PDA

View Full Version : Inconvenient truth about a leftist godking wannabe



LWW
08-09-2011, 04:05 AM
The hard truth is that in spite of all the wailing and gnashing of teeth against racism ... this demokrookk chose to burn brown people, their homes, their villages, and their crops when it was what he needed on his resume' for a future political career.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: John Forbes Kerry</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>"I did take part in free fire zones and I did take part in harassment interdiction fire. I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out later on, these acts are contrary to the Hague and Geneva Conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the applications of the Nuremberg principles, is in fact guilty."</span> </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: John Forbes Kerry</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>"Free fire zone, in which we kill anything that moves man, woman or child. This practice suspends the distinction between combatant and non-combatant and contravenes Geneva Convention Article 3.1."</span> </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: John Forbes Kerry</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>"Thank you. Yes, we did participate in war crimes in Coastal Division 11 because as I said earlier, we took part in free fire zones, harassment, interdiction fire, and search-and-destroy missions. The concept of operations, I gather, changed somewhat from the time when I was there and the time when you were there later on. And I believe that we moved into operations called Silver Mace II and some others in which we were not quite involved in as

But I know that there's no way in the world you can say that you didn't ride through the Ku Alon River or the Bodie River [phonetic spellings] and see huts along the sides of the rivers that were totally destroyed."</span> </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: John Forbes Kerry</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>"And you never burned a village? If I could First of all, first of all, we did"</span> </div></div>

JOHN FORBES KERRY ... CONFESSED WAR CRIMINAL AND DEMOKROOKK WAR HERO. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1186437/posts)

Soflasnapper
08-09-2011, 11:01 AM
Some might say what you say here. (Probably not, actually, as 'leftist godking wannabe' is a hilariously stupid characterization of anyone, including Kerry.)

Others of a more focused mind realize that what he did is more properly described as volunteering to risk his life in a war his country told him was important to wage, for the sake of freedom around the world (halting the dominoes' falling in SE Asia), and while doing so, following the orders of his superiors. Or 'chosing' to follow those orders, if you prefer.

(Ever volunteer to serve your country and risk your life, LWW?)

Unfortunately, as it turns out, the orders amounted to war crimes. War crimes where the defense of 'I was only following orders' might not be much of a defense.' At least, by the Nuremburg Trial's precedents.

So what does he do? Hide behind I was just following orders? No, he said what he did was a war crime, what others did (all the Swift Boat guys btw) were also war crimes, and then he focused at the chain of command, and said they had ordered war crimes.

Considering you made these charges against him, all the rest of this as I lay out must also be true, that his Swift Boat critics also committed war crimes, and that the chain of command ordered these war crimes.

It was Kerry bringing this situation to the attention of the public, as a whistleblower on himself and the whole war enterprise, that made him so hated. Because he told the unwelcome and inconvenient truth.

Actually a laudable choice, although you despise the truth, evidently.

LWW
08-09-2011, 04:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(Ever volunteer to serve your country and risk your life, LWW?) <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3366FF">Yes</span></span>

Unfortunately, as it turns out, the orders amounted to war crimes. <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3366FF">Possibly, I haven't read his orders ... but my guess is that he went beyond them.</span></span> War crimes where the defense of 'I was only following orders' might not be much of a defense.' At least, by the Nuremburg Trial's precedents. <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3366FF">Anyone familiar with the UCMJ realizes this is no defense. Anyone familiar with the UCMJ realizes that an invalid order is, by definition, invalid and is a de facto "GET OUT OF JAIL FREE" card.</span></span>

So what does he do? Hide behind I was just following orders? No, he said what he did was a war crime, what others did (all the Swift Boat guys btw) were also war crimes, and then he focused at the chain of command, and said they had ordered war crimes. <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3366FF">For confessing ... I commend him.</span></span>

Considering you made these charges against him, all the rest of this as I lay out must also be true, that his Swift Boat critics also committed war crimes <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3366FF">Based on what?</span></span>, and that the chain of command ordered these war crimes <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3366FF">Are you claiming Kerry was a bot incapable of choice?</span></span>.

It was Kerry bringing this situation to the attention of the public, as a whistleblower on himself and the whole war enterprise, that made him so hated. Because he told the unwelcome and inconvenient truth. <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3366FF">What made him so hated is that he implied that everyone who served was a war criminal like him.</span></span>

Actually a laudable choice, although you despise the truth, evidently. <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3366FF">I despise war criminals.</span></span></div></div>

Is there no crime committed by a demokrookk that you won't defend?

Obviously not.

Soflasnapper
08-10-2011, 12:36 PM
The concept of a free-fire zone, and that the troops were empowered to shoot anything that moved in it (as a hotbed for Cong sympathizers), was indeed an official policy. As you know.

Perhaps you remember the famous statement from the war, 'We had to destroy the village, to save it.' That was also a reflection of this indiscriminate village burning <span style='font-size: 14pt'>policy</span>. The soldier or officer saying it said it in public, without any fear that the brass would come down on him and charge him with a war crime for that action.

The 'pacification' 'hamlets' program involved the relocation of vast swaths of the populace within S. Vietnam, and burning their prior village to prevent their return.

So, by your analysis, Kerry thought confessing to war crimes, and calling out others who also engaged in them, AND accusing the chain of command of ordering these things, was his preferred and considered path to the golden ring (godking status)?

He did THAT for political ambition reasons, just as he only committed them in the first place for his political ambitions?

BTW, questioning what you claim (falsely, in my view) were his motivations for committing his war crimes is NOT TO EXCUSE THEM.

Just as when Bob Kerrey's admission that he'd slit the throats of women and elderly civilians in performing his Phoenix-program assassinations is also not excused by his performing his ordered duties.

I call them war crimes, and this is supposedly defending Democrats? Just because I dissent from your silly allegations of what motivated it? Ok, got it!

LWW
08-10-2011, 03:27 PM
Actually I don't know that this was an official policy and, as usual, you have presented nothing to support this ridiculous claim.

Beyond that, even if true it is irrelevant as one cannot be lawfully ordered to commit a war crime under the UCMJ.

OTOH ... even though the left was gaga to elect Kerry POTUS, they also bleated endlessly for years that putting a caterpillar in a terrorists cell actually did rise to the level of a war crime.

Soflasnapper
08-11-2011, 11:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Free-fire zone
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A free-fire zone in U.S. military parlance is a fire control measure, used for coordination between adjacent combat units. The definition used in the Vietnam war by US troops may be found in field manual FM 6-20:

A specific designated area into which any weapon system may fire without additional coordination with the establishing headquarters.

Contents
[hide]

1 Free-fire zones in the Vietnam War
1.1 Dellums hearings
2 Wilkerson
3 Yeager
4 Other uses of the term
5 See also
6 References
7 Further reading

[edit] Free-fire zones in the Vietnam War

Initially, the free-fire zone was an area near an airbase which was cleared of civilians to allow aircraft bomb disposal prior to landing.

Returning veterans, affected civilians and others have said that U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam MACV, based on the assumption that all friendly forces had been cleared from the area, established a policy designating "free-fire zones" as areas in which:

Anyone unidentified is considered an enemy combatant
Soldiers were to shoot anyone moving around after curfew, without first making sure that they were hostile. </div></div>

LWW
08-11-2011, 11:54 AM
That doesn't support your earlier claim ... but, nobody thought that it would.