Kerry calls U.S. troops terrorists

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Courage is speaking for freedom while facing tyranny, not speaking for tyranny while living in freedom.


I'd like to see a minimum of 50 words expanding on this citing actual events this supposedly references in context without reverting to sounding like the moronic Pharaoh character from Mystery Men.

Thanks.




posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 10:52 PM
link   
First off, I'd like to make note that I don't really agree with the way you seem to be labeling taking a position as playing into the partisan game of sensless bickering. An open minded person can take a side of an issue. Taking a side of an issue because you're already on that "side" is what makes a person, as you so elegantly put it, a "politico".


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Correct. And by the nature of their various missions, and the occasional need to search civilian homes, someone in your home, with a big gun, will cause a reaction of terror.


Now that's just sugar-coating it. What Kerry said is not that "While the troops mission is honorable, a small part of their job might include scaring children, and they should not be doing this." He was speaking out against this war, and part of his argument was that our troops are going around terrorizing kids. I don't think that you would be too happy if I took a small side-effect of your job here (Admin of ATS), and summed it up with "Skeptic Overlord is a mean guy who pisses people off by sending them mean U2U's", then turned it around with "Well some people might be angered by a U2U warning, and might in-turn think of what Skeptic is doing as mean, so my statement isn't at all degrading towards Skeptic Overlord because I was merely stating a truth."




No, it's not. You're playing the popular conservative-versus-liberal-versus-conservative political game of subtly twisting the words of the other side to deflect attention away from what someone is talking about (the mission of our troops) to the minutiae of what they said (he used the word "terrorize" which sounds like "terrorist").


First off, my comment about Kerry's remark being a "Bushism" was in reference to Bushes poor public speaking skills, and when he screws up, people call it a "Bushism." Kerry said "...kids and children..." which are obviously the same thing. By saying this, I was hoping to deploy "hum-or" in an attempt to inspire "Laugh-ter". I'm apparently not a very funny guy
.





The "opposition"? Who is that? Do you mean... those nasty liberals? There's no election right now... why are "they" the "opposition" instead of the real terrorists we've identified?

You've listened to your training very well. You're continuing to play the game you've been indoctrinated to play.


Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about "Nasty liberals". There are people who's opinions differ from mine and people who are arguing a different point, making them the opposition. Or is that not a PC thing of me to say? Tell me, what should I call them? You're the one who seems to be sparking up the political game, not me.



Why? To me, he desires honorable missions for our troops.

It's offensive to you because you're playing the game and twisting words/meanings and jumping to your politically-charged knee-jerk conclusions that focus on the "other side" rather than real issues.


Because I'm taking the opposite side here, it must be a "Knee-jerk" reaction, right? Going by your logic, I should be viewing your position as a knee-jerk reaction. See, this is how the ridiculous partisan bickering starts.

Kerry isn't saying that he wants our troops doing different missions, he's using his opinion that these troops go around terrorizing people as a reason why we should pull out of Iraq. This is offensive because I know people in the military, and I would not refer to their job as "Terrorizing kids and children"



When will you politicos stop pissing and moaning about each other and turn your attention to some real issues?


You're debating this issue as I am, SO, it is unfair of you to refer to me as a "politico" when you're doing the very same thing - taking a side of an issue.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Herman
Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about "Nasty liberals".

Ah-ha! Indeed! But by your position, I took your meaning to be that.

Do you now see how "adding your translation" to what you believe to be Kerry's meaning only deflects the issue to what he said, not what he's talking about.



What Kerry said is not that "While the troops mission is honorable, a small part of their job might include scaring children, and they should not be doing this." He was speaking out against this war, and part of his argument was that our troops are going around terrorizing kids.

Yes, that is the nature of what he said. And yes, he was speaking out against this war, and using that improper mission as an example of why we need to being planning an exit strategy that brings troops home.



Because I'm taking the opposite side here, it must be a "Knee-jerk" reaction,

Because you're taking "a side" and that tactic very often results in downgrading important discussion from the serious issues to non-important details of what someone else said and how they said it.



Going by your logic, I should be viewing your position as a knee-jerk reaction. See, this is how the ridiculous partisan bickering starts.

I don't think so... I'm pointing out how the partisan side-taking is the game of deflection. It's become a habit in political debate.



he's using his opinion that these troops go around terrorizing people as a reason why we should pull out of Iraq.

I don't disagree with that, and dislike Kerry just as much as Bush & Co. I have several issues with his positions, and what he says. But he did not call our troops terrorists, and am using this particular act of deflection as an example to make my points.



when you're doing the very same thing - taking a side of an issue.

The "side" I'm taking is reason and logic. We're never going to find a way for opposite ends of the political spectrum to debate serious issues if we can get out of the habit of issue deflection as witnessed in this thread (I could have just as easily found a thread focusing on something Dean said about republicans... this one was handy).

The real issue: our troops are engaged in missions for which they perhaps are not fully prepared (warriors searching civilian homes), and which is but one example of a long list of important issues surrounding the war in Iraq. For those of us with deep respect for our armed services, this is troubling and demands attention.

The game of division is real.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   
I personally take offense because I was there in Iraq and if you dont do night raids on homes with women and children then you dont find weapons caches that are used to attack US and coalition troops. If you were there which I can tell you were not you would know that is where most weapons and IED components are found and you would also know that the people are forced to store them so when we do raid they ACT like that because they are afraid of the TERRORIST not US and coalition troops. If the main stream media would report these positive aspects of the mission things we be alot better in terms of support. That is why it offends me.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by swampcricket
If the main stream media would report these positive aspects of the mission things we be alot better in terms of support.


I must have missed the positive aspects in your post.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by swampcricket
I personally take offense because I was there in Iraq and if you dont do night raids on homes with women and children then you dont find weapons caches that are used to attack US and coalition troops. If you were there which I can tell you were not you would know that is where most weapons and IED components are found


I know several people who were there, and have taken the time to learn as much as I can about their ordeals.

The potential credibility of personal involvement I hope doesn't factor into this.

In any event, it appears as though you and most other politicos on the conservative side have been conditioned to take offense to nearly anything Kerry would say. And in fact, find a way to be offended by rearranging his meaning.

Now, I'm certainly no fan of Kerry, and personally think he's a buffoon and the Democrats got in him exactly what they deserve. But as I keep trying to stress, the political game that your swallowing "hook, line, and sinker" is preventing you (and the vast majority of vocal politicos on either side of the fence) from looking past the personalities to the real issues and the motivations behind the game you find yourself playing.

In fact, it's become such a conditioned response in most of the players of this, that it's impossible not to fixate on the idea that anyone not "on your side" must be on the "other side"... even a professed neutral like myself.

Take a step up on the fence here. It often hurts to sit on the fence, but the view is very enlightening.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
In any event, it appears as though you and most other politicos on the conservative side have been conditioned to take offense to nearly anything Kerry would say. And in fact, find a way to be offended by rearranging his meaning.


[soapbox]
I forget who it was but they defined 'perception' as 'added meaning'. In other words, my own personal perception of any situation is going to consist first of the meaning that I add to it, regardless of the real or intended meaning.

That's how two people's perception of any one event (or statement in this case) can be completely different. Because each of us adds meaning from our own experience first and accepts that as the truth.

If we can consciously train ourselves to strip away the 'perception' as much as possible, we'll likely see more of the truth. Sure, we're always going to see things through our own particular context, but the less meaning we can add to any situation, the more truth we'll see.



Take a step up on the fence here. It often hurts to sit on the fence, but the view is very enlightening.


It hurts because being in the center, you get hit by missles lobbed from both sides. It's easier to cozy down on one side or the other. Then at least you only get hit by half the artillery and you have lots of buddies to stand up for you when you get attacked. (Using the war metaphor)
[/soapbox]

And RANT, it's the Sphinx, not the Pharaoh.
"He who questions training only trains himself at asking questions."



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Herman
Now that's just sugar-coating it. What Kerry said is not that "While the troops mission is honorable, a small part of their job might include scaring children, and they should not be doing this." He was speaking out against this war, and part of his argument was that our troops are going around terrorizing kids. I don't think that you would be too happy if I took a small side-effect of your job here (Admin of ATS), and summed it up with "Skeptic Overlord is a mean guy who pisses people off by sending them mean U2U's",


Hilarious and well put! We could say that "I don't think SkepticOverlord should be sending out mean U2U, RANT should be doing that." By focusing on the negative aspects of his job we could cast him in a negative light.

I think that's the whole gripe that those who were offended by Kerrys' comments. He's focusing on the negative, which without twisting his words shows his disapproval of the troops. Find the instance in his speech where he praised the troops and went out of his way to say something good about what they have been doing? I don't think that this is twisting words as much as just understanding what his point is.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
He's focusing on the negative, which without twisting his words shows his disapproval of the troops. Find the instance in his speech where he praised the troops and went out of his way to say something good about what they have been doing?


I can't find an entire transcript, but the segment in question is: "there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the–of–the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not…Iraqis should be doing that. And after all of these two and a half years, with all of the talk of 210,000 people trained, there just is no excuse for not transferring more of that authority."

To me, the entire context shows a respect for the troops, and not wanting them in these situations where negative results are not only likely, but would be highly public.

Really, I look at that statement and simply cannot see how it can be twisted to show any disrespect for the troops. The only way, is through knee-jerk reactions where one side of the politico spectrum is conditioned to find fault in anything said by the other side.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Sooo Skeptic how do you fight a war where civilians are caught in the middle where the battlefield in is the cities and not in the empty fields. Terrorists and insurgents that dont identify themselves as by the rules of war? No doubt the American soldiers dont like to raid houses but insurgents and terrorists do hide in there. We go where they go. I could show you how the insurgents fire on American troops from the mosques but we cant go in there because its culture sensitivity and that American troops must die instead of raiding the mosque.
Not to mention it could be consider terrorism if the American troops decided to raid the mosque full of heavily armed insurgents. Its a shield for the opposing side and American troops cant do crap.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Okay, just a refresher since we're a few pages into this thread. Here is the entire transcript. If you get to far away from the paragraph in question it is a different subject, but there is some relevant information surrounding it.



[edit on 13-12-2005 by dbates]



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Sooo Skeptic how do you fight a war where civilians are caught in the middle where the battlefield in is the cities and not in the empty fields.


This is a valid point, but not the issue here. The issue is the twisting of a politician's words in order to be properly incensed according to indoctrinated political agendas.

It's clear Kerry (and many) dislike this situation and I'm sure we would all rather not see our troops engaged in missions where civilians are mixed into the fray.

The fact that we strategically find ourselves in a continually hot mixed battlefield so many months after "mission accomplished" is a long, long debate covering far too many issues for this poor little thread.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Ah-ha! Indeed! But by your position, I took your meaning to be that.

Do you now see how "adding your translation" to what you believe to be Kerry's meaning only deflects the issue to what he said, not what he's talking about.


Actually, you put words into my mouth that I did not say. I never said anything about nasty liberals, and I didn't say that John Kerry said our troops are terrorists. Do you think it's possible that you're so eager to jump on "politicos" that you're determined to view any of my opinions as merely a knee-jerk reaction? You might want to consider that what I'm saying is what I really believe, and not just political side-taking.



Yes, that is the nature of what he said. And yes, he was speaking out against this war, and using that improper mission as an example of why we need to being planning an exit strategy that brings troops home.


He wasn't using one example of a particular screw up in a mission, he was saying that our troops go around terrorizing kids, children, and not to mention destroying their customs. He was painting our soldiers in a bad light to futher his own gain. Can you not see how this would be offensive to someone who feels that they've honorably served their time protecting a noble cause, or someone like me who has family and friends whom I feel are protecting a noble and just cause?




Because you're taking "a side" and that tactic very often results in downgrading important discussion from the serious issues to non-important details of what someone else said and how they said it.


I'm taking the side of an issue because this is the way I feel about it, not because this is the side that the rest of my party has taken.




I don't think so... I'm pointing out how the partisan side-taking is the game of deflection. It's become a habit in political debate.


Having an opinion on an issue doesn't always equate to partisan side-taking. I think that what you're doing is a judgemental mistake made by quite a few people. You assume that because I have a political orientation, my opinions and arguments are rendered useless because I'm just a "politico". My opinions determine what side of the spectrum I fall on, not the other way around.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Herman
He wasn't using one example of a particular screw up in a mission, he was saying that our troops go around terrorizing kids, children, and not to mention destroying their customs.

Not a "screw up", but perhaps an improper mission was the meaning. And yes, the mission does indeed cause our troops to be in the position where they're terrorizing kids, children, families, and coming across as being insensitive to local customs/morals. It's not their fault... it's not their intent... but the nature of the mission places them in an unfortunate position.



He was painting our soldiers in a bad light to futher his own gain.

Not the soldiers, the mission.



Can you not see how this would be offensive to someone who feels that they've honorably served their time protecting a noble cause, or someone like me who has family and friends whom I feel are protecting a noble and just cause?

No. Not when he's clearly focused on the mission, and not any specific action of the soldiers, but the potential outcome of their required actions.




I'm taking the side of an issue because this is the way I feel about it, not because this is the side that the rest of my party has taken.

If so, I'm sorry to be leaning on you this way. (and afterall, it's just politics, we can grab a pint when this is done) But try to visualize my point here. A thread begins with an improper title, inspired by the grandiose distortions of right-wingers, who gleefully took an alternative meaning to Kerry's statement. Several people "pile on" with me-too's, so it's hard to sort out the conservative bandwagoners from those with a thought.

Here's the point I'm trying to make... what he is talking about; our troops occasionally being forced into missions that might be a no-win situation is much, much more important than the semantics of how he said it. And this can be just as true for right-wing pundits who are just as routinely and gleefully called fascist nazis by the liberal side of the fence. But in all of this noise, all of this bedlam over the silly games of semantics, the important issue ends up being lost.

Why?

Because in the end, there is no media bias other than profit. And news does not general profit, entertainment does. So these "news" stories about Kerry are nothing more than entertainment for the right wing 50% to enjoy... because issues are boring, and not very fun to talk about.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Not a "screw up", but perhaps an improper mission was the meaning. And yes, the mission does indeed cause our troops to be in the position where they're terrorizing kids, children, families, and coming across as being insensitive to local customs/morals. It's not their fault... it's not their intent... but the nature of the mission places them in an unfortunate position.


I agree with you up to a point, but I think this is where we split paths. Had John Kerry, assuming here that he's telling the truth in the first place, mentioned a mission in particular where troops were doing something wrong like terrorizing women and children, and went on to say that they shouldn't be doing this, it might make it better. I find it offensive because I, as well as the soldiers I know, support what they're doing and believe it's an honorable cause. They don't like to view what they're doing as terrorizing people, and I really don't think that's what they're doing at all. There's a difference between scaring people and terrorizing them into submission.




Not the soldiers, the mission.


But it's a mission the soldiers support. It's a mission they're fighting and dying for.



If so, I'm sorry to be leaning on you this way. (and afterall, it's just politics, we can grab a pint when this is done) But try to visualize my point here. A thread begins with an improper title, inspired by the grandiose distortions of right-wingers, who gleefully took an alternative meaning to Kerry's statement. Several people "pile on" with me-too's, so it's hard to sort out the conservative bandwagoners from those with a thought.


I can see what you mean here. So how about that pint?



Here's the point I'm trying to make... what he is talking about; our troops occasionally being forced into missions that might be a no-win situation is much, much more important than the semantics of how he said it. And this can be just as true for right-wing pundits who are just as routinely and gleefully called fascist nazis by the liberal side of the fence. But in all of this noise, all of this bedlam over the silly games of semantics, the important issue ends up being lost.


I think I've said most of what I can say on this issue. It is my feeling that what he said wasn't about troops occasionally being forced into missions that might be a no-win situation, it seems to me that he was being degrading to the troops overall. I think that the example that I gave you earlier (With a little input from dbates
) is sufficient in how I feel about this. "Skeptic shouldn't be pissing people off be sending them mean U2Us, RANT should." But semantics are semantics, and I do understand that people's viewpoints on things will differ from time to time.




Because in the end, there is no media bias other than profit. And news does not general profit, entertainment does. So these "news" stories about Kerry are nothing more than entertainment for the right wing 50% to enjoy... because issues are boring, and not very fun to talk about.


Now there's a point I can agree with you on. I've made this point before as well. News agencies wouldn't stand to gain profit simply by having a bias, so they create this sort of right-wing Vs. left-wing thing. I mean, does anyone really think that the media would be doing this for free? There's something to gain here with all of this division, and the media outlets have definitely caught on.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   
So John is back on his horse... or is that a mule he's beating to make it go?

His sister, Jane Fonda, is back there with him, promoting the release of the film "The Winter Soldier" which branded all VietNam veterans as war criminals. (I personally know this to be untrue, BTW.)

Frankly, I'm all for ending war, terrorism, violence of all kinds, but at least I'm smart enough to know that finger-pointing won't stop war.

In some circles we'd call what John Kerry and Jane Fonda are doing, "Blame the Victims."

(And please, don't elevate Kerry by calling him a snake! Snakes get rid of vermin....)



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
In an interview on "Face the Nation", Kerry said the following:

... and there is no reason, Bob (Schieffer), that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- of -- of -- historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not. Iraqis should be doing that.

[edit on 12/6/2005 by centurion1211]


Such a cowardly and ingenuous way to throw Rove insprired propaganda centurion. I was terrorized by my older sister when I was 5- does that make her a terrorist?

On the flip-flop issue let's look at some FACTS- the thing most right-wing fascist types- be they 1920 Nazis or 1990 Neo-cons despise:

Shrub said"

"I'm a uniter- not a divider"
"I will; not choose judges according to any predeterminied criterion"
"I am not a nation builder"
"I served my country when I was called upon" (anybody see this coke addict in Alabama after Daddy got him out of Texas while he was a drunken sot?

"9/11 was sponsored by the terrorists under Sadaam Hussein"
"Not a word about the lies of the "Swift Boats", but a sudden "that's enough when these same vipers went after the
"Imminently well-qualified" Harriet Miers.

Fascists are fond of sayinbg the W. got more votes than any other presidential candidate in history. They conveniently omit the FACT that John Kerry got teh SECOND MOST votes for president in AMerican History.

centurion- It's probably impossible, but trt the truth for once instead of spreading lies to people who may not read honest newspapers that de-bunk your kind of fascist propaganda.



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Kerry would have done much the same as Bush, he even admitted it before the election. Doesn't matter. Right now Both the Neocons and the so called Democratic leaders are anti-freedom. A couple dozen on both sides are non=partisan anti-tyranny. Not enough to make much of a difference. As far as terrorism is concerned, if we create terror then the shoe fits. This isn't really a war zone as such as the official, trained military has surrendered. most Iraqis are not hiding heavy duty military equipment in their houses. Small arms, maybe. Bombs on occaision. But would we like it if people burst into our homes to make sure we have no guns etc.? And what about the 2 British and 2 American special agents that were arrested by the Iraqi police who were caught planting roadside bombs and were dressed as Arabs with beards. The British an American armies immediatly demanded their release from the legitimate Iraqi police who at first refused as they wanted to prosecute them as terrorists. But the Allied armies sent a contingent of troops to force their release. So who are the terrorists anyway?? And maybe more importantly, who funds them? Do any of you think that their are only 2 British and 2 American agents involved in this? There are probably many more pretending to be terrorists to justify staying in Iraq and funding the war. But how does it make y'all feel with American agents dressed as Arabs blowing up American soldiers so that people will say: "See they're still doing it. It's not safe yet. Send more troops. Stay longer."



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
In an interview on "Face the Nation", Kerry said the following:

... and there is no reason, Bob (Schieffer), that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- of -- of -- historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not. Iraqis should be doing that.
[edit on 12/6/2005 by centurion1211]


Soldiers Terrorizing Children?
What The F***? Where is he getting this #? My cousin Danny (US Marine) was over there TWICE! He told me about soldure helping families, and sharing their feild rations with hungry kids (granted MRE's might not be the best food on earth). Sure, war is scarry for a child, but to accuse our men and women in uniform of going out to terrorize children! This a new low for the world of politics!

Did I make a poor choice in voting for Kerry to be president?


I really thought he was better then that!


Tim

[edit on 15-12-2005 by ghost]



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ptownrob

centurion- It's probably impossible, but trt the truth for once instead of spreading lies to people who may not read honest newspapers that de-bunk your kind of fascist propaganda.



Quoting Face the Nation is "spreading fascist propaganda"?

You obviously have nothing intelligent to bring to any discussion. With a total of like 78 points, you might want to study what is going on before making any more foolish-sounding posts such as you have.

I think I'll add you to my ignore list for awhile and check back with you in 6 months or so to see if you've matured any by then.

[edit on 12/15/2005 by centurion1211]



top topics
 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join