EL BROOKS CAN THO BS - FIRST REBUTTAL
(Smear Merchant Disclaimer: Please note this article (the same as all of
my past articles and exchanges with posters) represents an editorial on
contem****ary issues and events - my opinion. Nothing in this article
represents in any manner any asseveration of biographical fact, nor is
about, directed toward or against any particular person - other than
those specifically mentioned herein. This article is being posted for
entertainment purposes only. If any person finds this post personally
annoying, abusive, defaming or otherwise disturbing, please notify me of
your specific reasons for annoyance via email at legalcoach@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
we find your detailed objections reasonable (considering the
"reasonable person" doctrine and case law) we will then remove this
post, or the offending passages contained therein, from the Google
archive, publicly apologize and retract. My intent is to entertain, and
to present articles to USENET readers prior to publication to determine
interest, and not to annoy, abuse, humiliate, or in any way cause anyone
emotional harm by posting on USENET or elsewhere. Please note that
defending myself from harassment and obloquy with rebuttal posts has
been deemed a "lawful and legitimate" publication by my legal counsel.
If I am not attacked, defamed or harassed, or my copyrighted articles
not interrupted nor infringed upon, I clearly do not have a reason to
respond with a rebuttal. Please also note that I intend to notify any
and all ISP's and web hosts of any annoying or calumnious post, web site
or other similar entity about me after I give the offender an
op****tunity to retract, apologize and remove said post from the Google
archive).
(Doug's Rebuttal: I have better things to do than defend myself from
Nigel's hype and bull. The more lies and false accusations he posts, the
more rebuttals and expert reviews he is going to see me post in my
defense. I am not going to go quietly into the night like the rest of
Nigel's targeted smear victims. I will post the truth in my defense.)
Newspaper Accounts Are False and Are Considered "Hearsay"
Ask any solider from WWII forward if the newspaper accounts of his
actions in a war were correctly described in any newspaper accounts of
their actions and you will receive guffaws, laughter, sarcasm and
comments like "propaganda" and "ridiculous" - and for good reason.
The information officers in the various branches of the military are
under strict orders to lie in their newspaper accounts and after action
re****ts of enemy contact, and about many other issues, especially during
a time of war.
In addition to what we real soldiers already know about all that
propaganda, we now have the actual information officers and information
specialists from the US Army and US Marine Corps corroborating and
testifying before Congress they were ordered to lie and use propaganda
and hide information in newspaper releases and after action re****ts of
action in Vietnam. Gosh, so what else is new? It seems that everybody
above the rank of Sp4 in the U.S. Army already knew the newspaper and
AAR's accounts were bull**** - but it is refre****ng to see the
commissioned officers in charge of that bull**** finally admit it.
However, even with the common knowledge indicated above, we find Mr.
Nigel Brooks' (formally Sp4 Brooks Draftee) using Unit newspaper
accounts of battles and events in Vietnam to dispute eyewitness accounts
of such events. Mr. Nigel Brooks has repeatedly, in this forum and in
others, called Vietnam Vets, with more time in Vietnam than he, more
rank and more experience, all liars because their eyewitness' version of
events did not agree in minute detail with his beloved bull****
newspaper accounts and/or false after action re****ts.
Nigel Brooks Background - Not Quite Right
Understand first that Mr. Nigel Brooks was a Sp4 Personnel Clerk,
draftee, that spent a total of two whole years in the US Army, was
forced in the US Army via the draft, was English born and immigrated to
the USA, and he only spent one year in Vietnam (he refused to extend his
duty in that country) and he took a Village Rat discharge in Vietnam so
he could work for the Post Exchange and continue to shack up with his
Vietnamese wh, er, "Women." (I say English Born only to demonstrate he
would not have any family members that previously served in the US Army
to tell him he was incorrect to reference Unit newspaper accounts as
truthful official accounts of anything, and because he often posts that
he is a "*****ball Fan" and I know of no real American born soldier that
served in Vietnam that was ever a "*****ball fan."
No wonder Mr. Brooks does not understand what NCO's and others know
about Unit newspaper accounts and after action re****ts, not to mention
American newspapers. He apparently never went on a patrol or performed
other combat actions in Vietnam and then fell off of his rack laughing
at the published lies while reading an account of his patrol in the
Stars and Stripes or in a Unit newspaper.
In fact, even if the newspapers and AAR's wanted to be accurate, in many
cases they could not because of their lack of space to include all of
the details, classified information restrictions (such as never
mentioning attacks on our POW camps because the locations of our POW
camps were always classified) and a host of other reasons. These Unit
newspaper and AAR re****ts typically represent self-serving re****ting by
officers that are pandering for medals, subjective perspectives from
vantage points that could not see nor include all of the details nor the
entire picture, etc . . . In truth, an eyewitness can only describe what
*he saw* and you can be sure he could not possibly see everything in a
battle the size of the 1969 attack on the Can Tho base and POW camp.
That is why any "honest" investigator will tell you that if you have
five witnesses to a battle or other traumatic event, or even to a crime,
you probably will receive five different versions of the event.
So when Sp4 Nigel Brooks comes up with "well he did not describe this or
that so he must be lying" you can believe old bull**** artist Brooks has
found yet another fraudulent method to defame those that he disagrees
with. "Honest investigator" MY ASS! BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Sp4 Brooks'
"honest investigations" are more akin to the Spanish Inquisition than to
any other investigation I have ever seen. No honest investigator uses
the illogical fallacy of "X is lying because I cannot find proof X is
not lying" - add that to "I will avert my eyes from, hide, suppress and
distort any evidence that disagrees with me, and you have a typical
Nigel Brooks personal attack and false accusations, sup****ted with "his
kind" of "backward evidence."
Cat out of Bag
Information Commissioned Officer and all Enlisted Information
Specialists Testify Before Congress They were Told to Lie in their
Newspaper Accounts and After Action Re****ts
In the following article the Information commissioned officer and both
Brigade level Information specialists, and the Information officer from
the U.S. Marine Corps, who were all responsible for the creation and
release of all news articles for the 25th Infantry Division, U.S. Marine
Corps, and related After Action Re****ts, testified before Congress they
were ORDERED TO LIE IN ALL THOSE RE****TS! Ordered by whom? None other
than MACV and MACVOI - which were the two headquarters that controlled
all of the information disseminated in Vietnam that had anything to do
with U.S. Forces.
http://tinyurl.com/4a6k26
All information officers in Vietnam from the
US Army and the US Marine Corps were ORDERED to lie in all press
releases and after action re****ts.
The MACV and MACVOI rules and orders about how to slant and lie in Unit
news and After Action Re****t information dissemination by information
officers applied to ALL units in Vietnam.
Everyone is Lying Except Nigel Brooks?
Sp4 Draftee personnel clerk/Village Rat/PX security person/ Nigel Brooks
says all of these officers and enlisted men, re****ters, from both the US
Army and the US Marine Corps, are all "liars" and everything they wrote
and published in their Unit newspaper accounts was true down to the last
detail, regardless of their confessions and detailed descriptions of how
they were ordered to lie and falsify accounts of battles and action
against the enemy. DUH! Like I said, everyone above the rank of Sp4
knows differently.
The Attack on Can Tho, 1969, More Detail and Proof Nigel's Version
Cannot be Trusted
Once again, we visit the January 13, 1969 attacks on Can Tho which I was
involved in and witnessed. Some interesting details never before
mentioned follow:
Sp4 Nigel Brooks said the following about this attack:
1. Sp4 Nigel Brooks admits neither he nor any of his gang members
witnessed the attack I was referencing, and Sp4 draftee Nigel Brooks
claims his account of the attack is coming from what he fraudulently
claims are the "official re****ts." But we all know the "official
re****ts" are mostly lies - and the confessions of lying in those
"official" re****ts are coming first hand and direct from the sworn
testimony from the commissioned officers and enlisted men that were
responsible for writing and disseminating those re****ts. So to start,
Mr. Sp4 Brooks' alleged "official re****t" is not only hearsay (not first
hand accounts) but is also tainted with key omissions, fraudulent
additions, slanted descriptions of events, and outright falsehoods. So
we can start by tra****ng Nigel's so-called "official re****t" and start
listening to the people that were in Can Tho at the time, and witnessed
the attack, such as myself.
2. Sp4 Nigel Brooks is quoting an article from the AP in respect to
"sappers only and satchel charges only" involved in the 1969 attack. Yet
when I did a search on the newspaper accounts of this attack I received
the following re****t from a company that provides newspaper archives: "
"We discovered 65,621 results for attack on can tho 1969 in newspaper
articles found in our archive!"
2-a. So the truth of the matter is there are 65,621 different versions
of what happened that night!
Granted, I did not read them all, and many that I did read are
redundant, but many of these articles interview different witnesses in
conjunction with the official re****t and therefore are *different.* So
who's to say which one of these 65,621 newspaper accounts are accurate
if any? Would it be Sp4 Nigel Brooks who was not even in Can Tho when
the attack occurred? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That premise is about as
idiotic as most of Sp4 Brooks' nutty claims. Not to mention the fact all
of the first hand accounts from witlessness I posted (which Sp4 Brooks
snipped out of course) disagreed with Mr. Nigel Brooks' official
accounts in the respect to his claims there were only sappers and
satchel charges involved in the attack, and there were NO vehicles
involved. No wonder Sp4 Brooks tried to hide those first hand accounts
that disagreed with his "official re****t" - but I will replace them
again at the end of my next rebuttal so all can see the evidence Mr.
Brooks is again, as usual, attempting to hide.
Hearsay versus Eye Witness Accounts
3. When Sp4 Nigel Brooks' tries to claim that hearsay evidence trumps
first hand eyewitness accounts, which evidence do you believe experts on
the law and our courts will accept and which evidence will they dismiss
and consider non-admissible and worthless? Of course, in a real world,
where independent experts are reviewing evidence and not gang members
that will parrot and echo and babble everything their gang leaders tell
them to echo, parrot and babble, the "hearsay" goes out the courthouse
window. In truth, I even believe the child like minds of Mr. Brooks
smear gang members will comprehend the difference between hearsay and
first hand evidence. But then, considering their dim understandings of
the law and their dependence on Nigel Brooks to explain it to them,
perhaps not.
4. Regardless, right out of the gate, an "honest" investigator will (and
has) dismiss all of Nigel Brooks' "official account of the battle
evidence" as:
4-A. Hearsay and therefore cannot be considered and is completely
worthless.
4-B. Very likely false as the information officers have testified before
congress they were ordered to lie and distort these re****ts by MACV and
MACVOI, which were the ruling authorities for ALL such accounts
published in or about Vietnam and US Forces.
4-C. Even if the articles were somewhat true, these articles are known
to be absent volumes of details because newspaper accounts simply do not
have the space to include every detail of the event seen or experienced
by all of the witnesses.
4-D. There are 65,621 different newspaper accounts, and many are
different. So who's to say which hearsay article is correct in general,
and which are false?
4-E. None of the Newspaper accounts are allowed to reveal classified
information. The locations of all of our POW camps in Vietnam were
classified. Ergo, the POW camp that was located at the end of the Can
Tho Airfield that was also attacked was not even mentioned in the
"official re****ts."
4-f. Bottom Line: The so-called "evidence" Mr. Brooks has been providing
all along about this incident in Can Tho has been, and will forever be,
"false, misleading, incomplete hearsay and non-admissible evidence." Or,
in more aphoristic terms: "Typical Sp4 draftee Nigel Brooks hearsay
bull**** that we see him try to use to smear and defame real Vets time
after time."
Just the Facts Please
5. So what did really happen that early morning night in Can Tho on
January 13, 1969 since we now know nothing Nigel Brooks says about it
can be accepted as true? Let's explore some of the different accounts by
the eye-witlessness to find out:
6. The first issue to address is the POW camp that was located at the
end of the Can Tho Airfield was also under attack that night, but that
attack could not be mentioned in any of the official re****ts because the
locations of all POW camps in Vietnam were classified. Yet from what I
saw, and based upon what I was told the next day, the attack on the
airfield included a coordinated attack on the POW compound as well.
(Trying to claim the enemy would destroy all of our aircraft yet ignore
a POW camp in the vicinity of the airfield, and the op****tunity to free
some of their comrades in the bargain, is so goofy it is just more Nigel
Brooks BS, and therefore is illogical and ridiculous)
6-a. Bottom line: We now know the 1969 attack on Can Tho hearsay
accounts that Nigel Brooks' uses to dismiss eyewitness accounts of the
attack are inherently false as NONE of them even mentioned the enemies'
failed attempt to release prisoners from the POW camp that was located
at the end of the Can Tho Airfield.
7. What amazes some of the independent experts I have consulted, is that
Sp4Nigel Brooks' has an utter disregard and contempt for the facts,
truth, and evidence in respect to anything that contradicts one of his
idiotic "proclamations." He claims that eye witness and personal
memories and accounts of events in Vietnam are "all lies" only because
his worthless, inaccurate and proved false and fraudulent Unit Newspaper
and other false AAR accounts of that event contradict such eyewitnesses.
Or, what is more typical of Sp4 Nigel Brooks, those newspaper or
"official" accounts simply do not mention the same details the
eyewitnesses have mentioned - ergo, everyone lies except the
self-appointed Grand Inquisitor himself, Nigel Brooks, and his child
like-minded court clowns ever by his side with their multi-belled sock
hats and crossed eyes.
7-a. Without pointing out the obvious, which is the subjective memories
and perspectives of a battle or any traumatic event by witnesses are
often viewed and explained with different conclusions and perspectives -
Mr. Sp4 Nigel Brooks and his lame brained court clown's processes of
determining who is lying and who is not about their Vietnam experiences
(as he arrogantly appoints himself "chief judge and Grand Inquisitor")
is beyond dishonest and unethical, it appears to me to be aboulic,
pathological and outrageously fraudulent. I believe Sp4 Nigel Brooks and
some of his court clowns get their rocks off by smearing people with the
use of fraud, false accusations and forgeries, and of course, false
evidence. How can anyone get any sicker than that?
8. I spent 15 months in Vietnam, was assigned and volunteered for many
different duties, was assigned to several different units, achieved the
rank of SFC E-7 in only six years of service, and I would not dare to
presume that I could determine the facts of a Vietnam battle or event
over an eyewitness account in a million years. I also would not proclaim
that I had special "mind reading skills" that would enable me to know
what every Veteran did or did not do in Vietnam. These self acclaimed
mind reading skills are typically associated with Sp4 Nigel Brooks'
"Grand Inquisitor proclamations" and they always seem to surface against
those other Veterans that opine and post that Sp4 Nigel Brooks is "full
of **** and barks at the moon on Friday nights" - which is a bit mild in
respect to my real opinion of ol Nigel.
No Experts
9. Note that Mr. Brooks' regular army rank never even achieved a junior
NCO status, and Tom Rau's regular army rank never even achieved a senior
NCO status, so neither man could be, by any stretch of anyone's
imagination accepted by others "any kind of expert on the US Army."
Moreover, since there is no evidence of them attending and passing any
soothsaying courses, and since they do not claim to have passed any such
crystal ball gazing courses, and since both Brooks and Rau have failed
every mind reading test I have administered to them, their mind reading
claims in conjunction with their "Grand Inquisitor" duties on this forum
are about as bogus as their contradictions of eye-weediness with hearsay
bull**** they try to pan off to suckers stupid enough to believe as
"official accounts of battles and events in Vietnam."
Sp4 Brooks' lies and fraud are so Outrageous some Cannot Believe He
Posted what he Posted
10. Some of the genuine Law experts I have consulted have found some of
my statements about Mr. Sp4 Nigel Brooks and his smear gang impossible
to believe until they actually read his and his gang posts for
themselves. Then all I have consulted are astonished at how dishonest,
manipulative, distorting and misleading Sp4 Nigel Brooks and his crew's
vitriolic false accusations and conclusions are. As an example, they are
still shaking their heads over Sp4 Nigel Brooks's outrageous claims that
a post I removed for error was intentional, and the corrected copy that
was posted to replace and correct the erred post was false or
unintentional! They were also astonished that anyone would be so
unethical as to dig around in waste basket posts discarded for an error,
and then try to pan off a post discarded for error as intentional, while
simultaneously altering or forging the context of the discarded post for
the purpose of using a typo or erred post to deliberately smear and
defame someone!
10-a. *Real* independent experts on the law and evidence find the
tactics of Nigel Brooks and his smear gang almost unbelievable they are
so obviously unethical and fraudulent. Add the fact that the guy behind
all this claims to be a "Federal Agent" or an "honest investigator" and
between the gales of laughter and scorn, comes disbelief, then anger,
then advice to me I should go to court to stop these smear merchants as
I am obviously up against a smear and defamation gang that is not
interested in truth, evidence nor facts.
11. Brooks Out of Context Quotation of Mine
http://tinyurl.com/4ndpa5
Brooks's Nonsense Can Tho.
http://tinyurl.com/4e8ye7
Here is what I said about Can Tho that Nigel
Brooks likes to quote out of context: October 2001 (Brooks really had to
go far back to find this fragment now didn't he, and note it was not
posted on any military newsgroup, and was a short quip to make a point
and did not claim to be providing any detailed account of the attack -
which is contrary to Sp4 Nigel Brook's false claims and
misrepresentations when he takes the quip out of its proper context).
"As a senior CIA official told Congress recently "It is 100%
certain we will suffer another Terrorist attack whether we attack
Afghanistan or not." (Or words to that effect.)
I sat down last night and prepared a list of 75 key general target
sectors the terrorists could attack in this country alone.
Within those 75 general sectors, there are perhaps tens of
thousands of actual targets. Can we defend all of those targets
from suicide type attackers? No, we cannot.
Can we protect every school, school bus, office building, private
plane, air****t tarmac, railroad station, train, cargo truck,
cargo plane, water supply, food supply, utility station, military
base, nuclear energy plant, petrochemical plant, and news center
in our country simultaneously? No.
When I was in Vietnam, stationed in Can Tho, I witnessed two
ambulances drive through our main gate, calmly drive to our
air****t, drive on the tarmac and while driving down the tarmac
Viet Cong contained in the ambulances shot each plane on the
tarmac with a M-79 grenade launcher. Then when they were
through, they simply drove out the back gate and down the road.
This was a "drive-by" on an air****t!
These six or seven Viet Cong, equipped with simple weapons (that
look like big shotguns) destroyed an entire American Army air
base in about five minutes!
Today, if even only one terrorist vehicle can gain access to a
major air****t tarmac, then can you imagine the resulting
devastation of the fuel heavy commercial aircraft and the
collateral damage that will occur to those passengers waiting for
their flights?".
11-a. Sp4 Nigel Brooks, in his typical deceptive and fraudulent style
excerpted one paragraph of that entire post and then fraudulently
claimed I was posting a detailed and personal account of everything I
saw that night in Can Tho. Of course anyone that reads the full post
above can easily see I was making a quick reference to something I had
witnessed in the past to make a point, and I DID NOT provide a detailed
personal account description of what happened that night." However, I
will now post a more detailed account of what I saw happen on January
13, 1969, in Can Tho, to the best of my memory and recollection, in a
subsequent post.
Sp4 Nigel Brooks is Lying About the Contents of my Military Records
12. If anyone wants to confidentially discuss my diverse duties in Can
Tho, contact my former commanding officer, research the six different
companies and major headquarters I worked with, (in which as a SFC E-7 I
was the lowest ranking member) hear about the amount of times and with
which officers I read POW interrogation transcripts and assisted in a
few interrogations, the amount of times I went out on a Dawn LZ security
sweep with a M-79 and my M-16 and then showed up at my Headquarters duty
station with those weapons and bandoliers still in tow, the amount of
times I traveled with a convoy helping to provide security and other
services, then please email me at dgvreiman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and identify
yourself.
12-a. I also can say with absolute positiveness that Sp4 Nigel Brooks
false claims that I was assigned duties in a Personnel Office, or to the
51st Maintenance Company, in Can Tho are completely false and fraudulent
misrepresentations of what are contained in my military records. Mr.
Brooks is lying about the contents of my military records on this issue
and in respect to several others. I will prove (1) the nearest personnel
office related to my units in Can Tho was located several hundred miles
away in Vung Tau. (2) Contrary to Nigel Brooks fraud, I was NOT assigned
to the 51st Maintenance Company for any duties whatsoever. I will gladly
provide evidence of Sp4 Nigel Brooks fraudulent misrepresentations about
my military records to any independent third party for review if anyone
wishes to challenge any of my statements in this regard.
Doug Grant (Tm)
"SteveL" <stevelon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:XoCdnXfW-6om3oPVnZ2dnUVZ8uudnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sun, 4 May 2008 16:13:05 -0700, "DGVREIMAN" <dgvreiman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
> Snip cyberstalking and fraud.
Snip cyberstalking.
Doug Grant (Tm)
|
