Page 8 of 17 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 165

Thread: Dutch fury at US general's gay theory over Srebrenica

  1. #71
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Dutch fury at US general's gay theory over Srebrenica

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Which has exactly what to do with what general Sheehan said?
    This is like when NavyDude said he met a sailor from a ship that doesn't actually exist. I think he really thinks we were talking about Cindy Sheehan this whole time.

  2. #72
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: Dutch fury at US general's gay theory over Srebrenica

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Typical. When caught out, you try and raise irrelevancies. No one is saying this is a court of law, only that hearsay evidence is not of particular value, especially when hard evidence is available.
    If you are going to lie about what you said Redress, you really should edit your response

    You said:
    You are aware of the value of hearsay evidence(or lack thereof
    The rule against hearsay is deceptively simple and full of exceptions. Hearsay is an out of court statement, made in court, to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

    http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/m...-evidence.html

    Now, please explain where hearsay evidence is even called that anywhere else but a court of law? And was he in a court of law? Nope. Wrong again Redress.

    It really is pathetic for you to try and wiggle out of your own words when I can quote you so easily. You tried to pretend as usual to assign rules that never did apply in order to denigrate the evidence presented.

    Once again your lies are exposed. Your attempted deceptions get more pathetic with every post.

    Do you have any other irrelevant comments to make as if they might prove something? Do you have any evidence except the words of a general that are not supported in any way?
    I have no reason to doubt his word but you doubt it without any evidence.

    The irony here is so thick you could cut it.
    Last edited by texmaster; 03-20-10 at 01:09 AM.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  3. #73
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: Dutch fury at US general's gay theory over Srebrenica

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    So far, General Sheehan has provided no concrete evidence to back his assertions and no Dutch political or military official has backed his account, either concerning the issue of sexual orientation or his being told of such an issue. In fact, if the sexual orientation of some Dutch troops was a direct or indirect contributing factor concerning the Dutch troops' performance, the inquiry into the events and news accounts from that time would have captured that issue. No references to such an issue are made, either in news reports or the lengthy report of the inquiry. Whether General Sheehan deliberately deceived Congress to promote a personal perspective or has a faulty recollection of what happened almost 15 years ago is entirely a different matter. What seems clear at this point is that his theory is not supported by evidence or witnesses and, as it is unsubstantiated, cannot add value to the Senate's work.
    So you are calling him a liar without evidence.

    You have no counter claim from any source disputing what he said.

    And you have no history of him ever lying.

    I got it. You and the others who just can't accept he was quoting accurately have nothing to back your assertions but you'll say it anyway because you don't agree with the statement.

    It truly is sad to believe someone is lying without evidence just because you don't like the answer.
    Last edited by texmaster; 03-20-10 at 01:05 AM.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  4. #74
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: Dutch fury at US general's gay theory over Srebrenica

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Wow, big difference.
    Actually, it is.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  5. #75
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,273
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Dutch fury at US general's gay theory over Srebrenica

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    Once again your lies are exposed. Your excuses get more pathetic with every post.



    I have no reason to doubt his word but you doubt it without any evidence.

    The irony here is so thick you could cut it.
    I would like to ask you then outright sir, do you believe wholeheartedly, that gays not only contributed to the failure of the Dutch battle in question.

    And an openly gay military would lead to a weaker military?

    P.S. - Would you mind please changing your sig, its lagging out my screen big time

  6. #76
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: Dutch fury at US general's gay theory over Srebrenica

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    I would like to ask you then outright sir, do you believe wholeheartedly, that gays not only contributed to the failure of the Dutch battle in question.
    I have no idea. I wasn't there.

    And an openly gay military would lead to a weaker military?
    Again, I leave that up to the military to decide. I have no direct knowledge or experience to base that off of.

    That is why if the military does decide to let homosexuals serve openly you wont hear a peep out of me. If its forced upon them however, you will.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  7. #77
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,741

    Re: Dutch fury at US general's gay theory over Srebrenica

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    I have no idea. I wasn't there.



    Again, I leave that up to the military to decide. I have no direct knowledge or experience to base that off of.

    That is why if the military does decide to let homosexuals serve openly you wont hear a peep out of me. If its forced upon them however, you will.
    Explain this. Who gets to decide?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  8. #78
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:37 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,290
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Dutch fury at US general's gay theory over Srebrenica

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    If you are going to lie about what you said Redress, you really should edit your response

    You said:

    The rule against hearsay is deceptively simple and full of exceptions. Hearsay is an out of court statement, made in court, to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

    "Hearsay" Evidence - Criminal Law

    Now, please explain where hearsay evidence is even called that anywhere else but a court of law? And was he in a court of law? Nope. Wrong again Redress.

    It really is pathetic for you to try and wiggle out of your own words when I can quote you so easily. You tried to pretend as usual to assign rules that never did apply in order to denigrate the evidence presented.

    Once again your lies are exposed. Your attempted deceptions get more pathetic with every post.



    I have no reason to doubt his word but you doubt it without any evidence.

    The irony here is so thick you could cut it.
    You are trying too hard. Let's look at an actual normal dictionary to see how most people use the word "hearsay". Hearsay | Define Hearsay at Dictionary.com


    –noun
    1.
    unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.
    2.
    an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.
    –adjective
    3.
    of, pertaining to, or characterized by hearsay: hearsay knowledge; a hearsay report.

    Interesting, no requirement mentioned for a court for something to be hearsay.

    Now, the reason I doubt his word is because it's hearsay, and as such useless, and there is an actual report done on the situation(we call this "evidence") that comes to a different conclusion. You believe only what you want to believe, whereas the rest of us look at the evidence and draw conclusions.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  9. #79
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,019

    Re: Dutch fury at US general's gay theory over Srebrenica

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    So you are calling him a liar without evidence.

    You have no counter claim from any source disputing what he said.

    And you have no history of him ever lying.

    I got it. You and the others who just can't accept he was quoting accurately have nothing to back your assertions but you'll say it anyway because you don't agree with the statement.

    It truly is sad to believe someone is lying without evidence just because you don't like the answer.
    In a debate, the 'moron' tends to take whatever information is given by whatever source at whatever time as long as he thinks it supports his point. Rational adults in a debate depend on various sources, extrapolating on the data and making conclusions based on all the data available. Instead of that which only matches their point of view. When a single source makes a claim and this claim can not be verified through any other means, most adults tend to brush it off. Most morons tend to preach it as the gospel and refuse to let go of it. Arguing for the sake of arguing is what morons do.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  10. #80
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    Re: Dutch fury at US general's gay theory over Srebrenica

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    So you are calling him a liar without evidence.
    I never said that. Instead, I wrote:

    Whether General Sheehan deliberately deceived Congress to promote a personal perspective or has a faulty recollection of what happened almost 15 years ago is entirely a different matter.

    As I don't have knowledge of his memory of past events or intent when he made his allegation, I can't go beyond the two possibilities I stated.

    You have no counter claim from any source disputing what he said.
    The absence of evidence, no references to sexual orientation whatsoever in the exhaustive investigation into the Dutch troops' performance with respect to the massacre, and in the numerous press accounts/stories concering the Dutch commander's views suggests that the body of credible evidence is greatly against the General's allegation. In contrast, the General provided no direct evidence to bolster his claim. He only suggested that a 'Dutch leader' told him. In the wake of his testimony, a number of Dutch political and military leaders condemned his remarks. No Dutch leader has confirmed his account.

    And you have no history of him ever lying.
    I never looked into his background, so I don't have any such knowledge. But, as noted above, faulty recollection not a deliberate lie could be involved

    I got it. You and the others who just can't accept he was quoting accurately have nothing to back your assertions but you'll say it anyway because you don't agree with the statement.
    Considering that all the other evidence--inquiry into the matter/press accounts from that time--make no linkage or reference whatsoever to the sexual orientation of some Dutch troops, and considering the response of the Dutch political and military officials following General Sheehan's remarks (not a single official corroborating his allegation), I have a good degree of confidence that the General's allegation is not accurate.

    It truly is sad to believe someone is lying without evidence just because you don't like the answer.
    I never made such a statement. A person's remarks could be inaccurate for a range of reasons. One such reason that I specifically noted was faulty memory from almost 15 years ago. Indeed, if I felt that the General was deliberately lying, rather than just suggesting that his testimony be stricken from the record, I would have suggested that he be held to proper account considering that he was under oath at the time of his testimony. Right now, I suspect that the combination of his personal opinions and a bad recollection of events from nearly 15 years ago are probably the basis of his allegation.

    What is relevant for the Senate's work is that the answer to the question as to whether sexual orientation of some Dutch troops contributed to the chain of events in Srebrenica can be found in the large body of evidence from the inquiry and information that was provided following that tragic event and remains on record. Such information is not tainted by time's erosion of the human memory. The issue of sexual orientation did not arise at any time during the examination of the massacre. The evidence debunks the General's theory.

    For the Senate's purposes, the only issue with respect to the Srebrenica massacre, as part of the larger performance context, is whether the sexual orientation of some Dutch troops contributed directly or indirectly to a bad performance leading up to and during the massacre. The evidence suggests no such contribution. Given the large body of existing evidence, the Senate can dismiss the General's unsupported theory.

Page 8 of 17 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •