Wrong. I said randomly bombing random middle-east countries is not "protecting freedom", nor is it "defending the country". Both points which seem to be quite true. To which you said your line, that I wouldn't dare saying the same to life long injured and phychologically damaged vet. You chose this specific criteria, to which I gave the obvious answer, that no, I wouldn't offend person of that criteria, because of I just linked you a case where another vet was killed by such person, with no offenses. I doubt it's the only case either.
Are you summarizing all vets to be life-long injured and psychologically damaged then? Are you implying all vets have served in combat roles to end up like that? So who's being deplorable to them? I can't blanket call them all that, unless your implications was blanket calling them all with the criteria you decided to use. I hope you realize that.