THE "OTHER" SPECIAL FORCES - 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]
If 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).
IN ADDITION, considering the typical ridiculous, absurd and obviously
false claims about my military service that originates from the smear
merchant crackpot gang, I also hereby certify and attest this article is
NOT a secret coded message that only smear gang members such as the
anonymous cyberstalker SteveL and others can decode with his secret
Federal Agent midget decoder and mind reading ring. This means all gang
members inevitable claims that this article is me really claiming in a
soothsaying code (a code crackpots et al gang members can only read of
course which involves the standard nonsensical gang leader mind reading
claims) that (1) I was a CIA cross border assassin that sniper killed Ho
Chi Minh, HOORAH - (2) that I personally killed 1803 enemy soldiers in
Vietnam and then feasted on their bodies (burp) (3) that I was a secret
member of the Mi Lai massacre, (let god sort them out) that I hunted
down and murdered unarmed Priests (take that choir boy) (4) that I was
trained by the Martian Army on Mars, and I have green blood, and
retractable fangs (slurp), (5) that the movie "Rambo" was copied after
my deeds in Vietnam and I still live in caves in the northwest (6) and
best of all, I went to the Carlise War College to study WWII tactics
even before I was born!!!! BWHAHAHAHAHHA. Such preposterous crackpot et
al smear and fraud gang claims about me are, as usual, blatantly false
and equally ridiculous. (Ask them for proof of their claims the next
time they make such ludicrous claims and watch them scurry for their
rocks). Also, note that all of the smear gang's accusations about me
have been (or will be) submitted to a team of independent and highly
qualified investigators, experts on military issues, and the law. I have
already seen some of their written conclusions, and so far all of the
experts agree with me, and some believe I am being smeared and defamed
with fraud, false accusations and obloquy, and two have recommended I
take immediate legal action against members of this smear gang that
conspires together to defame and smear me on a repeated and regular
basis. I will publish all of their opinions about the gang's accusations
when all of their false accusations, forgeries, fraud, false military
record representations, and general obloquy have been investigated and
opined upon by experts).
REBUTTAL BEGINS
A quick Google search under my present account name and "reactionary
force" will produce not less than 191 posts from me in which I said I
was a member of a special force that was approved by the Department of
the Army in January 1968 known as "special force reactionary" or
"special force quick reactionary." Or just "reactionary force" for
short.
Below are excerpts from the 25th Infantry Division Archives that prove
(1) this special force was approved by the Department of the Army in
1968, (2) the duties and actions of this Special Force, and (3) the fact
it was a "special" force as it was not a regular army unit force but was
a hodgepodge of several different sup****t units thrown together to form
a special force that performed special types of duties - MOS meant
nothing, as the official archives clearly state.
Here is the American Heritage Dictionary definition of "Special."
spe·cial (spµsh".l) adj. Abbr. sp., spec. 1. Surpassing what is common
or usual; exceptional: a special occasion; a special treat. 2.a.
Distinct among others of a kind: a special type of paint; a special
medication for arthritis. b. Primary: His special satisfaction comes
from volunteer work. 3. Peculiar to a specific person or thing;
particular: my own special chair; the special features of a computer.
4.a. Having a limited or specific function, application, or scope: a
special role in the mission. b. Arranged for a particular occasion or
purpose: a special visit from her daughter. 5. Regarded with particular
affection and admiration: a special friend. 6. Additional; extra: a
special holiday flight. --spe·cial n. 1. Something arranged, issued, or
appropriated to a particular service or occasion: rode to work on the
commuter special. 2. A featured attraction, such as a reduced price: a
special on salmon. 3. A single television production that features a
specific work, a given topic, or a particular performer. [Middle
English, from Old French especial, from Latin speci³lis, from speci¶s,
kind. See SPECIES.] --spe"cial·ly adv. --spe"cial·ness n.
Some of our more idiotic and arrogant smear gang members that victimize
posters on this forum want everyone to believe there was only one
Special Forces in Vietnam, and that was the Green Bennie type Special
Forces. But nothing could be further from the truth. Even the Air force
and the US Marine Corps, and the ROK troops had a Special Force designed
for special duties and quick reactions.
Considering Sp4 Brooks was released from active duty on or about January
13, 1968, long before the 1968 Tet offensive began, and Tom Rau did not
arrive in Vietnam until the war was winding down in 1969 and after I had
already left Vietnam, and Tom Rau said he was assigned to guard a lonely
border as a Green Beret Special Forces Reserve Junior Officer, and he
never served in any straight leg Infantry unit nor any other unit
outside of the Green Bennies in Vietnam, his knowledge of such events
also appears to be severely lacking.
Mr. Sp4 Nigel Brooks claims and implies that anyone with a 71H40L MOS
could never (1) be in combat (2) never interrogates prisoners (3) never
receive a wound or injury in combat (4) is automatically a Rear Echelon
Mother****er (5) and an Infantrymen that arrived in Vietnam in the
summer of 1969 which according to his commander his entire company unit
only suffered a single casualty during his entire tour of duty, is a
"combat solider" and everyone else that served in a Special Reactionary
Force is a "Rear Echelon Mother****er" - has been completely disproved
and exposed for the fraud and attempts to steal and besmirch the valor
of all the men that served in Vietnam during a very special time, the
1968 Tet offensive and counteroffensive months, and the 1969 Tet
Offensive months.
During that time, and as the excerpts from the 25th Infantry Division's
archives clearly state below, the Department of the Army approved a very
SPECIAL FORCE to form, train and operate in Vietnam under the control
and direction of major units, such as the 25th Infantry Division. This
very special force did not last very long as after Tet of 1969 it was no
longer needed due to the Vietnamization program being in full force. By
the time 1970 rolled around, the 25th Infantry Division actually started
to leave Vietnam. But for about a 13-month period a Special Force
Reactionary was set up by the Division and by other units such as the
53rd General Sup****t Group, and it was very operational both in the 25th
Infantry Division and even more so in the LSA in Can Tho.
One could argue that Nigel Brooks had long left the service in which he
was a Sp4 two-year draftee and was not even in the Regular Army, and
consequently there would be no way he could know about these new Special
Forces. But that is no excuse for arrogantly besmirching and lying about
the service of men that actually participated in these new special
forces. Anyone that was just a Sp4 with only two years of active service
should not hold himself up as any kind of expert on the US Military
anyway - in fact such a claim is not only ridiculous it is disgusting to
a real expert.
I also find Nigel Brooks' propensity to pounce on every ambagious
statement, typo, error or single word misstatement I or others posting
under an account I used on USENET involving my entire history of USENET
conversations on nonmilitary forums, and then distort, twist, lie about,
forge and misrepresent any such typo or ambiguity as intentional, and to
mean something defaming that is contrary to what it really meant, also
disgusting. It seems these tiny typos, errors and such acts as snares
for con men and cyberstalkers and smear merchants, and as soon as they
pounce on one of them the noose tightens around their unethical and
serial lying necks, and a little guy with a great big paddle comes out
of a nearby tree and spanks their *****s to a degree you can hear them
holler, and bluster and whine about their stupid mistake for months.
Each time Brooks attacks me with one of his harebrained accusations, and
regardless of his pathetic brown nosey gang jumping and dancing around
my rebuttals and his posts like so many Fleas so as to sup****t his
pathetic whines and hide my truthful rebuttals, Brooks is the one that
ends up spanked by the little guy with the big paddle. You would think
this Clown would learn?
Brooks is typical of an arrogant self-acclaimed "expert" - Big Hat - No
Cattle.
Below is an URL that reveals that experts have confirmed what Brooks
does in respect to his back-searching posts looking for typos and error
to exploit against his targeted smear victims is both unethical and
inherently dishonest.
http://tinyurl.com/3o7ncv
BROOKS SPIN AND FRAUD REVEALED -REBUTTAL June
2, 2008.
SPECIAL FORCES REFERENCE - WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
Does my reference to being a member of this newly formed special force
when I was in Vietnam also mean that I am claiming a Green Beret Special
Forces member****p or MOS? No of course not, and that false accusation is
preposterous! There were SEVERAL different special forces located in the
US Army after the Department of the Army authorized the formation of
these special forces in January 1968, as the following 25th Infantry
Archives clearly provide.
Nigel Brooks and Tom Rau and their screaming mad pathetic brown nosey
gang members, have been howling and barking that every time I even
mentioned off the cuff the name of "special forces" that I was thereby
claiming I was a member of the Green Beret Special Forces unit. These
idiots make these fantastic and fraudulent claims without any evidence,
research on what I have said about being a member of a special force
unit, and Tom Rau even forged what I said completely so he could make
the same fraudulent claim based upon his own, obvious and completely
dishonest, forgery of what I had written. (When Tom Rau cannot find
anything to smear and defame someone with, he simply creates it with a
forgery, and the scary thing is this fraud merchant once was a reserve
junior officer in the US Army - like I said we need to do something
about the way we train our officer corps).
Understand that Nigel Brooks was a Sp4 personnel clerk draftee that
spent only two whole years active duty in the US Army, and was released
from active duty BEFORE the Department of the Army approved a special
force reactionary in late January 1968. Tom Rau was a member of the
Green Bennies Special Forces and because he NEVER spent any time in a
Regular Army Combat Division in Vietnam, or because he is a lying fraud
merchant, he claims he never heard of any special forces other than his
Green Beret units. Personally I think both Brooks and Rau know quite
well there were other special forces in Vietnam other than the "special
force's green berets" yet they wanted to play stupid so as to find a way
to defame and smear me with their usual lies, fraud and false
accusations.
Not withstanding Brooks and Rau's latest traducement attempts, and to
put all to rest, did I ever say I was a member of a special forces unit?
Yes I did. Was that statement the truth? Yes it was, at least according
to the Department of the Army it was and is. Was I claiming my special
forces unit was a Green Beret special forces unit, or a special
reactionary force unit? I ALWAYS said "special reactionary force unit."
Did I ever say I had a SF Green Beret MOS? No never. Did I ever say I
was a member of a specific Green Beret SF unit? No never. Did I say
HUNDREDS of times that I was a member of a straight leg special forces
reactionary unit with the 25th Infantry Division and in Can Tho? YES
HUNDREDS OF TIMES! Did I ever say I held both an infantryman's MOS and a
71H40L linguist/man power NCO MOS? Yes several times. Did I ever say I
was assigned to an area in Vietnam that contained a Green Beret Special
Forces unit of which I even could have been a part of? NO of course not.
Did I ever imply, insinuate, or claim that I was ever assigned to a
Green Beret Special Forces unit? NO NEVER!
Here is some overwhelming evidence Nigel Brooks and Tom Rau's latest "I
claimed I was a member of a Green Beret Special Forces unit" is nothing
more than outright lies, distortions of what I really said, fraud, and
in the case of Tom Rau, yet ANOTHER outright forgery of something I said
in the past:
SPECIAL REACTIONARY FORCES 25TH INFANTRY
http://tinyurl.com/3samqb
>Taken From the 25th Infantry Division Archives and posted by me on
>December 19, 2006
"During the 1968 Tet offensive and counter offensive months the Bunker
Line at Cu Chi was more like a WWII Battle line than a base camps
perimeter line - combat occurred almost nightly at one of the three main
25th Infantry Division's Base Camp Bunker lines. Sup****t Units
were exclusively responsible for camp defense at Cu Chi. RF (reactionary
force) platoons were manned by sup****t officers, NCO's and enlisted men
that were mostly assigned to sup****t units and not to main line infantry
units. "
"The bunker line at Cu Chi consisted of observation towers, firing
positions with overhead cover, an earth berm, barbed wire entanglements,
spotlights, and minefields. The reactionary forces
developed from sup****t battalions camped at Cu Chi were assigned sectors
of the defensive perimeter with very specific, rehearsed plans for
reinforcement and counterattack. Artillery, countermortar fire, sensors,
communications, reconnaissance, combat patrols, air sup****t,
and pacification all worked together to permit a large logistic and
command complex to survive in no man's land."
"Sup****t units had to be used in combat scenarios, patrols and other
defenses to secure the 25th base camps and By 1968 the Department of the
Army had authorized the use of key (special) Reactionary Forces trained
and selected from all sup****t units, including administration, supply
and logistics.... "
"Reactionary Force and LSA sup****t personnel performed patrols,
ambushes, and local search and destroy operations near the road. These
techniques allowed convoys to travel with minimum escort. If the
situation warranted, permanent outposts were provided to secure critical
bridges and defiles. These outposts patrolled the road to prevent mining
and ambu****ng.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reactionary Forces save Convoys - the operations of a LSA
(Logistical Sup****t Activity).
(Doug's Note: I was saving this tidbit for a later rebuttal or court,
but because of my experience with Special Reactionary Forces in the 25th
Infantry Division in association with an LSA activity, guess which unit
I was assigned to for duty when I arrived in Can Tho?) Hint, it sure as
hell was not the 51st Maintenance Company as Nigel Brooks as falsely
claimed, and yes I have the records to prove he lied, again.
I do not know, nor can I remember the amount of times I was assigned to
a Special Forces operation in respect to a special reactionary force set
up by the Department of the Army in 1968. Of course these units were
"special forces" as the name implies, but were NOT necessarily involving
Green Beret Special Forces as that name depicts. (I believe some special
force reactionary DID involve Green Beret types outside of the units I
was assigned to as I am sure they would be happy to pull that kind of
duty instead of bribing Vietnamese Chieftains and pulling lonely border
crossing duty).
After the 1968 DOA edict to establish these special force units within
each major unit there were many different kinds of Special Forces
developed by various units to help them fight the enemy, perform their
mission assigned to them by MACV, help protect their fire bases and base
camps, and provide security for logistical sup****t to troops in the
field and for major operations. In my opinion, during the time I was in
Vietnam, these special force men fought just as hard, and suffered just
as much, without equal recognition (other than fast track promotions)
than any regular Army combat or SF Green Beret solider did in Vietnam.
Excerpts from 25th Archives Continue:
"In the following months the enemy attacked several more convoys. In
every instance he failed to halt the fleeting target because he was
overwhelmed by a massive U.S. reaction. The division had turned a
defensive situation into a highly profitable offensive maneuver. The use
of convoy operations as a tool of pacification was a unique innovation.
In the 25th Division the convoy was often used even when aerial resupply
would have been easier. The reason for this maneuver
was to open and expand the road network to strengthen friendly forces in
the area..."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End a few germane excerpts from the 25th Infantry Division Archives in
respect to Reactionary Forces, their deployment, requirements, and a
typical LSA Activity operations.
Coming soon: The letter from the 25th Adjutant that asked for NCO and
commissioned Officer Volunteers for Special Reactionary Force platoons -
and the in-country training these NCO's and commissioned Officer
volunteers were required to complete.
Doug Says: The 25th Infantry Division was unique in many of the things
it did in Vietnam during 1968 - very much unlike any other unit. By 1969
however, the program of Special Reactionary Force recruitment from
sup****t units had mostly come to an end. In 1969 the war was winding
down and Vietnamazation had become the primary objective of the 25th
Infantry Division as it was for all units in 1969, including Green Beret
type Special Forces units.
However, in Can Tho, later in 1968 and early 1969, LSA Activities were
still required to perform many of the same Special Force Reactionary
sup****t duties as indicated above for its surrounding units - and find
and provide the Reactionary Force experienced NCO's and commissioned
Officers to perform those combat related duties. NCO's and Commissioned
Officers with previous Special RF experience and training were in great
demand in Vietnam at that time. (Much more about this duty when we get
to court - assignments to these Special RF units provided unique duties
regardless of MOS.
Doug Grant (Tm)
http://tinyurl.com/6jnmo6
Posted May 25, 2008 "SP4 OLSON AND THE WALL" long before Nigel Brooks
and Tom Rau started their new fraud and smear campaign about me claiming
I was a member of the Green Beret Special Forces based upon quips or
sentences they have forged out of context, or in the case of Tom Rau,
forged outright by replacing "organization" with "special forces" in my
short sentence. (Is there no level so low these two will not stoop to
find a lie and fraud to use to defame and smear me?)
"The above Google archived post provides the information I previously
posted in respect to a SP4 Olson, who was a member of my squad and was
wounded while on a combat patrol and was walking only a few feet behind
me. I helped lead this particular SRF (Special Reactionary Force) combat
patrol (one of many) and this particular combat patrol occurred during
the May 1968 Viet Cong major offensive, (little Tet) while I was serving
with the 25th Infantry Division, Cu
Chi, Vietnam."
http://tinyurl.com/46267b
October 7, 2005: Special Forces, as a separate unit in the US military,
in my opinion, is a bad idea. I believe each Infantry Division should
have a special force unit, controlled by the Division, and soldiers will
be rotated in and out of that unit as the Division needs them or
desires their services. (Much like the US Marines use their Recon
units). A U.S. professional Soldier's allegiance should be to his
country, the Army (or other branch) and then to his unit, not
just to his unit." (Note a military "organization" is the branch, a unit
withing the "organization" is known as a Unit or by a specific name,
such as XYZ Brigade or similar unit name. If you said you were a member
of the organization that means you were a member of the branch, if you
wanted to be more specific about which units you were assigned to, you
would then name a specific unit by its name."
http://tinyurl.com/4xydjv
It would appear to me that we must play by the
enemies rules and develop a strong special force to covertly eliminate
the enemy both within and without!
Pure & Simple! (Note this above statement was presented by the Google
archive as something I wrote, but the hyperlink or search proves
otherwise, and in fact this statement was something I simply repeated
from someone else that said this immediately before I replied. Yet
because the "< " symbol was not placed in the original comments they
were archived under something I supposedly said. You need to CONFIRM
with a hyperlink or other search that someone actually said what they
are being accused of saying, and then confirm with the author the
correct intended context or meaning.
http://tinyurl.com/3k2pd5http://tinyurl.com/4u4cjv
June 5, 2006 Then
when I mentioned I was assigned to a *special* volunteer platoon right
after I finished the extensive RVN Combat Training course (which is
located on my DD 214 and of course Brooks never mentions). . . we first
must realize that Brooks admitted that I had to have participate in a
Reactionary Force and other combat duties if I was assigned to the 25th
Infantry Division during the 1968 Tet Offensive.
.. . . Nigel said: "Would that "combat duty" have anything to do with the
"*special* platoon" that no-one in the Wolfhounds had ever heard of?
" Doug Says: First, Nigel Brooks does not speak for the US Army
Wolfhounds. I do not know ANY Wolfhound that has given Nigel Brooks
permission to speak for the thousands of men that served in that unit
during the Vietnam war. But when he said that no Wolfhound had ever
heard of the *special* platoon I was assigned to, he really pissed off a
few of them, and one SSG that ALSO fought in that *special* volunteer
reactionary force (before me) sent me the following information. (Note
the information can be verified by the tinyurl below:)
Here is the "special force reactionary unit" Nigel Brooks says "no one
heard of" right from the archives of the 25th Infantry Division 1968:
Posted on December 19, 2006 at http://tinyurl.com/3samqb
"The bunker line at Cu Chi consisted of observation towers, firing
positions with overhead cover, an earth berm, barbed wire entanglements,
spotlights, and minefields. The reactionary forces
developed from sup****t battalions camped at Cu Chi were assigned sectors
of the defensive perimeter with very specific, rehearsed plans for
reinforcement and counterattack. Artillery, countermortar fire, sensors,
communications, reconnaissance, combat patrols, air sup****t,
and pacification all worked together to permit a large logistic and
command complex to survive in no man's land."
http://tinyurl.com/3mayt3
June 7, 2006. "Even your own smear merchant
gang leader, Mr. Nigel Brooks, has admitted that I had to pull
reactionary force and other combat duties while I was in Vietnam." (A
reactionary force is a Special Force created by a Unit, usually a
Brigade or higher unit like a Division).
http://tinyurl.com/3h7oc5
A special force reactionary: April 1, 2006.
Now BS Brooks is trying to claim that because I was later assigned
outside of combat duties (although I still had to perform them as
secondary duties, reactionary force, sergeant of the guard, bunker line
duty, etc) I never saw ANY combat in Vietnam. So clearly BS Brooks has
been caught lying again, and just as clearly he is trying to cover his
lies with just more lies and fantastic fraud and misrepresentations that
border on the pathological."
Note as the 25th Infantry Division Archives irrefutably prove above,
Special Forces were created from sup****t units located in the base camp,
and their duties included but were not limited to:
"Artillery, countermortar fire, sensors, communications, reconnaissance,
combat patrols, air sup****t, and pacification all worked together to
permit a large logistic and command complex to survive in no man's
land." Sounds a lot like killing the enemy with guns, knives, wire (trip
wires) mortars, artillery and air attacks, now doesn't it? And that is
precisely what that special force did.
http://tinyurl.com/4pjfkh
April 26, 2006.
Doug Says: BS Brook's claim that all of the thousands of men in Vietnam
that died and/or were wounded on a Special Reactionary Force mission, on
patrol during Bunker Line duty, or on Guard duty, did not die in combat
is about the most asinine and fatuous statement I have ever heard from a
Vietnam Veteran in my life.
In the 25th Infantry Division during the 1968 Tet offensive and
counteroffensive months, do you know how many men were killed or wounded
performing reactionary force/bunker line/Rocket site searches, and
combat patrol duties due to alerts or base camp attacks? And those
combat duties were sometimes for much longer than just one week as BS
Brooks is claiming above, but regardless, if a soldier was on *any*
patrol, or was fighting the enemy on a reactionary force, and he was
killed or wounded by the enemy, was he not wounded or killed in
"combat?" If a soldier is on one of those many patrols pulling such duty
and he is told that he is to interdict the enemy patrols, and firefights
ensue with the enemy, is he not experiencing combat?"
http://tinyurl.com/3heg7b
Posted July 23, 2006
"At the time (1968 Tet offensives) the 25th Infantry Division was
desperately short of combat qualified NCO's and commissioned officers.
If you were a NCO or officer and volunteered for combat duty under the
auspices of the aforementioned letter, you would be sent to a two-week
RVN Training course. If you passed that course then you would be
classified as combat qualified, and assigned to (1) a regular combat
unit, or (2) to a special reactionary force unit that would form and be
used as needed. I elected option #2. That option would enable me to
perform other duties in respect to my linguist and manpower expertise,
and then only go into the RF platoon when it was needed. Yet
unfortunately, it was needed a lot during the 1968 Tet offensive and
counter offensive months at the 25th Infantry Division."
"The Division Headquarters controlled all of the reactionary forces, and
those forces were used the same way as regular combat forces;
interdiction patrols, night ambushes, recons in force, etc."
"As one other case in point when I was assigned to Can Tho, in January
1969 the Can Tho Army Air Base was attacked, and most of the men that
lost their lives that night fighting against that attack were in a
reactionary force that I helped train, and some of those men were under
my general control and command. (I was not located at the Can Tho base
when the attack occurred, I was located at the Melton Hotel. I was the
senior NCO at the time at that barracks and we went on full alert and
manned all of our gun and mortar emplacements on the Hotel's outside
walkways. I watched that attack unfold from the top of the Melton Hotel
and it was obvious the VC and NVA were not only attacking all of the
aircraft on the tarmac, they were also using vehicles to try and attack
the POW camp at the end of the Can Tho Runway)."
http://tinyurl.com/3qyopl
April 12, 2006
All NCO's in the 25th had to pull their share of combat duties,
regardless of their primary assignment. Especially during the Tet
offensive. Ask anyone else that was there. That is not
unless you consider special reactionary force operations, ambush
patrols, search and destroy patrols, convoy guard duties and sweeps for
mines, and Bunker Line Sergeant of the Guard"administrative duties" like
BS Brooks does! BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
http://tinyurl.com/3qyopl
April 12, 2006
"You do remember Olson and Nelson don't you? Considering they were both
wounded on the same day, and in the 1/5th Area where the Reactionary
Force units were operating that day, don't you think you could find them
with all your claimed investigative talents?"
http://tinyurl.com/3smnk4
April 11, 2006
(You can imagine how this happens, as a hypothetical, the enemy attacks
a Fire Base, and the CO at that Fire Base needs help now, and a
reactionary force is available back at Division just for
that contingency. But is the reactionary force required to wait the
customary two weeks for written orders to be cut before helping the Fire
Base? No of course not. But then does the
reactionary force come back to its main unit immediately after being
deployed to the Fire Base on a verbal "order of expediency?? Almost
never, and that reactionary force would probably stay at the Fire Base
for at least two weeks after arriving just to make sure the enemy does
not return or is waiting around for them to leave).
"I told BS Brooks I was assigned to a "Reactionary Force" about five
time so far, but he doesn't know what that means, so he still, like a
loon, claims I stayed in the same Company for the entire
period I was in the 25th - and that is just another BS Brooks obvious
lie). "
http://tinyurl.com/3egybn
April 13, 2006
"and my combat experiences for the 25th occurred mostly in a volunteer
special reactionary force hodgepodge company that Division controlled."
If one completes a search on the amount of times I referenced a
reactionary force under my present account name, you will find I
mentioned it at least 191 times. Brooks knew I was talking about a
special reactionary force, but he had lied (as evidenced above) and said
"no one had heard of it" - which if you do a simple Google search on
Reactionary Forces Vietnam 1968 you will find dozens of similar units
adopted those special forces under the new DOA guidelines. Not only has
about 90% of the false accusations Nigel Brooks has published about me
and his smear gang has echoed been completely rebutted and disproved as
the fraud it is by the 25th Infantry Division Archives alone, the other
remaining 10% of Nigel Brook's fraud about me will be rebutted with the
same kind of irrefutably proof soon. And I have not even started to
defend myself yet. Wait until the morning re****ts are scanned, and
others that served with me start to post, and the experts have their
say, and then we will be ready for court if this smear campaign
continues. I WILL defend myself from this gang, and I will not quit
doing so regardless of the threats of death and violence, and the
blackmail, and the distortions, forgeries and fraud perpetrated or
incited by this gang.
Doug Grant (Tm)
If you want to know more about how Nigel Brooks and his gang incredible
use of fraud and proved false accusations review the following recent
URL's:
For more evidence of the Nigel Brooks/Tom Rau smear and fraud gang
tactics, see the following URL's:
1. For the truth about Mr. Brooks cyberstalking and fraud, visit the
following URL's. Also note that Mr. Brooks probably holds the internet
record for web sites forced down due to fraud or abuse or defamation or
false accusations. Eleven web sites permanently forced down by
independent web managers for such transgressions. It seems that when
anyone outside of Mr. Brooks gang takes a long and hard look at what he
is doing and what he says, they immediately agree he is using
defamation, fraud, lies and false accusations to defame and smear.
1. http://tinyurl.com/3unvan
Section Quebec, rebuttal to Nigel Brooks outrageous fraud, forgeries and
false accusations, with evidence.
http://tinyurl.com/4xq8o6
this post sheds light on my disagreement with Joe about draftee status.
http://tinyurl.com/447mjw
Rebuttal Alpha to Tom Rau's (Dai Uy) outrageous fraud and false
accusations.
http://tinyurl.com/4rp34p
Rebuttal Bravo to Tom Rau's (Dai Uy) false accusations.
Note the smear merchants will try and hide this post now that Mr. Brooks
fraud has been rebutted again, so if you really want to read the
rebuttals about the Nigel Brooks/Tom Rau (a.k.a. Dai Uy) smear gang
without impediment nor the volumes of obfuscation posts the gang will
use to hide this post, go to:
http://tinyurl.com/mz8bv
Cyberstalker Web Names and read the rebuttals posted in true context.
Doug Grant (Tm)
|
