Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yeah but to double down on the 4000+ lie. The left, the right, hell everybody laughs at mockery like that.
And yes the far left does it all the time.
If they make some stupid mistake like you did and then double down on it, then they too deserve to be laugh at.
Please provide the links to Kerry's quotes.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXaoavV1d4s]John Kerry calls American troops terrorists - YouTube[/ame]
Just as I thought, he never once call US troops terrorist.
"There is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, women, breaking sort of the customs of the historical customs, religious customs...."
Please provide the links to Kerry's quotes.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXaoavV1d4s]John Kerry calls American troops terrorists - YouTube[/ame]
Just as I thought, he never once call US troops terrorist.
"There is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, women, breaking sort of the customs of the historical customs, religious customs...."
Just as I thought, he never once call US troops terrorist.
"There is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, women, breaking sort of the customs of the historical customs, religious customs...."
Kerry thinks that the American soldiers are the terrorists in Iraq, applying that unique gift of his for moral relativity once again to indict an entire deployment of soldiers as criminals of the same order as our enemy. And Bob Schieffer sat there, without even raising an objection to Kerry's smear. Had Kerry not shown a long track record of this kind of rhetoric in the past -- and had to answer for it repeatedly during the 2004 presidential election -- one could possibly believe it came out as a slip of the tongue. However, he obviously has never stopped believing that the American fighting man and woman represents the same relative evil as the Viet Cong, the Khmer Rouge, and al-Qaeda.
Just as I thought, he never once call US troops terrorist.
"There is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, women, breaking sort of the customs of the historical customs, religious customs...."
"...Iraqis should be doing that."
He was obviously saying the work American troops are doing needs to start being transferred to the Iraqis.
But some dunderheads with limited attention spans are too retarded to grasp this.
Just as I thought, he never once call US troops terrorist.
"There is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, women, breaking sort of the customs of the historical customs, religious customs...."
Kerry thinks that the American soldiers are the terrorists in Iraq, applying that unique gift of his for moral relativity once again to indict an entire deployment of soldiers as criminals of the same order as our enemy. And Bob Schieffer sat there, without even raising an objection to Kerry's smear. Had Kerry not shown a long track record of this kind of rhetoric in the past -- and had to answer for it repeatedly during the 2004 presidential election -- one could possibly believe it came out as a slip of the tongue. However, he obviously has never stopped believing that the American fighting man and woman represents the same relative evil as the Viet Cong, the Khmer Rouge, and al-Qaeda.
Not true. As he stated he doesn't think our troop should be terrorizing women, and children, breaking into their homes in the middle of the night and holding them at gunpoint. Schieffer obviously sat there because he understood the context of Kerry's statements. Whereas the real terrorist are the one who think nothing of killing those same women and children in the name of their particular jihad. Face it. In wars soldiers snap under pressure and sometimes are driven to kill innocent civilians. Happened in Vietnam and it happened in Iraq. Even that is not the same as or on par with a systematic plan to kill innocent civilians like the Islamic Extremist do.
Just as I thought, he never once call US troops terrorist.
"There is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, women, breaking sort of the customs of the historical customs, religious customs...."
"...Iraqis should be doing that."
He was obviously saying the work American troops are doing needs to start being transferred to the Iraqis.
But some dunderheads with limited attention spans are too retarded to grasp this.
Then if that is the case how did you grasp it?
"...Iraqis should be doing that."
He was obviously saying the work American troops are doing needs to start being transferred to the Iraqis.
But some dunderheads with limited attention spans are too retarded to grasp this.
Then if that is the case how did you grasp it?
I grasped it, you didn't. We know this because you posted it as evidence he called our troops terrorists.
You don't even realize when you are shooting yourself in the foot!
Kerry thinks that the American soldiers are the terrorists in Iraq, applying that unique gift of his for moral relativity once again to indict an entire deployment of soldiers as criminals of the same order as our enemy. And Bob Schieffer sat there, without even raising an objection to Kerry's smear. Had Kerry not shown a long track record of this kind of rhetoric in the past -- and had to answer for it repeatedly during the 2004 presidential election -- one could possibly believe it came out as a slip of the tongue. However, he obviously has never stopped believing that the American fighting man and woman represents the same relative evil as the Viet Cong, the Khmer Rouge, and al-Qaeda.
Not true. As he stated he doesn't think our troop should be terrorizing women, and children, breaking into their homes in the middle of the night and holding them at gunpoint. Schieffer obviously sat there because he understood the context of Kerry's statements. Whereas the real terrorist are the one who think nothing of killing those same women and children in the name of their particular jihad. Face it. In wars soldiers snap under pressure and sometimes are driven to kill innocent civilians. Happened in Vietnam and it happened in Iraq. Even that is not the same as or on par with a systematic plan to kill innocent civilians like the Islamic Extremist do.
It is true, he thinks that troops are terrorists and has a long history of that belief.
Otherwise he would have chosen his words in a more PC manner.
He didn't, because that is not what he thinks.
His long history proves it.
Not true. As he stated he doesn't think our troop should be terrorizing women, and children, breaking into their homes in the middle of the night and holding them at gunpoint. Schieffer obviously sat there because he understood the context of Kerry's statements. Whereas the real terrorist are the one who think nothing of killing those same women and children in the name of their particular jihad. Face it. In wars soldiers snap under pressure and sometimes are driven to kill innocent civilians. Happened in Vietnam and it happened in Iraq. Even that is not the same as or on par with a systematic plan to kill innocent civilians like the Islamic Extremist do.
It is true, he thinks that troops are terrorists and has a long history of that belief.
Otherwise he would have chosen his words in a more PC manner.
He didn't, because that is not what he thinks.
His long history proves it.
Not really, he believes that being taken from your home in the middle of the night and held at gunpoint by strangers in uniform is a terrorizing experience. Not to be confused with the Jihadist Terrorist who use human guided bombs to target and kill innocent civilians.
Help it's the PC police.
It is true, he thinks that troops are terrorists and has a long history of that belief.
Otherwise he would have chosen his words in a more PC manner.
He didn't, because that is not what he thinks.
His long history proves it.
Not really, he believes that being taken from your home in the middle of the night and held at gunpoint by strangers in uniform is a terrorizing experience. Not to be confused with the Jihadist Terrorist who use human guided bombs to target and kill innocent civilians.
Help it's the PC police.
His history proves otherwise.
Again...the troops need to be removed from Afghanistan. Whatever the motive for using a scalpel while engaging the enemy-I've no doubt that it has cost lives. Does the government profit from military personnel deaths? That is not a rhetorical question; I'm really looking for an answer.
It costs a lot of money to train people to fight. And when one joins the US military, they are US government property. Does the government collect insurance money when a soldier, sailor, etc...dies? This never would have crossed my mind, if I hadn't heard about Walmart's unusual practices.
And if we indiscriminately kill civilians, those chickens will eventually come home to roost.
So you are against the Obama drone strikes?
If any one political assassination is OK then are not ALL political assassinations OK?
ALL?
Had the feet in the shoes been reversed?
Would it still have been OK?
Had the feet in the shoes been reversed?
Would it still have been OK?
In the shoes of the killed, or the killer; or are you asking about the perspective of both? If you're asking whether or not I agree with murder; no. It is not "ok." But I do struggle with child murderers/rapists, animal abusers/torturers, psychopaths, who've committed any atrocity-it's difficult not to think that these animals need to have the same things done to them.
Had the feet in the shoes been reversed?
Would it still have been OK?
In the shoes of the killed, or the killer; or are you asking about the perspective of both? If you're asking whether or not I agree with murder; no. It is not "ok." But I do struggle with child murderers/rapists, animal abusers/torturers, psychopaths, who've committed any atrocity-it's difficult not to think that these animals need to have the same things done to them.
Trial optional?
