Kerry calls U.S. troops terrorists

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Kerry and Bush are two diffrent sides of the same devilish coin. Get over it!!!




posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTruth
Kerry and Bush are two diffrent sides of the same devilish coin. Get over it!!!


I couldn't agree more. This 'opposames' game playing stuff is just a distraction, to keep us busy while the underpinning agenda rolls on. It's only because Bush is SO stupid, that Kerry comes out with such awkward, uncertain crap, in order to make us think Bush is the better option.

They're BOTH Skull and Boners as someone else mentioned earlier. They're on the same team. We can use our energies more efficiently than following the back and forth commentary of 'opposames'.


Note. 'opposames' is 'borrowed' from David Icke with respect.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Oh god...
Disgusting
hey Mr. Sensationalism care to point out where Kerry said US soldiers are terrorists? Please show me...
Talk about taking things out of context.

Have we gotten so indoctrinated with Newspeak that the term terror can only be used in the context of terrorism?
If so this yet another in a series of very sad days for America.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 09:13 AM
link   
I don't know if I would say he's accusing them of being terrorist in the sense that you're thinking of. They aren't blowing themselves up in coffee shops or shopping malls. Still when Sen. Kerry states that the soldiers are terrorizing he's implying that our troops are doing bad things over there. At least that's the impression I get without even trying to "read into it". He just flat out said that our troops were bullies basically.

Same rhetoric that we heard from him as he threw his medals over the White House fence back in the 70s. "U.S. troops bad....Vietnam Iraqi people good".

[edit on 8-12-2005 by dbates]



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
Same rhetoric that we heard from him as he threw his medals over the White House fence back in the 70s. "U.S. troops bad....Vietnam Iraqi people good".

[edit on 8-12-2005 by dbates]


Do you think that it's a misnomer? The War of American Aggression (what the victors call it) aside, do you not think that US troops are frightening people, sometimes unnecessarily? That certain duties are best served by Iraqi nationals? Just because of cultural issues? Or do you simply wish Kerry would of 'dumbed it down' so that middle America and the south could understand what he said?


EDIT: Yes, I went there!

[edit on 8-12-2005 by curme]



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Where to start?

Kerry's an idiot. In a business wherein true intelligence is something of a handicap anyway, he still stands out as almost entirely braindead. He's a haircut and an empty suit, saying and doing whatever seems expedient at the moment in his endless pursuit of personal power and glory. He's a dried-up husk of a man who's lied and cheated and prevaricated and distorted for so long that he doesn't have the faintest idea of what's actually true. He's just a collection of buzzwords and empty phrases, instinctively presented so as to not really communicate anything, lest he be caught telling a lie or making a promise. His only goal (and that of all politicians) is to say just enough, in just the right way, to get elected, but not so much that he has to actually DO anything that might threaten the cozy little world of lies in which he and the rest of the politicians live.

To that end, he dropped the word "terrorizing." Why? So that his self-involved followers, who fail to recognize that opposing Bush by supporting the opposition is really little more than choosing one's rapist, would have a little morsel of disdain with which to support their narrow and erroneous view of the world, and so that his self-righteous opponents, who likewise fail to recognize that supporting Bush by opposing the opposition is also little more than choosing one's rapist, would have a little morsel of indignation with which to support their narrow and erroneous view of the world.

You all lose, and the power-drunk scumbags win. Again.

Kerry's an idiot, but he does his job reasonably well. He plays one side against the other, just as all politicians do, and it works.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
To say that he "called US troops 'terrorists' " (and you know the connotations of that word) is simply sensationalism.


So, in the same breath, when Mr. Kerry, in the matter of semantics, stated unequivocally that the troops in Vietnam were baby killers and murderers, it was simply a matter of sensationalism? Just wondering....

Personally, I think Kerry, like Bush, has a significant speech impediment.





seekerof

[edit on 8-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
So, in the same breath, when Mr. Kerry, in the matter of semantic, stated unequivocally that the troops in Vietnam were baby killers and murderers, it was simply a matter of sensationalism?


Well, have both idiotic sides of the fence playing the silly game, don't we? Yesterday, because Dean commented that he doesn't think we can win the war, the NY Post ran a picture of Dean as a Frenchman with the word "Traitor" above him. "Sensationalism" is so much a part of the rhetoric from both absurdly idiotic sides that sane discussion is impossible.

To comment on your comment: I've had the chance to discuss these issues with 9 or 10 Vietnam vets of various rank over the past 2 years. When we got down to reality, they all said something along the lines of: "everyone did crap they shouldn't have done over there... some of us are better at denial than others."

War is hell, in part because of what it does to people who fight.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
So, in the same breath, when Mr. Kerry, in the matter of semantic, stated unequivocally that the troops in Vietnam were baby killers and murderers, it was simply a matter of sensationalism? Just wondering....


Do you have a quote? Here's Kerry's Senate Testimony, if that will help.

Or perhaps you're talking aobut this quote from that testimony where he was passing on what others had told him:



"They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from 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, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."


I'll just tell you that the ONLY thing my brother (who was a marine in Vietnam) ever said to me about his experience there was "I killed babies". And I'm not being sensational.



Personally, I think Kerry, like Bush, has a significant speech impediment.


I cannot put Bush and Kerry in the same group. Bush is an idiot.

However, Kerry doesn't think about how his audience might perceive what he says. He talks in circles and talks too much. He gets too involved and intellectual sometimes and people don't want to take the time to figure out what he means. They want soundbites.

Bush is loaded with soundbites.

I don't like Kerry. I think he'd make a lame president, but I don't think he called our troops terrorists.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
..."everyone did crap they shouldn't have done over there... some of us are better at denial than others."

War is hell, in part because of what it does to people who fight.

I would have a great tendency to agree with what you lastly mentioned, quoted above, SO.

I have no doubt that my own personal combat experiences have shaped how I perceive, interpret, and then give commentary.





seekerof



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
do you not think that US troops are frightening people, sometimes unnecessarily? That certain duties are best served by Iraqi nationals? Just because of cultural issues?


I believe that if possible, the U.S. troops should have a translator or someone with them to avoid in any confusion, but the main goal of clearing an area of insurgents shouldn't depend on that entirely. Where is the outcry from all the Iraqis who have been taken outside in the night and shot, raped, or beaten? Sen. Kerry is just making wild accusations. I'm sure there may be some isolated cases of abuse, but for the most part U.S. soldiers are just doing their job and not bothering anyone unless necessary. Let's be realistic, this is a U.S. occupied Iraq during war-time and not a quiet suburbs area in rural America.



Originally posted by curme
Or do you simply wish Kerry would of 'dumbed it down' so that middle America and the south could understand what he said?


Ah yes! All those idiots in "fly-over country". Silly, baseless comments like this are pretty stupid and I always love it when I hear liberals say things like this. The same liberals that demand equality, rights for all, anti-racist, pro-black, defender of the little man. Yet we see rubber stamped labels calling those in the south or middle America virtual idiots. Democrats are never going to win the White House or Congress back until they realize that the people in "fly-over country" have a pretty big impact on what goes on in this country.

If I had a "Way below vote" you wold get one for that comment.

electoral-vote.com


Isolating the south and middle is a great strategy. It looks the Democrats are sucessfully impementing this campaign. A little more hard work and a few more speeches like this by Kerry will ensure the maps looks the same (if not more red) in 2006/2008.

[edit on 8-12-2005 by dbates]



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
So, in the same breath, when Mr. Kerry, in the matter of semantics, stated unequivocally that the troops in Vietnam were baby killers and murderers, it was simply a matter of sensationalism? Just wondering....


Seekerof, is there nothing on Kerry "stating unequivocally that the troops in Vietnam were baby killers and murders"? Or is that just more of the same sensationalism that has him calling our troops 'terrorists'?

Because I can't find anywhere where he says that. I'd love to know if you have a source or not. There are plenty of webpages that claim he says "baby killers" but when I investigate, all that's there is the portion of the quote in my last post, with the bolded part cut out, of course, so it would seem like it was Kerry himself making these accusations instead of recounting what he had been told.

Just looking for the truth...



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 07:03 PM
link   
More crazy sensationalism:
www.drudgereport.com...

Why does it have to be this way?



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Seekerof, is there nothing on Kerry "stating unequivocally that the troops in Vietnam were baby killers and murders"? Or is that just more of the same sensationalism that has him calling our troops 'terrorists'?

Be careful how you seek the truth, oh, Benevolent Heretic.
Sensationalism takes on varying forms and is not restricted in use.
Even you have used it.
As such, the issue of whether Kerry called US troops serving in Vietnam as "baby killers" is subjective and interpreted by those who remember such first-hand. I will hold to what I said initially, being it was a question to you regarding sensationalism.

In proving the subjective use of "baby killer" in relation to Kerry saying it or implying it, I let you browse these:
baby killers + John Kerry

Please, in your search for the truth, be sure you ask an across the board amount of Vietnam vets their interpretation on what Kerry may have said or implied, k?






seekerof

[edit on 8-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Why does it have to be this way?


As you have so indicated in the past, SO, probably because of media manipulation, and this is not restricted to simply one side of the media parlor.


Make no mistake, you are being expertly controlled. Even here, in this venue that should be beyond the puppet masters' strings, we have succumbed to the subtle manipulations of thought and reason. Instead of looking in agner toward the puppet masters, you yell at the puppets.

OP/ED: Dark Days.






seekerof



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
As such, the issue of whether Kerry called US troops serving in Vietnam as "baby killers" is subjective and interpreted by those who remember such first-hand.


If people said he said it (or implied it), then he said it, huh? Just like here where he 'called the troops "terrorists"'... Believe what you will, Seekerof, but I don't buy it. I'm not just taking your word for it. Besides, I believe my brother. The soldiers killed babies. Are you implying they didn't?



I will hold to what I said initially, being it was a question to you regarding sensationalism.


And I will hold to what I said. Your accusations of him are sensationalism. If he didn't say it, then it's you who are being sensational, not him. If he did say that troops killed babies, he was simply telling the ugly truth.



In proving the subjective use of "baby killer" in relation to Kerry saying it or implying it, I let you browse these:


Don't you think I did that search already? Of course I did. I cannot find one place that John Kerry is quoted as using that term. And even if he implied that troops killed babies, that's nothing more than the truth!

If you cannot provide a quote, then your accusation does not stand. It's not up to me to track down this 'subjective' (illusory) statement. Sorry. If you care whether or not I hold you as credible, you'll find the quote and post it here.

[edit on 8-12-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If people said he said it (or implied it), then he said it, huh? Just like here where he 'called the troops "terrorists"'... Believe what you will, Seekerof, but I don't buy it. I'm not just taking your word for it. Besides, I believe my brother. The soldiers killed babies. Are you implying they didn't?

I am implying two things here:
First, that to be labeled maliciously as a "baby killer" implies purposeful intent, Benevolent Heretic. Are you implying that that is exactly what the US troops in Vietnam were doing: all services, across-the-board blantantly, maliciously, and purposely targeting and killing babies? Was this also an official or unofficial across-the-board DOD policy? Or was Kerry's mere Freudian slip mention of "baby killers" simply a vehicle for sensationalism, to be used by the anti-war left just as it was by the pro-war right? I'd also be interested in what your brother had to say on this, since you have twice brought him onto play.

Secondly, I am surely not taking your's or your brother's word on this entirely, either. I will respect what your brother said being we both have been in combat environments. What I disagree with is the labeling and mentioning of "baby killer," period. I have explained such above. What I will do is accept the words of a multitude of Vietnam vets from the likes of the Vietnam vets association, etc, and how the interpreted Kerry's speech impediment. To them and to me, whether or not a quote can be provided for Kerry directly word-for-word saying such, he implied such. Why else would Kerry bring the word "baby killers" up in the first place at the 1971 Senate hearing? Would it not be for the sake of sheer sensationalism reasons, being he was part of an anti-war movement? Cause if he brought it up because it was the truth, when, perchance, is he going to admit to being a "baby killer," or murderer, or whatever else the Vietnam anti-war movement used to describe US troops in Vietnam?





And I will hold to what I said. Your accusations of him are sensationalism. If he didn't say it, then it's you who are being sensational, not him. If he did say that troops killed babies, he was simply telling the ugly truth.

Benevolent Heretic, I provided you a link to a multitude of individuals who have interpreted Kerry's reference to "baby killer." You can call it sensationalism as you see fit. No skin of my back and definately no skin of the backs of those multitudes of Vietnam vets who likewise interpreted Kerry's word usage as I have. What is ugly truth is that war is hell and even children die in it. What you, as with others, need to do is find evidences that those US troops in Vietnam purposely, maliciously, and blantantly targeted and set out to kill babies. Till you produce such, the notion of "baby killers" is a misfortune of war.





Don't you think I did that search already? Of course I did. I cannot find one place that John Kerry is quoted as using that term. And even if he implied that troops killed babies, that's nothing more than the truth!

If you cannot provide a quote, then your accusation does not stand. It's not up to me to track down this 'subjective' (illusory) statement. Sorry. If you care whether or not I hold you as credible, you'll find the quote and post it here.

You might want to hit that link again, being it was given so as to show perspective and interpretation, in relation to others who served in Vietnam and Kerry's mention of "baby killers.". I mentioned this already, and I am definately not here to back up your view. Personally, I can careless whether you hold me as credible. My position is quite clear.
I do find it humorous that even Sen. Dole asked Kerry to apologize over his implied insinuations from that 1971 Senate Testimony. Maybe he thought Kerry said or implied the same thing as I did, as those multitudes of Vietnam vets did?







seekerof

[edit on 8-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
More crazy sensationalism:
www.drudgereport.com...

Why does it have to be this way?


No! No! That's the wrong thing to do. If the other party is making crazy accusations then we don't want to jump on the wagon with them. I don't see how this helps anything. All the Republicans should be doing is sitting back and letting these Democratic leaders make outlandish statements, then cash in during election time. Well, time to send off another letter to my Senators and Congressman to make sure they don't join in.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
I am implying two things here:
First, that to be labeled maliciously as a "baby killer" implies purposeful intent, Benevolent Heretic.

If someone was labeled maliciously as a "baby killer" then yes, I agree that would imply purposeful intent.



Are you implying that that is exactly what the US troops in Vietnam were doing: all services, across-the-board blantantly, maliciously, and purposely targeting and killing babies?


No. Not at all. I don't imply, remember? If I have something to say, I'll say it.



Or was Kerry's mere Freudian slip mention of "baby killers" simply a vehicle for sensationalism, to be used by the anti-war left just as it was by the pro-war right?


I have yet to witness or see proof of this statment by Kerry, so this whole conversation is hypothetical.



I'd also be interested in what your brother had to say on this, since you have twice brought him onto play.


The ONLY thing my brother ever said to me regarding Vietnam is that he killed babies. He has since become estranged from the rest of the family so I have no idea what he thought about Kerry. I lost my brother to Vietnam and haven't heard from him for over 15 years.



Why else would Kerry bring the word "baby killers" up in the first place at the 1971 Senate hearing?


HE DIDN'T. Search the text. It's not there. You're believing something that didn't happen.



Would it not be for the sake of sheer sensationalism reasons, being he was part of an anti-war movement? Cause if he brought it up because it was the truth, when, perchance, is he going to admit to being a "baby killer," or murderer, or whatever else the Vietnam anti-war movement used to describe US troops in Vietnam?


If that had happened, I would say yes, it would probably have been for sensationalism. But it didn't happen!



No skin of my back and definately no skin of the backs of those multitudes of Vietnam vets who likewise interpreted Kerry's word usage as I have.


Help me out here. Which words of Kerry's did you interpret as meaning "baby killer"? Specifically...



I do find it humorous that even Sen. Dole asked Kerry to apologize over his implied insinuations from that 1971 Senate Testimony. Maybe he thought Kerry said or implied the same thing as I did, as those multitudes of Vietnam vets did?


Again, show me the part of the 1971 Senate Hearings that you think Kerry insinuated these things, please.

Or don't. I know you have no leg to stand on and I'm tired of this hypothetical situation of implications and insinuations. You put "baby killer" in quotes as if Kerry actually said this, but cannot show me where.

Did he say it or not? If he did, then show me where, if not... then find someone else to argue with. I'm not interested in arguing over something that didn't happen.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Sure BH.

Next I'm sure you'll be telling us that you can't find any evidence that Kerry gave aid and comfort to an enemy and violated U.S. law by going to Paris and meeting directly with the North Vietnamese to promote his anti-war views while still on active duty with the U.S. military and while there were many of his fellow servicemen still held captive by the same north Vietnamese.

No reason to wonder anymore why Kerry won't release his military records.





top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join