Hyperpartisanship is threatening to destroy our country

[bigruss]

People are calling soldiers liars. I'd call that trying the victim about as clearly as can be done.

I wouldn't say liars, because I bet it did happen at some point (very unfortunately).

 

But that doesn't mean it wasn't likely exaggerated. The analogy doesn't work because people are blanketing an event that most likely happened to a select few soldiers and said that all soldiers went through this specific situation.

 

It's like saying that all girls that had bad boyfriends were also hit and abused by the bad boyfriend, and that's just something we don't know.

[southsider2k5]

No one is calling soldiers liars because there's a distinct lack of actual soldiers that make this claim, certainly not enough to support it being a widespread phenomenon.

 

Of course not. Saying it didn't really happen is telling me that you think they were telling the truth.

[BigSqwert]

Even though it's been brought up multiple times, in other ways, I'll say it again. There's a difference between calling someone a liar and suggesting an exaggeration.

[StrangeSox]

Of course not. Saying it didn't really happen is telling me that you think they were telling the truth.

 

Who are these mysterious "they"?

 

That's the whole point.

[southsider2k5]

Who are these mysterious "they"?

 

That's the whole point.

 

How is using "they" for "soldiers who were abused when they returned home from Vietnam" mysterious? It is pretty clear who I meant.

[southsider2k5]

Even though it's been brought up multiple times, in other ways, I'll say it again. There's a difference between calling someone a liar and suggesting an exaggeration.

 

Trying to make the "suggestion" that the vast majority of people who said they experienced this, didn't actually experience it, is calling the vast majority of people who tell this story a liar. I know it sounds better to call it a "suggestion", but call a spade a spade at least.

[BigSqwert]

Trying to make the "suggestion" that the vast majority of people who said they experienced this, didn't actually experience it, is calling the vast majority of people who tell this story a liar. I know it sounds better to call it a "suggestion", but call a spade a spade at least.

 

Ok so you're saying that of the million plus soldiers that returned home, a large number of them experienced this? How many? 90%? 95%?

[southsider2k5]

Ok so you're saying that of the million plus soldiers that returned home, a large number of them experienced this? How many? 90%? 95%?

 

If you are going with even 5% of soldiers (using your million number) getting abuse upon return, that means 50,000 of them got it. Is 50,000 a large number? 1% would still be 10,000. Is that a large number? Hell in my opinion even one is too many. But that doesn't seem to be the point here at all. Apparently there is a comfort level for abuse of our veterans that people here are comfortable with so that it isn't an effective political statement.

[BigSqwert]

If you are going with even 5% of soldiers (using your million number) getting abuse upon return, that means 50,000 of them got it. Is 50,000 a large number? 1% would still be 10,000. Is that a large number? Hell in my opinion even one is too many. But that doesn't seem to be the point here at all. Apparently there is a comfort level for abuse of our veterans that people here are comfortable with so that it isn't an effective political statement.

 

I'm thinking the number might be closer to 3-5 planes, if that. It still sucks but trying to paint with broad brushes is never a good idea.

[bigruss]

If you are going with even 5% of soldiers (using your million number) getting abuse upon return, that means 50,000 of them got it. Is 50,000 a large number? 1% would still be 10,000. Is that a large number? Hell in my opinion even one is too many. But that doesn't seem to be the point here at all. Apparently there is a comfort level for abuse of our veterans that people here are comfortable with so that it isn't an effective political statement.

Where has anybody said it was okay for this to have happened?

 

People are just wondering what the actual scale of it was, since it seems both sides exaggerated their statements about these events.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Of course not. Saying it didn't really happen is telling me that you think they were telling the truth.

 

No one has called the soldiers liars. To use your earlier analogy:

 

Woman 1: I was raped by John Doe

Woman 2: I was raped by John Doe as well

Bulls***ter: John Doe raped like 1000 women.

Skeptic: There's no evidence of all that.

 

Skeptic is not calling those women liars. Skeptic is calling out Bulls***ter.

[GoSox05]

I doubt soliders were lying about this. It was probably COINTELPRO that was spreading the rumors. That was their job.

[StrangeSox]

How is using "they" for "soldiers who were abused when they returned home from Vietnam" mysterious? It is pretty clear who I meant.

 

Who are these real, actual people making these claims that are now being called liars?

[BigSqwert]

Who are these real, actual people making these claims that are now being called liars?

 

"soldiers"!!!

[bigruss]

"soldiers"!!!

This whole discussion just reminds me of the terrible reporting job on that Oney quote. I'm sure some reporters at the time did a terrible job rehashing quotes from soldiers.

 

"I've talked to hundreds of soldiers that have come back and they've told me horror stories like being spit on while on a plane home."

 

A statement like that would portray that hundreds of soldiers said that story, but in reality only one soldier could have said it, but since the reporter said they talked to hundreds it's implied that those hundreds said it.

[southsider2k5]

No one has called the soldiers liars. To use your earlier analogy:

 

Woman 1: I was raped by John Doe

Woman 2: I was raped by John Doe as well

Bulls***ter: John Doe raped like 1000 women.

Skeptic: There's no evidence of all that.

 

Skeptic is not calling those women liars. Skeptic is calling out Bulls***ter.

 

Soldier #1: I was spit on when I returned from Vietnam.

Liberal #1: No you weren't you imagined it or exaggerated it.

 

Nope, looks to me like they are being called liars.

[Balta1701]

Soldier #1: I was spit on when I returned from Vietnam.

Liberal #1: No you weren't you imagined it or exaggerated it.

 

Nope, looks to me like they are being called liars.

Oh, I see, so you were a Soldier in Vietnam. I'm sorry to hear that you had to go through this.

[southsider2k5]

Oh, I see, so you were a Soldier in Vietnam. I'm sorry to hear that you had to go through this.

 

Yeah, I don't know anyone who served in Vietnam.

[Balta1701]

Yeah, I don't know anyone who served in Vietnam.

And none of us do either, clearly, as no Liberal can possibly be related to a serviceman. You however were the one who switched to the first person there and said that you were spit on. (Yes, I know what you were doing. But there's a big difference between everyone here arguing over hearsay from 40 years ago and actually having personally been there)

[southsider2k5]

And none of us do either, clearly, as no Liberal can possibly be related to a serviceman. You however were the one who switched to the first person there and said that you were spit on. (Yes, I know what you were doing. But there's a big difference between everyone here arguing over hearsay from 40 years ago and actually having personally been there)

 

That is a massive reach based on a response to another post. There is clearly no basis in reality to what you just said.

 

The irony is your (afternote) is based on... wait for it... People making theories based on not having been there. Yes I agree there is a big difference, and I am going to believe, wait for it, the people who were actually there.

[StrangeSox]

Soldier #1: I was spit on when I returned from Vietnam.

Liberal #1: No you weren't you imagined it or exaggerated it.

 

Nope, looks to me like they are being called liars.

 

Where are the soldiers making these claims?

 

How much more clear can that be made? There's no one here saying "no, you are making that up" to individual soldiers' claims. What is being challenged is the idea that this sort of thing was even somewhat common and what's been shown is that there's little support, even anecdotally, for it. That doesn't mean it never happened or that the handful of incidents that were reported on at the time are being called lies or exaggerations.

[StrangeSox]

More realistic portrayal

 

Some-guy-on-internet #1: Soldiers were spit on when they returned from Vietnam by anti-war hippies.

Liberal #1: There's little evidence that this ever actually happened and, if it did, the "baby-killer spitters" meme is still likely an exaggeration of a real event since there's so little actual evidence or even first-hand "this happened to me personally" stories.

 

[EvilMonkey]

The burden of proof is on someone making a positive claim ie "this event happened" because it's impossible to prove a negative.

Kinda like all those black congresscritters who claimed they were spat upon and called names. Not one bit of proof, despite the abundance of video cameras there and the massive reward offered for proof.

[StrangeSox]

Kinda like all those black congresscritters who claimed they were spat upon and called names. Not one bit of proof, despite the abundance of video cameras there and the massive reward offered for proof.

 

 

Not really for two reasons. first, at least there you're dealing with the first-hand claim of "I was spit on," so you're calling the Congressman a liar in that case. That's different from telling ss2k5 that there's not a lot to support "people spit on soldiers and called them baby killers." In the later, ss2k5 isn't being called a liar.

 

Second, there's video from the even that shows the Congressman clearly reacting to something and wiping his jacket and his face. I'm more inclined to believe it was spittle from someone angrily shouting than deliberate spit, though.

[EvilMonkey]

Not really for two reasons. first, at least there you're dealing with the first-hand claim of "I was spit on," so you're calling the Congressman a liar in that case. That's different from telling ss2k5 that there's not a lot to support "people spit on soldiers and called them baby killers." In the later, ss2k5 isn't being called a liar.

 

Second, there's video from the even that shows the Congressman clearly reacting to something and wiping his jacket and his face. I'm more inclined to believe it was spittle from someone angrily shouting than deliberate spit, though.

You had first hand accounts back then. Maybe you should have asked for that 'hard proof' a few decades ago, when it was fresh. As for the 'spitting' incident, the guy who first 'reported' being spit on and called names later refused to say anything after he got called on it. So I am inclined to believe it didn't happen to him. Especially since he has had no problems in the past bringing race into just about any circumstance.