Pat Tillman killed by Americans

[Matt W]

Quote by: Logjam 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.

Killing people and then lying about it - at several levels - is called giving succour to the enemy.

Have you ever heard of 'Hearts & Minds'? It's what wins wars. Not ruthlessness.

[ByaKya]

Quote by: Matt W Killing people and then lying about it - at several levels - is called giving succour to the enemy. Have you ever heard of 'Hearts & Minds'? It's what wins wars. Not ruthlessness.

youre talking to a guy that believes in the whole "destroy the village in order to save it" argument, hook, line and sinker

[RickSp]

Logjams' mentality is straight out of Vietnam. Look how well that turned out.

I'm sure Log would tell us that we would have won in Vietnam if I hadn't been for Jane Fonda. Now he claims that I am to blame for losing the war in Iraq. (Funny, I don't remember planting all those IEDs.)

[ByaKya]

Quote by: RickSp Logjams' mentality is straight out of Vietnam. Look how well that turned out. I'm sure Log would tell us that we would have won in Vietnam if I hadn't been for Jane Fonda. Now he claims that I am to blame for losing the war in Iraq. (Funny, I don't remember planting all those IEDs.)

Maybe its your membership in the Anti-United Statian Critical Leftist Coalition of the Willing of Volconvo ?

You are certainly more to blame since you didnt want troops sent in, and you now want troops out, while logjam wanted them in and now wants them to stay!

[dilligras]

Deleted

[dilligras]

Quote by: 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.

Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the term, 'double standard', then. My point was that when Reps discover a bad actor in their midst, more often than not he is driven out of public service; Dems just keep right on feeding at the public trough, passing legislation, setting policy for others, etc, etc.

THAT is a double standard.

As I mentioned, Studds was not driven from public service. Foley was, for significantly less wrongdoing, and (coincidence?) at the best possible time to impact the elections.

If, as you say, there is no such double standard shown for Crane, perhaps you could enlighten us as to which offices he has held since his censure?

You can't, because he hasn't.

Quote by: The Decider 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.

Of course you are correct.

I should not have used the word, 'big', as it is not the length of the words that confounds you, but rather their meanings. As for the reference to some percieved cluelessness, I shall only remind you that ad hominem invective is not going to advance the debate much, and certainly won't contribute to any prospects for friendship.

Of course, if one places the prerequisite of agreement in all things to qualify another for such prospects, it would seem natural to both preclude and attack those who do not agree, so your slight is understandable, albeit dissappointing.

Quote by: The Decider 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.

And I'm surprised you bothered to respond to the opinion, unless you felt you just had to find a reason to bring up the biggest miscreant in politics.

Quote by: The Decider 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?

Yes. Especially if the few references I've made appear to you to portray 'knowledge'.

Quote by: The Decider 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.

My, what a tangled web you weave, when at first you practice to decieve.

Truth be known, it is my first response to your mischaracterization of my first passing reference to Bill Clinton, so let's just keep things straight, even if it doesn't fit your rather obvious attempts at my belittlement, n'est pas?

Quote by: The Decider 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.

Oh, that's how it works, eh? If he doesn't resign, he will face a 'full scale' investigation, instead of the 'partial scale' investigation of the FBI which acquitted Foley of any crime?

So by resigning, partisan lefties get to accuse him of seeking the 'convenience' of leaving public service in shame, by lying about his being able to thusly avoid any investigation into his activities.

They get to have his seat available for the election, further smear the Reps with the hackneyed charges of corruption, AND simultaneously charge him with bogus accusations of avoiding embarrassment (Oh, no, Myrtle, nothing at all embarrassing about his legacy) and investigation by quitting.

Gee, that doesn't sound much like having one's cake and eating it as well, does it? :rolleyes:

Quote by: The Decider 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.

What has that got to do with anything? Foley committed no crime, either. We are not discussing whether or not either should be arrested, convicted, or imprisoned.....so why bring up this man of straw?

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."

I see. You need to imagine an election in order to once again attack my person, instead of my argument.

No wonder it took so long for me to find the time to address such profundities. They do SO enamor one to your conversation.

Quote by: The Decider 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?

Yes, I saw the sign, but it made little impact on my shopping missions, in that I seldom have need of bikinis myself.

Quote by: The Decider 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.

You mean the closet that Dems kept locked and sealed until these elections, don't you? Yes, I thought you did.

Quote by: The Decider 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?"

I have a suggestion. Why not let the reader judge for themselves who has 'defended' their position here 'well', and who has descended into the 'pathetic' well of ad hominem attacks most often, rather than break one's arm patting one's self on the back.

N'est pas?




As you were.

[RickSp]

Ignoring Tillman and obsessing on Gary Studds. Why bother Dilly?

[Epistemologist]

Well, back to the topic, friendly fire ought to be avoided; it's not as glorious as fighting the enemy. It's like committing suicide selfishly when you can instead end your life in a more useful way i.e. with a death wish. Then again, Tillman didn't have a choice.

How did the discussion get like this?

[dilligras]

Quote by: RickSp Ignoring Tillman and obsessing on Gary Studds. Why bother Dilly?

The only thing you're ignoring ricky-poo, is any attempt at conversation. As you well know, in my last post I simply replied to questions raised, as I will now do in this.

Why bother?

Because distortions require clarification, and text requires context.

Next.

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.

Unfortunately, your postulations and rationalizations have no linked support for even 6,000 civilian casualties, much less 600,000.

But even so, why would anyone think to calculate such a ratio? Is there some special significance to the number of civilian deaths at the hands of ALL combatants (even those belonging to one of several extremist religious sects known for vile deeds against civilians) compared to the deaths of Coalition soldiers at the hands of their brothers? What kind of twisted logic even imagines a need for such a ratio?

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

On this we agree.

But for different reasons, I fear.

[RickSp]

Really Dilly? I just thought you were fantasizing again about Studds.

And now you are blaming Reuters for the Haditha? You claimed that the New York Times is a "shill for Al-Qaeda". The press is always at fault. The press is always lying.

Paranoia is so unattractive.

Quote by: dilligras Unfortunately, your postulations and rationalizations have no linked support for even 6,000 civilian casualties, much less 600,000.

The reference to 600,000 plus Iraqi civilians is well known to anyone who reads the newspapers. You might consider starting.

[dilligras]

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?

What about Haditha? You think our troops should be labelled as murderers even before their prosecution--even if the accusations were a lie, manufactured by the enemy for your consumption in our 'right wing' media, aka the propaganda/intelligence arm of Al-Qaeda???

[dilligras]

Quote by: RickSp Really Dilly? I just thought you were fantasizing again about Studds.

And I think you just like the way it sounds when you say "really dilly". So childish. Tch, tch.

And now you are blaming Reuters for the Haditha? You claimed that the New York Times is a "shill for Al-Qaeda". The press is always at fault. The press is always lying. Paranoia is so unattractive.

Unlike treason, apparently for some.

The reference to 600,000 plus Iraqi civilians is well known to anyone who reads the newspapers. You might consider starting.

He says, linking to the WaPo. <<guffaw>>

I might restart someday, when they are purged of the left wing pinheads........I'm not suspending respiration in anticipation of the event, however.

You might be well advised yourself to remember the admonition that, "he who does not read the newspaper is uninformed; while he who does is misinformed".

Especially since the internet has removed their stranglehold on information, oui?




Carry on.

[RickSp]

Now you add the Washington Post to your list of traitors. I am sure your list is long. Your paranoia is as unbounded as it is amusing.

[dilligras]

Quote by: RickSp Now you add the Washington Post to your list of traitors. I am sure your list is long. Your paranoia is as unbounded as it is amusing.

It doth please me greatly, that I might be of some small service in offering a rather transient and insignificant pleasure as respite from an otherwise mundane existence, as evidenced by your presence here on New Years Day.

But as to paranoia, I must confess that, by your ironic complaint, you repay me every bit of humor afforded yourself by my percieved phobias.

After all, it is not I who charges the President with designing the 9/11 attacks and manufacturing motive in order to invade a sovereign nation for wholly ulterior motives........is it?


As you were.

[dilligras]

And before you dodge the question again with unfounded accusations, how about addressing the real question I raised?

Quote by: dilligras But even so, why would anyone think to calculate such a ratio? Is there some special significance to the number of civilian deaths at the hands of ALL combatants (even those belonging to one of several extremist religious sects known for vile deeds against civilians) compared to the deaths of Coalition soldiers at the hands of their brothers? What kind of twisted logic even imagines a need for such a ratio?

[RickSp]

Quote by: dilligras After all, it is not I who charges the President with designing the 9/11 attacks and manufacturing motive in order to invade a sovereign nation for wholly ulterior motives........is it?

As I have never claimed that Bush designed the 9/11 attacks or had anything to do with them (other than perhaps through passive neglect), this must be just more of your voices speaking nonsense in your ear.

Of course, Bush's lies justifying his illegal war are as well documented the Pentagon's deception over Tillman's death, though as you dismiss all accounts from virtually all sources, I know you deny this.

Enjoy your voices.

[dilligras]

And while we're at it--since YOU brought it up--who exactly qualifies as a "civilian"?

Anyone not in uniform? B'aath Party loyalists with weapons caches?

And more importantly, are not all civilians during a reconstruction period following a war considered suspect, especially when their bodies are discovered in houses that were used in an ambush of our troops?

How do you think this news would have been recieved in WWII? Or ANY other war prior to that?

Wake up.

[RickSp]

So your voices are now suggesting that you change the subject?

If you want the examine the methodolgy used by the study performed by the Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health, look it up. It is all there to read. Oh, that's right, you dismissed it because it was reported in the Washington Post.

It is perversely funny that supporters of the war are so quick to dismiss the slaughter of the people that they still claim we are "liberating." I wonder how you would respond if a Muslim army invaded Texas. I'll bet you would pick up a rifle rather than greating your "liberators" with flowers.

[RickSp]

Quote by: dilligras What about Haditha? You think our troops should be labelled as murderers even before their prosecution--even if the accusations were a lie, manufactured by the enemy for your consumption in our 'right wing' media, aka the propaganda/intelligence arm of Al-Qaeda???

You see dill, no one on this board charged those Marines with murder. It was the US Marine Corp. You've heard of them right? And all your links to wing-nut right-wing blogs, well it is amazing what the gullible will believe.

[dilligras]

Quote by: RickSp As I have never claimed that Bush designed the 9/11 attacks or had anything to do with them.

Sorry. I must have you confused with one of the lefty moonbats running around here.......you all look alike to me.

Just another aura in the cyberfantasy.



Carry on.