• 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

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Heresay may not be admissible in court when offered in testimony, but that also does not neccessarily make it false......;)
& there are exceptons to the hearsay rule......;)
 
Heresay may not be admissible in court when offered in testimony, but that also does not neccessarily make it false......;)
& there are exceptons to the hearsay rule......;)

It's not about whether it's true, it's about whether we can trust it to be true.
 
I do......;)

Of course you do, because it is against gays and we all know how much you hate gays. You are prolly one of the ignorant people that thought only gays can get AIDS.
 
I do......;)

You're gullible and/or biased though. That's why someone pointed out that a court of law would not trust it. You trust anything that supports your warped world view.
 
Last edited:
Am I the only one terrified that a general has such a delusional and shortsighted grasp on what affects the outcome of operations? A twelve year old could come up with a more accurate analysis.
 
Why?

........

I have to explain it to you?

One statement says it is the only reason one says its a contributing factor allowing room for other factors to be studied.
 
You're gullible and/or biased though. That's why someone pointed out that a court of law would not trust it. You trust anything that supports your warped world view.

That would be me that pointed it out......:doh
 
Of course you do, because it is against gays and we all know how much you hate gays. You are prolly one of the ignorant people that thought only gays can get AIDS.
I don't hate them, I just hate when they flamingly flaunt it....;)
That was the case in the beginning, until gays on the 'down low' spread it to the hetero population.....;)
 
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.

And in keeping with your dishonest persona you don't even provide the link to your definition nor did you answer my challenge to find where it is used in a Senate sub committee.

Once again your dishonesty rules the day.

And I can give you more definitions where it specifically mentions a court of law and unlike you, I'll be honest enough to link to those definitions.

Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. As a legal term, "hearsay" can also have the narrower meaning of the use of such information as evidence to prove the truth of what is asserted. Such use of "hearsay evidence" in court is generally not allowed.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay]Hearsay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Hearsay in United States law

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law]Hearsay in United States law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

And in that entire article it never ever discusses the Senate sub committee as a place where hearsay is used anywhere.

Now, the reason I doubt his word is because it's hearsay,

Again not a court of law which you laughably tried to wiggle out of.

Your dishonesty is trying to use a term only used in a court of law and apply it to a hearing before the Senate in some vain attempt to discredit what he reporting hearing from the Dutch Army chief of staff.

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.

So, you have no evidence that he is lying.

NONE. ZERO. ZIP NADA. You have only your emotional feelings to base that on.

What a despicable excuse to distrust a man who served our country for decades honorably.
 
Last edited:
Boy, I loved that. I wish I'd been able to do that! Do you think that kid will be calling many more people "Faggot"?

So, is it a hate crime when a gay assaults a straight person?....:confused:
That's all I saw in that video.....;)
 
NONE. ZERO. ZIP NADA. You have only your emotional feelings to base that on.

What a despicable excuse to distrust a man who served our country for decades honorably.

I dont think the issue should be whether he's lying or not. I dont believe he is lying about what he was told.

But that doesnt make it fact that it was what caused the massacre, nor does it make the Dutch Chief of Staff right either, how do we know that man doesnt have massive prejudices?
 
Aids started in the gay community, or do you dispute that?.....:confused:

In the news... no one knows for absolutely sure when or where AIDS started. Unless you're willing to provide absolute evidence for patient 000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 then that train of thought does not compute.
 
I dont think the issue should be whether he's lying or not. I dont believe he is lying about what he was told.

But you are the ONLY one against this that actually understands that. The rest including most articles blame the general himself. Thats my problem with all of this. The dishonesty in attacking the messenger in this case the US general.

Signature changed just for that reason!

But that doesn't make it fact that it was what caused the massacre, nor does it make the Dutch Chief of Staff right either, how do we know that man doesnt have massive prejudices?

I'm 100% with you. It does not mean the general is right. But without any recant by the witness he named, there is no logical reason to deny that is what he said.

And I would submit to you if this chief of the army really does have a prejudice against homosexuals himself then we would have heard about it.

Now an honesty inquiry would be welcome. Not simply calling any solider in the Dutch army a bigot or homophobe but actually look at the recruiting numbers, the battles that have been fought and perform an honest evaluation.
 
Last edited:
And I would submit to you if this cheif of the army really does have a prejudice against homosexuals himself then we would have heard about it.

I don't know about that. He's Chief of Staff for the Dutch army. Not Fred Phelps. How much Public knowledge do you think exists about a dude's personal beliefs who was in charge years ago
 
I don't know about that. He's Chief of Staff for the Dutch army. Not Fred Phelps. How much Public knowledge do you think exists about a dude's personal beliefs who was in charge years ago

Former soldiers for one would be a great source. My point is you cannot dismiss his words simply because you don't like the answer.
 
Back
Top Bottom