It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by DaTruth
Kerry and Bush are two diffrent sides of the same devilish coin. Get over it!!!
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....VietnamIraqi people good".
[edit on 8-12-2005 by dbates]
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
To say that he "called US troops 'terrorists' " (and you know the connotations of that word) is simply sensationalism.
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?
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....
"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."
Personally, I think Kerry, like Bush, has a significant speech impediment.
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.
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?
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?
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....
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'?
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Why does it have to be this way?
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.
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.
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:
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?
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.
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.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
More crazy sensationalism:
www.drudgereport.com...
Why does it have to be this way?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?