The men of New York were under orders to rape and did so with the full knowledge of city officials at all levels. That was our job Having been ordered to rape many spent 24/7 stoned to get past the moral trauma. After having raped for so long under orders we finally started going into bars where we met the women we raped and found that they were regular people. After we objected, we had a meeting with the mayo who told us what a good job we were doing, and that it was the right thing to rape the women of New York. That was when I realized I could no longer rape the women of New York.
I don’t understand. So what? Do you expect this stuff to be at Johnkerry.com? None of the material on the site I have shown you is original to that site. The Fulbright testimony is complete. The FBI file is complete. Everything on that site is sourced.
Rejecting information because you do not like the source is a fallacy. Accept or reject the information on its merits.
Your disingenuosity wears thin, oh constant debater-in-bad-faith. Previously you simultaneously complained about my cites while complaining that I did not provide any.
You continue to deprecate my cite on principal without engaging the material. You claim that it is invalid simply because it is on a site called “freerepublic.” You are engaging in a fallacy by doing so. Since it has been pointed out to you, yet you persist in doing so, I consider your objection to be disingenuous. I will repeat: The material I have provided is cited for it’s provenance.
Do you claim that Kerry’s testimony or any of his quotes that I have shown from that cite, be they from an interview or from his books, or from his testimony have been altered or falsified?
If you wish to make the claim, by all means do so and be prepared to prove your serious accusation.
If you are unwilling to make the claim then you have no grounds to dismiss the cite out of hand other than your own personal prejudice, which doesn’t cut it.
Quit the bullshit, quit the editorializing and respond to the material or get lost and stop wasting my time.
Is that all I have?
You will have to eat what is on the plate before you can ask for seconds.
So typical. Ask for a cite and ignore it. Elucilogic.
Not quite, old bean. If I were to ignore your cite, I would not make mention of it, now would I? I make specific reference to your citation because the Freepers are so…widely known.
Hell, Scylla, in that one paragraph you make about 10 seperate charges of treachery, and you substantiate none of them, beyond “Swifties said it, I believe it, that settles it!” Shit, Lex Luthor and Tokyo Rose mixed together couldn’t have commited all the crimes you swear Kerry committed, and the one source you have for your accusations are his sworn political enemies!
Your citations and authorities come in two varietys, clearly biased and non-existent. If you are determined to believe that constitutes a convincing argument, or even a rational one, heck, its ok with me. But I’m not gonna pretend I do.
This is an excerpt from what I found at the site that Cheney intended to recommend in the Vice Presidential debate:
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=244.html
I also recommend reading the entire discussion of Kerry’s testimony. It includes his reflections now on what he said then.
Aw, heck, Zoe, I just get done fussing with Scylla about biased sourcing, and then you come in and post a cite to those radical-liberal lefties over at the Annenberg! In the People’s Republic of Pennsylvania. Kind of guys refer to Che Guevera by his first name, like he’s Cher. Folk-singers with vegetarian dogs catching frisbees.
I warned you, elucidator. Here’s an emoticon just for you: :dubious:
Again, you’re knocking down strawmen. No one is claiming that atrocities never happen. I even conceded that the number could be in the hundreds.
However, that is for over 600,000 men, over a ten year period, in a war zone.
There are thousands of crimes committed each year by blacks. What would you think of me if I said, “Black people in America rape, murder, and steal. The problem is widespread, on an almost daily basis.”
That may be factually true, but is it a reasonable characterization of black people? Of course not. It’s a smear - smearing the many for the actions of a few. Kerry made it sound like the U.S. military was out of control, stoned, ravaging the countryside. It’s just a flat-out lie. It’s slander. The average soldier was by far an honest, caring individual, just like they are when they get home. There’s nothing about putting on a uniform that turns you into a monster.
Furthermore, Kerry’s claims of personally witnessing and taking part in war crimes implicated his own fellow Swift Boat comrades. When he talked about being given a .50 caliber machine gun for shooting anything that moves, he implies that the other Swiftees did as well.
And if he felt that it was important to make his charges, he had a responsibility to make sure that the accounts of the men he was representing were accurate. He didn’t. He just gathered up any accusations he could find and flung them out there without regard for the damage he was doing.
<snip>
<snip>
<snip>
Are you sure that that’s what happened in the real world of Vietnam? One hero on the scene who tried to intervene lives here in Nashville. His name is Hugh Thompson.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/06/60minutes/main615997.shtml
These are excerpts from a 60 Minutes broadcast about his experience. The full transcript is at the site. (I’ve added bolding to emphasize the justice that was shown to our heroes who told the truth.)
It was over thirty years later that Thompson was finally awarded the Soldier’s Medal and inducted on the first ballot into the Army Aviation Hall of Fame.
Scylla, as far as I am concerned, you are in the same position as Thompson’s superiors when he reported to them. And you are in the same position as the Senators who heard his testimony in 1970.
You can write it all off as balderdash. You can generalize that if some men are lying, then all in that group are lying. You can generalize that if a man believed that all of the stories that he has heard from a group, he must be a liar himself. You can rationalize that age and experience cannot have a moderating effect on how one views the past without changing the truth of the past. You can put him in a box with a label and kick him to the curb with the Hugh Thompsons of this world.
Or you can read some sources – those without an agenda – and find that the heroes that you described were often treated like dirt and continue to be and that you may be participating in it.
So you are alleging the WSI testimony used a high level of generality. Amounting to “almost without exception”?
Can you substantiate that with a quote from Kerry’s testimony?
So this, then, is the aforementioned Stone Quotient, the ratio of abominable acts to number of service personnel. And this level is “Acceptable”, we may assume?
No, he did not. You have subjected his statements to coercive interrogation, and they have confessed.
Thoses 8 or 9 guys who stand with him on the stage, you know, those guys who were actually on the same boat, they seem to have no problem with it. If they don’t, what’s it to you?
He didn’t have to look very hard, now did he? And I happen to think he did very clearly regard the damage he was doing, he was damaging the credibility of men who didn’t deserve any. His quotes are entirely clear, he blames the political and military leadership, and regards the “grunt” as more a victim than a criminal.
There are, indeed, a number of vets Kerry indicts, they’re the ones with the shiny pieces of metal on thier lapels and hats. And the men in suits who signed their orders.
Let us say I accuse you of running somebody over in a car. Later when you demonstrate that you didn’t I show that other people have been run over by cars to prove that I wasn’t lying.
It’s not whether or not atrocities occured. The question is whether the ones produced at Wintersoldier were factual or unfactual.
I submit to you that since they were generalized, nonspecific, unverified, and unsubstantiated and did not result in a single prosecution, they served no other purpose than to libel the troops that were serving in Vietnam. A man who would do such a thing is a traitor.
Zoe:
That’s what I’m talking about. This man did the right thing. He was specific in his charges. He acted on the scene, and he saw the parties prosecuted at great personal cost.
Kerry was neither specific, nor did he act, nor did he see anyone prosecuted. The personal cost was to be invited into a star chamber, where dissenting opinions were not allowed (O’neil wished to dispute the charges but was not allowed to testify,) so that Fulbright could help launch Kerry’s poslitical career. He practically says so right int the testimony. There is no heroics or sacrifice here, no specificity. As has been demonstrated and conceded the process of Kerry’s investigation was rife with imposters and fakers, including his cofounders and Kerry made no attempt to verify his findings.
That’s why he’s a traitor and a sell out.
I think there are fine Democrats. I do not knee-jerk hate Democrats. I do not buy into the slander books, though I do sometimes read them. I thought Whitewater was crap. I thought Dereliction of Duty which was a smear on Clinton was crap. I didn’t think Clinton did a bad job. I like Lieberman.
Jane Fonda apologized for what she did. I don’t like her but I think that took guts. Kerry never apologized for what he did to the veterans. He never apolgized for what he did to the POWS. He is the scum of the earth.
To even here Kerry compared to a man like Thompson is sickening.
So:
We can take Scylla’s silence as meaning No, I cannot substantiate my argument with reference to the actual text of the WSI testimony.
Glad we’ve cleared that up. Feel free to continue arguing in this manner.
Scylla claims to prove that there was no basis for the allegations of the WS because there was no resulting disciplinary action.
Cite?
He claims to know that the reason that this is so is because subsequent investigation revealed them to be groundless.
Cite?
Just for starters.
“Rife with”? Does this imply that friend Scylla knows precisely how many of the WS testifiers were impostors? Does this imply that a majority of the WS testifiers were impostors? One has the nagging suspicion that the authority for this is the same as the above. Scylla is invited to show otherwise.
No. You can take my silence to mean that I thought it was a stupid question. I’ve linked to the testimony. It ain’t all that long. Go read it. I can’t quote a characterization of the testimony, since the source is the entire testimony.
This was a stupid argument the first time you made it. It’s even more stupid the second time,l since it’s been explained to you. I cannot cite an absence of a case. You can ascertain the absence by downloading and reading the FBI file (which is large and complete) over at WWW.wintersoldier.com
The FBI file.
You don’t get know more cites until you eat what’s on your plate.
You haven’t addressed the imposters I’ve already shown you, nor the liars. You get no more cites. All you do is cry “cite!” but you never address them. Four years now, and all you do is ask for cites and then dodge them. I cannot recall you ever accepting a cite. No more cites for you ever, ever, ever. You do not deal with them in good faith.
Rife with?
After reading Kerry’s testimony, seeing that both his cofounders were imposters, that Kerry suborned perjury from Pitkin, that he did not check the credentials or substantiate the claims of anyone, and simply told generalized bullshit, I feel pretty confident in saying the whole fucking thing was a kangaroo court, and is dismissable by rational individuals as worthless.
I’d say “rife with” is being generous, as it suggests that there is something other than imposters, and lies. It is suggesting that there is something substantiated and useful.
No. The “characterization” of the testimony is your own. But as long as you’re here, got those cites, requested above?
Well, we are agreed that you certainly shouldn’t. And yet are entirely comfortable citing the absence of a case as proof.
As could you, no? Since it is you making the claim, isn’t up to you to read all 10,000 pages to prove your contention? It is interesting to note that the paladins of truth you hold in such regard have no such cites. Have they read them?
Doesn’t it strike you as odd that they have no references, they simply dump the pages and invite you on, without anything like “see page 115 for conversation between Kerry and Fonda, concerning dumping LSD into drinking water of Fort Bliss…” Seems to me, if they had something to show, they are astonishingly modest about showing it off!
See, Scylla, here’s how this works. I ask you for a cite that the platypus is native to Australia. You are not expected to state “Encyclopedia Brittanica, go read it”. Something more like “EB, volume 1, page 123-124,”…the platypus, which is native to Australia…” By trying to send your questioner on a multi-volume snipe hunt, you disappoint your innumerable admirers by clumsily evading the question. Poor form, that.
Oh, dear me. One feels a bit like Oliver Twist, imploring more soup from the Cite Nazi!
“Please, sir, could I have some more? Or, at least, some?”
“No cites for you!”
Read your cite on that. Pitkin states, IIRC, that he was “suborned” by the threat of being denied a ride home. Heavy threat, that, but he does not state that Kerry personally suborned that testimony, as you imply. And if this fellow is as easily suborned as this, why then do you believe his testimony of retraction over his testimony of assertion? Why believe anything he says at all?
Yes, you do say that. That has been established, that you say so. What has not been established is your authority in so stating. You do have such authority, right? Surely you would not make such indictments as treason and treachery simply on hearsay, a man as reasonable and cautious as yourself?
So lets see if we’ve got this right. It is your assertion that all, or at least the vast majority, of the WS testimonials are false, and derive from impostors. Your authority for this bald assertion is Sen Kerry’s political enemies. Or a huge pile of documents you have not, yourself, actually read, but invite me to go searching for proof of your argument. Because you can’t be bothered. I should just take your word for it because, well, you’re Scylla.
Scylla dicta, ergo est.
Don’t know how I missed it. From the winter soldier site that friend Scylla is asserting as Gospel…
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040518192545112
Turns out they haven’t read the matieral! In fact, they invite their readership to participate in the research they haven’t conducted, and to advise toot sweet should they discover anything “interesting”…by which I presume they mean damning evidence against the arch-fiend, Kerry.
You don’t know diddly-squat about this material. The people you are relying upon for your accusations don’t know diddly-squat!
I haven’t kept a running count over the past years. I can’t say, with any certainty, that this would qualify as a bona fide example of the Top Ten Lamest Cites Ever by Scylla
A high bar to clear, to be sure…