Gays responsible for Srebrenica massacre

[Neil]

And by the way, kike is only for ashkenazis.

Fine.  Arab, then.

[Admiral Yi]

As I suspected, the Dutch general refuted the claim that gays in the military led to the Sbernica massacre.  He did *not* refute the claim that gays in the military was "a problem."

[Faeelin]

As I suspected, the Dutch general refuted the claim that gays in the military led to the Sbernica massacre.  He did *not* refute the claim that gays in the military was "a problem."

What Dutch general? What are you quoting?

[Admiral Yi]

What Dutch general? What are you quoting?

1 page back, 2 down.  Marty's cutnpaste.

[Faeelin]

What Dutch general? What are you quoting?

1 page back, 2 down.  Marty's cutnpaste.

I note they also didn't say it was a problem. In the absence of evidence one way or the other, I am shocked that you interpretted it to implicitly say gays were a problem.

[ulmont]

In the absence of evidence one way or the other, I am shocked that you interpretted it to implicitly say gays were a problem.

In the Captain Renault sense of the word "shocked," no doubt.

[Faeelin]

In the absence of evidence one way or the other, I am shocked that you interpretted it to implicitly say gays were a problem.

In the Captain Renault sense of the word "shocked," no doubt.

No, not that shocked.

[grumbler]

As I suspected, the Dutch general refuted the claim that gays in the military led to the Sbernica massacre.  He did *not* refute the claim that gays in the military was "a problem."

*Nor* did he refute the claim that the mayoral candidate in Louisville has been spied upon by satellites! 

[Admiral Yi]

I note they also didn't say it was a problem. In the absence of evidence one way or the other, I am shocked that you interpretted it to implicitly say gays were a problem.

The US general made a series of statements, some of which he attributed to the Dutch general and some which he did not.  The Dutch general vehemently denied the ones not attributed directly to him.  Do you think that is the normal response of someone who has been misquoted?

[Razgovory]

Technically he quoted a General Hankman Berman not Henk van den Breemen.

[grumbler]

The US general made a series of statements, some of which he attributed to the Dutch general and some which he did not.  The Dutch general vehemently denied the ones not attributed directly to him.  Do you think that is the normal response of someone who has been misquoted?

What do you think the pattern of the Dutch denials is telling you?

[Martinus]

Yi, where do you find in this statement that van den Breemen rejects some of the claims but not others:

English translation:

Minister of Defense Eimert van Middelkoop strongly rejects the statements of retired American General John Sheehan, who blamed the presence of homosexuals in the Dutch military forces for the fall of the Srebrenica enclave in 1995 and the ensuing massacre of nearly eight thousand Muslims. Quoting the minister: "Disgraceful and unbecoming a military man. I do not intend to waste any more words on this."

Sheehan based his claims on statements from then-Chief of Staff, General Henk van den Breemen. Van den Breemen, for his part, considers Sheehan's accusations "complete nonsense". Van den Breemen does not share Sheehan's opinion on the role of homosexuals in the fall of Srebrenica, and has never said anything that would imply he did.

He is refuting and disavowing Sheehan's claims completely, in the second bolded sentence and then in the last bolded part. He is essentially calling EVERYTHING Sheehan says, whether attributed to him or not, "complete nonsense".

How on earth can you take this and "read between the lines" that he is not denying quotes attributed directly to him? That's pretty cuckoo.

[Martinus]

As I suspected, the Dutch general refuted the claim that gays in the military led to the Sbernica massacre.  He did *not* refute the claim that gays in the military was "a problem."

*Nor* did he refute the claim that the mayoral candidate in Louisville has been spied upon by satellites! 

[Martinus]

Btw, Yi, have you actually read or watched Sheehan's testimony transcript? I have just rewatched it and I don't see him saying anywhere that van den Breemen told him "gays are a problem".

He is asked whether he heard any opinions from other military commanders that gays pose a problem for their command and he said yes. He was then asked to give examples and this is where he started quoting van den Breemen in the context of Srebrenica.

So is your point essentially that:

1. Sheehan doesn't say van den Breemen told him expressly that gays are a problem.
2. But Sheehan quoted van den Breemen on Srebrenica in response to a question asking whether someone told him that gays are a problem.
3. Thus it is implied that van den Breemen told him that gays are a problem.
4. Van den Breemen called what Sheehan is saying "complete nonsense" that said that he never told him anything like that about gays in Srebrenica.
5. BUT he did not expressly say that he didn't tell Sheehan that gays are a problem despite the fact that while Sheehan didn't say he did, it could be implied from his statement that he might have had or might have not.

and ERGO: despite calling what Sheehan said total nonsense and expressly rejecting quotes attributed to him directly by Sheehan, it cannot be implied from van den Breemen's general rejection that he is also rejecting quotes Sheehan never said he made (but ones that could be implied as ones that may or may have not been made by van den Breemen from Sheehan's general response to the question in the senate commission), and therefore it is clear that from van den Breemen's calling of Sheehan's statement a nonsense it can be implied that he is implicitly acknowledging his quotes he never made but ones that could have been implied from Sheehan's speech, rather than his blanket rejection being an implied rejection of his implied quotes too.

[Martinus]

Btw, Yi is a perfect example how homophobia works. It is hanging on every shred of "evidence" or on every word, "reading between the lines" if necessary, to justify one's own prejudice. Here we have years of analyses and tests (not to mention real world examples of countries like the UK) showing that allowing gays to serve openly works, on one hand, but all of this is simply not enough to outweigh insane ramblings of one guy who quotes only one example of alleged negative influence of gays on the military, and this example is immediately disavowed by its source as "complete nonsense".