Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
Do weepy confession appear more factual than non-weepy reminiscences?
When distinguishing the two, evidence is really useful. Without actual evidence, all we have are a buncha opinions masquerading as fact. Under the right circumstances we may call that lying or slander or libel or factual. How do we determine which is which?
|
A dodge with an extra degree of artfulness is still a dodge. Some of the guys had photos. I suppose they could have thrown a bunch of dessicated ears on the table but I imagine most of the guys who would show up for that kind of event had long since gotten rid of them.
Who can judge whether or not they could control their emotions at that time? Faked weepiness is often easy to spot.
UNO MASS: What kind of evidence could they have presented? Dead Cong bodies? Vietnamese women who would testify to rape? Chunks of pasture that no longer grew plants? Boxes full of ashes of former huts? Under the circumstances, personal testimony is what they had to offer.
I don't buy the scenario that each and every one of those guys was lying, as Burkett implies when he wrote "In fact, the entire Winter Soldiers Investigation was a lie."
I could see a few trying to discredit the war with BS but not that the entire group. We know various atrocities took place. Furthermore, Burkett claims to have outed what 1700 'vets' as frauds? Dude, that's a Herculean feat of investigative reporting. Oh, here it is:
Indeed, Burkett discovered that over the last decade, some 1,700 individuals, including some of the most prominent examples of the Vietnam veteran as dysfunctional loser, had fabricated their war stories. Many had never even been in the service. Others, had been, but had never been in Vietnam.
Where is the proof, the evidence, of that, which you claim to demand?
Can you see the contradiction here? The WS vets cannot provide proof, therefor, they are liars. Burkett writes a book, clearly with some wounded pride going on, and his word is golden.