Kerry calls U.S. troops terrorists

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Quoting Face the Nation is "spreading fascist propaganda"?


No. The propaganda being referred to is the twisting of Kerry's words by the right's entertainment -er- "press".




posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

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.


Hey, I admit I saw that on a conservative website and it kind of stuck with me after reading more of Howard Dean's ("War is not winable"), Kerry's ("U.S. troops are terrorists" - 2nd time , 2nd war) and Pelosi's diatribes. These so-called leaders, along with like-minded Hollywood types continually bash anything Republican and/or military without regard for the truth or (50) the effect it might have on our troops in harms way or the will to fight of the enemies they face. It appears that they value opportunities to knock Bush down a peg more than the lives of the soldiers on the front lines. That losing a war would serve their purposes more than winning one no matter the cost to their own countrymen and women. Just got to nail Bush! At the same time, some of these people fawn over dictators like Fidel Castro. How that relates to the line I posted is very simple. The people I mentioned sit here in the U.S. safe, with their freedoms protected by the very people they seek to vilify at the same time defending, making excuses for, and fawning over (I used it twice because it is such an excellent description) those that would truly seek to destroy the country that protects them. Contrast their actions with those of any volunteer soldier that has ever been interviewed. You know, the ones actually facing danger and death in the middle east? Telling that even the soldiers that come back with terrible wounds still say the same things.

There you have twice or three times 50 words to flesh out a one-line statement that says the same thing, but much more eloquently.


[edit on 12/15/2005 by centurion1211]



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by centurion1211
Quoting Face the Nation is "spreading fascist propaganda"?


No. The propaganda being referred to is the twisting of Kerry's words by the right's entertainment -er- "press".


You, of all people, consider anything besides Fox in the the media to belong to the right? Incredible.



[edit on 12/15/2005 by centurion1211]



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Leave the Overlord alone; he's a "centrist"!




posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
You, of all people, consider anything besides Fox in the the media to belong to the right? Incredible.



There's more to right-wing-entertainment media than cable news networks:
Google News: "John Kerry" troops terrorist (The results are much more slim than last week as Google news cycles in current articles)
General Google search

The right-wing fringe press and bloggers were having a feeding frenzy over this.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   
First, Kerry did not, in that quote, call our troops "terrorists." He said they were "terrorizing" Iraqi civilians. Despite the linguistic similarity and connection, those words do not mean the same thing. "Terrorism" is defined at dictionary.com as:

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

One may "terrorize" someone without doing so to intimidate or coerce societies or governments. Our troops are not attempting to influence the Iraqi government, they are attempting to search out dissidents. So they are not engaging in terrorism, are not terrorists, and Kerry didn't call them terrorists. But they ARE terrorizing the Iraqis, and that's what he said.

Second, although he mangled his language and put it pathetically, the gist of what he was saying is: we have no business being there. If that sort of thing has to be done, let the Iraqi military do it, not ours. And I completely agree.

Now, as to his having voted for the war originally -- ya got him. That definitely does undercut his moral authority.

[edit on 16-12-2005 by Two Steps Forward]



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
That definitely does undercut his moral authority.

Assuming he had any to begin with.

The odd thing here is that we're debating semantic nuances of a dreadful game being played by opposing sides, both of which offensive to any thinking person of reason.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
There you have twice or three times 50 words to flesh out a one-line statement that says the same thing, but much more eloquently.


Here's seven words from Bush.

Prez on war against terror: 'I don't think you can win it'

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Why not take his comments out of context and put as much effort into painting him as defeatist coward? He said the exact same thing as Howard Dean or any other thinking person looking at a "global struggle against an idea."



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Headline:

Bush Surrenders to Terrorists!

Same twist. We're unlikely to see the "press" paint this picture though aren't we?

Why are the liberals so crappy at playing this part of the game?



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Why are the liberals so crappy at playing this part of the game?


Since the 60's wealthy conservative ideologues have invested over $30 billion in developing think tanks with well funded media departments to sit around and come up with ridiculous things for Centurion to say. Seriously.

There is no similar communal brain on the liberal side, with very little attention paid to framing unfortunately. The reality based community is diverse (as is reality) and comfortably predicated on facts, the only tie that binds them... falsely believing as if disseminating those is enough for any thinking person to see the light.

Obviously that's not the case. At least not any more with a mobilized media blitz reshaping reality 24/7 to suit the upside down world of that outrageouly loud minority known as the right wing "true believer."

It's pretty amazing what money can buy these days, and what you can accomplish if you have no integrity.

[edit on 16-12-2005 by RANT]



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Since the 60's wealthy conservative ideologues have invested over $30 billion in developing think tanks with well funded media departments to sit around and come up with ridiculous things for Centurion to say. Seriously.

There is no similar communal brain on the liberal side, with very little attention paid to framing unfortunately.


The left didn't have to put that sort of conscious effort into promoting their message, since their message, dressed as it is in elitist clothing, was already the message du jour for all those who are overeducated yet still startlingly unable to actually think. They were, and many of them still are ("...reality based community... :lol
certain in their arrogant ignorance that their largely nonsensical or flatly irrational beliefs are obvious and true, as demonstrated by the fact that those who claim to know told them so. They proudly and/or scornfully ladled out their dogma through virtually all of the mainstream media outlets until such time as the conservative investment in disseminating their own viewpoint FINALLY started to pay off, first with Rush Limbaugh and the rise of talk radio, then, with a rush, with Fox News. And the leftists have sputtered and fumed ever since, deeply offended that any message other than theirs might actually be presented to all those idiots who (*gasp!*) might actually believe it.


...the upside down world of that outrageouly loud minority known as the right wing "true believer."


I think it can safely be said that the single most vivid distinguishing characteristic of the true believer is his/her deep and abiding disdain for the true believers on the other "side."



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Another mitigating factor as Bob LaoTse has just pointed out is that conservatives these days are perfectly comfortable spewing utter nonsense at great length in response to any factual observation. Their tatic being to bore a thinking person to death I do believe. There's no counter to nonsenses and they know it, but even bothering to respond on their terms grants them the gift of accepting their frames. Slowly, the reality based community is learning to simply ignore them. It's not a good sign for discussion board post count, but it is what's happening. That's also why liberals "suck" at "this." They tend to have integrity.




[edit on 17-12-2005 by RANT]



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Kerry did not, in that quote, call our troops "terrorists."
He said they were "terrorizing" Iraqi civilians.


Same thing.

Kerry stepped in it. It's not the right wing having a field
day twisting words. Kerry is an idiot and he, once again,
said something stupid and is being called on it. Typical
that the stupid and untruthful thing Kerry said was against
our military - ala the Winter Soldier 'investigations'!!!

As Rant said - Bush was stupid for saying 'We can't win'.

Stupid politicians say idiotic things. Kerry said it. Now
he has to live with the consequences. This isn't Right
Wing twisting ... it's just people talking about what
Kerry handed them ... and he handed it to them on a
silver platter.

We should all have fun with it. Afterall, in 2008 we will
have President Hillary and she's MUCH brighter than
Kerry. She knows better to think before she speaks
and finding some misquotes of hers will be very difficult.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
... wealthy conservative ideologues have invested over ....
There is no similar communal brain on the liberal side ...


Ahhhhhh Rant ... you forget George Soros and the 527s.
And of course Hollyweird money and ....



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Kerry did not, in that quote, call our troops "terrorists."
He said they were "terrorizing" Iraqi civilians.


Same thing.


No it isn't.

If that's the "same thing" (what Kerry said), then how do we classify Bush saying, "We should surrender to the terrorists"?



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Classify it as 'same thing'. Because it is.

Kerry DID call our soldiers terrorists.
Bush DID say we couldn't win (so why bother?)

Like I said .. both were idiotic things said by stupid people.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by centurion1211
There you have twice or three times 50 words to flesh out a one-line statement that says the same thing, but much more eloquently.


Here's seven words from Bush.

Prez on war against terror: 'I don't think you can win it'

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Why not take his comments out of context and put as much effort into painting him as defeatist coward? He said the exact same thing as Howard Dean or any other thinking person looking at a "global struggle against an idea."



I don't need to, you just did. And I'm sure you aren't the first to do so. Interesting that if you take what was reported that Bush said literally, it sounds like you and Bush are in agreement on this issue. I took Bush's statement to mean (if reported accurately and in context) that the war on terror is more of a process than an event. Something Bush has been saying since his speech to Congress right after 9/11.

Dean, on the other hand, is a well documented pacififist and appeaser.

Love this made up picture, but any thinking person would have to wonder based on reported comments if this isn't how these people would have really responded to Pearl Harbor.




img524.imageshack.us...


[edit on 12/17/2005 by centurion1211]



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 08:51 AM
link   
I refuse to defend Bush and have taken him to task for his policies on immigration and border control (to me part of the war on terror), energy prices, and now this domestic spying without warrants issue.

I also don't think the war in iraq has been managed correctly from the start. If the generals had been allowed the forces they originally wanted, then a lot of the "insurgents" setting up bombs would now be disarmed and inside a barbed-wire stockade while we and/or allah sort them out.


[edit on 12/17/2005 by centurion1211]



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   
This is lunacy. Kerry did not call our troops terrorist... he clearly said the actions of our troops are terrorizing Iraqis. Two very different things.

Sad.

If ever the regulars of PTS are to lament over low interest and post-count on this suburb of ATS, all you need to do is consider this thread. Perhaps the low interest in PTS is an early signal that people are growing tired of this pointless exaaggerated bickering based on outright misrepresetation of "what the other side said."

Perhaps "apathy" is better than distortion.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
This is lunacy. Kerry did not call our troops terrorist... he clearly said the actions of our troops are terrorizing Iraqis. Two very different things.


You are attempting to defend Kerry by using semantics, which IMO is so very weak. Look it up. A terrorist is one who terrorizes. You can't be one without doing the other. Logically, accusing U.S. troops of "terrorizing" is the same as accusing them of being terrorists.



If ever the regulars of PTS are to lament over low interest and post-count on this suburb of ATS, all you need to do is consider this thread. Perhaps the low interest in PTS is an early signal that people are growing tired of this pointless exaaggerated bickering based on outright misrepresetation of "what the other side said."


The tactic your guys Dean, Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Durban, etc, use is to throw political "bombs" and then run away. Sounds like "political terrorism" to me. But if someone like me attempts to point that out and call a spade a spade, then you post some BS lament such your last post.

Puh-lease ...


[edit on 12/17/2005 by centurion1211]





top topics
 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join