• 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

Navy Pride said:
I am not talking about the present CC. I am talking about when AIDS was first introduced in the U.S.
Click to expand...

I would like to see the evidence you have to support your claims NP.

A group of international scientists presented data based on complex genetic analysis of 122 early samples of HIV-1, group M, subtype B (the most common strain found in the USA and in Haiti) showing that the strain had probably been brought to Haiti from Africa by a single person in around 1966; a time when many Haitians would have been returning from working in the Congo.

Genetic analysis then showed that subtype B spread slowly from person to person on the island, before being transferred to the US, again probably by a single individual, at some point between 1969 and 1972. A paper published in October 2007 by Worobey and colleagues gave a 99.7% certainty that HIV subtype B originated in Haiti before passing to the US.

It is possible that HIV had entered the US several times before subtype B took a firm hold (which would explain the infection of the St. Louis teenager in the early to mid-1960s), but it was the late 1960s / early 1970s transfer that is believed to be responsible for the widespread epidemic seen in the US today. Once the virus had established itself in the gay community, in would have spread fairly rapidly (anal intercourse carries a very high transmission risk), with transmission occurring within and between the US and Haiti, and internationally, until the original route taken by the virus was largely obscured.
Click to expand...

The Origin of HIV and the First Cases of AIDS
 
texmaster said:
The dishonesty just doesn't stop with you does it Redress?

The rest of my post:


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.

Hearsay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hearsay Hearsay

Hearsay in United States law

Hearsay in United States law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hearsay_in_United_States_law Hearsay_in_United_States_law

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

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


You used something only found in a court of law to devalue the man's statement. Willfully dishonest

You lied claiming I ignore your posts when I quoted you word for word in my responses

And to top it off, you dishonored yourself in suggesting a US general was lying when you have zero proof of it.

If you are going to pick and choose what you respond to because you aren't honest enough to admit when you misrepresent and lie about what was said there is no point in debating you.

I respond to everything you say point for point.

If you lack the courage, at least have the courtesy to debate all points.
Click to expand...

You should have read the wiki entry that you mentioned:

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. This prohibition is called the hearsay rule.
Click to expand...

So, we have a dictionary definition which does not even refer to courts(and which I linked despite you lying about that), you have wiki saying it can be used in court, but not saying that is the only use of it. Hearsay is a legal term, and it is a term referring to evidence in general based on only what a person has been told. So keep going and trying to claim that only the meaning you like it valid, and which even if you where right would in no way disprove my point.

Now, onto something much more important to me. I never claimed the general was lying. Please either retract that or show where I did say it. I said he was basing his testimony on hearsay(that is, on second hand information told him), that it did not agree with the people who actually studied the incident. This does not, in any way, shape or form mean that he lied. You have lied however in making your claim that I said he lied.
 
Navy Pride said:
I am not talking about the present CC. I am talking about when AIDS was first introduced in the U.S.
Click to expand...

Can you tell the over 11,000 people a year who get HIV from injection drug use that they don't exist?

Since the epidemic began, injection drug use has directly and indirectly accounted for more than one-third (36%) of AIDS cases in the United States. This disturbing trend appears to be continuing. Of the 42,156 new cases of AIDS reported in 2000, 11,635 (28%) were IDU-associated.
Click to expand...

Fact Sheet: Drug-Associated HIV Transmission Continues in the United States | Factsheets | CDC HIV/AIDS
 
CriticalThought said:
NP went from blaming the gays, to blaming unprotected sex. I never thought I would see the day.
Click to expand...

Oh make no mistake about it my left wing friend..The people having the unprotected sex in tha bath houses at that time were gay men......That is why they closed them down.........
 
Navy Pride said:
Oh make no mistake about it my left wing friend..The people having the unprotected sex in tha bath houses at that time were gay men......That is why they closed them down.........
Click to expand...

Make no mistake NP, gay men having unprotected anal sex were largely responsible for HIV spreading. However, don't pretend that it existed only in the homosexual population just because it was predominately spread via unprotected anal sex. Blood transfusions, drug use, and even unproteced anal sex between heterosexuals, accounts for it spreading as well. We will never know exactly how HIV made the jump from Heidi to America, but there is no evidence to support that it was necessarily homosexuals who brought it over. The 70s were a period of rampant sexual revolution and drug experimentation. Furthermore, in a poor country like Heidi, it was not uncommon for doctors to treat many patients with the same syringe.
 
CriticalThought said:
Make no mistake NP, gay men having unprotected anal sex were largely responsible for HIV spreading. However, don't pretend that it existed only in the homosexual population just because it was predominately spread via unprotected anal sex. Blood transfusions, drug use, and even unproteced anal sex between heterosexuals, accounts for it spreading as well. We will never know exactly how HIV made the jump from Heidi to America, but there is no evidence to support that it was necessarily homosexuals who brought it over. The 70s were a period of rampant sexual revolution and drug experimentation. Furthermore, in a poor country like Heidi, it was not uncommon for doctors to treat many patients with the same syringe.
Click to expand...

It was mostly in the gay community and then Bi sexual men helped it to cross over to the straight community as well as drug users but even to this day more gay men have HIV AIDS then any other group.........
 
I haven't bothered to read the whole thread and won't.

At issues such as this - and, well, any issue - I like to look at the past. Greece had many city states that were military powers in their own right (not only Sparta) and many of them didn't think anything of homosexual activity.

As for the hesitation of not acting of Western forces in Srebrenica, I blame the spineless leadership of so many Western nations that seems to be all around these days. Those who constantly bitch in Brussels and don't act (What will Russia say? Elections are coming up, what if we're perceived as too 'mean' and not willing to build a 'consensus'?) are the real ******s and pansies.

Either that or they're in 3rd world nations capping leaders so that they can get favorable concessions for their 'national champions'.
 
Navy Pride said:
It was mostly in the gay community and then Bi sexual men helped it to cross over to the straight community as well as drug users but even to this day more gay men have HIV AIDS then any other group.........
Click to expand...

Dude, that is stupid. Do you know how many ways that HIV can jump across from one population to another?

Blood transfusions were tainted with HIV. We are talking thousands of heterosexual people who were unknowingly infected with HIV when they received a blood transfusion before the virus was identified in the 80s.

Intravenous drug use exploded with the introduction of heroin in the 70s. Do you think the virus discriminates between heterosexuals and homosexuals when it comes to needles?

Medical practices in poor countries were primitive in the pre-HIV days. Doctors sometimes reused syringes to save money.

HIV did not make its way into the heterosexual community by bisexuals, it made its way through a variety of ways. Furthermore, there is no evidence that HIV didn't start in the heterosexual community and make its way into the homosexual community.
 
There were haemophiliacs in the "Four H's" who were vilified and ostracised at the time too. None of this is relevant to an aged American general's homoerotic fantasies. Countries with "mixed" services are perfectly comfortable with it, it is a non-issue to them, they have moved on from such bigotry and the general's fantasies have no basis in operational reality.
 
texmaster said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here, I found the Dutch General that most are assuming General Sheehan is referring to when he mentions “Hankman Berman” as being the person who he was basing his remarks on, Gen. Henk van den Breemen, the country’s former chief of defense staff.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henk_van_den_Breemen]Henk van den Breemen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Van den Breemen ended his military career as Chief of Defence Staff (August 1994 – June 1998)
Click to expand...

And he has denied believing that gay troops had anything to do with Srebrenica.

Dutch Reject Claim That Srebrenica Fell Because of Gay Troops - The Lede Blog - NYTimes.com

Dutch television reported that when he was pressed to name a source in the Dutch military, General Sheehan said that he was basing his remarks on what someone named “Hankman Berman” had told him. The Dutch Defense Ministry guessed that this was a reference to Gen. Henk van den Breemen, the country’s former chief of defense staff. On Friday the ministry issued a statement saying that General van den Breemen, now retired, called this “absolute nonsense,” since he did not believe that the presence of gay troops had anything to do with what happened at Srebrenica and had never said any such thing.
Click to expand...
 
texmaster said:
So the soldiers he talked to were lying?

I believe he simply said it was a contributing factor not the sole reason.
Click to expand...

ahhhh, this must be the reason why Israeli forces keep losing all the battles they are in.

oops!! I guess they don't lose any of their battles. Never mind.
 
roguenuke said:
Here, I found the Dutch General that most are assuming General Sheehan is referring to when he mentions “Hankman Berman” as being the person who he was basing his remarks on, Gen. Henk van den Breemen, the country’s former chief of defense staff.

Henk van den Breemen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



And he has denied believing that gay troops had anything to do with Srebrenica.

Dutch Reject Claim That Srebrenica Fell Because of Gay Troops - The Lede Blog - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...

Now THAT is evidence.

Well done. Now there is legitimate reason to doubt this general.
 
Redress said:
You should have read the wiki entry that you mentioned:

So, we have a dictionary definition which does not even refer to courts(and which I linked despite you lying about that), you have wiki saying it can be used in court, but not saying that is the only use of it. Hearsay is a legal term, and it is a term referring to evidence in general based on only what a person has been told. So keep going and trying to claim that only the meaning you like it valid, and which even if you where right would in no way disprove my point.
Click to expand...

I did read the wiki AND the defintiion which you are avoiding in criminal LAW. And nothing in your quote says it is a term used before appearing before the Senate sub committee.

Face it Redress, you got caught once again in another dishonest claim. All the ducking in the world and ignoring direct evidence wont change your dishonest characterization of the comments.

Now, onto something much more important to me.
Click to expand...

Since you aren't honest enough to go point for point, this doesn't surprise me a bit. :rofl

I never claimed the general was lying. Please either retract that or show where I did say it. I said he was basing his testimony on hearsay(that is, on second hand information told him), that it did not agree with the people who actually studied the incident. This does not, in any way, shape or form mean that he lied. You have lied however in making your claim that I said he lied.
Click to expand...

Reading carefully just isn't you forte is it Redress?

What I said:

And to top it off, you dishonored yourself in suggesting a US general was lying when you have zero proof of it.
Click to expand...

Do I need to pull out what suggestion means before you lie once again about what I claimed you said?

And absolutely you have suggested it multiple times

Do you have any evidence except the words of a general that are not supported in any way?
Click to expand...

You then went on a bent calling what the general said as "hearsay" something ONLY used ina court of law and NEVER used in a Senate Sub Committee but that didn't stop you from lying about its usage or denying you made a mistake in your characterization.

Now, the reason I doubt his word is because it's hearsay
Click to expand...

Spare us your dishonesty in recalling what was stated to you. Its far too easy to embarrass you by quoting your own words.

And my own :)


I see you also ducked my response disproving your laughable claim about the history of aids.

Good to see you haven't changed :)
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
I did read the wiki AND the defintiion which you are avoiding in criminal LAW. And nothing in your quote says it is a term used before appearing before the Senate sub committee.

Face it Redress, you got caught once again in another dishonest claim. All the ducking in the world and ignoring direct evidence wont change your dishonest characterization of the comments.



Since you aren't honest enough to go point for point, this doesn't surprise me a bit. :rofl



Reading carefully just isn't you forte is it Redress?

What I said:



Do I need to pull out what suggestion means before you lie once again about what I claimed you said?

And absolutely you have suggested it multiple times



You then went on a bent calling what the general said as "hearsay" something ONLY used ina court of law and NEVER used in a Senate Sub Committee but that didn't stop you from lying about its usage or denying you made a mistake in your characterization.



Spare us your dishonesty in recalling what was stated to you. Its far too easy to embarrass you by quoting your own words.

And my own :)


I see you also ducked my response disproving your laughable claim about the history of aids.

Good to see you haven't changed :)
Click to expand...

Your two problems here. One, hearsay has meaning outside of a court of law, as I have proved with a dictionary definition(you remember, the one you quoted the link while claiming I did not link it), and by your very own wiki. Since I was not using it as a legal term, the legal definition is a red herring, one of your favorite tactics.

Two, you claim I said the general lied, and then used a whole lot of words to say that I did, but you can't link to me saying it. You seem to fail to understand the simple concept that some one can be mistaken, not lying. Now I happily await your apology, even though you will never do something so drastic as admit you are wrong.
 
Redress said:
Your two problems here. One, hearsay has meaning outside of a court of law, as I have proved with a dictionary definition(you remember, the one you quoted the link while claiming I did not link it), p
Click to expand...

Another lie. It never once claimed it is used in a Senate Sub Committee and that was where he made the remark.

and by your very own wiki. Since I was not using it as a legal term, the legal definition is a red herring, one of your favorite tactics.
Click to expand...

No its called holding you accountable for your dishonest characterizations.

Two, you claim I said the general lied, and then used a whole lot of words to say that I did, but you can't link to me saying it. You seem to fail to understand the simple concept that some one can be mistaken, not lying. Now I happily await your apology, even though you will never do something so drastic as admit you are wrong.
Click to expand...

That is a LIE.

I challenge you to find the DIRECT QUOTE FROM ME that states I said you called the general a liar.

Put up or shut up Redress.

Produce the quote where I said you called him a liar and not that you suggested it as I clearly stated and supported with your own quotes which you ducked.


And for tracking you've now ducked my evidence debunking your argument about the history of the AIDS virus twice.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
And to top it off, you dishonored yourself in suggesting a US general was lying when you have zero proof of it.
Click to expand...

texmaster said:
I challenge you to find the DIRECT QUOTE FROM ME that states I said you called the general a liar.
Click to expand...

I don't even think I need to say any more. You have zero credibility.
 
Redress said:
I don't even think I need to say any more. You have zero credibility.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the difference between saying someone is flat lying and saying they are suggesting someone is lying?

Are you so dishonest you pretend its the same thing?

And I supported my charge with your own posts which you again run away from because you can't admit you are lying about what I said.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
Do you understand the difference between saying someone is flat lying and saying they are suggesting someone is lying?

Are you so dishonest you pretend its the same thing?

And I supported my charge with your own posts which you again run away from because you can't admit you are lying about what I said.
Click to expand...

I did not say he was lying, I did not suggest he was lying, I did nothing of the sort. You have so far tried to twist definitions of words to prove some stupid point, you have made up crap about me claiming or suggesting(however you choose to spin it) that the general lied, you have completely failed.
 
The general lied, there you go.

It's funny that a case as well documented as Srebrenica leads to so much speculation. The suggestion that it would have something to do with gays in the dutch army (and I'm sure there are many, as it must be a very appealing profession for gays) did not exist untill general Sheehan started lying.

He lied, it's a lie.
 
Djoop said:
The general lied, there you go.

It's funny that a case as well documented as Srebrenica leads to so much speculation. The suggestion that it would have something to do with gays in the dutch army (and I'm sure there are many, as it must be a very appealing profession for gays) did not exist untill general Sheehan started lying.

He lied, it's a lie.
Click to expand...

The General says he was told by the Dutch army chief of staff that gays in the army contributed to the massacre. We don't know who this guy really may be, we don't know what his prejudices are and until that chief of staff comes out and says this publically its a pretty thin argument.

The only way to know if it contributed is to talk to the soldiers themselves. And since we can't do that. I believe General Sheehans argument does not stand.
 
texmaster said:
Do you understand the difference between saying someone is flat lying and saying they are suggesting someone is lying?
Click to expand...

Wow, that's pathetic. Especially on a debate board where every word is on the record.
 
I'm not SAYING every conservative is a bigoted homophobe, but don't you think it's interesting that they all hate gays?
 
The man is asked to testify. He testifies the truth as he knows it...and gets criticized. None as blind as those who refuse to see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom