PDA

View Full Version : AP: Was Pat Tillman murdered?


jAZ
07-26-2007, 07:28 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/26/AR2007072602025.html

AP: New Details on Tillman's Death

By MARTHA MENDOZA
The Associated Press
Thursday, July 26, 2007; 7:59 PM

SAN FRANCISCO -- Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player's death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

"The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described," a doctor who examined Tillman's body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.

The doctors _ whose names were blacked out _ said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.

Ultimately, the Pentagon did conduct a criminal investigation, and asked Tillman's comrades whether he was disliked by his men and whether they had any reason to believe he was deliberately killed. The Pentagon eventually ruled that Tillman's death at the hands of his comrades was a friendly-fire accident.

The medical examiners' suspicions were outlined in 2,300 pages of testimony released to the AP this week by the Defense Department in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

Among other information contained in the documents:

In his last words moments before he was killed, Tillman snapped at a panicky comrade under fire to shut up and stop "sniveling."

Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments.

The three-star general who kept the truth about Tillman's death from his family and the public told investigators some 70 times that he had a bad memory and couldn't recall details of his actions.

No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene _ no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck.

The Pentagon and the Bush administration have been criticized in recent months for lying about the circumstances of Tillman's death. The military initially told the public and the Tillman family that he had been killed by enemy fire. Only weeks later did the Pentagon acknowledge he was gunned down by fellow Rangers.

With questions lingering about how high in the Bush administration the deception reached, Congress is preparing for yet another hearing next week.

The Pentagon is separately preparing a new round of punishments, including a stinging demotion of retired Lt. Gen. Philip R. Kensinger Jr., 60, according to military officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the punishments under consideration have not been made public.

In more than four hours of questioning by the Pentagon inspector general's office in December 2006, Kensinger repeatedly contradicted other officers' testimony, and sometimes his own. He said on some 70 occasions that he did not recall something.

At one point, he said: "You've got me really scared about my brain right now. I'm really having a problem."

Tillman's mother, Mary Tillman, who has long suggested that her son was deliberately killed by his comrades, said she is still looking for answers and looks forward to the congressional hearings next week.

"Nothing is going to bring Pat back. It's about justice for Pat and justice for other soldiers. The nation has been deceived," she said.

The documents show that a doctor who autopsied Tillman's body was suspicious of the three gunshot wounds to the forehead. The doctor said he took the unusual step of calling the Army's Human Resources Command and was rebuffed. He then asked an official at the Army's Criminal Investigation Division if the CID would consider opening a criminal case.

"He said he talked to his higher headquarters and they had said no," the doctor testified.

Also according to the documents, investigators pressed officers and soldiers on a question Mrs. Tillman has been asking all along.

"Have you, at any time since this incident occurred back on April 22, 2004, have you ever received any information even rumor that Cpl. Tillman was killed by anybody within his own unit intentionally?" an investigator asked then-Capt. Richard Scott.

Scott, and others who were asked, said they were certain the shooting was accidental.

Investigators also asked soldiers and commanders whether Tillman was disliked, whether anyone was jealous of his celebrity, or if he was considered arrogant. They said Tillman was respected, admired and well-liked.

The documents also shed new light on Tillman's last moments.

It has been widely reported by the AP and others that Spc. Bryan O'Neal, who was at Tillman's side as he was killed, told investigators that Tillman was waving his arms shouting "Cease fire, friendlies, I am Pat (expletive) Tillman, damn it!" again and again.

But the latest documents give a different account from a chaplain who debriefed the entire unit days after Tillman was killed.

The chaplain said that O'Neal told him he was hugging the ground at Tillman's side, "crying out to God, help us. And Tillman says to him, `Would you shut your (expletive) mouth? God's not going to help you; you need to do something for yourself, you sniveling ..."

Adept Havelock
07-26-2007, 08:28 PM
Color me extremely skeptical if not outright dismissive of this.

orange
07-26-2007, 08:29 PM
Wow. Just when you think it can't be any deeper...

jAZ
07-27-2007, 12:05 AM
http://www.kcbs.com/pages/330619.php?contentType=4&contentId=394052

Posted: Saturday, 31 March 2007 11:21AM

Tillman's Mother Accuses Bush of Hiding Facts


SAN JOSE, Calif. (KCBS/AP) -- Mary Tillman is accusing President Bush of helping cover up the facts in her son’s death, after new documents suggest Bush knew within a week that Tillman had been killed by friendly fire.

“We’ve always believed that the White House knew that Pat was killed by friendly fire. It’s just a matter of trying to prove it,” Mary Tillman told KCBS.

The Pentagon maintained for five weeks the San Jose native and NFL star had been killed by enemy fire. New documents disclosed by the Associated Press show a top-ranking general tried to warn Bush one week after the April 22, 2004 death that friendly fire was likely to blame.

The White House says Bush never got the warning. But two days after the general issued his warning, Bush gave a speech paying tribute to Tillman. He avoided any reference to the circumstances surrounding the incident.

The president “essentially has covered up a crime in order to promote the war,” said Mary Tillman. “Frankly the idea that Rumsfeld and the president did not know that Pat was killed by friendly fire is ludicrous.”

On Monday, the Pentagon released the findings of an investigation into the circumstances of Tillman's death, and into whether the military covered them up. The investigators recommended that nine Army officers be held accountable for errors in reporting the friendly fire death to their superiors and to Tillman's family.

Tillman was killed after his Army Ranger comrades were ambushed in eastern Afghanistan. Rangers in a convoy trailing Tillman's group had just emerged from a canyon where they had been fired upon. They saw Tillman and mistakenly fired on him.

jAZ
07-27-2007, 12:05 AM
Mary Tillman's Audio Interview:

http://podcast.medianext.com/stations/kcbs/media/mpeg/Tillman___s_Mother_Accuses_Bush_of_Hiding_Facts-1175364337.mp3

Pitt Gorilla
07-27-2007, 12:09 AM
Mary Tillman's Audio Interview:

http://podcast.medianext.com/stations/kcbs/media/mpeg/Tillman___s_Mother_Accuses_Bush_of_Hiding_Facts-1175364337.mp3
She's just a "tool" of the left, or something.

Mr. Kotter
07-27-2007, 12:24 AM
Does anyone really believe we'll get the REAL, and COMPLETE, truth....at this point? :shake:

Taco John
07-27-2007, 12:30 AM
Does anyone really believe we'll get the REAL, and COMPLETE, truth....at this point? :shake:


Oh NOES! This might make Goerge Bush look bad! Hurry! Doe somethins!

Mr. Kotter
07-27-2007, 12:59 AM
Oh NOES! This might make Goerge Bush look bad! Hurry! Doe somethins!

Eh, let the chips fall where they may.

Some of you clowns mistake restraint and realism, for sympathy and support. :rolleyes:

Logical
07-27-2007, 01:03 AM
Does anyone really believe we'll get the REAL, and COMPLETE, truth....at this point? :shake:

I see, so we just give up and don't even make an effort to find out what the truth is, nice strategy.

Taco John
07-27-2007, 01:04 AM
Restraint and realism? You mean like army reports that say there was no enemy fire in the area? Knowledge of the fact that they burnt his clothes before any investigation could be done? The historical fact that they fabricated Jessica Lynch's story to make it something it wasn't.

At what point in time did you turn your back on the idea of justice for the sake of justice? The people who have consistently fallen on your side of all of these issues seem to have absolutely zero need for it these days.

It's just too much trouble, and besides... Who really knows?

Mr. Kotter
07-27-2007, 01:14 AM
Restraint and realism? You mean like army reports that say there was no enemy fire in the area? Knowledge of the fact that they burnt his clothes before any investigation could be done? The historical fact that they fabricated Jessica Lynch's story to make it something it wasn't.

At what point in time did you turn your back on the idea of justice for the sake of justice? The people who have consistently fallen on your side of all of these issues seem to have absolutely zero need for it these days.

It's just too much trouble, and besides... Who really knows?

War is complicated; much more complicated than ANY reporting in either of the cases you cite suggests.

Only alarmists view even-handed restraint, and awaiting facts and evidence....before jumping to conclusions, as "turning your back on justice."

Excuse me, if I choose to withhold judgement until we have a clear picture of what really happened in such tragic and sad cases such as this. :rolleyes:

Taco John
07-27-2007, 01:30 AM
What does war being complicated have anything to do with destroying evidence and covering up the possible murder of a national icon, while denying his families request for information about their son's death?

Your vision of "even-handed" restraint sure comes off a lot like ham-fisted wish-washery... Stick your finger in the air Kotter. Better check which way the cool kids are coming down on this one before you decide what you think.

Taco John
07-27-2007, 01:34 AM
And for the record, no one is asking anybody here to know the answer to what happened here. We obviously weren't there. But your "let the chips fall where they may, we can't get to the real truth anyway" dismissal of justice is neither even handed, nor level-headed... and that's my only point in this matter.

I don't know what happened to Tillman, but I sure as hell would like to know. The country that he died serving owes him at least that much.

Logical
07-27-2007, 01:37 AM
War is complicated; much more complicated than ANY reporting in either of the cases you cite suggests.

Only alarmists view even-handed restraint, and awaiting facts and evidence....before jumping to conclusions, as "turning your back on justice."

Excuse me, if I choose to withhold judgement until we have a clear picture of what really happened in such tragic and sad cases such as this. :rolleyes:

I am wondering what exactly you are witholding judgement on? The fact they lied to Tillman's family, the American people? The fact they are still witholding information to the family? The lies about the coverup? What exactly are you witholding judgement on?

Radar Chief
07-27-2007, 07:39 AM
Oh NOES! This might make Goerge Bush look bad! Hurry! Doe somethins!

Considering this looks a lot like a smear, trying to make teh Debil look bad, I find your comment ironically hilarious.

Radar Chief
07-27-2007, 07:41 AM
I see, so we just give up and don't even make an effort to find out what the truth is, nice strategy.

Right, this is a search for “the truth”, not a petty partisan attempt to hang fratricide on the POTUS.

chagrin
07-27-2007, 07:43 AM
Right, this is a search for “the truth”, not a petty partisan attempt to hang fratricide on the POTUS.


I agree - furthermore it just proves how truly sick the freaks in here really are

Radar Chief
07-27-2007, 07:54 AM
And for the record, no one is asking anybody here to know the answer to what happened here. We obviously weren't there. But your "let the chips fall where they may, we can't get to the real truth anyway" dismissal of justice is neither even handed, nor level-headed... and that's my only point in this matter.

I don't know what happened to Tillman, but I sure as hell would like to know. The country that he died serving owes him at least that much.

Fratricide is a major issue that our military has been dealing with pretty much since it’s creation. We’re getting better, with far fewer friendly fire casualties than ever before but it still happens.
Mostly, we currently use markings. Ever notice the band that goes around a Kevlar helmet? On that band there are two pieces of reflective plastic that are mostly unnoticeable until your looking through a “Star Light” or IR night vision scope, then they really pop out at you. Similarly the inverted “V” that was painted on vehicles during the first Gulf War were used to identify our vehicles particularly from the air.
These markings, though, also make it easier for the enemy to identify you and make for a nice bulls eye when taking aim so there are definitely trade offs here.

Velvet_Jones
07-27-2007, 08:23 AM
I see, so we just give up and don't even make an effort to find out what the truth is, nice strategy.
The problem here is that you, jIZ, Taco “Don’t Call Me No Mexican” John and others have been in an attack mode circle jerk for so long that none of you can see that you are truly being intellectually dishonest. You have become part of the fringe conspiracy theorist and will eventually wined up with a bunch of little sores all over your body from people touching you with a 10 foot pole. At one time it was humorous but now it just tiresome. I think you’re gullible, not logical. You can’t recognize the truth because you are not in the frame of mind to accept the truth. You have done a 180 and now you are irrelevant. Just like jIZ and Taco.

Saggysack
07-27-2007, 08:51 AM
Similarly the inverted “V” that was painted on vehicles during the first Gulf War were used to identify our vehicles particularly from the air.
These markings, though, also make it easier for the enemy to identify you and make for a nice bulls eye when taking aim so there are definitely trade offs here.


That was a Israeli invention during the 1968 Arab-Israeli war. Many people think it is a U.S. invention during GWI from the 24th(Mech). Not saying you do though.

We do still paint the 'V', but rely more on reflective heat panels. FWIW, They aren't always inverted, some are sideways, normalways, backways. 1 company will have it facing one way, another company a different way. Then usually in the middle of the V you will see a dot or 2 or 3. Those dots represent which platoon the vehicle is from. So, the direction the V faces represents which company, the dots represent which platoon.

Amnorix
07-27-2007, 09:01 AM
Color me extremely skeptical if not outright dismissive of this.

Word.

Cochise
07-27-2007, 09:08 AM
Yeah, I'm gonna have to rate this a :rolleyes:

Brock
07-27-2007, 09:09 AM
Trashy.

Taco John
07-27-2007, 09:31 AM
George W. Bush is making a lot of you look like total fools. The good news is, someday you'll have to realize it and wonder what the hell happened to you there.

This Pat Tillman thing isn't as complicated as you want to believe. They burned his clothes; destroyed evidence; and then lied about the whole thing. Nobody can guess how far this thing goes up. All we know for sure is that the lie reached the executive office, where they parrotted the lie. This isn't subjective. The fact that there was a lie isn't up for debate here. It's known fact at this point. That part is open-shut, right in front of people's faces. That's not saying it's Bush's fault, or that he's even involved. All that says is that this is VERY serious.

ROYC75
07-27-2007, 09:49 AM
The historical fact that they fabricated Jessica Lynch's story to make it something it wasn't.

WTF ? You mean it was a hoax ?:rolleyes:

Oh the nerve the military has ......... :harumph:

Brock
07-27-2007, 09:52 AM
I don't get why Mrs. Tillman thinks her son was deliberately killed.

Frankie
07-27-2007, 10:04 AM
I haven't read the article yet, but this reminds me of an old Nam vet friend who told us a lot of (in their case) unpopular sargeants were shot by their own guys and got documented as legit war casualties.

Cochise
07-27-2007, 10:14 AM
I don't get why Mrs. Tillman thinks her son was deliberately killed.

Bush ordered it, duh. Just another BushCo CheneyBurton PNAC Rove vast neocon conspiracy.

Taco John
07-27-2007, 10:22 AM
I don't get why Mrs. Tillman thinks her son was deliberately killed.


You don't think the cover-up has made her suspicious? I personally want to believe that this whole thing was still probably an accident. But what wasn't an accident is burning his fatigues, and lying about the circumstances of his death. Nobody accidentally covered this situation up. That part was done with intent.

jAZ
07-27-2007, 11:44 AM
I don't get why Mrs. Tillman thinks her son was deliberately killed.
[I]Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead...

"The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described," a doctor who examined Tillman's body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.

The doctors _ whose names were blacked out _ said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.

...

Among other information contained in the documents:

In his last words moments before he was killed, Tillman snapped at a panicky comrade under fire to shut up and stop "sniveling."
...
No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene
no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck.

...

dirk digler
07-27-2007, 12:21 PM
First of all this isn't Bush's fault and he has nothing to do with any of this. If anyone is at fault it is definitely the Army.

Second I honestly believe that the truth should come out about what happened and the family needs to know what really happened to Pat. Does anyone disagree with this?

I think something happened up there and maybe one of his comrades shot him but the truth needs to come out and hopefully it will.

patteeu
07-27-2007, 12:38 PM
Just for the sake of argument, let's say he was killed by one of his comrades and lets say that everyone present agreed to stfu about it. Why would they do that? The two answers that come to my mind are either (1) it was an accident and the others don't want the shooter to get in trouble over it or (2) it was intentional and the others sympathize with the shooter for some reason.

Taco John
07-27-2007, 12:41 PM
So I see your scenarios, but what's the argument you're making? I'm not sure the relevance of the scenarios and how they justify what has already been established as a cover-up.

dirk digler
07-27-2007, 12:44 PM
Just for the sake of argument, let's say he was killed by one of his comrades and lets say that everyone present agreed to stfu about it. Why would they do that? The two answers that come to my mind are either (1) it was an accident and the others don't want the shooter to get in trouble over it or (2) it was intentional and the others sympathize with the shooter for some reason.

I used to think #1 but now with alot of the evidence that came out I am leaning towards to #2.

patteeu
07-27-2007, 12:46 PM
So I see your scenarios, but what's the argument you're making? I'm not sure the relevance of the scenarios and how they justify what has already been established as a cover-up.

If it was an accident, we already know the truth.

If it was intentional, the shooter's already been tried (in a non-literal sense) by a defacto jury of his peers and for some reason he was "acquitted." If that's the case, I'm not sure Pat Tillman's fans (of which I am one) will find the truth comfortable. I'm not arguing that the truth shouldn't be revealed, I'm just saying it might not be a happy truth in more ways than one. It's hard to believe that his whole unit would participate in the coverup of an intentional killing unless they believed it was justified in some way. Not that that would make it right, of course.

dirk digler
07-27-2007, 12:50 PM
So Pat what do you think happened?

patteeu
07-27-2007, 12:53 PM
So Pat what do you think happened?

I think it's suspicious like you do.

dirk digler
07-27-2007, 12:56 PM
I think it's suspicious like you do.

Yep. After I read the new evidence I think that the guy that Pat yelled at got pissed and shot him.

Radar Chief
07-27-2007, 01:01 PM
Yep. After I read the new evidence I think that the guy that Pat yelled at got pissed and shot him.

Strictly personal opinion but I’m leaning similarly. Don’t know if it was the guy he yelled at or someone else in his squad but the fact that he did snap, and what he said, indicates to me he might not have been as “admired” as his commanders claimed.
Admiration comes from being personable, not just from athletic ability.

a1na2
07-27-2007, 01:05 PM
FWIW:

I have little experience with M-16's, but what experience I do have is that there are different versions in the field. Some with a single shot selector switch and a second position for a three round burst. Newer models have a the single shot selection and the second position is fully automatic capable of firing a complete magazine.

If as stated, the killing was friendly-fire, and the friendly firing the weapon was within 10 yards or 10 meters using a three round burst, what are the chances that the three rounds could make that pattern in the deceased?

As for the cover up, I think that issue has been discussed beyond the need. There was a cover up, that is a given.

Pat Tillman is dead, arguing anything further than where it has little value and will not bring him back to life. I don't understand the need to go further. The bottom line is that friendly fire or enemy fire, Pat Tillman volunteered to be in a place where death is but a heartbeat away. His bravery to be there is what matters at this point. The rest has just become political fodder IMO.

dirk digler
07-27-2007, 01:09 PM
Strictly personal opinion but I’m leaning similarly. Don’t know if it was the guy he yelled at or someone else in his squad but the fact that he did snap, and what he said, indicates to me he might not have been as “admired” as his commanders claimed.
Admiration comes from being personable, not just from athletic ability.

Totally agree.

dirk digler
07-27-2007, 01:11 PM
Pat Tillman is dead, arguing anything further than where it has little value and will not bring him back to life. I don't understand the need to go further. The bottom line is that friendly fire or enemy fire, Pat Tillman volunteered to be in a place where death is but a heartbeat away. His bravery to be there is what matters at this point. The rest has just become political fodder IMO.

I agree with everything you said up to this paragraph. It is important to reveal the truth especially to the family. Wouldn't you want to know what really happened to your kid if he\she was dead or possibly murdered?

Just saying he is dead and **** about the truth doesn't cut it IMHO.

Radar Chief
07-27-2007, 01:18 PM
FWIW:

I have little experience with M-16's, but what experience I do have is that there are different versions in the field. Some with a single shot selector switch and a second position for a three round burst. Newer models have a the single shot selection and the second position is fully automatic capable of firing a complete magazine.

Saggy Sack used to be an Armory NCO so he can probably correct me if I’m wrong, but as I remember it:
M-16 original with the jamming issues.
M-16A1 dust cover and “forward assist” added, gas tube gets a piston rod.
M-16A2 got rid of the “vine grabber” flash suppressor, different forearms and “3 round burst” selector.
M-16A3 couldn’t tell you but I’m pretty sure this is the current issue model.

If as stated, the killing was friendly-fire, and the friendly firing the weapon was within 10 yards or 10 meters using a three round burst, what are the chances that the three rounds could make that pattern in the deceased?

I’d say the chances are pretty good. Particularly with Rangers, those guys can usually shoot.

Pat Tillman is dead, arguing anything further than where it has little value and will not bring him back to life. I don't understand the need to go further. The bottom line is that friendly fire or enemy fire, Pat Tillman volunteered to be in a place where death is but a heartbeat away. His bravery to be there is what matters at this point. The rest has just become political fodder IMO.

Agreed.

Brock
07-27-2007, 01:25 PM
[...

Yeah, thanks for repeating the article again, but it doesn't really answer the question.

a1na2
07-27-2007, 01:37 PM
I agree with everything you said up to this paragraph. It is important to reveal the truth especially to the family. Wouldn't you want to know what really happened to your kid if he\she was dead or possibly murdered?

Just saying he is dead and **** about the truth doesn't cut it IMHO.

I don't think you got the drift of what I was saying. It's over, there has been repercussions and nothing further is really going to be of benefit other than politicians trying to make a point for election time IMO.

dirk digler
07-27-2007, 02:12 PM
I don't think you got the drift of what I was saying. It's over, there has been repercussions and nothing further is really going to be of benefit other than politicians trying to make a point for election time IMO.

So the parents don't deserve to know what actually happened is that what you are telling me?

a1na2
07-27-2007, 02:42 PM
So the parents don't deserve to know what actually happened is that what you are telling me?

Is there actually a way to pinpoint the actual shooter if it was a case of friendly fire? How many people were in the group that fired? Unless it was a case of premeditated murder there is no way to nail it down.

Tillman was a Corporal. That's pretty far down on the food chain in the Army, not normally a big time leadership position.

I don't have a clue of the circumstances of the incident, only what has been reported and fabricated, all of which probably doesn't get near the truth of the matter.

If his parents can't have closure with his death they need to try and find a way to do it. Carrying this out to infinity will do nothing for them and most likely will not give them any kind of closure. It's just pointless to keep it dragging out.

dirk digler
07-27-2007, 03:07 PM
Is there actually a way to pinpoint the actual shooter if it was a case of friendly fire? How many people were in the group that fired? Unless it was a case of premeditated murder there is no way to nail it down.

Tillman was a Corporal. That's pretty far down on the food chain in the Army, not normally a big time leadership position.

I don't have a clue of the circumstances of the incident, only what has been reported and fabricated, all of which probably doesn't get near the truth of the matter.

If his parents can't have closure with his death they need to try and find a way to do it. Carrying this out to infinity will do nothing for them and most likely will not give them any kind of closure. It's just pointless to keep it dragging out.

First of all knowing several parents that have lost children there is no such thing as closure or getting over it. To suggest that someone just get over the loss of their child is a pretty callous thing to say. The only thing that will ease their pain is the truth which they are not getting from the Army and even that will not take away their pain of losing a child.

As far as Tillman was just a corporal he must have been special corporal because the Army and this Administration used his name for PR purposes.

a1na2
07-27-2007, 03:49 PM
First of all knowing several parents that have lost children there is no such thing as closure or getting over it. To suggest that someone just get over the loss of their child is a pretty callous thing to say. The only thing that will ease their pain is the truth which they are not getting from the Army and even that will not take away their pain of losing a child.

As far as Tillman was just a corporal he must have been special corporal because the Army and this Administration used his name for PR purposes.

There is no such thing as a special corporal. The fact that he was an NFL player led to his PR, he was a grunt, an E4, nothing more.

If the parents of lost kids don't find a way to move on they will wallow in self pity for the rest of their lives. I, too, have known many people that have lost kids, it seems like the most of them have learned to move on. If your friends haven't moved on they need to seek some kind of professional or spiritual help to cope.

Knowing that someone murdered your kid does absolutely nothing for losing the pain of the loss. Knowing that friendly fire was the cause is the same. Losing a kid is bad no matter how it happened, that part of the problem will exist forever. The family needs to learn how to let go is all I'm saying.

Pitt Gorilla
07-27-2007, 04:09 PM
I don't think you got the drift of what I was saying. It's over, there has been repercussions and nothing further is really going to be of benefit other than politicians trying to make a point for election time IMO.Does the public deserve to know the truth? What is gained by not revealing the truth?

dirk digler
07-27-2007, 04:30 PM
There is no such thing as a special corporal. The fact that he was an NFL player led to his PR, he was a grunt, an E4, nothing more.

If the parents of lost kids don't find a way to move on they will wallow in self pity for the rest of their lives. I, too, have known many people that have lost kids, it seems like the most of them have learned to move on. If your friends haven't moved on they need to seek some kind of professional or spiritual help to cope.

Knowing that someone murdered your kid does absolutely nothing for losing the pain of the loss. Knowing that friendly fire was the cause is the same. Losing a kid is bad no matter how it happened, that part of the problem will exist forever. The family needs to learn how to let go is all I'm saying.

What I took from your corporal remark was that because he is "just a corporal" it is no big deal and the Army shouldn't waste any more time on the guy. Is that correct?

The rest of your post I have really no problem with except that the Tillmans should keep pressing the Army and Congress to find out the truth no matter how long it takes.

a1na2
07-27-2007, 07:11 PM
What I took from your corporal remark was that because he is "just a corporal" it is no big deal and the Army shouldn't waste any more time on the guy. Is that correct?

The rest of your post I have really no problem with except that the Tillmans should keep pressing the Army and Congress to find out the truth no matter how long it takes.

The just a corporal was in context to the fragging that happened during the vietnam era. when leaders were less than popular they sometimes met their maker by way of a hand grenade rolled into their area at night or when no one else was around. A corporal wouldn't get that type of treatment, fragging or shooting, as they were nothing special in the rank structure.

a1na2
07-27-2007, 07:13 PM
Does the public deserve to know the truth? What is gained by not revealing the truth?

Who stands to gain, or what will be gained by anyone that ferrets out the truth they want to get? The real truth of what happened will probably never be found. I just don't see the necessity in carrying this out forever. Even if the truth were to be put out there will be conspiracy theory's about what actually happened and their own version.

CHIEF4EVER
07-27-2007, 07:18 PM
Before we get our britches in a bunch over this bear one thing in mind please.....a firefight is TOTAL CHAOS. Trust me, I know. Friendly fire occurs. That doesn't lessen the culpability on the part of the shooter but it is understandable, especially at night and in the heat of the moment.

jAZ
07-27-2007, 07:40 PM
Yeah, thanks for repeating the article again, but it doesn't really answer the question.
I thought it was quite evidantly a question that was directly answered in the article. Maybe I'm missing your question.

If so, what are you getting at, or what specifically are you looking to hear?

jAZ
07-27-2007, 07:44 PM
Before we get our britches in a bunch over this bear one thing in mind please.....a firefight is TOTAL CHAOS. Trust me, I know. Friendly fire occurs. That doesn't lessen the culpability on the part of the shooter but it is understandable, especially at night and in the heat of the moment.
It sounds like the notion of a firefight is part of the coverup. Maybe I'm reading this wrong.

No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene
no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck.

CHIEF4EVER
07-27-2007, 07:54 PM
"Have you, at any time since this incident occurred back on April 22, 2004, have you ever received any information even rumor that Cpl. Tillman was killed by anybody within his own unit intentionally?" an investigator asked then-Capt. Richard Scott.

Scott, and others who were asked, said they were certain the shooting was accidental.

Investigators also asked soldiers and commanders whether Tillman was disliked, whether anyone was jealous of his celebrity, or if he was considered arrogant. They said Tillman was respected, admired and well-liked.

Saggysack
07-27-2007, 08:39 PM
Saggy Sack used to be an Armory NCO so he can probably correct me if I’m wrong, but as I remember it:
M-16 original with the jamming issues.
M-16A1 dust cover and “forward assist” added, gas tube gets a piston rod.
M-16A2 got rid of the “vine grabber” flash suppressor, different forearms and “3 round burst” selector.
M-16A3 couldn’t tell you but I’m pretty sure this is the current issue model.



Batt. Ammo NCO. Ammo Suppy Specialist was my secondary MOS. I was the guy that handed out small arms ammo, 25mm, 20mm, 40mm rnds, C4, TNT, time fuse, det cord, electrical and non-electrical blasting caps, Hellfires, 2.75in rockets, TOW's, Dragon's, AT4's, hand grenades ranging from HC White-CS-Fragmentation,120mm mortars, 120mm tank rounds, etc..

M15/AR15, made by Mattel. 3 prong flash suppressor.
M16A1, dust cover, forward assist, fully automatic, new flash suppressor
M16A2, heavy barrel, new handguards, rear iron sights recieved a change, another new flash suppressor, 3rnd burst(a A2 can be made into fully auto with a A1 or A3 trigger assembly)
M16A3, pretty much same as A2, only difference is, it's fully auto(Not currently in service that I know of).
M16A4, currently in full service with the Marines, from what I know, removable carrying handle and picatinny rail on handguards(M4 carbine style handguards)
M4 Carbine, much like a A4, only shorter and less effective range on a point target(250m vs. 300m)

The U.S. army currently issues the majority of soldiers with the A2, although the M4 is becoming quite common. I would say Rangers are issued M4's , M249, and 240's as small arms weapon systems.

CHIEF4EVER
07-27-2007, 08:57 PM
Batt. Ammo NCO. Ammo Suppy Specialist was my secondary MOS. I was the guy that handed out small arms ammo, 25mm, 20mm, 40mm rnds, C4, TNT, time fuse, det cord, electrical and non-electrical blasting caps, Hellfires, 2.75in rockets, TOW's, Dragon's, AT4's, hand grenades ranging from HC White-CS-Fragmentation,120mm mortars, 120mm tank rounds, etc..

M15/AR15, made by Mattel. 3 prong flash suppressor.
M16A1, dust cover, forward assist, fully automatic, new flash suppressor
M16A2, heavy barrel, new handguards, rear iron sights recieved a change, another new flash suppressor, 3rnd burst(a A2 can be made into fully auto with a A1 or A3 trigger assembly)
M16A3, pretty much same as A2, only difference is, it's fully auto(Not currently in service that I know of).
M16A4, currently in full service with the Marines, from what I know, removable carrying handle and picatinny rail on handguards(M4 carbine style handguards)
M4 Carbine, much like a A4, only shorter and less effective range on a point target(250m vs. 300m)

The U.S. army currently issues the majority of soldiers with the A2, although the M4 is becoming quite common. I would say Rangers are issued M4's , M249, and 240's as small arms weapon systems.

Lord, I am getting old. The first weapon I carried was the 90mm Recoilless rifle. Awesome weapon if used properly. Could kill a T-72 from the side or rear. Flechette rounds for anti Infantry. Heavy sumbitch. Then the M60 (most reliable and devastating weapon I ever used). Then the M16A1/M203. When I made squad leader, I got to carry just the M16A2 (was new at that time). We had PRC77 for commo. The SAW (M249) came out around the same time as the A2. For AT, we had the TOW (good system) and the DRAGON (which was a worthless piece of sh*t). I served for a time in my secondary MOS, 11C. The old 81mm was simply AWESOME. Easy and fast to set up, and fairly accurate. No experience with the 4 Deuce or the new 81mm. I understand a 120mm was later employed to replace the 4 deuce. A 60 mm was later also issued to company level units but I never had any experience with that either.

Adept Havelock
07-27-2007, 10:02 PM
Lord, I am getting old. The first weapon I carried was the 90mm Recoilless rifle.

Just the thought of stalking T-72's with a 90mm... :eek:

Reminds me of something I saw the other day. I'd never heard of it, and if you had told me there was a nuclear-capable recoiless rifle I wouldn't have believed it.

Davy Crockett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)) was pretty damn cool.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/khyZI3RK2lE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/khyZI3RK2lE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Velvet_Jones
07-27-2007, 10:49 PM
Does the public deserve to know the truth? What is gained by not revealing the truth?
What truth.? The one(s) that jIZ and Taco will declare as the absolute truth? I don’t believe less than half of the shiate that these people spout as fact. They are in attack mode and cannot be trusted as logical or even sane. These guys are hacks. They are also arrogantly foolish in thinking that they represent anyone except the fringe.

Taco John
07-27-2007, 11:13 PM
What truth.? The one(s) that jIZ and Taco will declare as the absolute truth? I don’t believe less than half of the shiate that these people spout as fact. They are in attack mode and cannot be trusted as logical or even sane. These guys are hacks. They are also arrogantly foolish in thinking that they represent anyone except the fringe.



Look around bud. You're talking about the mainstream right now...

The only folks on the fringe are the ones still batting for Bush.

Taco John
07-27-2007, 11:15 PM
Before we get our britches in a bunch over this bear one thing in mind please.....a firefight is TOTAL CHAOS. Trust me, I know. Friendly fire occurs. That doesn't lessen the culpability on the part of the shooter but it is understandable, especially at night and in the heat of the moment.



I don't care about the firefight, so much as I care about the coverup. If he died by friendly fire, so be it. My question is with regards to WHY they would lie to his parents, burn his uniform hours after his death, burn his personal journal, and order his fellow soldiers not to tell his parents the truth. The firefight is disputable at this point. What isn't disputable is the coverup.

CHIEF4EVER
07-27-2007, 11:34 PM
I don't care about the firefight, so much as I care about the coverup. If he died by friendly fire, so be it. My question is with regards to WHY they would lie to his parents, burn his uniform hours after his death, burn his personal journal, and order his fellow soldiers not to tell his parents the truth. The firefight is disputable at this point. What isn't disputable is the coverup.

IF the allegations of evidence destruction/tampering are true, then those responsible should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the UCMJ. At this point it would appear that the Commanding General has "fallen on his sword" to demonstrate accountability for the tragedy.

CHIEF4EVER
07-28-2007, 12:22 AM
Just the thought of stalking T-72's with a 90mm... :eek:

To be honest, I had my reservations too. LMAO

Reminds me of something I saw the other day. I'd never heard of it, and if you had told me there was a nuclear-capable recoiless rifle I wouldn't have believed it.

Davy Crockett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)) was pretty damn cool.

I've seen the photos before....not sure I would want to be so close to ground zero though.

go bowe
07-28-2007, 12:56 AM
I agree - furthermore it just proves how truly sick the freaks in here really areincluding you...

a1na2
07-28-2007, 08:37 AM
Look around bud. You're talking about the mainstream right now...

The only folks on the fringe are the ones still batting for Bush.

The fringe? You have been on a full out attack of Bush from way back. You have no honest perspective of anything regarding politics, your arguments are just as far of the beaten path as anyone. Your arguments are all flawed just is your opinions are.

|Zach|
07-28-2007, 11:45 AM
The fringe? You have been on a full out attack of Bush from way back. You have no honest perspective of anything regarding politics, your arguments are just as far of the beaten path as anyone. Your arguments are all flawed just is your opinions are.
Signed, T. Cash.

Brock
07-28-2007, 12:35 PM
I thought it was quite evidantly a question that was directly answered in the article. Maybe I'm missing your question.

If so, what are you getting at, or what specifically are you looking to hear?


Also according to the documents, investigators pressed officers and soldiers on a question Mrs. Tillman has been asking all along.

What I'm getting at is why was Mrs. Tillman asking these questions all along? Please don't answer that question by reposting the article that contains information that Mrs. Tillman clearly couldn't have known all along, if you think that answers the question, feel free not to reply.

Ultra Peanut
07-28-2007, 05:19 PM
When Propaganda Tools Go Wrong, or How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Cover-up

Does anyone really believe we'll get the REAL, and COMPLETE, truth....at this point? :shake:Not after the government has gone so far out of its way to obfuscate the facts, no.

Before we get our britches in a bunch over this bear one thing in mind please.....a firefight is TOTAL CHAOS.'Course, there's also the whole "there may not have even been a firefight" thing, too.

mlyonsd
07-28-2007, 05:39 PM
Look around bud. You're talking about the mainstream right now...

The only folks on the fringe are the ones still batting for Bush.

Count me as being on the fringe then.

Wishing to see Iraq fail doesn't do any of us good. Unless of course you're just trying to score political points.

Logical
07-28-2007, 08:25 PM
...
Pat Tillman is dead, arguing anything further than where it has little value and will not bring him back to life. I don't understand the need to go further. The bottom line is that friendly fire or enemy fire, Pat Tillman volunteered to be in a place where death is but a heartbeat away. His bravery to be there is what matters at this point. The rest has just become political fodder IMO.

This would be true if the Army had not lied about it and then the White House used the lie to make a huge PR stunt out of it.

Logical
07-28-2007, 08:27 PM
Count me as being on the fringe then.

Wishing to see Iraq fail doesn't do any of us good. Unless of course you're just trying to score political points.

I know of not one single person or group in the US who want to see Iraq fall, people just want to see them succeed of their own accord by standing on their own without the use of US troops as a police force.

CHIEF4EVER
07-28-2007, 08:40 PM
I know of not one single person or group in the US who want to see Iraq fall, people just want to see them succeed of their own accord by standing on their own without the use of US troops as a police force.

:clap:

mlyonsd
07-28-2007, 08:45 PM
I know of not one single person or group in the US who want to see Iraq fall, people just want to see them succeed of their own accord by standing on their own without the use of US troops as a police force.

I absolutley disagree. Congress unanimously voting for Petreaus and calling the surge a failure at the same time before it started is an example.

Logical
07-28-2007, 09:02 PM
I absolutley disagree. Congress unanimously voting for Petreaus and calling the surge a failure at the same time before it started is an example.My friend seriously, sometimes I think you understand politic and sometime I know you don't. The statement above is one of the latter. That is all about want us to no longer be an occupying force in Iraq, not on wanting Iraq to fall.

chagrin
07-28-2007, 09:06 PM
The fringe? You have been on a full out attack of Bush from way back. You have no honest perspective of anything regarding politics, your arguments are just as far of the beaten path as anyone. Your arguments are all flawed just is your opinions are.


Regardless of what people think of you, TJ is about as far out on the fringe as anyone - a total loon who is smart enough to read and scour the internet for anything to believe in, to make his life seem worthwhile.

He's as delusional as ever.

Logical
07-28-2007, 09:15 PM
Signed, T. Cash.That is T as in Tom
It ryhmes with bomb
Like the terrorists use
Exposives they are
TNT
C4
Dyn-o-mite
ROFL

mlyonsd
07-28-2007, 09:23 PM
My friend seriously, sometimes I think you understand politic and sometime I know you don't. The statement above is one of the latter. That is all about want us to no longer be an occupying force in Iraq, not on wanting Iraq to fall.
I understand politics. The fact I seem to point them out to you again and again but you choose to not hold both sides to the same measuring stick is kind of troubling.

How could giving Bush a rope long enough to lynch his own policy (Petreaus), while at the same time calling it a failure before it started (democrats), be viewed as a recipe for success? I'm not sure how you can reconcile that in your own head. Fine, Bush is wrong and Pelosi is right in your mind.

I'll play along...we get out....cool. What happens after the civil war? Where do we stand there? I have never heard any politician calling for our leaving address that. And that right there indicates they don't care about a failure in Iraq.

If you play the 'whatever happens is out of our control at that point' game what you are really saying is failure is OK.

Logical
07-28-2007, 09:53 PM
I understand politics. The fact I seem to point them out to you again and again but you choose to not hold both sides to the same measuring stick is kind of troubling.

How could giving Bush a rope long enough to lynch his own policy (Petreaus), while at the same time calling it a failure before it started (democrats), be viewed as a recipe for success? I'm not sure how you can reconcile that in your own head. Fine, Bush is wrong and Pelosi is right in your mind.

I'll play along...we get out....cool. What happens after the civil war? Where do we stand there? I have never heard any politician calling for our leaving address that. And that right there indicates they don't care about a failure in Iraq.

If you play the 'whatever happens is out of our control at that point' game what you are really saying is failure is OK.I say that you cannot predict who will win, the Sunni's, the Shia, the Kurds? If you side with one and one of the others win they will hate us as a country forever and they will become one of the legions of countries that want to support terrorists against us, more surely even the AQ does now.

mlyonsd
07-28-2007, 10:11 PM
I say that you cannot predict who will win, the Sunni's, the Shia, the Kurds? If you side with one and one of the others win they will hate us as a country forever and they will become one of the legions of countries that want to support terrorists against us, more surely even the AQ does now.
That statement tells me you think some form of democracy there is a no win situation?

Ok, so we let them fight it out and deal with the winner.

My take on that is that genocide of some kind will happen. We deal with the leftovers. Tell me what happens next.

I've been calling for us getting off of our dependence of foreign oil should be a priority for a few years now. Do you agree?

The problem there is neither party wants to take the JFK approach and fess up that it needs to happen.

It sucks being a realist. There aren't many people on both sides that will agree with you.

Logical
07-28-2007, 10:15 PM
That statement tells me you think some form of democracy there is a no win situation?

Ok, so we let them fight it out and deal with the winner.

My take on that is that genocide of some kind will happen. We deal with the leftovers. Tell me what happens next.

I've been calling for us getting off of our dependence of foreign oil should be a priority for a few years now. Do you agree?

I agree with the statement in bold in that we should get off our depedence of oil period. Is that what you meant?

go bowe
07-28-2007, 10:23 PM
I understand politics. The fact I seem to point them out to you again and again but you choose to not hold both sides to the same measuring stick is kind of troubling.

How could giving Bush a rope long enough to lynch his own policy (Petreaus), while at the same time calling it a failure before it started (democrats), be viewed as a recipe for success? I'm not sure how you can reconcile that in your own head. Fine, Bush is wrong and Pelosi is right in your mind.

I'll play along...we get out....cool. What happens after the civil war? Where do we stand there? I have never heard any politician calling for our leaving address that. And that right there indicates they don't care about a failure in Iraq.

If you play the 'whatever happens is out of our control at that point' game what you are really saying is failure is OK.aarrrrr-rrrghhh...

my eyes! my eyes!

i can't freaking believe mlyonsd could actually write this: "Pelosi is right..."

about anything? about everything? about nothing?

scandalous, i say...

scandolous... (did i spell that right?)

mlyonsd
07-28-2007, 10:26 PM
I agree with the statement in bold in that we should get off our depedence of oil period. Is that what you meant?

Until technology allows us to move 20 tons without oil based products.

But I think if we could get passenger cars/trucks off of oil we could tell our Islam friends it's ok to F goats all you want.

Although there still is a case to be made for letting little girls in Islamic countries to be considered normal humans. That fight should be a global one though IMO.

But like all of your liberal friends you still didn't tell me what happens next after we leave Iraq.

Logical
07-28-2007, 10:36 PM
Until technology allows us to move 20 tons without oil based products.

But I think if we could get passenger cars/trucks off of oil we could tell our Islam friends it's ok to F goats all you want.

Although there still is a case to be made for letting little girls in Islamic countries to be considered normal humans. That fight should be a global one though IMO.

But like all of your liberal friends you still didn't tell me what happens next after we leave Iraq.

Obviously we will still use some oil for years to come, but we still as a country produce amazing amounts of oil. We need as you suggested to move passenger vehicles off oil based products as well as find energy sources that are not oil based and we probably can continue to produce enough oil to support our needs beyond that.

As to answering your question the answer is of course the full blown civil war will happen (not unlike what establishes many countries) and one side will win or the country will split into multiple countries ala the Koreas or the former nation know as Yugoslavia.

mlyonsd
07-28-2007, 10:38 PM
aarrrrr-rrrghhh...

my eyes! my eyes!

i can't freaking believe mlyonsd could actually write this: "Pelosi is right..."

about anything? about everything? about nothing?

scandalous, i say...

scandolous... (did i spell that right?)

whooooaaaa......that was one great big fatty.

mlyonsd
07-28-2007, 10:55 PM
Obviously we will still use some oil for years to come, but we still as a country produce amazing amounts of oil. We need as you suggested to move passenger vehicles off oil based products as well as find energy sources that are not oil based and we probably can continue to produce enough oil to support our needs beyond that.

As to answering your question the answer is of course the full blown civil war will happen (not unlike what establishes many countries) and one side will win or the country will split into multiple countries ala the Koreas or the former nation know as Yugoslavia.

I agree with the first paragraph. I think it is a given we can't continue to think the ME will adhere to our principles of equality.

But my original statment still stands....anyone that doesn't want Bush to be right is a pathetic political statement. Not one of hope.

Logical
07-28-2007, 11:30 PM
I agree with the first paragraph. I think it is a given we can't continue to think the ME will adhere to our principles of equality.

But my original statment still stands....anyone that doesn't want Bush to be right is a pathetic political statement. Not one of hope.

It might be a pathetic political statement, but that is not your original statement. You originally stated they want Iraq to fail, which is what I disputed.

Count me as being on the fringe then.

Wishing to see Iraq fail doesn't do any of us good. Unless of course you're just trying to score political points.

Taco John
07-28-2007, 11:38 PM
I absolutley disagree. Congress unanimously voting for Petreaus and calling the surge a failure at the same time before it started is an example.



I don't understand the talking point that says the vote for Patreaus was somehow a mandate for the surge. Who else were they going to vote for?

go bowe
07-28-2007, 11:42 PM
I understand politics. The fact I seem to point them out to you again and again but you choose to not hold both sides to the same measuring stick is kind of troubling.

How could giving Bush a rope long enough to lynch his own policy (Petreaus), while at the same time calling it a failure before it started (democrats), be viewed as a recipe for success? I'm not sure how you can reconcile that in your own head. Fine, Bush is wrong and Pelosi is right in your mind.

I'll play along...we get out....cool. What happens after the civil war? Where do we stand there? I have never heard any politician calling for our leaving address that. And that right there indicates they don't care about a failure in Iraq.

If you play the 'whatever happens is out of our control at that point' game what you are really saying is failure is OK.wtf?

a rope?

giving petreaus the extra troops to try a new strategy, which has had some success, was more like putting a sword in the president's hand than a rope...

as far as what the democrat leadership in the congress has to say about this or most any other topic, who cares?

seriously...

afaics, pelosi and reid are seriously out of step with rank and file democrats, moderate republicans and independents in general...

ClevelandBronco
07-29-2007, 01:26 AM
For the sake of argument, and because I believe this to be true, I'll chime in with something that I presuppose will be an unpopular viewpoint.

IMO, the facts of Pat Tillman's life and death don't belong to the American public. His family is not entitled to the "truth."

Tillman signed his life off to the military to do with as they saw fit.

If they have their secrets, so be them. If you don't like their secrets, tough shit.

There is no "right to know" granted to the public that I'm aware of, and the "public" includes his parents.

At the moment that a man named Pat Tillman agreed to become an instrument of force in this conflict, he agreed to become the property of his government. Pat Tillman ceased to exist except as a property of his government. That's the way it must be in war.

Pat Tillman died. The circumstances of his death are none of my business and none of his parents' business and none of your business. It's only a matter of our government's business.

The man contracted his life and his death to our government. Our government used his life and his death.

His family and us weren't parties to the contract.

Taco John
07-29-2007, 02:17 AM
For the sake of argument, and because I believe this to be true, I'll chime in with something that I presuppose will be an unpopular viewpoint.

IMO, the facts of Pat Tillman's life and death don't belong to the American public. His family is not entitled to the "truth."

Tillman signed his life off to the military to do with as they saw fit.

If they have their secrets, so be them. If you don't like their secrets, tough shit.

There is no "right to know" granted to the public that I'm aware of, and the "public" includes his parents.

At the moment that a man named Pat Tillman agreed to become an instrument of force in this conflict, he agreed to become the property of his government. Pat Tillman ceased to exist except as a property of his government. That's the way it must be in war.

Pat Tillman died. The circumstances of his death are none of my business and none of his parents' business and none of your business. It's only a matter of our government's business.

The man contracted his life and his death to our government. Our government used his life and his death.

His family and us weren't parties to the contract.


I think you'd have an excellent point if we lived in the United States of Cuba.

ClevelandBronco
07-29-2007, 02:37 AM
I think you'd have an excellent point if we lived in the United States of Cuba.

Put it on a bumper sticker. It'll make you think that you've done something important.

Logical
07-29-2007, 02:47 AM
For the sake of argument, and because I believe this to be true, I'll chime in with something that I presuppose will be an unpopular viewpoint.

IMO, the facts of Pat Tillman's life and death don't belong to the American public. His family is not entitled to the "truth."

Tillman signed his life off to the military to do with as they saw fit.

If they have their secrets, so be them. If you don't like their secrets, tough shit.

There is no "right to know" granted to the public that I'm aware of, and the "public" includes his parents.

At the moment that a man named Pat Tillman agreed to become an instrument of force in this conflict, he agreed to become the property of his government. Pat Tillman ceased to exist except as a property of his government. That's the way it must be in war.

Pat Tillman died. The circumstances of his death are none of my business and none of his parents' business and none of your business. It's only a matter of our government's business.

The man contracted his life and his death to our government. Our government used his life and his death.

His family and us weren't parties to the contract.Ja wohl mein Fuhrer.

ClevelandBronco
07-29-2007, 02:58 AM
Ja wohl mein Fuhrer.

I haven't gotten to say this for more than a week since I've been on vacation, Gullible:

**** you, Scheisskopf.

ClevelandBronco
07-29-2007, 03:04 AM
Ja wohl mein Fuhrer.

Now that we've traded insults, would you like to address what I said, or would you rather just banter in language that harkens allusions to the Fatherland?

Taco John
07-29-2007, 04:17 AM
I think we both said it accurately. Your position is tactically sound, but ethically destitute. American soldiers are owed more than what you are willing to afford them.

You might have a point in missions where valid national security interests are at stake.

Ultra Peanut
07-29-2007, 05:23 AM
For the sake of argument, and because I believe this to be true, I'll chime in with something that I presuppose will be an unpopular viewpoint.

IMO, the facts of Pat Tillman's life and death don't belong to the American public. His family is not entitled to the "truth."

Tillman signed his life off to the military to do with as they saw fit.

If they have their secrets, so be them. If you don't like their secrets, tough shit.

There is no "right to know" granted to the public that I'm aware of, and the "public" includes his parents.

At the moment that a man named Pat Tillman agreed to become an instrument of force in this conflict, he agreed to become the property of his government. Pat Tillman ceased to exist except as a property of his government. That's the way it must be in war.

Pat Tillman died. The circumstances of his death are none of my business and none of his parents' business and none of your business. It's only a matter of our government's business.

The man contracted his life and his death to our government. Our government used his life and his death.

His family and us weren't parties to the contract.Support the troops! Neither they nor their families deserve any rights!

Pat Tillman was used as a huge marketing tool by the Army. His death was then portrayed as an example of an American hero being cut down in the prime of his life by the enemy, as a means of marketing what was already becoming an unpopular war. And then, when it came out that it was friendly fire, they worked as hard as they could to keep that information from coming out.

“The bottom line is the American people are capable of determining their own ideas of heroes, and they don’t need to be told elaborate tales.” - Jessica Lynch

jettio
07-29-2007, 08:34 AM
For the sake of argument, and because I believe this to be true, I'll chime in with something that I presuppose will be an unpopular viewpoint.

IMO, the facts of Pat Tillman's life and death don't belong to the American public. His family is not entitled to the "truth."

Tillman signed his life off to the military to do with as they saw fit.

If they have their secrets, so be them. If you don't like their secrets, tough shit.

There is no "right to know" granted to the public that I'm aware of, and the "public" includes his parents.

At the moment that a man named Pat Tillman agreed to become an instrument of force in this conflict, he agreed to become the property of his government. Pat Tillman ceased to exist except as a property of his government. That's the way it must be in war.

Pat Tillman died. The circumstances of his death are none of my business and none of his parents' business and none of your business. It's only a matter of our government's business.

The man contracted his life and his death to our government. Our government used his life and his death.

His family and us weren't parties to the contract.

We have an all-volunteer military. And those volunteers are subject to criminal prosecution for dishonorable behavior.

Honor and ethics is essential to military effectiveness and to making sure that good people will be willing to serve.

On a pragmatic level, joining the military at a time when the President and his boss, the Vice President, are dishonorable sh*theads, can be hazardous to an individual and subject him to dishonorable and unethical acts.

However, your dumbazz way of looking at things won't be featured in any recruiting posters and, unless you enjoy getting your azz kicked, you better not try to repeat it as if you believed it in front of servicemembers and their families.

mlyonsd
07-29-2007, 09:13 AM
It might be a pathetic political statement, but that is not your original statement. You originally stated they want Iraq to fail, which is what I disputed.

I think you're being purposely naive in thinking there are not some who's political agenda would rather see Iraq fail as opposed to Bush getting credit for helping to change the ME.

In your view would my statement have been more true if I has said there are those that don't care if Iraq fails instead of want it to fail?

mlyonsd
07-29-2007, 09:14 AM
I don't understand the talking point that says the vote for Patreaus was somehow a mandate for the surge. Who else were they going to vote for?

Then why have the vote? Is it just some useless out of date procedural thing?

mlyonsd
07-29-2007, 09:27 AM
wtf?

a rope?

giving petreaus the extra troops to try a new strategy, which has had some success, was more like putting a sword in the president's hand than a rope...

If congress really thought petreaus was a sword they should have been told him to take three times the troops instead of calling it a failure before it even started.


as far as what the democrat leadership in the congress has to say about this or most any other topic, who cares?

I dunno, I guess since I see their stupid faces on tv every night they must be important.


afaics, pelosi and reid are seriously out of step with rank and file democrats

I'll believe you if Kotter agrees. :p

Brock
07-29-2007, 10:31 AM
Tillman Comrade Recalls Final Moments


Jul 29, 12:50 AM (ET)

By MARTHA MENDOZA

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - As bullets flew above their heads, the young soldier at Pat Tillman's side started praying. "I thought I was praying to myself, but I guess he heard me," Sgt. Bryan O'Neal recalled in an interview Saturday with The Associated Press. "He said something like, 'Hey, O'Neal, why are you praying? God can't help us now.'"

Tillman's intent, O'Neal said, was to "more or less put my mind straight about what was going on at the moment."

"He said, 'I've got an idea to help get us out of this,'" said O'Neal, who was an 18-year-old Army Ranger in Tillman's unit when the former NFL player was killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan in April 2004.

O'Neal said Tillman, a corporal, threw a smoke grenade to identify themselves to fellow soldiers who were firing at them. Tillman was waving his arms shouting "Cease fire, friendlies, I am Pat (expletive) Tillman, damn it!" again and again when he was killed, O'Neal said.

A chaplain who debriefed the entire unit days after Tillman's death later described this exchange to investigators conducting a criminal probe of the incident. But O'Neal strongly disputes portions of the chaplain's testimony, outlined in some 2,300 pages of transcripts released to the AP this week by the Defense Department in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

The chaplain told investigators that O'Neal said Tillman was harsh in his last moments, snapping, 'Would you shut your (expletive) mouth? God's not going to help you; you need to do something for yourself, you sniveling ..."

"He never would have called me 'sniveling,'" O'Neal said. "I don't remember ever speaking to this chaplain, and I find this characterization of Pat really upsetting. He never once degraded me. He's the only person I ever worked for who didn't degrade anyone. He wasn't that sort of person."

The chaplain's name is blacked out in the documents.

Tillman gave up a multimillion-dollar football contract to enlist with his brother in the Army after the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The military initially told the public and the Tillman family that he had been killed by enemy fire. It was only weeks later, when the truth was about to be published, did the Pentagon acknowledge that he was gunned down by fellow Rangers.

The Pentagon conducted a criminal investigation and ruled that Tillman's death at the hands of his comrades was a friendly-fire accident.

Congress is preparing for another hearing this week, while the Pentagon is separately preparing a new round of punishments.

Soldiers and commanders who worked with Tillman have repeatedly testified that he was respected, admired and well-liked.

In the same testimony, medical examiners said the bullet holes in Tillman's head were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.

O'Neal said the shooters were "close, close enough for me to recognize them, but they sure weren't 10 yards away. They were further than that. I've thought about this plenty of times. They wouldn't have been more than 50 yards away."

Another key issue raised in the transcripts involved never-before-mentioned snipers who were apparently there when the firing broke out, got out of their vehicle and walked alongside the convoy, cutting up the canyon firing.

O'Neal said Saturday that he knew there were snipers in the convoy that fired at them, but that he can't remember their names. Were they fired at by the snipers? "Not that I know of," O'Neal told the AP.

His recollections of the snipers reflected other testimony in the transcripts, including answers given by Capt. Richard Scott, who conducted the first, immediate investigation:

Q: Are you aware whether or not any U.S. forces snipers were at the scene?

Scott: They were in serial two.

Q: And, and do you know whose GMV (ground mobility vehicle) they were traveling in?

Scott: I don't think they were in a GMV. I think they were in a cargo Humvee.

Q: Okay. Do you know if the snipers fired any rounds during this incident involving CPL Tillman?

Scott: I do not, no.

Hydrae
07-29-2007, 11:27 AM
While I think the truth should come out I also do not pin this on the White House at all. This occurred within the Army itself and only within the Army itself. Trying to put Bush into it is just silly, IMO.

It does raise the question though, if this kind of a cover up occurs with a high profile guy like this what happens with "normal" soldiers? That is probably the part of all this that bothers me the most. If they would do this with a somewhat famous person who is to say what they may or may not do with a run of the mill, average Joe? Kinda makes you wonder sometimes.

Adept Havelock
07-29-2007, 11:37 AM
We have an all-volunteer military. And those volunteers are subject to criminal prosecution for dishonorable behavior.

Honor and ethics is essential to military effectiveness and to making sure that good people will be willing to serve.

On a pragmatic level, joining the military at a time when the President and his boss, the Vice President, are dishonorable sh*theads, can be hazardous to an individual and subject him to dishonorable and unethical acts.

However, your dumbazz way of looking at things won't be featured in any recruiting posters and, unless you enjoy getting your azz kicked, you better not try to repeat it as if you believed it in front of servicemembers and their families.

:clap:

Logical
07-29-2007, 02:34 PM
I haven't gotten to say this for more than a week since I've been on vacation, Gullible:

**** you, Scheisskopf.ROFL

Logical
07-29-2007, 02:51 PM
Now that we've traded insults, would you like to address what I said, or would you rather just banter in language that harkens allusions to the Fatherland?

As to all your statements, the military has a long tradition of acting honorably toward the families and that should not stop. As to the rest they blew all that by trying to turn Tillman's death into a publicity stunt. Those tactics are the tactics of dictatorships everywhere. I would hope our country is still better than that, but evidently not under Bush/Cheney.

Logical
07-29-2007, 02:53 PM
Then why have the vote? Is it just some useless out of date procedural thing?Pretty much a formality, yes.

Logical
07-29-2007, 03:01 PM
I think you're being purposely naive in thinking there are not some who's political agenda would rather see Iraq fail as opposed to Bush getting credit for helping to change the ME.

In your view would my statement have been more true if I has said there are those that don't care if Iraq fails instead of want it to fail?I cannot possibly know the minds of every single person, is there one or two who believe as you suggest, I am sure it is possible. But I think to say it is more true is only true to the extent of those select few. In general I think most everyone wants the Iraqies to succeed but of their own doing, not on the back of the US servicemen.

Taco John
07-29-2007, 03:26 PM
Then why have the vote? Is it just some useless out of date procedural thing?



Pretty much. A general needed to be confirmed because a spot was open. It's not like they were voting to carry on the war indefinitely by confirming Patraeus. They were basically rubber stamping a job application because it needed to be filled.

Cochise
07-29-2007, 06:18 PM
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - As bullets flew above their heads, the young soldier at Pat Tillman's side started praying. "I thought I was praying to myself, but I guess he heard me," Sgt. Bryan O'Neal recalled in an interview Saturday with The Associated Press. "He said something like, 'Hey, O'Neal, why are you praying? God can't help us now.'"

Tillman's intent, O'Neal said, was to "more or less put my mind straight about what was going on at the moment."

"He said, 'I've got an idea to help get us out of this,'" said O'Neal, who was an 18-year-old Army Ranger in Tillman's unit when the former NFL player was killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan in April 2004.

O'Neal said Tillman, a corporal, threw a smoke grenade to identify themselves to fellow soldiers who were firing at them. Tillman was waving his arms shouting "Cease fire, friendlies, I am Pat (expletive) Tillman, damn it!" again and again when he was killed, O'Neal said.

A chaplain who debriefed the entire unit days after Tillman's death later described this exchange to investigators conducting a criminal probe of the incident. But O'Neal strongly disputes portions of the chaplain's testimony, outlined in some 2,300 pages of transcripts released to the AP this week by the Defense Department in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

The chaplain told investigators that O'Neal said Tillman was harsh in his last moments, snapping, 'Would you shut your (expletive) mouth? God's not going to help you; you need to do something for yourself, you sniveling ..."

"He never would have called me 'sniveling,'" O'Neal said. "I don't remember ever speaking to this chaplain, and I find this characterization of Pat really upsetting. He never once degraded me. He's the only person I ever worked for who didn't degrade anyone. He wasn't that sort of person."

The chaplain's name is blacked out in the documents.
...

In the same testimony, medical examiners said the bullet holes in Tillman's head were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.

O'Neal said the shooters were "close, close enough for me to recognize them, but they sure weren't 10 yards away. They were further than that. I've thought about this plenty of times. They wouldn't have been more than 50 yards away."

Another key issue raised in the transcripts involved never-before-mentioned snipers who were apparently there when the firing broke out, got out of their vehicle and walked alongside the convoy, cutting up the canyon firing.

O'Neal said Saturday that he knew there were snipers in the convoy that fired at them, but that he can't remember their names. Were they fired at by the snipers? "Not that I know of," O'Neal told the AP.

His recollections of the snipers reflected other testimony in the transcripts, including answers given by Capt. Richard Scott, who conducted the first, immediate investigation...


Well that makes things sound a little bit different.

go bowe
07-29-2007, 07:34 PM
If congress really thought petreaus was a sword they should have been told him to take three times the troops instead of calling it a failure before it even started.


I dunno, I guess since I see their stupid faces on tv every night they must be important.



I'll believe you if Kotter agrees. :pwell, yeah, they should have let the sword guy take enough more troops to actually pacify iraq...

that would be about a million troops, give or take a few...

but we'd have to draft every 18 y.o. in america, canada, mexico, the central american states, and everywhere in south america except maby in hugo-chavez-ville...

as far as "failure" goes, we really need to wait until the september report, or better yet a report from gen. p. next spring to assess whether this approach was a failure or not...

as far as stupid faces go, when i see them, i either change the channel or at least turn on the mute so i don't have to hear what flavor baloney they are trying to sell...

as far as kotter agreeing with me?

that would be the day... PBJ PBJ PBJ

go bowe
07-29-2007, 07:43 PM
whooooaaaa......that was one great big fatty.two papers big...

an extremely fat fatty, thank you very much...

o:-)

:bong:

:) :) :)