2
   

And this guy wants to be prez?

 
 
the reincarnation of suzy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 12:57 pm
Round these parts we provide proof our our allegations! No link = No proof. The people you are attempting to pawn this information off on are not required to disprove it if you haven't offered any proof! Could it be your just talking out yer ass?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 12:59 pm
Asking Karzak for proof for his statements is like beating your head against a wall, Suze.

He's just going to assume an arrogant tone and disparage your post completely, rather than respond in a logical way.

Because.... he is a Troll. A well-fed one, too...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 01:03 pm
Weren't some of us complaining about the fact that all people were doing is C&P links? That there was no thought or opinion being stated?

Granted, we can't all reach the plateau that some posters achieve, but at the same time, I think everyone's opinion should be counted and discussed. Sometimes an opinion can't be backed up by links or doesn't need to be. I can't remember that last time I asked anyone to provide evidence of what they are forwarding, as much as I would have liked to sometimes, but never the less, we need a consesus as to where we want to be.

Do we want a forum of free thinkers or a forum of those who merely parrot others thoughts and ideas?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 01:06 pm
Quote:
Weren't some of us complaining about the fact that all people were doing is C&P links? That there was no thought or opinion being stated?


Well, if by 'some of us' you mean 'Cycloptichorn,' then yes, you are right. I think that the other extreme (posting opinions without facts to back them up) is actually worse, but we've never really seemed to have a problem with that before (at least in the short time I've been here) - almost everyone on here is good about doing at least a little research before posting.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Jer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 01:10 pm
Newsmax source:

Kerry Denies Quotes Accusing U.S. Soliders of War Crimes

It doesn't confirm what you've said. Do you have a transcript of that show??

Here's a little from an MSNBC source that gives a bit more even-sided view of things...

Nixon targeted Kerry for anti-war views
0 Replies
 
the reincarnation of suzy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 01:15 pm
He's not stating an opinion, McG. He is stating what he purports to be fact, "evidence" of which I'm sure he is looking up right now.
One can't just insist that something debateable is true without offering up evidence! We're not talking about opinions in this instance.
At any rate, I've answered this to my satisfaction already, and haven't seen a sensible rebuttal! Now I'm just popping in for the humor of it all!
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 02:02 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Asking Karzak for proof for his statements is like beating your head against a wall, Suze.


Depends how you ask, if you ask you might get it, if you act like a troll and ask in a way pretending are too stupid to google you probably won't get anything but laughed at. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 02:05 pm
Jer wrote:
Newsmax source:

Kerry Denies Quotes Accusing U.S. Soliders of War Crimes

It doesn't confirm what you've said.


LOL, did you actually read it?

"They told stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires with portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan." Kerry

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed" Kerry
0 Replies
 
Jer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 02:57 pm
You said:
karzak wrote:
Kerry confessed to being a war criminal on the Dick Cavett Show back in '71.


This comes out of the Newsmax article you were just asking me if I'd read....
Quote:
Appearing on "The Dick Cavett Show" in July 1971, Kerry admitted that he'd never actually seen some of the atrocities he testified about, but still maintained that U.S. soldiers fighting in Vietnam routinely violated the Nuremberg Principles.

"I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that," he told Cavett. "However, I did take part in free-fire zones, I did take part in harassment and interdiction fire, I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground."

Kerry continued:

"And all of these acts, I find out later on, are contrary to the Hague and Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the application of the Nuremberg Principles, is in fact guilty."


That's not quite the same thing as "confessing to being a war criminal" now is it? And it fits very well with what he was saying when talking to CNN's Woodruff:

Quote:
"No, I was accusing American leaders of abandoning the troops. And if you read what I said, it is very clearly an indictment of leadership. I said to the Senate, where is the leadership of our country? And it's the leaders who are responsible, not the soldiers. I never said that."


newsmax - link

You also said:

karzak wrote:

He testified in front of the senate on other peoples war crimes he had seen, when he had not seen them.


He testified based on the testimony of soldiers he'd interviewed. His testimony wasn't to indict the soldiers, it was to convince the government to leave Vietnam. What problem do you have with that?

Quote:
John Kerry's first steps onto the national political stage took place back in 1971, when as a returning Vietnam War hero, Kerry led fellow veterans to Washington to protest against the Vietnam War and testify to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the horrors of the war he had seen first hand. Now an NBC News examination of White House audio tapes shows that Kerry's leadership drew the attention and the ire of President Richard Nixon.
link

**I'm not above being wrong - I'm trying to figure out how it all happened, so please if you have sources for this stuff, paste 'em up and let us see.
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 03:30 pm
Jer wrote:

That's not quite the same thing as "confessing to being a war criminal" now is it?


How is it not? He admits to acts that were war crimes that he committed.

Jer wrote:

He testified based on the testimony of soldiers he'd interviewed.


"We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves"

That is not the definition of a free fire zone, that is a kerry lie, or perhaps it is just the way kerry used free fire zones when he killed women, children and allies.

His testemony, which NOT A SINGLE PERSON HAS VERIFIED AS REAL, is even being used by vietnam today as propaganda, as it was back then.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39064
0 Replies
 
the reincarnation of suzy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 04:07 pm
Cycloptichorn is right, Jer! It's like talking to a brick wall. He'll believe what he wants to believe. Right now he probably has his hands over his ears and is singing "Lalalalala I can't hear you" loudly!
Kerry admitted that while in VietNam, soldiers were made to do things they probably shouldn't have, that's all. We knew that already.
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 04:17 pm
the reincarnation of suzy wrote:

Kerry admitted that while in VietNam, soldiers were made to do things they probably shouldn't have


ROTFLMAO, that is one way to phrase it, the wrong way.

Kerry didn't admit, except when he admitted his own war crimes. Kerry charged that 150 vets had told him of attrocities like rape, torture, murder and mutilation. The problem is that it was all a lie, noone has been able to verify kerrys testemony as being true.
0 Replies
 
Jer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 05:57 pm
Karzak,

If what Kerry said was a lie, why was he saying it? What did he have to gain from lying? Please explain.
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 06:04 pm
Jer wrote:
Karzak,

If what Kerry said was a lie, why was he saying it? What did he have to gain from lying? Please explain.


Kerry was grabbing onto an issue that brought him political success. It is as simple as that.

No one can deny that he gained a lot by making his false alligations of attrocities and pinning them on the military in vietnam.

He did it at the expense of thousands of veterans however.
0 Replies
 
the reincarnation of suzy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 06:34 pm
That's BULLSHIT Karnak.
If it were true, I guess he wouldn't have thousands of Vietnam veterans backing him.
What, you think there were no atrocities in VietNam? There are men on this forum who were there and would disagree with you! Just as trhere are atrocities in Iraq today. You must live under a rock! I love America, but it's foolish to pretend the bad stuff we've done, and do, never happens. Be honest with yourself! Kerry wasa honest with you!
0 Replies
 
Jer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 06:36 pm
So you figure he made up the atrocities to further his political career, which at that point was non-existent.

That seems like an awful lot of work to screw your fellow Americans and solidiers.

Wouldn't it be more likely that he was appalled by the war and was working to end the war and to convince the powers that be of its horrors?

Wouldn't that be more likely?
0 Replies
 
the reincarnation of suzy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 06:41 pm
Smile My Italian came out on that last line!

Hi Jer!

And yes, Kerry gained a lot (which seems to be your biggest problem) and yes, it probably was a political move, but he was there and he did fight, unlike Bush, and then he came back and told the truth about it, and things changed for the better after that. He didn't screw any of his fellow veterans. Nobody was court-martialed because of John Kerry! I know many a veteran and not a one who holds that against him.
Truth be told, watever the reasons, I think he did a brave thing. Do you think a man as smart as him didn't realize this could also RUIN his prospects?
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 07:49 pm
Jer wrote:
Karzak,

What's the point of this thread? The article you link to clearly states that Bush didn't read the report, and that Kerry didn't either. What are you getting at here?


The only point is it is a Republican talking point of the day. Anything to try to deflect attention from the sad realities of the Bush presidency.
0 Replies
 
Hans Goring
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 09:01 pm
Lol, hey Harper that you steve...hahaha.




-Hans
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2004 11:49 am
the reincarnation of suzy wrote:
he came back and told the truth about it


No, he came back and lied, for political gain.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Are all Republicans Idiots? - Question by BigEgo
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 10/23/2014 at 03:19:38