Kerry calls U.S. troops terrorists

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
All the Republicans should be doing is sitting back and letting these Democratic leaders make outlandish statements,


What did Dean say that was "outlandish" in this example? This is what I'm not grokking.




posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Kerry gave aid and comfort to an enemy


This is another statement I don't "grok".

While I admit I'm not a student of these specific issues, I'm hard pressed to find a time when Kerry helped the enemy. Perhaps you can provide a couple examples? (and please, let's just examine one or two for the purposes of discussion)

I'm expecting to make a point (sooner or later) so please bear with your Overlord here.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 08:00 AM
link   
SO,
Actually, Kerry has been accused of this here are a few examples of providing aid to the enemy



On www.wintersoldier.com Timeline page, it says, "April 22, 1972 -- John Kerry represented the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) at the, "Emergency March for Peace", in Bryant Park in New York City." At that time, according to the FBI surveillance file, Section 50, Part 1, Page 152. Vietnam Veterans Against the War/Winter Soldier Organization (VVAW/WSO) revealed information about a US Military operation. " ....the VVAW/WSO operation during 04/72 during which a canvass of VVAW/WSO members, some in active military service, developed information indicating the US would bomb Hanoi and Haiphong and the VVAW/WSO disseminated this information prior to the actual bombing, seriously jeopardizing US Military operations and the lives of servicemen.

The Kerry File




18 USC 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. . . ..

Marc Morano, CNSNews.com Thursday, May 20, 2004

The 1970 meeting that John F. Kerry conducted with North Vietnamese communists violated U.S. law, according to an author and researcher who has studied the issue. Kerry met with representatives from "both delegations" of the Vietnamese in Paris in 1970, according to Kerry's own testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971. But Kerry's meetings with the communist Vietnamese delegations were in direct violation of laws forbidding private citizens from negotiating with foreign powers, according to researcher and author Jerry Corsi.

The US goverment has called to task such people as Jesse Jackson for doing the same things in recent years.
His infamous testimony in from of the panel back in April 1971, were then used by the Vietnamese jailers at Hanoi Hilton used recordings of Kerry's testimony to thier american prisoners to "Show you that you are criminals"

Add to this that most of this testimony and American War Crimes of rape and murder that Kerry provided was never substanitated by Kerry (or anyone else), Kerry can be prosecuted for providing false testimony etc.

www.newsmax.com...



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 08:32 AM
link   
I don't see any direct Kerry involvement (in the exchange of secrets) in the first, is there more detail somewhere else?

As for the meetings... what outcome of the meeting benefited the enemy?

(Still hoping to make a point here...)



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 09:05 AM
link   
SO,
As per UCMJ's Article 104 part 904



904. ART. 104. AIDING THE ENEMY
Any person who--
1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or [protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.


UCMJ's Article 104 part 904
His meeting with NVA would be in violation of the UCMJ and falls under the heading of aiding the enemy. Since Kerry was still in the reserves at this point he would still fall under the UCMJ's jurisdiction.
As for him breaking the laws as a civilian, from Cornell Law School



18 USC 953
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Since by the time of this meeting in Paris, Kerry had made it known his anti-war sentimates, it is easy to assume what he was on about during his meeting. As for any secret information that may have been passed by him to the NVA, I do not have specifics on it although I will continue to look for it.
If kerry had received goverment sanctions for these meetings then he would not be in violation of the laws in this regard. So yes technically, he provided aid to the enemy, the same as Jesse Jackson did prior to GWII.

And of course, like I mentioned above, let's not forget his wonderful claims of the crimes that he "personally witnessed" (but did not prevent) that he gave to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The testimony that was subsequently used by the NVA as a tool against those "american guests" staying at Hanoi Hilton.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Here is the point I was hoping to get across, which was unsuccessful.

Sensationalism in respects to Kerry:
Mr. Kerry's use of sensationalist-type wording or language (ie/example: "baby killers", murderers, 'terrorists', etc.) will undoubtedly incur sensationalist-type interpretations and mentionings (ie/example: Kerry "unquestionably" said or implied that the US troops in Vietnam were 'baby killers', murderers, etc., or that of his current interpreted actual or implied saying that the US troops in Iraq/Afghanistan were 'terrorists').




seekerof

[edit on 9-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
His meeting with NVA would be in violation of the UCMJ and falls under the heading of aiding the enemy.


I understand the legal definition of the item here. But the question is... did the enemy gain a military advantage from this? What was the nature of the "aid" and how was the enemy helped?



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
or that of his current interpreted actual or implied saying that the US troops in Iraq/Afghanistan were 'terrorists').


It seems like semantics are being played with for the purpose of sensational effects.

Most people who understand the english language appreciate the differences in meaning between...

"terrorizing people"

and

"he's a terrorist"

Anyone holding a gun has the capability to cause a reaction of terror. This certainly does not automatically make them a terrorist. This is the context of the statement that inspired this thread.

We're seeing the statement being modified through political sensationalism in an obvious effort to deflect the issue from something important to confusing minutiae that has nothing to do with the initial issue.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
We're seeing the statement being modified through political sensationalism in an obvious effort to deflect the issue from something important to confusing minutiae that has nothing to do with the initial issue.


In regards to this particular topic of Kerry and "terrorizing" or Kerry and "baby killers," what you indicate is truth. Unfortunately, as I have mentioned within this topic and as you already know and have indicated in the past, political sensationalism is a tool utilized by all political sides. This topic is but one more example.

In general political or media terms, the use of sensationalist-type language or wording will incur sensationalist-type interpretations.





seekerof

[edit on 9-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I cannot put Bush and Kerry in the same group. Bush is an idiot.


If Bush is an idiot, then what does that make Kerry? Bush scored higher on his military aptitude standardized tests and did better in school than Kerry...

Yale grades portray Kerry as a lackluster student

'Moron' Bush Beat Kerry at Yale

Bush's Brain



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Let's see if I can make my point.


Originally posted by Seekerof
Sensationalism in respects to Kerry:
Mr. Kerry's use of sensationalist-type wording or language (ie/example: "baby killers", murderers, 'terrorists', etc.) will undoubtedly incur sensationalist-type interpretations and mentionings (ie/example: Kerry "unquestionably" said or implied that the US troops in Vietnam were 'baby killers', murderers, etc., or that of his current interpreted actual or implied saying that the US troops in Iraq/Afghanistan were 'terrorists').


Assuming for a moment that Kerry did say something about babies being killed (as my brother did - and that's why I brought him into this), how is he supposed to say that babies were killed without using those words? Since you cannot provide this "baby-killer" reference, what better wording could (or should) he have used? "Terminating the lives of young people"? Do you think that the 'sensationalists' would not have jumped on that and turned it into "BABY-KILLER!!!" just as easily? Of course they would!

If a person says:
"There are soldiers in Iraq that have tortured Iraqi prisoners."
and someone accuses them of saying:
"US troops are all torturous animals!"

It is not the original speaker who is guilty of sensationalism. It's the 'interpreter' who carries the blame for 'sensationalizing' the statement. The first statement is just a sad (difficult-to-hear) fact.

I am responsible for what I say, not for what someone twists my words into. If I must be held responsible for every possible interpretation and configuration of my words and MIS-QUOTING of my words, then I might as well shut completely up. Because anything I say can certainly be turned into something 'sensational' by someone who has an agenda...

It bothers me that you use the terms "baby-killer", "murderer" and "terrorists" when Kerry did not say these words. They do not appear in Kerry's statements, yet you say they "unquestionably" are what he meant. Maybe it's unquestionable in your mind, but I assure you, it's highly questionable in many others.

You're BUYING the sensationalism. But that's your choice, of course.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Unfortunately, as I have mentioned within this topic and as you already know and have indicated in the past, political sensationalism is a tool utilized by all political sides. This topic is but one more example.


And you're playing the game by continuing to push the position that Kerry implied the U.S. troops were terrorists. He did no such thing.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You're BUYING the sensationalism. But that's your choice, of course.

Let me see here, your some sort of Guardian or Watcher of sensationalism? Of course I buy into its use whenever I deem it necessary to do so, and for you to sit there and think that you do not do likewise is ludicrous. What your indicating and asserting of me, you are just as guilty and stinks of "the pot calling the kettle black.".





seekerof



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
and for you to sit there and think that you do not do likewise is ludicrous. .


Here is a perfect example of you reading into (and adding, perceiving, interpreting) what I said. I did not say that OR IMPLY IT!

I, too, am guilty of buying into the sensationalism when it serves my purpose. I have not denied that.

You have my permission to call me on it when you observe it in me. You have called me on it! Because I believe it's important for us ALL to be more aware of what's really going on and not to just buy into the sensationalism that's so prevalent today.

Look under every rock, really seek the truth, not just what meets our agenda.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   
My agenda, which is quite different from *your* agenda, serves my purposes well. Does yours?

In relation to this topic, the media's use of political sensationalism is serving both sides of this pulpit effectively, would you differ?





seekerof



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
What did Dean say that was "outlandish" in this example? This is what I'm not grokking.




Originally stated by Howard Dean
(Listen to entire interview)
"The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong."


The United States did win the war in Iraq. What we are in now is a reconstruction period. During this period there are going to be issues and obstacles, but that doesn't mean we lost. After WW II we saw the same type of problems in Germany in the Wehrwolf resistance which lasted almost 3 years. Would it have been outlandish for a Congressman to stand up during this period and state that we could not win the war? Most certainly it would have been considered ludicrous at best.

Then there is the matter of the Bush administration not having an end game or an exit strategy or so the Democratic leaders would have you to believe. I'll pose the same question to them. We have many people in our own country who are on welfare and don't work. Where's the end game and exit strategy there? Do we give up because there's no end in sight? Of course not, we keep going and do the best we can.

The ridiculousness of the Democratic party is that they have tied their success to the defeat of the United States in Iraq. If President Bush succeeds and reconstructs Iraq then they look bad. If the United States has to make an embarrassing withdrawal and leave Iraq to crumble into suburb of Iran then the Democrats win. The reconstruction of Iraq is controlled by humans and there are bound to be flaws and those that oppose the good being done. Should we then give up? What is the alternative to success?

The resistance fighters, insurgents, or whatever you want to call them know that they don't stand a chance against the American soldier in battle. The United States is an unstoppable force on the battlefield. One thing they do know is that the soft underbelly of the United States is it's democratic system of rule. That's where some see the Democratic leaders' statements helping out the enemy.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Okay... explain how that statement means he's a traitor ready to raise the white flag? This is, of course, the new republican strategy to focus your attention from the problem, to something that doesn't matter.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
In relation to this topic, the media's use of political sensationalism is serving both sides of this pulpit effectively, would you differ?


"Both sides." How disappointing.

It's very disappointing to observe long-time ATS regulars pick and support one of the "sides" that continues to defy logic, reason, and continues redirect issues from anything that matters.

Both "sides" are at fault... the system is the blame.

But what can possibly be done if regular users of a site like ATS still are unable to see the simplicity of the problem before their very eyes?

What and how Dean or Kerry said what they said does not diminish the very real fact that there are serious problems with U.S. foreign policy. And conversely, what the republican leaders are saying does not diminish the very real facts either. While you piss away your gray cells on bitching and moaning over the minutiae of what "the other side said and how they said it", the real problems pass you by.

Or perhaps, you desire not to focus on the real problems and continue to bitch and moan about the other side? That is, after all, more entertaining.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
My agenda, which is quite different from *your* agenda, serves my purposes well. Does yours?


I'm not sure what you're asking. I realize that our positions are very different. My 'agenda' in this particular thread is to encourage us all to look for the truth. Look at what people are actually saying, not read into what has been said and buy into the sensationalism that is so many times used by the media and politics to portray something that simply isn't true. So, yes, my agenda of looking at what is actually said serves my purpose of searching for the truth.



In relation to this topic, the media's use of political sensationalism is serving both sides of this pulpit effectively, would you differ?


Yes, I would differ. Speaking only for my purposes, the media's use of political sensationalism is counter productive to my purpose of finding the truth.

However, I do believe the media's use of political sensationalism serves the purpose of demonizing Kerry quite nicely. Especially for those who buy it.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I just don't get how we can't all see what position we are in. We invaded Iraq, removed Saddam and his party from power. Now we have over 100,000 troops there trying to help keep things stable until the new system is implemented. You might make a valid point that we wouldn't have gotten into this position if we would have done X, Y, and Z but here we are anyways. We should finish what we started. If you live in the United States, and especially if you are a Senator, why you say that the United States soldiers are the terrorist?

I know some think it's sensationalism to say that he called the U.S. soldiers terrorist, but he implied that. By say that they were terrorizing he implies that they are terrorist. If he had said they were raping we could draw that he was calling them rapist. Now his position is "I just said that they were making food in the kitchen. I never called them chefs."

A honest real approach would be to finish what whe started. To do that it would be nice to have some unity. Democrats can't give that because it's a political disadvantage for them for Bush to succeed.

[edit on 9-12-2005 by dbates]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join