| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"DGVREIMAN" |
| Date: |
27 Apr 2006 12:00:35 PM |
| Object: |
DAI UY'S CAN THO LIE |
DAI UY'S CAN THO LIE
© Copyright 2006 by DGVReiman, all rights reserved.
Doug Says: Take note I am answering the following Dai Dickbrain
question under the well known condition that I know I am dealing
with a reprehensible fraud merchant (Dai Uy) that has
demonstrated in the past a tremendous and frequent amount of
egregious lack of ethics, veracity, and a propensity for fraud,
forgeries, false accusations and malicious libel for the obvious
purpose of defamation and cyberstalking.
Simply put, Dai Uy is about as dishonest as they come in respect
to "questions" posed to me, and his ethics and objectivity in
that regard seem to be non-existent. I must say however, that I
suspect that Dai Deceiver is getting his information from the BS
Brooks "smear and defamation web site for profit" he operates. So
he is not all to blame as BS Brooks is still inciting his gang to
smear and attack me.
(Note that Fortunecity.com, a completely independent source in
respect to BS Brooks lies and smears and my responses to those
lies, investigated this issue thoroughly, asked me for
information in respect to proving BS Brooks was and is lying on
his web site, and based upon that investigation , Fortunecity.com
forced down not less than FIVE of BS Brooks web sites.
Fortunecity concluded BS Brooks was using Web Sites to post
defamation and libel and using Fortunecity's web sites to further
his "smears anddefamations for profit" agenda.. ( I have retained
all correspondence between me and Fortunecity -if anyone is
interested). And now BS Brooks has taken his "smear for profit"
web site out of the USA to avoid any jurisdiction or further
independent review by any other authorty - as he knows his lies
and libel cannot stand up to any real scruntiny by any
independent source. BS Brooks is even denying me access to his
defamation about me in a desperate and clearly frantic fear that
I will continue to honestly rebut it, and thereby prove BS Brooks
is lying and a smear merchant. If he was not lying he would
invite rebuttal.)
As an example, the Dai Uy alias published forged FBI FOIA
documents to fraudulently defame me, Dai Uy also published
malicious libel in the respect that he claimed I was a "child
molester" without even a remote basis of evidence or fact to
substantiate that despicable and false malicious libel, and Dai
Uy used that malicious libel to fraudulently defame me
repeatedly. Dai Uy also fraudulently defamed me by claiming,
without any basis of fact or evidence whatsoever, that (1) I was
never in Vietnam (2) that I was never a SFC E-7 in Vietnam, and
(3) that I never saw ANY combat in Vietnam Dai Uy also
maliciously violated my privacy by posting some of my VA medical
information, and more recently, and almost unbelievably, and
again without any basis, evidence nor facts to support his libel,
Dai Uy fraudulently published more malicious libel by claiming my
VA benefits were not due to any wounds or injuries sustained
during my military service, and that my VA benefits were based
upon "fake claims" - and this latest malicious libel and fraud is
in spite of hundreds of US Army documents, and rulings, to the
direct contrary of Dai Uy's fraudulent claims and malicious
libel -including Hospital and medical records from both Korea and
Vietnam.
This fraud merchant Dai Uy even went so far as to take statements
that I admitted to writing in the past, and "rewrite them" so as
to be able to use his own fraud, rewrites and forgeries as a
means to defame!So what kind of a Veteran(s) would repeatedly
resort to flagrant and malicious fraud, forgeries and libel so as
to defame a fellow Veteran? Could this person Dai Uy really be a
former Junior Reserve Officer in the US Army like he claims but
refuses to prove? I find that very hard to believe, not unless
Dai Uy has suffered some kind of extreme mental problems, or he
is a dyed in the wool smear and fraud merchant that purposefully
violates and ignores criminal and civil statutes to defame and
harass people on the Internet that he does not agree with for one
reason or another.
I cannot be sure of the reason for Dai Uy's clear and
unmistakable lack of any ethics or honor in this regard, but I
suspect it is the latter. In my opinion this pathetic excuse for
a Vietnam Vet believes he is above the law, or that fraud,
forgery and libel laws do not apply to USENET. I also believe he
has a big surprise coming. Or perhaps he is a fake Vietnam vet,
or someone fraudulently using a Vietnam Vet's name, like we saw
happen with the John Kerry crowd dozens of times.
But what really makes a person like Dai Uy resort to such
unethical and vicious forgeries, fraud and malicious libel to
defame and smear? Could it be that he has gotten away with it so
much in the past he thinks that his personal attacks and
reprehensible lies, forgeries and fraud is above the law? Does he
actually believe he has conned so many people in the past that no
one will take the time nor effort to expose his unethical and
egregious practice of publishing and repeating outright fraud,
outright forgeries, and clear and unmistakable malicious libel,
so as to defame others? Like I said, he is in for a surprise.
With that said, I will address the following demeaning, abasing
and distorted connotation "question" this fraud merchant Dai Uy
has posted below in connection with some of my previous
statements - which he clearly is fraudulently presenting as
"unbelievable." I will reply of course with the knowledge the
unethical and reprehensible fraud spewer "Dai Uy" never has, and
never will have, as usual, a single honest and objective basis of
fact or knowledge to challenge any statements *I* have ever made
as untruthful.
In the list of lying and misleading questions Dai *****
posted, and after making a complete fool out of himself in the
first two questions, he posted the following: (Note I am
responditing to and rebutting to Dai Uy's defamation attacks as
usual, and I do not initiate posts that involve personal attacks
nor try to smear anyone - but I do have the right to defend
myself, and I will do so and continue to record all cyberstalking
and libel attacks on me in the process).
Here is what Dai Deceiver/BS Brook's "defame for profit" web site
has to say about this Can Tho issue, and my response with the
truth, as usual.
Dai Uy said: (quoting the BS Brooks "defame for profit" web site:
"(2) Doug is eye-witness to an attack which occurred one year
prior
to his arrival in Viet Nam... address it in the context it was
written.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.terrorism.world-trade-center/msg/bcdbb9e7fea8a646?&hl=en
or http://tinyurl.com/kxjps
From: "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dggr...@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups:
alt.security.terrorism,alt.terrorism.world-trade-center
Subject: TERROR FIGHTS BACK
Lines: 205
Message-ID:
<JmLv7.33185$WW.2133252@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 22:14:01 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.82.163.191
"When I was in Vietnam, stationed in Can Tho, I witnessed two
ambulances drive through our main gate, calmly drive to our
airport, 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 airport!
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 airport 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? "
Dai Uy/BS Brooks lying web site lie #1 exposed in respect to this
issue:
Note that I always respond in the context of anything that I
might have written, as I either wrote it or dictate it! But
Psycho Dai wants me to respond to his lying context, and not to
the truthful one. Can anyone really be that blatantly dishonest?
Both BS Brooks and Psycho Dai have confirmed that my records show
that I was located in Can Tho during the 1969 attack on the Can
Tho Airfield and the Can Tho POW camp. So Dai Deceiver's lie
above that this attack occurred "one year before I arrived" has
just been proved a complete, total, irrefutable and obvious lie
from both Dai Dud and BS Brooks.
Dai Uy/BS Brooks lying web site lie #2 exposed in respect to this
issue:
Since the after action reports do not mention the POW camp
attack, nor ambulances, both Dai Dingdong and BS Brooks claim I
am lying about what I saw from the top of the Melton Hotel, and
what the MP's told me the next day after the said attack. Nothing
could be further from the truth.
First, After Action reports are notoriously wrong. Just look at
Hanoi John Kerry's after action reports and the reports of all
those witlessness that contradicted them almost in every detail.
After Action reports are written for the benefit of the officers
engaged in the Action, rarely, if ever, are they completely true,
have been proved only about 25% comprehensive, and cannot
possibly note every detail that occurs during any major attack.
Claiming otherwise is a complete and total lie, idiotic
conclusion, and contradicts what officers have been saying about
"After Action Reports" out of Vietnam for decades - the general
conclusion is they ALL are written with a bias, omits any details
that might harm the efficience or appearance of the unit or
officers involved, and thereby are, patently false.
Yet incredibly, this is the "evidence" that both BS Brooks and
Psycho Dai claim as their reason to call me, "a proven
eye-witness to the attack," wrong and lying about what I saw. I
do not believe any rational nor objective person could believe
anything these two smear merchants say normally, but in this
case, their attempts to lie are so obvious and flagrant they
should be ashamed of themselves!
So since BS Brooks and Psycho Dai both agree I was in Can Tho at
the time of the 1969 attack, they cannot refute that I witnessed
that attack. So I am an "eye-witness" and they are not - they are
smear merchants that are using incorrect and incomplete "After
Action Reports" to pursue their obvious intent to smear, defame,
and lie about what I said about some of my Vietnam experiences.
The facts are that you would need to be completely insane to
believe the NVA would not attempt to free their prisoners during
this attack on the Can Tho airfield since that POW camp was
located right at the end of that airfield! In fact, some MP's
thought the attack on the airfield was at first a diversion as
the vehicles at first went down the tarmac shooting M79's at the
planes (and probably using satchel charges and grenades as well)
but then headed directly for the POW camp where they met with a
hail of gunfire from the guards at that camp. At the same time
the base was also hit with sappers, so it was a two pronged
attack, and typical of the enemy.
So why was the POW camp not mentioned in the After Action
reports? The location of all POW camps in Vietnam were
classified, and anything to do with them would NEVER appear in an
unclassified After Action Report.
Below are references to what I said about this attack in various
exchanges subsequent to the above initial statement. BS Brooks
and Psycho Dai are both ignoring all statements and exchanges
that explain anything, provide additional details or provide
better reflections. BS Brooks and Psycho Dai hide regularly hide
such information, as they know by providing access to posts that
provide more details as to what I said I witnessed would prove
them incredible liars and smear merchants. So they "cherry pick"
certain passages from only *some* of my posts on a topic, while
hiding and omitting others, so as to produce the most defaming
image and false light they can muster against me. That tactic is
patently dishonest, unethical, and is a well-known smear and
fraud merchant tactic by the courts of our land.
If BS Brooks defamation for profit web site, or Psycho Dai's
cyberstalking posts about this issue were even close to being
honest, they would have included ALL the statements and exchanges
I have posted about this issue, and not just a single one that
might best fit their smear campaign.
Here are some URL's other posts I have made about this issue.
Read them and you will see that, as usual, BS Brooks and Psycho
DaiTwit have been caught in mid smear and lies once again:
http://tinyurl.com/kxhzr
http://tinyurl.com/zxt5u
http://tinyurl.com/gabjq
Nigel said that during the attack on the Air Base at Can
Tho, the enemy was armed exclusively with "Satchel Charges" I
said they were armed with BOTH Satchel Charges and M-79's, (and
probably grenades and AK-47's as well) do you believe that an
enemy attacking an airfield would only have one weapon in their
possession? Truth or fiction Great Swami? "
http://tinyurl.com/l6hx6
Now that I have answered not less than three of Dai Dickbut's
defaming questions, and made a complete fool out of him and BS
brooks in the process for even posting such lies, Dai Dorko
agreed to answer a question I have for each one I answer. Quid
Pro Quo, and all that.
Here is my Question: What was Nigel Brook's rank, MOS, duty
assignment and duties during his time in Vietnam, and during his
whole two years as a Drafteen in the US Army?
Note that both BS Brooks and Psycho Dai have been ducking those
questions for years, but they want everyone else to answer them.
Either they are screaming hypocrites, or they will answer.
Doug Grant (Tm)
.
|
|
| User: "SteveL" |
|
| Title: Re: DAI UY'S CAN THO LIE |
27 Apr 2006 12:30:13 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 13:00:35 -0400, "DGVREIMAN"
<DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
<snip>
As an example, the Dai Uy alias published forged FBI FOIA
documents to fraudulently defame me
Sounds pretty serious. Forged FBI FOIA documents? Doogie here is
effectively alleging a felony took place. Anyone who'd do that is a
pretty serious bad guy, no?
Anyway, at the risk of some pretty serious jail time (he He!) here is
the very "Forged FBI FOIA Document" Doogie is complaining about.
It was written about 5 years ago by residents of another kind of
newsgroup entirely - alt.gambling.blackjack - and way back then Doogie
was complaining about being libelled by "gangs" of "cyberstalkers"
just like now. How little things change.
And note again: this hilarious parody is the exact "forged FBI
document" that Doogie is complaining about. That's right. THIS!!
Kind of puts the rest of his charges in perspective.
Click here for an enjoyable, illuminating and informative experience.
http://tinyurl.com/rmed6
..
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
