, clearly a "terrorist group". All in an attempt to deflect criticism for some stupid decision they made.

The ridicule should be aimed at calling the Taliban terrorists in the first place. They aren't and never have been. They are a legitimate political party of a region who happen to be deeply violent and authoritarian, but whose work is restricted to their cultural borders. They are no threat to US national security, cannot "terrorize" the United States in any way, and have never shown an inclination to. They may, however, occasionally terrorize regions they belong to, culturally. Of course, one person's terrorist is another's revolutionary hero. Perspective here is key. I think it is time we collectively put restraints on the words terrorist and terrorism. These are important words that are being misused, distorted and diluted.

[CUDA]

Ya well the Taliban is listed on the UN official terrorist list

and as far as them being the "Legitimate government". they were only recognized by 3 nations as such. Pakistan,(where they originated) Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. so that position is wrong. and FYI they were never recognized by the US government as such.

[Tunnelcat]

Gee, and 2 of those nations, who we also call our "friends", Saudi Arabia and The United Arab Emirates (Pakistan is technically a "frenemy"), who pretty much still lives in the 12th Century with their laws on women, abhorrent human rights issues and continued criminal punishment by be-headings and the chopping off of hands, etc., are just a couple of happy peas in a pod with the Taliban now. So maybe that's why the Taliban are now no longer terrorists, "in the eyes of the U.S.", because they have the same ethics as our "friends" and we don't want to lose that flow of oil by pissing off our "friends" by calling their "friends" terrorists? Something's twisted here. No wonder the Russkies think were crazy.

[Will Robinson]

But that doesn't excuse temporarily re-classifying a group to: 'non-terrorist-group-that-does-carry-out-terrorist-attacks', a group that our government's official designation for otherwise is, in both policy and rhetoric, clearly a "terrorist group". All in an attempt to deflect criticism for some stupid decision they made.

The ridicule should be aimed at calling the Taliban terrorists in the first place. They aren't and never have been. They are a legitimate political party of a region who happen to be deeply violent and authoritarian, but whose work is restricted to their cultural borders. They are no threat to US national security, cannot "terrorize" the United States in any way, and have never shown an inclination to. They may, however, occasionally terrorize regions they belong to, culturally. Of course, one person's terrorist is another's revolutionary hero. Perspective here is key. I think it is time we collectively put restraints on the words terrorist and terrorism. These are important words that are being misused, distorted and diluted.

You have stumbled into a distinction without a difference in this case since it is the Obama Administration that officially names them terrorists...and officially names them as non terrorists that do terrorist attacks.
So regardless of which side of their mouth you prefer listening to they are full of crap.

And as for calling them a legitimate government....no, you cant go there either because the Obama administration calls them armed insurgents.
An insurgency is a group that fights from within against the legitimate government....in this case using terroristic methods...but not to be confused with terrorists...

[vision]

That is some pretty shaky thinking, CUDA.

Ya well the Taliban is listed on the UN official terrorist list

Nope, sorry. There is no official terrorism list, nor is there an official UN definition of terrorism. Popular media and untrained minds have propagated that story when in reality "the list" is a measure regarding sanctions toward Al-Qaida and anyone funding them.

and as far as them being the "Legitimate government". they were only recognized by 3 nations as such. Pakistan,(where they originated) Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. so that position is wrong. and FYI they were never recognized by the US government as such.

So, in your opinion (which is all it will be), how many nations need to recognize a political party for it to be legitimate? Those three you mentioned are not tiny players on the world stage you know.

And as for calling them a legitimate government....

It's only you and CUDA using the phrase "legitimate government," not me. Not sure why either of you care anyway, unless this is the only way to get your heart rate up. Try exercise instead, you'll feel better!

[Spidey]

All I’m getting here is…they possibly did the right thing…for the wrong reason.

[Will Robinson]

All I’m getting here is…they possibly did the right thing…for the wrong reason.

I think you are being too generous. They never set out to correct the classification. The State Dept and assorted US military departments has them as a terrorist group. Had them that way before the swap and still have them classified as a "terrorist group".

The only thing that has changed is the spokesman for the Whitehouse will call them something less threatening *if* you are asking about the five members they set free to get a deserter home that they classify as an honorable soldier.

So if the Taliban deserve to be removed from that terrorist classification it hasn't been done.

[Will Robinson]

And as for calling them a legitimate government....

It's only you and CUDA using the phrase "legitimate government," not me. Not sure why either of you care anyway, unless this is the only way to get your heart rate up. Try exercise instead, you'll feel better!

Sorry, my bad. You called them "a legitimate political party" not government.

The Whitehouse disagrees with you. They call them insurgents which by definition means they are violently trying to overthrow the legitimate government.

Generally a legitimate government that is under attack by a group engaged in terrorist tactics won't recognize those attackers as "legitimate".

The State Department has them listed as a terrorist group. I think most other non-islamofascist governments do as well.
Probably most airlines and shipping companies, global mass transit, news media, etc.
Hell, probably most kindergarteners as well.

Why, at this point in your comments, you feel the need to classify them as "a legitimate political party" is obvious though.

[vision]

The Whitehouse disagrees with you. They call them insurgents which by definition means they are violently trying to overthrow the legitimate government.

It's not clear why you care what the White House thinks. Do you agree or disagree with them? Would you be ashamed to agree with the White House?

Generally a legitimate government that is under attack by a group engaged in terrorist tactics won't recognize those attackers as "legitimate".

If only the real world were that black and white. The same could probably be said about colonists fighting the British before we were called the United States. Are you only considered legitimate through victory?

The State Department has them listed as a terrorist group. I think most other non-islamofascist governments do as well.

Again, I think classifying the Taliban as a terrorist group is a mistake and misuse of the word. The terrorist label is too broadly applied. International relations are more complicated than that, so perhaps it is just easier for the "not so bright" portions of the public to grab onto a catch-phrase? Is it too strange that the Taliban have a formal diplomatic office in Qatar approved by the United States? Because that doesn't sound to "terrorist-y."

Probably most airlines and shipping companies, global mass transit, news media, etc. Hell, probably most kindergarteners as well.

Not sure how many kindergarteners are qualified to make that assessment. Doesn't help your argument, Will.

Why, at this point in your comments, you feel the need to classify them as "a legitimate political party" is obvious though.

Is this the point where you devolve into accusing people of being "handled by their leaders?" Because if it is, the same can be said about you. Remember that.

Just keep in mind that the Taliban, aka. the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, ruled that country for 5 years and the only reason they don't now is because of NATO — and THAT probably has a little bit to do with opium, oil, lithium, and other natural resources there.

[Will Robinson]

The Whitehouse disagrees with you. They call them insurgents which by definition means they are violently trying to overthrow the legitimate government.

It's not clear why you care what the White House thinks. Do you agree or disagree with them? Would you be ashamed to agree with the White House?

I care about what they do. And what they did was trade 5 terrorists for a deserter. When asked why they criticize Jordan for trading in a similar fashion for one of their captured pilots the Whitehouse constructed this ridiculous excuse that although the Taliban uses terrorism they are not terrorists.

So now we have the usual suspects trying to help them roll that turd through the sugar and call it a gumdrop.
And now you have some sugar on your fingers too.

I'd recommend soap and water, but you might feel compelled out of loyalty to lick them clean and force a smile just to give the show a more convincing effect.
Your call there but please stop trying to pass me the gumdrops...

[Spidey]

All I’m getting here is…they possibly did the right thing…for the wrong reason.

I think you are being too generous.....

Probably, but I was simply summing up what people here were saying, not making an actual call, on the reality of the decision.

[vision]

And now you have some sugar on your fingers too.

I suspect you might think I am just following along with the White House, but if you were paying attention you would find that I have never once accused the Taliban of being a terrorist organization. No change of tune here. Also, what damage has been done from the prisoner exchange? Are you angry that nothing bad happened?

[Will Robinson]

Hmmmm nothing bad huh?

Lets' see, a soldier deserts his company.
His fellow soldiers know he went native because locals say he was asking them for help to join the Taliban.
During this search to recover a missing 'brother' some of those soldiers died.

Then the White House trades 5 bad guys for the release of the deserter and welcomes him home holding him up in public as a returning hero saying 'he served honorably'?!?
The investigation that confirms the desertion is stalled but once it is finally completed and the evidence is leaking out the White House is then trying to get the Army to cancel the court martial.

Meanwhile the deserters squad mates are still in the thick of the ★■◆● getting shot at.

Then the White House is challenged for going against policy of dealing with terrorists and they say the Taliban are just some guys that carry out terrorist attacks but they aren't terrorists so it's different than Jordan trading for their pilot.

No, nothing bad happened at all. Just ask the deserters squad mates. They still have the utmost respect for their chain of command.

[vision]

Hmmmm nothing bad huh?

None of what you mentioned affect national security in the slightest. Try harder. Please Will, please, tell me what horrible things happened as a consequence of the prisoner exchange. What irrevocable damage has been done to these beautiful United States?

[Ferno]

Benghazi, Bergdahl, Barack, bengazi, bergdahl, barack...

aren't merry go rounds fun?

[Will Robinson]

Hmmmm nothing bad huh?

None of what you mentioned affect national security in the slightest. Try harder. Please Will, please, tell me what horrible things happened as a consequence of the prisoner exchange. What irrevocable damage has been done to these beautiful United States?

Hmm, I missed that memo where I'm not supposed to find fault in the administration unless their failures are so bad that it is affecting national security.
Is this new moratorium on criticism your idea?

And by what method did you determine that troop morale is no longer a factor in maintaining security? It seems to run counter to centuries of developing military protocols that ensures high morale and discipline.

Is there any logical support for making that determination? I mean other than your need to fabricate a rationale for excusing the negative effects of the Obama administrations politically motivated decision and the only way you could do it was create this arbitrary ban on criticizing Obama screw ups if they don't reach immediate extreme negative consequences.
Must be nice to be Obama with people willing to bend over that far to cover his ass!

[vision]

And by what method did you determine that troop morale is no longer a factor in maintaining security? It seems to run counter to centuries of developing military protocols that ensures high morale and discipline.

Troop morale is definitely a factor in security, however, the prisoner exchange did not affect troop morale as a whole, only a few selected troops, and not enough to cause harm to the United States in any way. I know this is the only angle you've got but please, try again. How has the United States suffered from the prisoner exchange? You've got to come up with something better than "a couple troops didn't like it" because this is insignificant in the larger picture.

...the Obama administrations politically motivated decision...

Can you point out a single decision by any president in your lifetime that wasn't politically motivated? You seem to have this delusion that Obama is some sort of Wizard of Oz casting his spell on the public and furthering some sort of private "agenda" as if this is some new thing that Presidents do. Did you just start going to college? Because most of the time you sound like some kid who just took a political science class for the first time.

[Will Robinson]

Troop morale effected by this decision is somehow magically limited to 'a select few'?!? How does that work?

I'm not even in the service and I heard about it and it pissed me off.
I don't think you have a clue to how tuned in deployed troops get to the noise from back home when they know that is the leading indicator of when they might get the hell out of the danger zone.

You probably haven't noticed the polling of Obama has dropped big time among active duty troops. But now that I introduce that factor what will you construct to disqualify it from the discussion? I know! You can say the troops are all just racists.

As for 'presidents always make political decisions' yes, they do and I don't criticize the political component of them when it is based on principles that are somehow tied to the well being of the country.

Even when I disagree with the policy direction I concede it is well within their right, even their duty to pursue their preference. See my take on Obamacare for example, I've often said the end goal is good, the implementation is a bunch of lies...a ponzi scheme, etc.

I do however criticize when the political weight of the president shapes policy with the intent of protecting the president himself with no apparent benefit for the well being of the country. As he did in this case making the trade and continues as he tries to sell the military on excusing the deserter for no good reason other than the presidents own reputation.

Your assertion that only a few troops are effected is ridiculous. There are so many examples of how I could throw that weak illogical excuse back on you applied to all sorts of arguments you have made. Please try to explain how the effect is limited and to just what select few...
Give us the criteria you are depending on to determine which troops were effected by it.

I'd love to have you dig that hole deeper before I start to shovel the dirt in on top of you....

[vision]

Troop morale effected by this decision is somehow magically limited to 'a select few'?!? How does that work? You probably haven't noticed the polling of Obama has dropped big time among active duty troops. But now that I introduce that factor what will you construct to disqualify it from the discussion?

Yes, it can be discredited because the declining poll numbers by troops follow exactly the decline in approval rating by the population, and that approval rated started to decline from the moment Obama took office (which coincidentally happens to every president). So, it's your job to prove that the Bergdhal exchange had a direct and significant impact on troops independent of the population. Significant, because it has to be shown that this creates a national security issue (remember, that's why we have a military in the first place).

I do however criticize when the political weight of the president shapes policy with the intent of protecting the president himself with no apparent benefit for the well being of the country. As he did in this case making the trade and continues as he tries to sell the military on excusing the deserter for no good reason other than the presidents own reputation.

You are making tons of assumptions here. You have no idea what the motivation for the exchange was because the public does not have access to that information nor are we a part of the decision making process. That's why this exchange has no "apparent benefit" to use your words. As far as the "well being of the country" goes, you still have yet to point out a single thing that has damaged the United States because of the exchange. Again Will, I ask you, what horrible thing has happened because of the exchange? Because all you have offered is that the president's approval rating continued to trend downward.

Please try to explain how the effect is limited and to just what select few...Give us the criteria you are depending on to determine which troops were effected by it.

It should be obvious what the criteria is. When the military is unhappy with the president, they push back -- hard. Well, where is it Will? Where is the push back? If this exchange did such horrible damage to military morale every general would do boiling mad because the president undermined their ability to do an effective job. This has not happened. The Pentagon is rather indifferent, with the exception of the few officers who regularly complain about how the president tied his shoes today.

So I conclude, this exchange with the Taliban had no negative consequences for the United States. It's up to you to come up with something. So far you have offered nothing.

[Will Robinson]

I think you are just making crap up and dodging the point.

You cite 'military pushing back hard' when they are unhappy with the President.
Ok show me where that has happened before since it is the baseline for your comparison to now..... the basis for your assertion that they 'aren't pushing back now' ....so show us what you base that claim on.
Or are you pulling a slick? Just making proclamations of false 'facts'.

Also, you need to show where you are coming up with any data that supports your claim that the military disapproval mirrors the population at large. Especially since that assertion isn't supported by media reports that cite actual polling.

And even in your grasping at straws you haven't come close to offering a dividing line between which troop's morale is affected and which ones are not affected by the trade of a deserter for 5 captured islamo-fascist terrorists. You claim some specific cause and effect metrics there. It is the crux of your claim. So show us what you base it on....other than your desire for it to be true.

Or stop making stuff up vision.

[vision]

I'll take your lack of a suitable answer to the question I've posed several times as a victory, thank you. Everything from this point on is just to make you look even stupider.

Ok show me where that has happened before since it is the baseline for your comparison to now..... the basis for your assertion that they 'aren't pushing back now' ....so show us what you base that claim on.

The first evidence is that there is no outspoken members of the military complaining about troop morale being a factor and that it is related directly to the Bergdahl exchange. That's really all the proof needed. As far as a baseline goes, we are lucky there have been no military coups in the United States (though some people believe the Pentagon was responsible for the assassination of Kennedy). Some speculation surrounds a proposed coup of Roosevelt after WWI (mostly deemed unrealistic). And, the Civil War was a response to policy changes by a newly elected Abraham Lincoln (the military certainly got involved there!). And even if we don't have perfect examples in US history, world history is rife with them. So, take your pick.

Also, you need to show where you are coming up with any data that supports your claim that the military disapproval mirrors the population at large.

First, do you even read the articles you link to? Because neither of them mention the Bergdahl exchange.

The Military Times survey is not scientific and relies on a voluntary response from the publication's readers.

The sample is not a perfect representation of the military as a whole; it over-represents soldiers, officers and noncommissioned officers, and under-represents junior enlisted personnel.

Also from the Military Times...

But despite [active-duty service members] misgivings about him personally, evidence suggests some quiet acceptance, and even support, for his policy changes.

Gallup polls show Obama's approval/disapproval rating as follows:

Code: Select all

            | 2009 | 2014 | Difference
Approval    |  65% |  44% | -21 pts.
Disapproval |  15% |  52% | +37 pts.

The Military Times article provides the following numbers:

Code: Select all

            | 2009 | 2014 | Difference
Approval    |  35% |  15% | -20 pts.
Disapproval |  40% |  55% | +15 pts.

So in reality, the approval/disapproval rating of military personnel is actually a little nicer to Obama and more stable than the general public. SHOCKING! Coincidentally, the ratings are hardly different when speaking about Afghanistan specifically. And in case you were wondering, military approval of the president is always lower than the general population and varies with age.

And even in your grasping at straws you haven't come close to offering a dividing line between which troop's morale is affected and which ones are not affected by the trade of a deserter for 5 captured islamo-fascist terrorists. You claim some specific cause and effect metrics there. It is the crux of your claim. So show us what you base it on....other than your desire for it to be true.

In light of the above statistics (some provided by you, thanks) a morale dividing line is completely irrelevant and unnecessary and is just your attempt to throw in a red herring since you have nothing to offer at this point. I never made a cause and effect statement. The crux of my claim is that there is no evidence Bergdahl exchange had negative consequences on the United States, which is proven.

Thank you, and have a nice day. <exits the thread>

[Will Robinson]

You can play with selecting stats all you want but you read the piece and they stated:

Just 15% of active-duty servicemembers gave Obama a thumbs up in the annual Military Times survey and more than half -- 55% -- say they disapprove of Obama's job as commander-in-chief. The President has struggled to gain the approval of troops throughout his time in office, but these numbers reflect a new low for Obama, who finished his first year in office with a 35% approval figure and only 4 in 10 disapproving, according to the Military Times survey. The Military Times survey is not scientific and relies on a voluntary response from the publication's readers. President Obama's approval rating in the general population is much higher, though still well below 50 percent. In the most recent CNN / ORC poll, he got the approval of 44% of Americans.

For these reasons, the Military Times survey may be more useful to show to show trends. It has been asking the same questions of its readers for ten years.

Troop morale has slumped during the Obama administration, falling to 56% this year from 91% who were satisfied with their quality of life in 2009. More than half of American troops believe they are underpaid today.

Obama's numbers have been coming up in the general population over 50% now, but not among the troops as you claimed, there they are trending downward, as that article stated.

So you have claimed a victory and won nothing.

You claimed the effect on morale was limited to a select few troops. You refuse to show how that works. I have to assume at this point you have nothing to support that claim. You just made it up.

You claimed Obama's disapproval among the troops mirrors the polling among the general population. It doesn't. It is trending the opposite direction which supports my position...
So you just made that up too.

As to all the other crap you are offering instead...use it to prove what you claimed or not because if doesn't do that it is an irrelevant smoke screen.

[vision]

You don't actually know anything about statistics, do you?

[Will Robinson]

You don't actually know anything about statistics, do you?

Yes, I do, I know you are not using them to prove what you claimed.

For example, you cite the approval of Obama by the population at large suggesting it is paralleling the military approval so that somehow proves no effect from the trade of terrorists for a deserter...
Well even if you were right about the current trends your premise is flawed. You are forgetting that the military isn't the only group polled that finds fault in Obama for that trade. So your conclusion is wrong. That alleged parallel doesn't prove morale is unaffected the way you claim.
And the fact that his civilian support has turned upwards and military support is still trending downward further buries your flawed conclusion.

But let's get the initial claim you made addressed, show me how morale of only a few troops are affected. Something other than 'there has been no mutiny'!

That's what was challenged. That is what you have failed to address with anything believable.

You admit morale is affected but magically doesn't spread beyond some barrier that you apparently made up.
I have no dog in the other hunt for stats-you-like....
You tried to assign one to me but it's yours.