• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dutch fury at US general's gay theory over Srebrenica

Jetboogieman said:
this may be totally unrelated. But could you change your Signature, its lagging out my screen when I'm scrolling up and down.
Click to expand...

I think it's amusing and fitting that his signature is a pack of rodents...but that's just me.
 
FWIW, the official Dutch investigation into the situation makes no mention whatsoever to the sexual orientation of Dutch troops contributing in any way to what happened. The report can be found at:

NIOD - Srebrenica

A UN Newswire account of the Dutch commander's testimony during the Dutch inquiry also makes no mention of sexual orientation. That account can be found at:

Dutch Commander Faults U.N. For Srebrenica Massacre; More

In the end, General Sheehan provided no evidence to back up his assertions. The report following the inquiry found nothing to corroborate General Sheehan's assertions. No Dutch commander has backed his account. Instead, the Dutch have condemned his remarks.

IMO, the absence of corroborating evidence, the findings of the Inquiry into the massacre, the absence of confirmation from any Dutch military officials, and the swift and strong condemnation of Dutch political and military officials suggests that General Sheehan's account is inaccurate. Almost certainly, it is a matter of his personal speculation, only. As such, following outreach to the relevant Dutch officials (military and political), General Sheehan's testimony should be stricken from the record, as it provides no useful information for the Senate's work.
 
texmaster said:
Are you calling him a liar? Do you have any evidence he fabricated what he was told in any way?
Click to expand...

Do you have any actual evidence that what he said is true? All he seems to be doing is giving second or third hand information. That is not evidence.
 
donsutherland1 said:
FWIW, the official Dutch investigation into the situation makes no mention whatsoever to the sexual orientation of Dutch troops contributing in any way to what happened. The report can be found at:

NIOD - Srebrenica

A UN Newswire account of the Dutch commander's testimony during the Dutch inquiry also makes no mention of sexual orientation. That account can be found at:

Dutch Commander Faults U.N. For Srebrenica Massacre; More

In the end, General Sheehan provided no evidence to back up his assertions. The report following the inquiry found nothing to corroborate General Sheehan's assertions. No Dutch commander has backed his account. Instead, the Dutch have condemned his remarks.

IMO, the absence of corroborating evidence, the findings of the Inquiry into the massacre, the absence of confirmation from any Dutch military officials, and the swift and strong condemnation of Dutch political and military officials suggests that General Sheehan's account is inaccurate. Almost certainly, it is a matter of his personal speculation, only. As such, following outreach to the relevant Dutch officials (military and political), General Sheehan's testimony should be stricken from the record, as it provides no useful information for the Senate's work.
Click to expand...

They had to sweep it under the rug, they can't go against the PC agenda or they will suffer the consequences.....;)
 
Partisan said:
They had to sweep it under the rug, they can't go against the PC agenda or they will suffer the consequences.....;)
Click to expand...

Can you offer any proof of this assertion? No?

Didn't think so.
 
jallman said:
Can you offer any proof of this assertion? No?

Didn't think so.
Click to expand...

Yeah, to defend an unsupported allegation, he simply makes a new one.
 
Partisan said:
They had to sweep it under the rug, they can't go against the PC agenda or they will suffer the consequences.....;)
Click to expand...

Now you're just grasping at foolishness. You've got nothing. As usual.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Now you're just grasping at foolishness. You've got nothing. As usual.
Click to expand...

He's constructing the classic conspiracy theory. Whenever confronted with conflicting evidence, simply claim that that's part of the coverup too.
 
texmaster said:
Are you calling him a liar? Do you have any evidence he fabricated what he was told in any way?
Click to expand...

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.
 
donsutherland1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course, now you know you are gonna be subjected to the stand-by caterwauling of "How dare you question 'the troops'?"

I appreciate your logical approach to all this but I fear you are wasting your time.
 
texmaster said:
That theory should be easy for you to prove.

Please provide the statement from the former chief of staff of the Dutch army disputing the statement.



What facts are you basing this opinion on?



Do you have any evidence to support that was his reason?
Click to expand...

It's hilarious that you always ask for proof while never providing any.

I think using the words "most likely" made it clear I was speculating. Of course, my speculation is based around facts and not wishful thinking.
 
texmaster said:
This isn't a court of law. This was said in a Senate Arms Committee. Once again you confuse what was said and where it was said.

I take it since you cannot dispute the statement nor can you find the former chief of staff of the Dutch army disputing the claim you have nothing to base your disbelief on other than your opinion.
Click to expand...

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.

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?
 
Djoop said:
Why not, I'm dutch.

Dutch fury..., I guess I'm the only one who can't take this serious.
Click to expand...

I am about 50 % Dutch, and live in an area of Michigan that is primarily of Dutch heritage. We take alot of pride in out Dutch heritage here.
 
Redress said:
I am about 50 % Dutch, and live in an area of Michigan that is primarily of Dutch heritage. We take alot of pride in out Dutch heritage here.
Click to expand...
8000 people died in Srebrenica. We helped the Serbs load the busses, we were partly responsible for what happened. Do you really believe we care about this Sheehan crap?
 
Djoop said:
8000 people died in Srebrenica. We helped the Serbs load the busses, we were partly responsible for what happened. Do you really believe we care about this Sheehan crap?
Click to expand...

I am not sure why any one would care about some guys unsupported assertions.
 
PHP:
Djoop said:
8000 people died in Srebrenica. We helped the Serbs load the busses, we were partly responsible for what happened. Do you really believe we care about this Sheehan crap?
Click to expand...

A lot of our friends on the left think Cindy Sheehan is a hero...You got a problem with that?
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNpWhpyrzvo"]YouTube- Retired gen. Sheehan blames Dutch gay soldiers for Srebrenica[/ame]
 
Navy Pride said:
PHP:

A lot of our friends on the left think Cindy Sheehan is a hero...You got a problem with that?
Click to expand...

Which has exactly what to do with what general Sheehan said?
 
Redress said:
Which has exactly what to do with what general Sheehan said?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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/more-criminal-topics/evidence-witnesses/hearsay-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?
Click to expand...

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:
donsutherland1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
texmaster said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom