BROOKS NO COMBAT CON - REBUTTED
0 views
Skip to first unread message
dgvreiman
Mar 11, 2009, 4:11:16 PM3/11/09
to CYBERSTALKER WEB NAMES
BROOKS NO COMBAT CON - REBUTTED
Here is another rebuttal post that proves Nigel Brooks has been lying
about this issue for years.
(Smear Merchant Disclaimer: Please note this article (the same as all
of my past articles and exchanges with posters) represents an
editorial on contemporary 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
legal...@comcast.net. 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,
libeled, 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
opportunity to retract, apologize and remove said post from the Google
archive).
SMEAR MERCHANT DISCLAIMER TWO: Considering the typical ridiculous,
absurd and obviously false claims about my military service that
originates from the crackpot smear and con gang that operates on
alt.war.Vietnam, I also hereby certify and attest this article is NOT
a secret coded message that only gang members can decode with their
secret Federal Agent/Sp4 draftee/former Junior Reserve Officer/ midget
decoder and mind reading rings.
This means the Brownie crackpots’ inevitable accusations and howls
that this article is really me claiming in a special soothsaying code
(a code only crackpots et al smear gang can only read of course which
involves their typical claim the American Heritage Dictionary’s
definitions of simple terms, such as “we” “estimated” “involved”
“retired from” and “not representing any biographical claim” are all
incorrect, and only their “special interpretations of the English
language can apply to all English terms I use, and of course the
gang’s standard nonsensical mind reading and soothsaying 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.
Needless to say, the smear gang misrepresentations of my past posts
are of course, not true.
I have posted dozens of times on USENET that I will not post
autobiographical facts about my life on USENET in any detail. Only a
quip now and then. And, if anyone wants to know the true facts, or a
clarification of any quip, or more information and details about an
issue which are clearly missing in my quips they must first contact
me via email, identify themselves, and then I will determine if I want
to exchange such personal information with them.
Although the above is my standing offer, I should mention that NOT ONE
member of the gang has ever contacted me directly over any one of my
posts. It is clear the gang does not want to know about obvious
typos, errors, and occasional ambiguities, nor clarifications, nor
corrections, nor do they even want verification whether I was the
actual author of the post in question.
As experts on Investigations and the US Military have noted, the gang
leaders and their members clearly want to avoid the truth whenever it
contradicts their contrived and conspired defaming parsing and
fraudulent misrepresentations and distortions of what I have written
in the past, or contradicts their lies and fraud in respect to what is
and is not truly contained in my military records, and of course,
their fraudulent use of USENET posts they know others have written to
use to smear me, defame me, hold me up to public ridicule, stalk me,
and otherwise further their years’ long demonizing and vilification
campaign they have been regularly waging against me.
In short, the gang does not want to know the truth, and they are
desperate to stop me from defending myself as they know my truthful
rebuttals, which they cannot defend as they know what I am posting is
true, reveals them for what they really are.
The gangs lies and fraud border on the pathological, and include the
gang’ preposterous and goofy fraud that (7) a Purple Heart VA card is
the same as a Purple Heart Medal (I have posted on USENET dozens of
times I did not receive a Purple Heart Medal) (8) Nor that removing
hundreds of typos, errors, misstatements made by typists and I found
so far in about thirty-five THOUSAND extemporaneous posts under
accounts I used, and then replacing the errors with the true intended
context and meaning by the author is somehow “sinister” and the
original discarded post was the correct intended post and the
corrected version is false! (Giggle).
Such glaring preposterous crackpot et al smear and fraud gang claims
about me are, as usual, blatantly false and equally ridiculous. (Ask
the gang leaders for proof of their claims the next time they make
such ludicrous claims and watch them scurry for their rocks or produce
their own forgeries, or perhaps typos, errors and such that have long
been detected and discarded in my waste basket they have dug out of
that trash). And no, regardless of forgeries and discarded posts found
in my waste basket that were thrown there because of an error or
typist misstatement by one of our typist’s, I have posted about two
dozen times in the past that my time in South America was spent (other
than an assignment and short visit to Southern Command after I left
Vietnam) exclusively as a Civilian working for Montana Western Oil and
Gas or PCA, which evidence was scanned and posted years ago.)
Also, in response to the smear gang’s et al repeated and convenient
outright lie and fraud that I never said that others were using the
same accounts to post on USENET as I did until the smear gang leaders
started their fraud, con and smear campaign against me and thereby
forced me to post on this newsgroup to defend myself, please see the
following proof that of course the gang leaders et al have been caught
lying again:
http://tinyurl.com/7kfaqz Experts on Smear Gangs reveal what the
Nigel Brooks con and smear gang is all about.
http://tinyurl.com/6d4aay TYPISTS’ GALORE POST proves there were
about 71 previous posts prior to the gang’s glaring lie that I never
mentioned others posting under the same accounts I used until after
the gang leaders started to use a few typos, errors and post fragments
written by many different people, years apart, never written on any
military forum, deceptively spliced together with forged words added
into or subtracted from the hodgepodge of different context post
fragments so as to fraudulently alter their meaning or context.
End Disclaimer - Rebuttal Begins below:
If a Soldier is riding in a HumVee in Afganistan or in Iraq, and he is
wounded or killed by an IED, would you say that person was in “combat”
although he might have been filling out a supply requisition form in
the HumVee?
If a Solider that was a supply NCO was driving in the same convoy as
the one above that was ambushed, received a slight concession, but
was never wounded bad enough to whine for a Purple Heart Medal, would
you say that NCO was in combat?
If a Solider was required to man a bunker line that was under attack
by rockets and mortars in Vietnam, was that Soldier in combat?
According to Nigel Brooks, none of the scenarios above represent
“combat.” According to Nigel Brooks, unless you had an Infantryman’s
MOS or a SF MOS you were “never” in “real” combat.
We all know that Nigel Brooks was a Sp4 personnel clerk in Vietnam,
and that he was never in the Regular Army, and he only spent two whole
years in the US Army - and we also know he lied about his military
service to a degree it is shameful. So to listen to this clown, this
obvious arrogant moron, about how he is an expert on “combat” or
anything else to do with the U.S. Military is, of course, means you
are a bigger idiot than ol Nigel (Inspector Cluso) himself.
In sort, the man is a moron and a known smear merchant and con man.
His opinions are not worth a Vietnamese Whore’s fart in the wind (on
that subject Nigel might be an expert).
Not withstanding Nigel Brook’s “organized defamation” that he seems to
use against those he disagrees with, or those that post some tidbits
about their service in Vietnam, it seems to me that Nigel Brooks
attacks other vets that have real “war stories” perhaps because he has
none.
Moreover, it appears to me and others that have reviewed this clown’s
preposterous and goofy false accusations about me that he wants to
control the alt.war.vietnam newsgroup, and he does so by inciting and
directing his smear gang to attack those that are exposing his smear
and con tactics.
Keep in mind this arrogant asshole has instructed his gang to file
false criminal charges against me, and I wonder if he is also involved
in trafficking in my personal information which was stolen by a member
of his gang from US Government records. Did Brooks instruct his gang
member to steal my and my wife’s personal information and then
distribute it to third parties - like that kid in Tennessee did to
Mrs. Sarah Palin?
When I asked Brooks if he trafficked in my personal information he
ducked for cover, ran for the hills, and refused to answer. So based
upon his refusal, I can only assume the worst - but I am sure when the
lawyers get through with their review of this issue I will find out
the answer to that question. (At least Tom Rau stepped up and claimed
he did not traffic in my personal information - but he often states
that he has “reviewed my records” and Nigel Brooks said that he has
not shown any of my incomplete records he received from his fraudulent
FOIA request to anyone. It seems to me that someone is lying - but
then that is no surprise when you deal with Nigel Brooks).
NIGEL BROOKS NO-COMBAT CON REBUTTED AGAIN
As an further example of Nigel’s BS about Infantryman’s MOS’s, I noted
a former member of Nigel’s gang did possess an Infantryman’s MOS - in
fact he was in the same unit I was located in only a year later than
me - and what a difference that year made! He said he had seen
several of his friends killed in Vietnam in his unit. But his CO said
that during his entire tenure as CO of that company, he only lost a
single man. This same “infantryman” said he had captured several
prisoners - but his CO said he captured none - ever - and NEVER was
in charge of any prisoners.
Typical Nigel Brooks gang member -bullshit.
Compare this infantryman’s experiences in Vietnam with that of men
that were in the very same unit a year earlier, during the 1968 Tet
offensive and counter offensive months, and you will hear a completely
different story about casualties - and prisoners.
Bottom Line: Combat experiences in Vietnam were more related to the
unit you were assigned to, and the years you were there, than to your
MOS. Experts from all over the US Army have attested to that fact,
and proved Nigel Brook’s claim to the contrary a complete, stinking
and glaring lie.
Another example is the Green Beret SF MOS - it appears Mr. Brooks does
not know the difference betwee SF “operators” and the “win hearts and
minds” crowd. Some were there simply to “guard lonely borders” where
1200 stone age “Yards” did all of the fighting, if there was ever any
fighting to be done.
(Note that I recently noticed all of our SAS troops had begun to
finally adopt the prime objective of war, which was to “kill the
enemy” during the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns in respect to our war
on terror (war against goons) whatever you want to call it. At the
time these SAS troops were killing the enemy better than most, and if
we are going to train these men to the degree we do then they should
be let loose to do what they were trained to do - and NOT suck up to
some some Hadji villagers. That “suck up” tactic did not work in
Vietnam, and it will not work in a Muslim world. Today I am proud of
all SAS troops - in Vietnam, not so much - not because of the quality
of the troops back then, but because of the idiotic missions the
politicians required them to perform. I do not believe it is
possible to win a War in a politically correct fashion, and the
officers of our modern SAS troops apparently have started to agree).
http://tinyurl.com/cko78b Brooks no combat lie exposed. Does he
accuse others of not ever being in combat because he is ashamed of his
own service in Vietnam? Is that the reason Brooks lied about his
military service in Vietnam, and claimed he was in campaigns that
occurred long after he left active duty service? You be the Judge.
Here is irrefutable evidence that Nigel Brooks not only lied about
several medals he fraudulently claimed he received, but also about key
campaigns he fraudulently claimed he participated in - such as the
1968 Tet Offensive - which is analogous to some poser WWII vet falsely
claiming he was in the Normandy Invasion, or a Korean War Vet claiming
he was at the Frozen Chosen when the Chinese entered the war. These
lies are typical Nigel Brooks - Brooks is clearly a serial liar.
http://tinyurl.com/8ouhlc Nigel Brooks lies repeatedly about his
duties in Vietnam and lies about the medals he received.
More no-combat lies exposed coming from Nigel Brooks;
Nigel Said:
1. > : Reiman also has a unique ability to read things into postings
> which are
> : simply not there. Another example - I have stated that his
> records show
> : that his Duty MOS whilst assigned to CoD, 1st of the 27th in
> Vietnam was
> : 71H40 Pers Staff NCO. He has expanded that to imply that I
> have stated
> that Company D had a personnel office.
Doug Says: No, what BS Brooks and Dai Dipshit said was that I was
assigned to the 1/27th as a "Personnel Sergeant." But if the 1/27th
does not have any Personnel Offices, then how in the hell
could have I been assigned to that unit as a "Personnel Sergeant" as
BS Brooks and Dai Dingdong has claimed?
Then Brooks claimed I was assigned to Can Tho also as a “personnel
Sergeant” but when I pointed out the nearest “Personnel Office” was
more than three hundred miles away, ol Brooks, changed his con once
again to state my duties in Can Tho were exclusively
“administrative.”
So It is obvious when Nigel Brooks is caught in Con #1, he reverts
simply to Con #2. So why does Nigel Brooks now deliberately “omit”
mentioning that I was assigned originally to the 1/27th Infantry with
the 25th Infantry Division during the 1968 offensive and
counteroffensive period?
Brooks knows the 1/27th Infantry DID NOT have ANY administrative
duties - they did not have any personnel offices - no personnel
sergeants - nor any personnel officers - assigned to their unit. ALL
duties for NCO’s in that unit were that of combat related duties. My
only qualifications outside of personnel was that of Infantry
qualifications - Brooks knows that - and that is why he hides it as
those facts would prove his con that I never served in combat exactly
what it is - a con.
The only way BS Brooks could not be proved a complete and total liar
in this regard is if the 1/27th operated Personnel Offices. Now that
Brooks has admitted what we all knew to the be the truth, which is the
1/27th did not run any "personnel offices" Brooks then, out of the
"other side of his mouth" still claims above that my "duty MOS was
that of a Personnel NCO."
Of course that was my duty MOS listed on my DA Form 20 as my "assigned
primary MOS" but we all know that soldiers, especially combat
qualified NCO's (RVN Combat Training completed, nearly completed
Infantry OCS, former US Marine, held a MOS of Infantryman for years in
the
US Army) in the 25th Infantry Division, during the 1968 Tet offensive
months, was needed more in combat related duties than he was in
administrative duties. The Adjutant of the 25th even
wrote a letter to "All Personnel" begging for combat qualified NCO's
to volunteer (temporarily) for combat related duties, which I did.
Here is what real experts on the US Military had to say about NCO’s
performing exclusively in their assigned MOS during Vietnam - they
said it was total bullshit! That Brooks was lying! ANYONE that was
in an Infantry Division during the 1968 Tet offensive and
counteroffensive months, especially if that person was infantry
qualified (which I was) regardless of MOS, was in combat! (See below
for irrefutable proof directly from the 25th Infantry Division
Archives).
http://tinyurl.com/9b8ald US Government Web Site and independent
experts (Regular Army retired) confirm that Nigel Brooks and his gang
have been lying about my military records for years - and they
especially lied about NCO’s performing duties exclusively associated
with their primary MOS during the 1968 Tet Offensive and Counter
Offensive months.
http://tinyurl.com/adwkrc This post reproduces the 25th Infantry
Archives that provide detailed information about the various special
forces that were formed for combat duties during the 1968 Tet
Offensive at the 25th Infantry’s Cu Chi base camp where I was assigned
at the time. Note the clear and unmistakable statement that ALL MOS’s
were used in combat! Note that a new (non Green Beret type) special
forces was approved by the DOA in January 1968 that SPECIFICALLY
assigned non combat MOS’s to combat units and duties.
Also note the combat duties that involved LSA units, which was my duty
assignment in Can Tho. My history with the 25th provided me with the
knowledge and ability to work with the LSA in Can Tho. Brooks said I
was assigned to some maintenance company for duty in Can Tho - Brooks
lied.
Nigel Brooks also previously admitted I was assigned to Reactionary
Forces - but then when I wrote for copies of the 25th Division
Archives and received a copy of the following taken directly from
those archives about what Reactionary Forces did in the 25th - Brooks
started “omitting” that key point whenever he tried to defame and lie
about my military service:
http://tinyurl.com/dgc5aw Reactionary Force Duties in the 25th
Infantry Division during the time I was assigned to that unit -
(taken directly from the 25th Infantry Archives)
To add more evidence to prove Brooks con, here is the official
position of the US Army in respect to combat duties in a hostile fire
zone:
But I will start with the US Army's clear refutation of Nigel Brooks
fraudulent and ridiculous claims that anyone with a 71H40 MOS in
Vietnam never did anything but "administration."
1. In fact here is the official stated policy of the US Army in
respect to all personnel (regardless of MOS) assigned to combat areas:
(See entire web site at the tinyurl below).
From
Rod Powers
,Your Guide to U.S. Military.
"It is Army policy that assignment to combat or duty in a hostile-
fire
or areas must be shared equitably by all similarly qualified
Soldiers."
http://tinyurl.com/p7psw
The above official US Army policy says it all. Infantrymen in Vietnam
had specific combat duties, and so did all the rest of the men without
an infantryman MOS's if they were assigned to a hostile fire area, and
I assure you that the 25th Infantry Division in Vietnam, and Can Tho
when I was there, and the other places I traveled to in Vietnam were
ALL "hostile fire" areas. Brooks also lied about my assignment to the
51st Maintenance Company as the above scanned orders clearly prove -
and I was also assigned to "hostile fire areas" in Can Tho, Vietnam.
So even the "official policy" of the United States Army clearly and
irrefutably proves Nigel Brooks is lying and fraudulently
misrepresenting my duties in Vietnam. But that is not all Nigel
Brooks
is doing here.
http://tinyurl.com/dhklud
Volumes more rebuttals and evidence of Nigel Brooks outright fraud,
serial lying and con’s in respect to this issue.
It is clear that when Nigel Brooks is caught in mid con, he switches
to a new con, and then ties to sell that new con. I have seen him
repeat this process several times, both on alt.war.vietnam and in his
“defamation for profit” web sites. Once he is proved a liar, the old
lie disappears and a new lie surfaces.
Is there something wrong with Nigel Brooks? Is he a pathological liar
and a con man? You be the Judge. I already know what I and those I
have consulted about this smear merchant thinks.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Here is another rebuttal post that proves Nigel Brooks has been lying
about this issue for years.
(Smear Merchant Disclaimer: Please note this article (the same as all
of my past articles and exchanges with posters) represents an
editorial on contemporary 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
legal...@comcast.net. 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,
libeled, 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
opportunity to retract, apologize and remove said post from the Google
archive).
SMEAR MERCHANT DISCLAIMER TWO: Considering the typical ridiculous,
absurd and obviously false claims about my military service that
originates from the crackpot smear and con gang that operates on
alt.war.Vietnam, I also hereby certify and attest this article is NOT
a secret coded message that only gang members can decode with their
secret Federal Agent/Sp4 draftee/former Junior Reserve Officer/ midget
decoder and mind reading rings.
This means the Brownie crackpots’ inevitable accusations and howls
that this article is really me claiming in a special soothsaying code
(a code only crackpots et al smear gang can only read of course which
involves their typical claim the American Heritage Dictionary’s
definitions of simple terms, such as “we” “estimated” “involved”
“retired from” and “not representing any biographical claim” are all
incorrect, and only their “special interpretations of the English
language can apply to all English terms I use, and of course the
gang’s standard nonsensical mind reading and soothsaying 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.
Needless to say, the smear gang misrepresentations of my past posts
are of course, not true.
I have posted dozens of times on USENET that I will not post
autobiographical facts about my life on USENET in any detail. Only a
quip now and then. And, if anyone wants to know the true facts, or a
clarification of any quip, or more information and details about an
issue which are clearly missing in my quips they must first contact
me via email, identify themselves, and then I will determine if I want
to exchange such personal information with them.
Although the above is my standing offer, I should mention that NOT ONE
member of the gang has ever contacted me directly over any one of my
posts. It is clear the gang does not want to know about obvious
typos, errors, and occasional ambiguities, nor clarifications, nor
corrections, nor do they even want verification whether I was the
actual author of the post in question.
As experts on Investigations and the US Military have noted, the gang
leaders and their members clearly want to avoid the truth whenever it
contradicts their contrived and conspired defaming parsing and
fraudulent misrepresentations and distortions of what I have written
in the past, or contradicts their lies and fraud in respect to what is
and is not truly contained in my military records, and of course,
their fraudulent use of USENET posts they know others have written to
use to smear me, defame me, hold me up to public ridicule, stalk me,
and otherwise further their years’ long demonizing and vilification
campaign they have been regularly waging against me.
In short, the gang does not want to know the truth, and they are
desperate to stop me from defending myself as they know my truthful
rebuttals, which they cannot defend as they know what I am posting is
true, reveals them for what they really are.
The gangs lies and fraud border on the pathological, and include the
gang’ preposterous and goofy fraud that (7) a Purple Heart VA card is
the same as a Purple Heart Medal (I have posted on USENET dozens of
times I did not receive a Purple Heart Medal) (8) Nor that removing
hundreds of typos, errors, misstatements made by typists and I found
so far in about thirty-five THOUSAND extemporaneous posts under
accounts I used, and then replacing the errors with the true intended
context and meaning by the author is somehow “sinister” and the
original discarded post was the correct intended post and the
corrected version is false! (Giggle).
Such glaring preposterous crackpot et al smear and fraud gang claims
about me are, as usual, blatantly false and equally ridiculous. (Ask
the gang leaders for proof of their claims the next time they make
such ludicrous claims and watch them scurry for their rocks or produce
their own forgeries, or perhaps typos, errors and such that have long
been detected and discarded in my waste basket they have dug out of
that trash). And no, regardless of forgeries and discarded posts found
in my waste basket that were thrown there because of an error or
typist misstatement by one of our typist’s, I have posted about two
dozen times in the past that my time in South America was spent (other
than an assignment and short visit to Southern Command after I left
Vietnam) exclusively as a Civilian working for Montana Western Oil and
Gas or PCA, which evidence was scanned and posted years ago.)
Also, in response to the smear gang’s et al repeated and convenient
outright lie and fraud that I never said that others were using the
same accounts to post on USENET as I did until the smear gang leaders
started their fraud, con and smear campaign against me and thereby
forced me to post on this newsgroup to defend myself, please see the
following proof that of course the gang leaders et al have been caught
lying again:
http://tinyurl.com/7kfaqz Experts on Smear Gangs reveal what the
Nigel Brooks con and smear gang is all about.
http://tinyurl.com/6d4aay TYPISTS’ GALORE POST proves there were
about 71 previous posts prior to the gang’s glaring lie that I never
mentioned others posting under the same accounts I used until after
the gang leaders started to use a few typos, errors and post fragments
written by many different people, years apart, never written on any
military forum, deceptively spliced together with forged words added
into or subtracted from the hodgepodge of different context post
fragments so as to fraudulently alter their meaning or context.
End Disclaimer - Rebuttal Begins below:
If a Soldier is riding in a HumVee in Afganistan or in Iraq, and he is
wounded or killed by an IED, would you say that person was in “combat”
although he might have been filling out a supply requisition form in
the HumVee?
If a Solider that was a supply NCO was driving in the same convoy as
the one above that was ambushed, received a slight concession, but
was never wounded bad enough to whine for a Purple Heart Medal, would
you say that NCO was in combat?
If a Solider was required to man a bunker line that was under attack
by rockets and mortars in Vietnam, was that Soldier in combat?
According to Nigel Brooks, none of the scenarios above represent
“combat.” According to Nigel Brooks, unless you had an Infantryman’s
MOS or a SF MOS you were “never” in “real” combat.
We all know that Nigel Brooks was a Sp4 personnel clerk in Vietnam,
and that he was never in the Regular Army, and he only spent two whole
years in the US Army - and we also know he lied about his military
service to a degree it is shameful. So to listen to this clown, this
obvious arrogant moron, about how he is an expert on “combat” or
anything else to do with the U.S. Military is, of course, means you
are a bigger idiot than ol Nigel (Inspector Cluso) himself.
In sort, the man is a moron and a known smear merchant and con man.
His opinions are not worth a Vietnamese Whore’s fart in the wind (on
that subject Nigel might be an expert).
Not withstanding Nigel Brook’s “organized defamation” that he seems to
use against those he disagrees with, or those that post some tidbits
about their service in Vietnam, it seems to me that Nigel Brooks
attacks other vets that have real “war stories” perhaps because he has
none.
Moreover, it appears to me and others that have reviewed this clown’s
preposterous and goofy false accusations about me that he wants to
control the alt.war.vietnam newsgroup, and he does so by inciting and
directing his smear gang to attack those that are exposing his smear
and con tactics.
Keep in mind this arrogant asshole has instructed his gang to file
false criminal charges against me, and I wonder if he is also involved
in trafficking in my personal information which was stolen by a member
of his gang from US Government records. Did Brooks instruct his gang
member to steal my and my wife’s personal information and then
distribute it to third parties - like that kid in Tennessee did to
Mrs. Sarah Palin?
When I asked Brooks if he trafficked in my personal information he
ducked for cover, ran for the hills, and refused to answer. So based
upon his refusal, I can only assume the worst - but I am sure when the
lawyers get through with their review of this issue I will find out
the answer to that question. (At least Tom Rau stepped up and claimed
he did not traffic in my personal information - but he often states
that he has “reviewed my records” and Nigel Brooks said that he has
not shown any of my incomplete records he received from his fraudulent
FOIA request to anyone. It seems to me that someone is lying - but
then that is no surprise when you deal with Nigel Brooks).
NIGEL BROOKS NO-COMBAT CON REBUTTED AGAIN
As an further example of Nigel’s BS about Infantryman’s MOS’s, I noted
a former member of Nigel’s gang did possess an Infantryman’s MOS - in
fact he was in the same unit I was located in only a year later than
me - and what a difference that year made! He said he had seen
several of his friends killed in Vietnam in his unit. But his CO said
that during his entire tenure as CO of that company, he only lost a
single man. This same “infantryman” said he had captured several
prisoners - but his CO said he captured none - ever - and NEVER was
in charge of any prisoners.
Typical Nigel Brooks gang member -bullshit.
Compare this infantryman’s experiences in Vietnam with that of men
that were in the very same unit a year earlier, during the 1968 Tet
offensive and counter offensive months, and you will hear a completely
different story about casualties - and prisoners.
Bottom Line: Combat experiences in Vietnam were more related to the
unit you were assigned to, and the years you were there, than to your
MOS. Experts from all over the US Army have attested to that fact,
and proved Nigel Brook’s claim to the contrary a complete, stinking
and glaring lie.
Another example is the Green Beret SF MOS - it appears Mr. Brooks does
not know the difference betwee SF “operators” and the “win hearts and
minds” crowd. Some were there simply to “guard lonely borders” where
1200 stone age “Yards” did all of the fighting, if there was ever any
fighting to be done.
(Note that I recently noticed all of our SAS troops had begun to
finally adopt the prime objective of war, which was to “kill the
enemy” during the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns in respect to our war
on terror (war against goons) whatever you want to call it. At the
time these SAS troops were killing the enemy better than most, and if
we are going to train these men to the degree we do then they should
be let loose to do what they were trained to do - and NOT suck up to
some some Hadji villagers. That “suck up” tactic did not work in
Vietnam, and it will not work in a Muslim world. Today I am proud of
all SAS troops - in Vietnam, not so much - not because of the quality
of the troops back then, but because of the idiotic missions the
politicians required them to perform. I do not believe it is
possible to win a War in a politically correct fashion, and the
officers of our modern SAS troops apparently have started to agree).
http://tinyurl.com/cko78b Brooks no combat lie exposed. Does he
accuse others of not ever being in combat because he is ashamed of his
own service in Vietnam? Is that the reason Brooks lied about his
military service in Vietnam, and claimed he was in campaigns that
occurred long after he left active duty service? You be the Judge.
Here is irrefutable evidence that Nigel Brooks not only lied about
several medals he fraudulently claimed he received, but also about key
campaigns he fraudulently claimed he participated in - such as the
1968 Tet Offensive - which is analogous to some poser WWII vet falsely
claiming he was in the Normandy Invasion, or a Korean War Vet claiming
he was at the Frozen Chosen when the Chinese entered the war. These
lies are typical Nigel Brooks - Brooks is clearly a serial liar.
http://tinyurl.com/8ouhlc Nigel Brooks lies repeatedly about his
duties in Vietnam and lies about the medals he received.
More no-combat lies exposed coming from Nigel Brooks;
Nigel Said:
1. > : Reiman also has a unique ability to read things into postings
> which are
> : simply not there. Another example - I have stated that his
> records show
> : that his Duty MOS whilst assigned to CoD, 1st of the 27th in
> Vietnam was
> : 71H40 Pers Staff NCO. He has expanded that to imply that I
> have stated
> that Company D had a personnel office.
Doug Says: No, what BS Brooks and Dai Dipshit said was that I was
assigned to the 1/27th as a "Personnel Sergeant." But if the 1/27th
does not have any Personnel Offices, then how in the hell
could have I been assigned to that unit as a "Personnel Sergeant" as
BS Brooks and Dai Dingdong has claimed?
Then Brooks claimed I was assigned to Can Tho also as a “personnel
Sergeant” but when I pointed out the nearest “Personnel Office” was
more than three hundred miles away, ol Brooks, changed his con once
again to state my duties in Can Tho were exclusively
“administrative.”
So It is obvious when Nigel Brooks is caught in Con #1, he reverts
simply to Con #2. So why does Nigel Brooks now deliberately “omit”
mentioning that I was assigned originally to the 1/27th Infantry with
the 25th Infantry Division during the 1968 offensive and
counteroffensive period?
Brooks knows the 1/27th Infantry DID NOT have ANY administrative
duties - they did not have any personnel offices - no personnel
sergeants - nor any personnel officers - assigned to their unit. ALL
duties for NCO’s in that unit were that of combat related duties. My
only qualifications outside of personnel was that of Infantry
qualifications - Brooks knows that - and that is why he hides it as
those facts would prove his con that I never served in combat exactly
what it is - a con.
The only way BS Brooks could not be proved a complete and total liar
in this regard is if the 1/27th operated Personnel Offices. Now that
Brooks has admitted what we all knew to the be the truth, which is the
1/27th did not run any "personnel offices" Brooks then, out of the
"other side of his mouth" still claims above that my "duty MOS was
that of a Personnel NCO."
Of course that was my duty MOS listed on my DA Form 20 as my "assigned
primary MOS" but we all know that soldiers, especially combat
qualified NCO's (RVN Combat Training completed, nearly completed
Infantry OCS, former US Marine, held a MOS of Infantryman for years in
the
US Army) in the 25th Infantry Division, during the 1968 Tet offensive
months, was needed more in combat related duties than he was in
administrative duties. The Adjutant of the 25th even
wrote a letter to "All Personnel" begging for combat qualified NCO's
to volunteer (temporarily) for combat related duties, which I did.
Here is what real experts on the US Military had to say about NCO’s
performing exclusively in their assigned MOS during Vietnam - they
said it was total bullshit! That Brooks was lying! ANYONE that was
in an Infantry Division during the 1968 Tet offensive and
counteroffensive months, especially if that person was infantry
qualified (which I was) regardless of MOS, was in combat! (See below
for irrefutable proof directly from the 25th Infantry Division
Archives).
http://tinyurl.com/9b8ald US Government Web Site and independent
experts (Regular Army retired) confirm that Nigel Brooks and his gang
have been lying about my military records for years - and they
especially lied about NCO’s performing duties exclusively associated
with their primary MOS during the 1968 Tet Offensive and Counter
Offensive months.
http://tinyurl.com/adwkrc This post reproduces the 25th Infantry
Archives that provide detailed information about the various special
forces that were formed for combat duties during the 1968 Tet
Offensive at the 25th Infantry’s Cu Chi base camp where I was assigned
at the time. Note the clear and unmistakable statement that ALL MOS’s
were used in combat! Note that a new (non Green Beret type) special
forces was approved by the DOA in January 1968 that SPECIFICALLY
assigned non combat MOS’s to combat units and duties.
Also note the combat duties that involved LSA units, which was my duty
assignment in Can Tho. My history with the 25th provided me with the
knowledge and ability to work with the LSA in Can Tho. Brooks said I
was assigned to some maintenance company for duty in Can Tho - Brooks
lied.
Nigel Brooks also previously admitted I was assigned to Reactionary
Forces - but then when I wrote for copies of the 25th Division
Archives and received a copy of the following taken directly from
those archives about what Reactionary Forces did in the 25th - Brooks
started “omitting” that key point whenever he tried to defame and lie
about my military service:
http://tinyurl.com/dgc5aw Reactionary Force Duties in the 25th
Infantry Division during the time I was assigned to that unit -
(taken directly from the 25th Infantry Archives)
To add more evidence to prove Brooks con, here is the official
position of the US Army in respect to combat duties in a hostile fire
zone:
But I will start with the US Army's clear refutation of Nigel Brooks
fraudulent and ridiculous claims that anyone with a 71H40 MOS in
Vietnam never did anything but "administration."
1. In fact here is the official stated policy of the US Army in
respect to all personnel (regardless of MOS) assigned to combat areas:
(See entire web site at the tinyurl below).
From
Rod Powers
,Your Guide to U.S. Military.
"It is Army policy that assignment to combat or duty in a hostile-
fire
or areas must be shared equitably by all similarly qualified
Soldiers."
http://tinyurl.com/p7psw
The above official US Army policy says it all. Infantrymen in Vietnam
had specific combat duties, and so did all the rest of the men without
an infantryman MOS's if they were assigned to a hostile fire area, and
I assure you that the 25th Infantry Division in Vietnam, and Can Tho
when I was there, and the other places I traveled to in Vietnam were
ALL "hostile fire" areas. Brooks also lied about my assignment to the
51st Maintenance Company as the above scanned orders clearly prove -
and I was also assigned to "hostile fire areas" in Can Tho, Vietnam.
So even the "official policy" of the United States Army clearly and
irrefutably proves Nigel Brooks is lying and fraudulently
misrepresenting my duties in Vietnam. But that is not all Nigel
Brooks
is doing here.
http://tinyurl.com/dhklud
Volumes more rebuttals and evidence of Nigel Brooks outright fraud,
serial lying and con’s in respect to this issue.
It is clear that when Nigel Brooks is caught in mid con, he switches
to a new con, and then ties to sell that new con. I have seen him
repeat this process several times, both on alt.war.vietnam and in his
“defamation for profit” web sites. Once he is proved a liar, the old
lie disappears and a new lie surfaces.
Is there something wrong with Nigel Brooks? Is he a pathological liar
and a con man? You be the Judge. I already know what I and those I
have consulted about this smear merchant thinks.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages