Pat Tillman killed by Americans

[RickSp]

My favorite of dilly's rants is :

Quote by: dilligras Then get over yourself, because the NYT is a shill for Al-Queda, plain and simple. They are presently the most effective of their agents, acting as both the intelligence gathering and propaganda operatives of Al-Qaeda on American soil. The evidence abounds on their own pages.

He refuses to believe that the military knowingly lied to the Tillman family, as well as to Senator John McCain, among others, though the facts are well documented, yet is convinced that a newspaper which I doubt he ever reads is an agent for terrorists.

Kinda funny when you get down to it.

[dilligras]

Quote by: dilligras Did I say he was? No, I used the example of criminal shame because it was an apt analogy. Studds committed no crime, but was punished according to House rules. Justice served.

Oh.

I see now. There's no double standard at all.

Foley, a gay Republican, deserves to be outed and ostracized for suggestive writing, while Studds, a gay Democrat, is allowed to screw his pages at will--and accuse anyone who objects of homophobia--is that how "justice served" works in your world?

Quote by: dilligras Do you think before you speak, or are these just your reflexive defensive gyrations, triggered by an odious dearth of reason in your position? There's a point in that mess of verbiage, somewhere.

Yes, and I apologize for using words too big for your finely-honed intellect. I shall make a conscious effort to eschew such vague colloquialisms in the future, in the interest of clarity.

Quote by: dilligras How easily you spin the truth to your agenda, making Democrats sound the part of valiant defenders of corn-holed underage pages, because they "courageously" censured a closeted pedophile--all the while conveniently ignoring the fact that they then gave him a standing ovation, and indeed saw him re-elected to the same office FIVE MORE TIMES!!! His constituency must have been satisfied with his job performance.

His constituency lives in communist held Massachusetts, and they always vote accordingly--which is to say they vote for whatever is furthest left of center, regardless of the consequences for the nation.

That can't be said for a bunch of Republicans last November 8. It must sting something awful.

Naaw, it only hurts when I move my arm like this, Doc.

You should be careful of the conclusions you reach vis a vis election results, as the port side of this vessel has struggled for some time in that regard.

No doubt, komrade, your conclusions as to the reasons for that are somewhat different than those you ascribe to the recently manipulated "victory", nyet?

Quote by: dilligras And all while castigating R's for the "impropriety" of ditching THEIR child molester, ostracizing him from any future in public service; a man who only wrote messages to pages, instead of humping them like a blindfolded Bill Clinton at a NOW convention. When Bill Clinton gets mentioned for no good reason you know a Republican is pissed off.

I like Bill.

He is a likeable guy, albeit deceptive. Which is to say he is the consumate politician first, and a pitiful example of manhood only second.

I simply don't want to be governed by those who ascribe to his philosophy of governance as evidenced by his speech that I happily provide in my sig line.

Do you?

Why didn't the Republicans just hold public hearings and censure the man? We could then hear from Speaker of the House Denny Hastert. I was so looking forward to the testimony, under oath.

Lemmeseenow, why didn't Reps censure someone who was no longer a member of Congress because, unlike the pedophiles of Democrat persuasion, he RESIGNED???

Can they even do that? I don't think so.

Nonetheless, the House Ethics Committee and the FBI did investigate, and determined that there was no crime..........why do I suspect that you will not greet this information with a shrug of the shoulders and a, "justice served?"

Quote by: dilligras Better to put seducers of children on a pedestal and forgo even the thought of retribution and justice, than to cast them out in shame, eh? Well, the voters had their say...5 times I think the count was. Right?

Funny, I don't hear very many lefties defending the voters when they vote for banning partial birth abortions, or outlawing gay marriages, or allowing prayer in public school, or doing away with the institutionalized racism mislabled affirmative action.......in those cases, it is always the lefty courts to whom the portsiders turn for solace; for the leverage to beat the voters, whenever they prove too ignorant to be allowed near a polling booth--which is way too often for me to seriously entertain the idea that any on the left are truly concerned about the validation of agenda indicated by voter response.

So, ring up a "no sale" on yer Malibu Barbie Bikini Boutique cash register, mon frere, 'cause I ain't buying your faux causality.

Quote by: dilligras Anti-gay legislation? How so? The gay marriage amendment.

Oh that......hopefully it will go away......I don't like people messing with my Constitution over trivialities.

Quote by: dilligras Democrats did better than invent the scenario--they sat on it until right before the one election that would benefit them most.....thereby doing the very thing that they are now trying to pin on Hastert--further endangering the pages by failure to act. Nice try, but neither the nation, nor I, buy the swill you're selling.

Yeah, like anyone is likely to look to you for any sense of the national pulse. Pardon me if I disregard this as an attempt to ridicule, instead of making any valid argument.

As for "swill", I shall let the reader decide who is making up what.

Macsmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense » Blog Archive » Foley Setup? - Part III - Did the Democratic Party Leadership know about Foley?

Quote by: dilligras How trite. But since I am already using that signoff, could you switch to something more befitting the quality of your arguments? Your sign offs will get the respect they deserve. Dismissed.

Alllllllrighty then! I shall reciprocate in kind, as courtesy dictates.

Quote by: dilligras The reference to NAMBLA was only in passing, not a "rant" per se. Sorry, I don't buy that one either. You dropped NAMBLA on this thread like you inserted Bill Clinton--as a diversion.

Dropped them on the thread? You mean those two names are like bombs to you? Perhaps you assign to them some significance that escapes me, as I mentioned the first in an entirely appropriate context, and the second only as a pointed bit of humor.

Contrary to your claim, when I get "pissed off", Clinton is hardly the first name that pops into my mind. Usually that space is reserved for epithets like, "dumbass!", and the like.

Quote by: dilligras Now I am given to wonder if these hackneyed bleatings of complaint are not defensive in nature, and thereby indicative of covert support for that putrid collection of base defilers. You keep bring up "cornhole" and NAMBLA and now base defilers. Do you have some issue with homosexuality that you need to discuss more fully?

First, I do NOT "keep bring up 'cornhole' and NAMBLA", as you say. I guess that makes you a liar, since I only brought up either once, except when replying to your repeated mealy-mouthed consternation over it.

Second, I have discussed my views on the subject of my gay friends', neighbors' and associates' lifestyles ad nauseum in the "Homosexual Marriage" thread, so I see no point in repeating the exercise here.

Not that I think you're interested in it, other than as a ploy to marginalize one whom you cannot seem to convince by logical discussion of the facts.

Lets label dilligras a homophobic Republican right-wing nutjob, then we needn't address the inconsistencies in our position, n'est pas?

"As you were."

DITTO.

[namguy69]

I can't speak on any government, policy, constitution in depth including our own. However I would have think the word ' freedom ' at the time it was written didn't apply to the degree freedom as been interpeted today. I care less what people do, feel and say this is just my opinion.

[The Decider]

Quote by: dilligras Oh. I see now. There's no double standard at all. Foley, a gay Republican, deserves to be outed and ostracized for suggestive writing, while Studds, a gay Democrat, is allowed to screw his pages at will--and accuse anyone who objects of homophobia--is that how "justice served" works in your world?

There was no double standard for Studds. At around the same time, a REPUBLICAN congressman named Dan Crane also admitted to having a relationship with a female page. Both Crane and Studds received exactly the same punishment from the Democratic Congress--censure. Had the Republicans insisted that Studds be removed, well then Crane would go too. The Republicans didn't insist and a compromise was reached. You may think is was a light punishment for a "cornhole" artist, but it was part of a bi-partisan agreement.

Quote by: dilligras Yes, and I apologize for using words too big for your finely-honed intellect. I shall make a conscious effort to eschew such vague colloquialisms in the future, in the interest of clarity.

Big words are fine in the hands of somebody with a clue.

Quote by: dilligras His constituency lives in communist held Massachusetts, and they always vote accordingly--which is to say they vote for whatever is furthest left of center, regardless of the consequences for the nation.

Just more bitter Republican rant. I'm surprised you omitted Ted Kennedy from your diatribe.

Quote by: dilligras You should be careful of the conclusions you reach vis a vis election results, as the port side of this vessel has struggled for some time in that regard.

Am I supposed to be impressed by your nautical knowledge, sailor?

Quote by: dilligras I like Bill. He is a likeable guy, albeit deceptive. Which is to say he is the consumate politician first, and a pitiful example of manhood only second. I simply don't want to be governed by those who ascribe to his philosophy of governance as evidenced by his speech that I happily provide in my sig line. Do you?

This is your second reference to Bill Clinton on this thread. It's as relavent to the discussion as the first.

Quote by: dilligras Lemmeseenow, why didn't Reps censure someone who was no longer a member of Congress because, unlike the pedophiles of Democrat persuasion, he RESIGNED??? Can they even do that? I don't think so.

That was my point, sailor. He conveniently resigned to avoid the public embarrassment--for Republicans--of a full scale investigation, leading to censure or worse. Studds and Crane both stood in Congress and listened to their punishments, as a national television audience watched. The 2006 Republican leadership knew that. Some of them witnessed the Studds/Crane censure session. Such a highly publicized event, during an election year, was not in the Republican leaderships' interests. Or Foley's.

Quote by: dilligras Nonetheless, the House Ethics Committee and the FBI did investigate, and determined that there was no crime..........why do I suspect that you will not greet this information with a shrug of the shoulders and a, "justice served?"

Did I say justice wasn't served in the Foley case? I like how things turned out.

Quote by: dilligras Funny, I don't hear very many lefties defending the voters when they vote for banning partial birth abortions, or outlawing gay marriages, or allowing prayer in public school, or doing away with the institutionalized racism mislabled affirmative action.......in those cases, it is always the lefty courts to whom the portsiders turn for solace; for the leverage to beat the voters, whenever they prove too ignorant to be allowed near a polling booth--which is way too often for me to seriously entertain the idea that any on the left are truly concerned about the validation of agenda indicated by voter response.

If Studds had committed a crime, then I wouldn't oppose his arrest, conviction, and imprisonment. I don't know the details of the Studds election campaign. If he ran against a sailor like you, bitter at every Republican election and constitutional defeat for the past 50 years, I would have voted for Studds. Gladly. Even with his prediliction for "cornhole."

Quote by: dilligras So, ring up a "no sale" on yer Malibu Barbie Bikini Boutique cash register, mon frere, 'cause I ain't buying your faux causality.

No problem. You were never one of my customers. Didn't you see the "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" sign in the store window?

Quote by: dilligras Oh that......hopefully it will go away......I don't like people messing with my Constitution over trivialities.

Yeah, "oh that." Foley supported Republican anti-gay legislation while hiding in the closet that the Republicans dutifully kept locked and sealed for years.

Quote by: dilligras Lets label dilligras a homophobic Republican right-wing nutjob, then we needn't address the inconsistencies in our position, n'est pas?

I've defended my position well, and I didn't even use the word "Bush!" You needed Clinton and cornhole and Communist and every other hackneyed diversion in the right-wing playbook to shore up your pathetic rants. "N'est pas?"

[ByaKya]

I didnt read a single thing dilligas said, it was the right choice = )

The voters threw out the republicans en masse. Corruption was one of the biggest factors according to the voters themselves.
Now lets see here, vote between republicans and democrats.
Corruption is one of the biggest factors.
The people over whelmingly voted democrat.
yup, must mean they are tired of the democrats !

[Logjam]

Quote by: giuliano for every US soldier killed by friendly fire, and there appears to be quite a no. of them, there's probably at least 10 native civilians.

But you really don't know that actual numbers, do you? So while you'd like to believe that we killed zillions of innocent civilians, you really don't know if we do.

Certainly GI's being killed by "friendly fire" isn't all that uncommon. The chaos of battle grounds breeds such eventualities. There's also the fact that many of the enemy dress as children and women, and others use women and children as shields. This tactic is very commonplace over there.

So what are you going to order your troops to do? Not shoot if the enemy looks like a women or a child and then take the chance of being killed yourself? Most assuredly it's a hard decision of our GI's to make. I heard a few days ago, from a soldier stationed in Iraq that his fellow GI's where very concerned that they'd be tried for killing the wrong person. Does this cause them to hesitate when they shouldn't? I think so, and I also think that this hampers our mission in Iraq.....and aids the enemy.

[jose]

A Royal Marine killed in southern Afghanistan on Tuesday may have been a victim of "friendly fire" from a US jet, it has been claimed. Jonathan Wigley, 21, died as marines clashed with Taliban fighters in a fierce 10-hour battle on the outskirts of the town of Garmsir, in the southern Helmand province. But today a fellow soldier said Marine Wigley, of the 45 Commando unit, was killed by an American A-10 tankbuster plane, called in to support the British during the battle after they encountered far tougher than expected resistance. An official investigation into the death has now been launched. The soldier said: "I saw it. It was the A-10. I was 5ft away. We called in a strike on the next trench. Then I saw it swooping toward us. I will never forget that noise. It was horrible."

it seems to me most of the blue on blue (friendly fire) deaths are caused by US aircraft pilots, high above the war of hand to hand combat sometimes on drugs
British soldier claims comrade killed by US 'friendly fire' | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

[RickSp]

Quote by: Logjam But you really don't know that actual numbers, do you? So while you'd like to believe that we killed zillions of innocent civilians, you really don't know if we do.

Best estimates of civilians casualities in the invasion of Iraq alone are between five and twenty thousand. No one knows the actual numbers because as Tommy Franks said, "we don't do body counts." Estimates are as high as 600,000 for all civilian dead since the beginning of the war, so it is safe to say that the US has killed more than ten Iraqis for every American to die from "friendly fire." The ratio is no doubt far higher.

Quote by: Logjam So what are you going to order your troops to do? Not shoot if the enemy looks like a women or a child and then take the chance of being killed yourself? Most assuredly it's a hard decision of our GI's to make. I heard a few days ago, from a soldier stationed in Iraq that his fellow GI's where very concerned that they'd be tried for killing the wrong person. Does this cause them to hesitate when they shouldn't? I think so, and I also think that this hampers our mission in Iraq.....and aids the enemy.

One incident like Haditha aids the enemy far more than anything else.

[Logjam]

Quote by: jose it seems to me most of the blue on blue (friendly fire) deaths are caused by US aircraft pilots, high above the war of hand to hand combat sometimes on drugs British soldier claims comrade killed by US 'friendly fire' | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

We are talking about close air support here. Something that I know something about, being an attack pilot during and after the VN War. I was also a FAC (forward air controller) both on the ground and in the air.

How, to call in an A-10 the FAC has to be contracted by the Direct Air Support Center DASC and assigned a target. The DASC gets the target from a grunt on the deck. When he calls for fire he calls the DASC, and explains to him what the target is. (There's also a Fire Support Coordinator involved, but I don't want to get too detailed here.)

Then the aircraft, who is orbiting on station somewhere within about 15 miles away gets the call to attack. He's briefed upon the target and location of friendlies and AAA and starts his run in. He cannot see the target because he's too low to the deck. (There are several methods to approach the target.) He contacts the grunt or the FAC on the deck.At about six miles from the target the zoomie pops up and rolls in on the target, which nowadays is usually illumiated by a laser. The FAC or grunt sees the aircraft and either clears the aircraft to fire or tells him to abort. He's told to abort if he's heading toward friendlies.

The bombs today are so accurate that they seldom miss. Their circular error of probability CEP is very, very small; like five feet.

So if this British soldier was hit by friendly fire someone on the deck screwed up and either illuminated our guys or the FAC or grunt on the deck cleared the bomber pilot to drop his ordnance when he should have been ordered to abort the run.

The pilot will not click off the "safe" button in his cockpit until he is cleared to fire. He will not just drop his bomb willy nilly. He will only drop when his run looks good to him and he is assured in his own mind of getting a good hit. With lasers marking the target is not difficult to show the pilot where his bomb is supposed to go. Nor is it difficult for the fast mover identify his target.

During the VN War our targets were usually marked with smoke, which was not as good. We were cleared "hot" when the FAC saw us and figured that we were heading in the right direction in the bomb run. It was much easier to hit a friendly in that war then it is in this one.

[Logjam]

Quote by: RickSp Best estimates of civilians casualities in the invasion of Iraq alone are between five and twenty thousand. No one knows the actual numbers because as Tommy Franks said, "we don't do body counts." Estimates are as high as 600,000 for all civilian dead since the beginning of the war, so it is safe to say that the US has killed more than ten Iraqis for every American to die from "friendly fire." The ratio is no doubt far higher. One incident like Haditha aids the enemy far more than anything else.

I believe that the left or the enemy in this war exaggerate the number of civilian casualities. And why shouldn't they? It helps their cause and the left here loves to print the numbers.

Haditha wasn't much really. It's too bad that it's evern an issue. We want aggressive Marines Now they are afraid that if they kill someone they will get into trouble. Which is just what the enemy wants them to feel. This hesitation makes the enemy stronger and our troops weaker. Which is what the enemy and the left want.

[Matt W]

Haditha wasn't an issue?!?!?!?! What kind of....

How exactly are you meant to win a war if you're killing the very people you're meant to protect?!? And you wonder why you lost Vietnam! It's murder, plain and simple. You think murderers shouldn't be prosecuted, just because they're American?

[Scribbler1]

Many people forget we were never there to "protect" ANYONE. It's been so long that people have forgotten this so-called liberation of Iraq was a fallback position Bush used when the WMD and terrorism frauds were exposed. This is why there was no plan in place to run Iraq after the dictator was eliminated. They didn't think they would NEED a plan until the last minute and it became too complicated for them to handle.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Matt W Haditha wasn't an issue?!?!?!?! What kind of.... How exactly are you meant to win a war if you're killing the very people you're meant to protect?!? And you wonder why you lost Vietnam! It's murder, plain and simple. You think murderers shouldn't be prosecuted, just because they're American?

Killing people outside of war is murder. Killing people inside of a war is simply killling people. If you are one of the killers, you hope that the people that you kill are either the enemy or supporters of the enemy.

You want to train your soldiers to not to hesitate to kill the enemy. If they do hesitate and the enemy doesn't then your soldiers are killed.

If a soldier rapes and kills his victim and her family then I believe that he is a murder and should be tried. If, however; a soldier believes that the civilians are either the enemy or they are hiding the enemy, or the enemy is hiding amongst them then he has the right, no, the duty; to kill them.

Your shock, I believe is misplaced. Do not, ever ascribe human kindness to a fighting soldier. If I find a GI being kind, I will punish him. Unless he's helping an injured child or mother, or even an innocent civilian....and sometimes an injured enemy soldier. But I'd warn my troops to be very careful when dealing with injured enemy soldiers; they bite sometimes. But if there is any question in his mind rather or not a person is enemy or not I want him to assume that he's enemy and kill him.

Have you ever been a soldier? I have and when I work with soldiers I'm training killers and nothing less.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Logjam I believe that the left or the enemy in this war exaggerate the number of civilian casualities. And why shouldn't they? It helps their cause and the left here loves to print the numbers.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and guess that you are just uniformed again and not being willfully dishonest. The studies most often quoted were performed by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Are they "the enemy" or the "left"? Or is anyone who doesn't share your delusions a member of one or the other group?

Quote by: Logjam Haditha wasn't much really. It's too bad that it's evern an issue. We want aggressive Marines Now they are afraid that if they kill someone they will get into trouble. Which is just what the enemy wants them to feel. This hesitation makes the enemy stronger and our troops weaker. Which is what the enemy and the left want.

What truly odious crap. Dismissing the slaughter of civilians - young girls, old women and men - like any blustering old warrior ready to fall off the barstool.

The "enemy" you keep prattling about is winning and one of the reasons it is winning is because US Marines slaughtered two dozen innocent civilians in Haditha. The moment we started slaughtering the people that our lying leaders claimed we were liberating, we lost the war. All that is left is the dying.

As of Christmas day, more Ameircan soldiers have died needlessly in Iraq than all those who died on 9/11.

[Logjam]

Quote by: RickSp I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and guess that you are just uniformed again and not being willfully dishonest. The studies most often quoted were performed by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Are they "the enemy" or the "left"? Or is anyone who doesn't share your delusions a member of one or the other group? What truly odious crap. Dismissing the slaughter of civilians - young girls, old women and men - like any blustering old warrior ready to fall off the barstool. The "enemy" you keep prattling about is winning and one of the reasons it is winning is because US Marines slaughtered two dozen innocent civilians in Haditha. The moment we started slaughtering the people that our lying leaders claimed we were liberating, we lost the war. All that is left is the dying. As of Christmas day, more Ameircan soldiers have died needlessly in Iraq than all those who died on 9/11.

No, Rick you are incorrect. The enemy, if he is winning is winning because of people like you.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Logjam Killing people outside of war is murder. Killing people inside of a war is simply killling people.

So I guess that you know more than the Marine Corps. The Corps has charged four Marines with murder. Four officers -- a lieutenant colonel, two captains and a lieutenant -- also were charged, accused of dereliction of duty and other counts for their role in the aftermath.

But you know more than the Corps. Now don't hurt yourself falling off your bar stool.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Logjam No, Rick you are incorrect. The enemy, if he is winning is winning because of people like you.

Yah right. What insulting garbage from someone who clearly doesn't give a good goddamn about the fine American soldiers dying for nothing in a war based on lies. Being called a traitor by one like you is no shame at all.

[ByaKya]

Quote by: Logjam I believe that the left or the enemy in this war exaggerate the number of civilian casualities. And why shouldn't they? It helps their cause and the left here loves to print the numbers. Haditha wasn't much really. It's too bad that it's evern an issue. We want aggressive Marines Now they are afraid that if they kill someone they will get into trouble. Which is just what the enemy wants them to feel. This hesitation makes the enemy stronger and our troops weaker. Which is what the enemy and the left want.

Um, the marines didnt scare the vietnamese, the koreans, the chinese, the germans, the japanese, etc. so they sure as hell arent going to scare middle eastern insurgents.
"agressive" marines are the same as anyone else, they still get killed by bullets, so you need to drop this whole
"OMG YOU WANT TEH MARINES TO BE SCARY DONT YA?"

[ByaKya]

Quote by: Logjam No, Rick you are incorrect. The enemy, if he is winning is winning because of people like you.

Um, if ricksp or others like him are in any way, shape or form, causing the US to lose this war, then we are in deeper &^$( than anyone can even imagine! ROFL

[ByaKya]