Watch Stolen Honor - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

scout · 11-02-2004, 03:10 AM

A lot of us has watched Fahrenheit 9/11 and other things that have persuaded the way we will vote today. But before you vote go take about 45 minutes or so and watch Stolen Honor and get the other side of the coin. It's free and will only take 45 minutes or so.

http://www.stolenhonor.com/documentary/watch-video.asp

MuadDib · 11-02-2004, 04:15 AM

This ad is the worst kind of filth. I'm all for hearing both sides to a debate, but when the debate itself is nothing but lies and slander from the right and the left then what's the point. Moore is an over-zealous, over-bearing man who takes vaguely plausible scenarios and reports them in a manner as though they were facts. The Swift Vets for Truth are reactionaries with an obvious political agenda, who are out to defame a fellow veteran that fought and was (at least in some way) injured in Vietnam. Both represent the worst type of garbage I have ever seen in an election cycle. The makers of this type of dreg on both sides should take a trip back to reality preferably via punching themselves in the face repeatedly until they see the err of their ways.

scout · 11-02-2004, 06:37 AM

HAHAHA did ya watch it or just dismiss it as right wing blather? Granted there is some blather but some of it is true. Watch it then check the facts and see how it measures up to what really happened. For the record I didnt vote for either Kerry or Bush.

tecoyah · 11-02-2004, 07:32 AM

I watched it some time ago....all information is helpful, critical thought makes the difference in both this, and Mr. Moores' film.

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-02-2004, 08:08 AM

Peter Griffin: That whole Vietnam thing, never happened....
Brian: Yeah, but don't say that by the Veteran's hospital, they're really commited to the lie over there.

I saw this on sunday morning before football. It really made me upset, and it only fuels further my hatred for John Kerry. How a man can do something so heinous to his comrades, and then use it as a platform for him to be the Commander and Chief? He really has some gaul. Also it's frightening how Kerry made a deal with the devil, to start vying for this day, Nov. 2, 30+ years ago, that is scary.

Stompy · 11-02-2004, 08:59 AM

I'll watch it, but if it's about Vietnam (and it appears so), then I'll pretty much respond with, "So?"

Vietnam was pretty pointless, and I would've gone AWOL had I been a solider. Hell, I would've dodged altogether, so... yeah!

The war in Iraq has more meaning to it than Vietnam ever did.

Whatever happened back then, people need to get over it. A candidate's military record has nothing to do with anything seeing as how he won't be in the front lines with an M-16.

[edit]
Is there supposed to be something wrong with him speaking out of the atrocities that were committed? I mean, what soldiers did WAS pretty horrible. Not all did them, but, then again, he never said that!

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-02-2004, 09:23 AM

When he was flat out lying, and when his lies cost the lives of American troops, and added to there suffering, there is something wrong. Makes me scared that a self admitted war criminal might be our next pres.

Meeting with Enemies in war time, is a crime against our country.

Stompy · 11-02-2004, 09:29 AM

I can't watch it all now, but I'll watch when I get home.

What exactly did he lie about? Can you sum it up, or is there too much to tell?

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-02-2004, 09:36 AM

Way I understand it Winter Soldier stuff was largely fabirication, on the stolen honor video they caught several of the guys making up lies on the spot.

And I'm not saying that there were no war crimes committed, that would be insane.

Plus you have John Kerry's testimony were he said he had participated in some of the things he was describing, well then it was shot back at him later, that if he participated he would then be a war criminal right? He comes back and says he "might've indulged" a little. Who "indulges" war crime accusations in a time of war, when men are still on the ground fighting? It only served to further the mistreatment of our boys in VC and NVRA prison camps, were the lies he told before congress and the winter soldier stories were thrown in there faces.

ARTelevision · 11-02-2004, 09:39 AM

I'll watch this if the man wins.

daswig · 11-02-2004, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuadDib

but when the debate itself is nothing but lies and slander from the right and the left then what's the point.

How do you know it was lies and slander? Were you there when the North Vietnamese used Kerry's words as part of their torture program? Were you there when the POWs were beaten for not parroting Kerry's words back to them for propaganda purposes? What they were saying isn't slander. Truth is generally a defense against slander, and they, NOT you, were there and actually know first-hand what went on.

MuadDib · 11-02-2004, 12:43 PM

First, in response to numerous inquiries, I did in fact watch the video. Actually, this morning was the second time I have watched it in its entirety. Second, what about all the people who served with Kerry who are on his side and say the "facts" in this documentary are false? Someone has got to be lying so simply saying that "they were there and [I] was not doesn't" doesn't get us anywhere. The fact of the matter is that I am expected Kerry's military history has been a part of his senatorial campaigns and primary campaigning as well. Funny the Swift Vets for "Truth" are only interested in the "Truth" now that he might oust Bush. These men have had 30 years where Kerry was awarded militray honors, prospered financially, and became a successful politician. However, apparently it has just taken them all this time to show him for the fraud that he is because it was such a big deal before he became the democratic nominee.
I'm didn't post solely to rip on Stolen Honor. As I originally stated, this reactionary garbage is flung from both sides in attempts to deride men who are both great in their own rights and that is what sickens me. Do they make an interesting point or two? Yes, so does Moore. But the fact remains that their isn't a shred of real evidence that could be brought before a military court or even before the American public that has enough real credence to stand up. Its a bunch of people with a clear political agenda and their word against another bunch of people with a clear political agenda and their word. Oddly, I don't see anyone hear arguing the greatness of the points made in Moore's documentaries nor do I see anyone even hinting at anything other than the infallible word of the film and the men in it without regard for the other heroes of Nam who say otherwise. Come on! I don't think I'm being extreme or partisan in saying that these kind of things degrade modern elections into some sort of 9 month long Jerry Springer show.

daswig · 11-02-2004, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuadDib

Second, what about all the people who served with Kerry who are on his side and say the "facts" in this documentary are false? Someone has got to be lying so simply saying that "they were there and [I] was not doesn't" doesn't get us anywhere.

Well, let's see. I've yet to hear a single POW come out and say that the North Vietnamese did NOT use Kerry's testimony before the Fulbright Commission against them. NOT ONE. The 10-12 guys that were on Kerry's boat and are supporting him would have ZERO firsthand knowledge about that, since Kerry didn't testify until AFTER his 4 month "tour". Secondly, the Swifties are mostly people who were next to Kerry during his four month "tour". So you've got a basic equation here: Is it easier for 10 people who were there to be mistaken about a set of facts, or 250 people who were there to be mistaken about a set of facts?

Stolen Honor doesn't deal with the time Kerry was "in country". It deals with stuff that happened where Kerry wasn't, and that was a DIRECT result of Kerry's actions. Kerry basically poured gasoline (which I think the video showed was the result of heavily coached and fraudulent testimony at Winter Soldier) on the fire, and the POWs were the ones who got burned. "Depraved indifference", anybody?

Has ANYBODY heard ANYBODY say that Kerry's testimony was NOT used by the North Vietnamese for propaganda purposes and as a tool to further torture American POWs? And if you're beating somebody and I hand you a whip to make the beating more effective, aren't I responsible? Kerry has the blood of those dead POWs on his hands just as surely as if he pulled the trigger personally.

cthulu23 · 11-02-2004, 01:26 PM

I think that most reasonable people will agree that protest against and actions to stop the war in Vietnam were justified and have easily withstood the test of history. It is terrible that POWs were mistreated and that the actions of Americans opposing the war were repeated to them but that in no way invalidates the legitimacy of protest against that horrible conflict. Directly blaming Kerry for the death of POWs is irresponsible, inflammatory and ridiculous. Anyone who believes that is either viciously partisan or a little unhinged. Probably both.

One could easily argue that ignoring the horrors of Vietnam would have amounted to "depraved indifference" to the plight of all of our soldiers there.

filtherton · 11-02-2004, 01:57 PM

So what if the vietcong army used the words of kerry against a p.o.w.? Personally, I'd rather have a president who alluded to war crimes than one who presided over them, and then said the person in command at the time was doing an excellent job.

Stompy · 11-02-2004, 02:01 PM

Most people tend to forget that this isn't a "true unless disproved" country.

So saying, "Has ANYBODY heard ANYBODY say that Kerry's testimony was NOT used by the North Vietnamese for propaganda purposes and as a tool to further torture American POWs?" holds no water.

Can you prove that his statement WAS used in this manner?

I dunno, it just seems silly that the North Vietnamese would spur all this American POW torturing based ONLY on what he said. I'm sure it happened before.

But it's really all irrelevant. Vietnam was a mess, plus it was 30 years ago. It's probably time to move on.

daswig · 11-02-2004, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stompy

Most people tend to forget that this isn't a "true unless disproved" country.

So saying, "Has ANYBODY heard ANYBODY say that Kerry's testimony was NOT used by the North Vietnamese for propaganda purposes and as a tool to further torture American POWs?" holds no water.

Can you prove that his statement WAS used in this manner?

Well, given that there were numerous people who were there that said it was indeed used, and NOBODY says it wasn't, I don't think there's much doubt about it.

Tell you what. Would you feel comfortable going to an arbitrator and representing that such a thing didn't happen, when confronted by the witnesses that said it DID happen, and that they were there, and had the documentation to back up their presence there?

Eyewitness testimony is indeed admissable in a court of law, and that's what "Stolen Honor" documented...

daswig · 11-02-2004, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

I think that most reasonable people will agree that protest against and actions to stop the war in Vietnam were justified and have easily withstood the test of history.

I think you're partly right and partly wrong. Protesting is one thing, and that's OK. Once you cross the line from protesting to treating with the enemy, that's an entirely different bucket of fish. Carrying a sign to stop the war in Vietnam=OK. "Direct action" like blowing up a draft center to stop the war in Vietnam, or providing propaganda material, or meeting with the enemy to coordinate a PR campaign=not OK.

Stompy · 11-02-2004, 02:21 PM

But it's also easier to forge.

I haven't watched it yet (at work), but the witnesses... did they say this recently, or was it back during Vietnam? Because if it's recently, who's to say that the Bush Administration didn't pay them to do it?

It's a bit flaky if that's the case. However, if they gave this testimony back then, that's another story!

scout · 11-02-2004, 03:00 PM

There was no "testimony" from any prisoners back then. After the Vietnam Conflict everyone was just glad it was over and after almost 20 years the country could get back to "normal". Everyone just wanted to forget this terrible time in our history, perhaps only surpassed in it's divisiveness during the Civil War. Another reason it was never brought up until this time is because Kerry was a Senator from a small state, this was the first time he ever ran for a national office. Most people probably feel like me, as long as he was a Senator from Mass he wasn't hurting anyone but the people of that particular state. If they can live with someone of suspicious character as their representive then so be it. But now that he is running for President, the past certainly has some bearing on his character and it no longer concerns just the people of a small northeastern state.

cthulu23 · 11-02-2004, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

But now that he is running for President, the past certainly has some bearing on his character and it no longer concerns just the people of a small northeastern state.

Well, I guess that you had your opportunity to register your opinion today. Hopefully we can get a break from the worst of the rhetoric (ie- John Kerry has POW blood on his hands!!!! ARRRGGGHHH!!!!!!!) starting tomorrow.

smooth · 11-02-2004, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Well, given that there were numerous people who were there that said it was indeed used, and NOBODY says it wasn't, I don't think there's much doubt about it.

Tell you what. Would you feel comfortable going to an arbitrator and representing that such a thing didn't happen, when confronted by the witnesses that said it DID happen, and that they were there, and had the documentation to back up their presence there?

Eyewitness testimony is indeed admissable in a court of law, and that's what "Stolen Honor" documented...

actually, Dawsig, vets did appear on O'Reilly's show and state that kerry's statements were definately not used against them. All the vets on the show were a bit emotional and the ones countering the vets for truth were reluctant to speak bad about their fellow vets-so they decried the fact that partisan politics had vets speaking against vets, drudging this pain all up again, and then they wouldn't speculate as to whether or why the vets for truth were only speaking up now or whether they had actually been tortured with kerry's statements.

your statement, based on an incomplete knowledge of the evidence, is demonstratably false. However, in contrast to an earlier discussion, I don't think it invalidates your entire point.

Mephisto2 · 11-02-2004, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Protesting is one thing, and that's OK.

Yet within the same paragraph...

Quote:

providing propaganda material.... =not OK.

Protest against the war can be used, and actually was used, by the North Vietnamese as propaganda.

Contracting yourself within a couple of sentences again Daswig.

Mr Mephisto

daswig · 11-02-2004, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Well, I guess that you had your opportunity to register your opinion today. Hopefully we can get a break from the worst of the rhetoric (ie- John Kerry has POW blood on his hands!!!! ARRRGGGHHH!!!!!!!) starting tomorrow.

Don't count on it. If Bush wins, the Democrats will be bitching and moaning about it for the next four years. If Kerry wins, the Republicans will do the same.

It's going to be interesting...

cthulu23 · 11-02-2004, 04:30 PM

Daswig,

I meant the rhetoric on this forum. It would be nice to see something different here. Personally, I don't think that I can continue arguing the same points in the same arguments any longer.

11-02-2004, 03:10 AM	#1 (permalink)
scout Psycho	Watch Stolen Honor A lot of us has watched Fahrenheit 9/11 and other things that have persuaded the way we will vote today. But before you vote go take about 45 minutes or so and watch Stolen Honor and get the other side of the coin. It's free and will only take 45 minutes or so. http://www.stolenhonor.com/documentary/watch-video.asp

11-02-2004, 04:15 AM	#2 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	This ad is the worst kind of filth. I'm all for hearing both sides to a debate, but when the debate itself is nothing but lies and slander from the right and the left then what's the point. Moore is an over-zealous, over-bearing man who takes vaguely plausible scenarios and reports them in a manner as though they were facts. The Swift Vets for Truth are reactionaries with an obvious political agenda, who are out to defame a fellow veteran that fought and was (at least in some way) injured in Vietnam. Both represent the worst type of garbage I have ever seen in an election cycle. The makers of this type of dreg on both sides should take a trip back to reality preferably via punching themselves in the face repeatedly until they see the err of their ways. __________________ "The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

11-02-2004, 07:32 AM	#4 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	I watched it some time ago....all information is helpful, critical thought makes the difference in both this, and Mr. Moores' film. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

11-02-2004, 08:08 AM	#5 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Peter Griffin: That whole Vietnam thing, never happened.... Brian: Yeah, but don't say that by the Veteran's hospital, they're really commited to the lie over there. I saw this on sunday morning before football. It really made me upset, and it only fuels further my hatred for John Kerry. How a man can do something so heinous to his comrades, and then use it as a platform for him to be the Commander and Chief? He really has some gaul. Also it's frightening how Kerry made a deal with the devil, to start vying for this day, Nov. 2, 30+ years ago, that is scary. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

11-02-2004, 08:59 AM	#6 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	I'll watch it, but if it's about Vietnam (and it appears so), then I'll pretty much respond with, "So?" Vietnam was pretty pointless, and I would've gone AWOL had I been a solider. Hell, I would've dodged altogether, so... yeah! The war in Iraq has more meaning to it than Vietnam ever did. Whatever happened back then, people need to get over it. A candidate's military record has nothing to do with anything seeing as how he won't be in the front lines with an M-16. [edit] Is there supposed to be something wrong with him speaking out of the atrocities that were committed? I mean, what soldiers did WAS pretty horrible. Not all did them, but, then again, he never said that! __________________ I love lamp. Last edited by Stompy; 11-02-2004 at 09:04 AM..

11-02-2004, 06:37 AM	#3 (permalink)
scout Psycho	HAHAHA did ya watch it or just dismiss it as right wing blather? Granted there is some blather but some of it is true. Watch it then check the facts and see how it measures up to what really happened. For the record I didnt vote for either Kerry or Bush.

11-02-2004, 09:23 AM	#7 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	When he was flat out lying, and when his lies cost the lives of American troops, and added to there suffering, there is something wrong. Makes me scared that a self admitted war criminal might be our next pres. Meeting with Enemies in war time, is a crime against our country. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

11-02-2004, 09:29 AM	#8 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	I can't watch it all now, but I'll watch when I get home. What exactly did he lie about? Can you sum it up, or is there too much to tell? __________________ I love lamp.

11-02-2004, 09:36 AM	#9 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Way I understand it Winter Soldier stuff was largely fabirication, on the stolen honor video they caught several of the guys making up lies on the spot. And I'm not saying that there were no war crimes committed, that would be insane. Plus you have John Kerry's testimony were he said he had participated in some of the things he was describing, well then it was shot back at him later, that if he participated he would then be a war criminal right? He comes back and says he "might've indulged" a little. Who "indulges" war crime accusations in a time of war, when men are still on the ground fighting? It only served to further the mistreatment of our boys in VC and NVRA prison camps, were the lies he told before congress and the winter soldier stories were thrown in there faces. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

11-02-2004, 09:39 AM	#10 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	I'll watch this if the man wins. __________________ create evolution

11-02-2004, 12:43 PM	#12 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	First, in response to numerous inquiries, I did in fact watch the video. Actually, this morning was the second time I have watched it in its entirety. Second, what about all the people who served with Kerry who are on his side and say the "facts" in this documentary are false? Someone has got to be lying so simply saying that "they were there and [I] was not doesn't" doesn't get us anywhere. The fact of the matter is that I am expected Kerry's military history has been a part of his senatorial campaigns and primary campaigning as well. Funny the Swift Vets for "Truth" are only interested in the "Truth" now that he might oust Bush. These men have had 30 years where Kerry was awarded militray honors, prospered financially, and became a successful politician. However, apparently it has just taken them all this time to show him for the fraud that he is because it was such a big deal before he became the democratic nominee. I'm didn't post solely to rip on Stolen Honor. As I originally stated, this reactionary garbage is flung from both sides in attempts to deride men who are both great in their own rights and that is what sickens me. Do they make an interesting point or two? Yes, so does Moore. But the fact remains that their isn't a shred of real evidence that could be brought before a military court or even before the American public that has enough real credence to stand up. Its a bunch of people with a clear political agenda and their word against another bunch of people with a clear political agenda and their word. Oddly, I don't see anyone hear arguing the greatness of the points made in Moore's documentaries nor do I see anyone even hinting at anything other than the infallible word of the film and the men in it without regard for the other heroes of Nam who say otherwise. Come on! I don't think I'm being extreme or partisan in saying that these kind of things degrade modern elections into some sort of 9 month long Jerry Springer show. __________________ "The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

11-02-2004, 01:26 PM	#14 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	I think that most reasonable people will agree that protest against and actions to stop the war in Vietnam were justified and have easily withstood the test of history. It is terrible that POWs were mistreated and that the actions of Americans opposing the war were repeated to them but that in no way invalidates the legitimacy of protest against that horrible conflict. Directly blaming Kerry for the death of POWs is irresponsible, inflammatory and ridiculous. Anyone who believes that is either viciously partisan or a little unhinged. Probably both. One could easily argue that ignoring the horrors of Vietnam would have amounted to "depraved indifference" to the plight of all of our soldiers there.

11-02-2004, 01:57 PM	#15 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	So what if the vietcong army used the words of kerry against a p.o.w.? Personally, I'd rather have a president who alluded to war crimes than one who presided over them, and then said the person in command at the time was doing an excellent job.

11-02-2004, 02:01 PM	#16 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	Most people tend to forget that this isn't a "true unless disproved" country. So saying, "Has ANYBODY heard ANYBODY say that Kerry's testimony was NOT used by the North Vietnamese for propaganda purposes and as a tool to further torture American POWs?" holds no water. Can you prove that his statement WAS used in this manner? I dunno, it just seems silly that the North Vietnamese would spur all this American POW torturing based ONLY on what he said. I'm sure it happened before. But it's really all irrelevant. Vietnam was a mess, plus it was 30 years ago. It's probably time to move on. __________________ I love lamp.

11-02-2004, 02:21 PM	#19 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	But it's also easier to forge. I haven't watched it yet (at work), but the witnesses... did they say this recently, or was it back during Vietnam? Because if it's recently, who's to say that the Bush Administration didn't pay them to do it? It's a bit flaky if that's the case. However, if they gave this testimony back then, that's another story! __________________ I love lamp.

11-02-2004, 03:00 PM	#20 (permalink)
scout Psycho	There was no "testimony" from any prisoners back then. After the Vietnam Conflict everyone was just glad it was over and after almost 20 years the country could get back to "normal". Everyone just wanted to forget this terrible time in our history, perhaps only surpassed in it's divisiveness during the Civil War. Another reason it was never brought up until this time is because Kerry was a Senator from a small state, this was the first time he ever ran for a national office. Most people probably feel like me, as long as he was a Senator from Mass he wasn't hurting anyone but the people of that particular state. If they can live with someone of suspicious character as their representive then so be it. But now that he is running for President, the past certainly has some bearing on his character and it no longer concerns just the people of a small northeastern state.

11-02-2004, 04:30 PM	#25 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	Daswig, I meant the rhetoric on this forum. It would be nice to see something different here. Personally, I don't think that I can continue arguing the same points in the same arguments any longer.