Pat Tillman killed by Americans

[PatrickHenry]

Washington Post has researched the story behind his death: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...3Demail&sub=AR
Or if you don't like registering: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/120604Y.shtml

[OberonDOtherseid]

Ok, killed, a mistake, is this the first time either side of any war has seen this sort of tragedy? What are you looking for in response to this, Patrick? Blame? The left will use any bodys death and dishonor it with tactical leftie leaverage to slam the right, nobody is exempt, nobodies memory is exempt, is it?

[PatrickHenry]

Put a sock in it, Oberon. Just because you don't like another debater is no reason to bait them. I reported you.

[OberonDOtherseid]

Reported me? Just yesterday you were baiting and calling names, threatening to make a thread to flame and now you're reporting? You are something else, Patrick.

[Anniee]

I saw him threaten to start a whole thread about you just to shut you up and humiliate you.

Now he's hitting the report button. Real good <rolleyes>

[OberonDOtherseid]

Quote by: Anniee I saw him threaten to start a whole thread about you just to shut you up and humiliate you. Now he's hitting the report button. Real good <rolleyes>

Yea, I know, so I found his post and returned the favor, thats his style I guess. Bait, switch and bait again. It gets him results I guess. And you wonder why there aren't many people on the right posting here, Anniee? :rolleyes:

[RickSp]

Ignoring the background noise, the real story behind the Tillman shooting was that the first thing the Army did was to lie about it. There was an attempt to cover the story up and wrap Tillman's corpse in the flag and claim he was a great war hero.

From the Washington Post:

The records show Tillman fought bravely and honorably until his last breath. They also show that his superiors exaggerated his actions and invented details as they burnished his legend in public, at the same time suppressing details that might tarnish Tillman's commanders. Army commanders hurriedly awarded Tillman a posthumous Silver Star for valor and released a nine-paragraph account of his heroism that made no mention of fratricide. A month later the head of the Army's Special Operations Command, Lt. Gen. Philip R. Kensinger Jr., called a news conference to disclose in a brief statement that Tillman "probably" died by "friendly fire." Kensinger refused to answer questions.

[OberonDOtherseid]

I wonder which one to believe now? The military who is there and victimized by the government or the Washington Post who is also victimized by the government? They are both on the same side, aren't they? Isn't that going to make the overlord GW Bush real real mad?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: OberonDOtherseid Ok, killed, a mistake, is this the first time either side of any war has seen this sort of tragedy? What are you looking for in response to this, Patrick? Blame? The left will use any bodys death and dishonor it with tactical leftie leaverage to slam the right, nobody is exempt, nobodies memory is exempt, is it?

Yeah, those darned leftists. It's much more honorable to make Tillman into a big hero with lies and more lies. That way, his superior officers careers are protected, and young, impressionable kids can be suckered by Tillman's story of self-sacrifice and battle glory. The Army lied to the press, they lied to his parents, they lied to everybody. So what happens to these liars now?

[Sean]

[quote=OberonDOtherseid]

Quote by: Anniee Yea, I know, so I found his post and returned the favor, thats his style I guess. Bait, switch and bait again. It gets him results I guess. And you wonder why there aren't many people on the right posting here, Anniee? :rolleyes:

Stop trying to appeal to an audience by talking like that. It's just as bad as announcing that you are reporting someone-which I do not approve of either.

[Senor Herbert]

"Ok, killed, a mistake, is this the first time either side of any war has seen this sort of tragedy? What are you looking for in response to this, Patrick? Blame? The left will use any bodys death and dishonor it with tactical leftie leaverage to slam the right, nobody is exempt, nobodies memory is exempt, is it?"

you must be aware enough to recognize that what is wrong about this story is that the army lied into making him a convenient hero instead of waiting for or telling the truth. who wants to dishonor a man's death, except a president who will never know him? it's a nice story and probably made up on the spot by someone who thought it'd be kind, but it's just not the truth, and that is discredit.

honor this man in death only with the events of his actual life.

[Zeebadee]

"honor this man in death only with the events of his actual life."

Exactly! I don't know of anyone that prefers lies to the truth, no matter how bad, or how hard to accept the truth might be.

[giuliano]

combat virgins venturing deep into hostile, difficult terrain with broken down equipment and insufficient firepower.

what's more, they give their presence away by visiting a local town for help, providing battle-hardened taliban soldiers with plenty of opportunity to set up an ambush.

they never had a chance in those circumstances.

[bullshitdetector]

I fail to see what this has to do with Bush, is Bush supposed to meet one on one with all the troops? If he doesn't somehow he is dishonoring him? I understand all those on the left are against Bush and are against this war so everything that falls under any event or tragedy of this war is entirely his fault in their eyes, the deaths of our troops and the deaths of our enemy, a very short sighted way to look at things if you ask me. While I do agree that this is a tragic story, the man did die with honor as he was serving his country, and that is one fact in that event in his life.

[bullshitdetector]

Quote by: Sean Stop trying to appeal to an audience by talking like that. It's just as bad as announcing that you are reporting someone-which I do not approve of either.

Well that is a first for me, I haven't seen the "I'm reporting you" tactic publicly poo poo'd before. I'm glad you're making it official because there has been quite a bit of it since I've been here and I think it's senseless, serves zero purpose in a discussion and shows poor
sportsmanship in a debate, especially when the one purporting it does exactly what they are reporting.

Things are looking up!

[Anniee]

So...Patrick was wrong for doing that, especially after threatening public humiliation for Oberon? Glad to know it isn't just those one disagrees with ideologically who get warned. If that can be considered any type of warning.

[OberonDOtherseid]

Quote by: Anniee So...Patrick was wrong for doing that, especially after threatening public humiliation for Oberon? Glad to know it isn't just those one disagrees with ideologically who get warned. If that can be considered any type of warning.

I got that and some PM spankings from Scribbler which is usually how it goes whenever someone like Patrick et al screw up, I get lambasted with convenient warnings and threats of "I'm all done with friendly reminders". I doubt I will be here much anymore, you just can't win, either you're an ass for giving as you get or if you get sick of it you're a whiner or some such label that never sticks to the lefties on here when they do it. I suppose if one cannot handle debating the opposition one has to control them somehow. This will no doubt be the obligatory straw they're looking for so, if my account vaporizes, nice knowing ya! It just isn't worth the hassle. :rolleyes:

[PatrickHenry]

Obie, this place is for debate not incitement. I have watched your style in this for weeks, if not months.

The "starting a thread" thing was mentioned as a JOKE, not to humiliate. And if you know what it really entails, it goes in the flame-fest(which nobody pays any attention to anyway). And the one I use for castille is to post his most outrageous, over-the-top direct QUOTES. Stuff he really wrote and posted on this forum. The mildest form of flaming, quoting the other debater without comment.

Don't act like you have done nothing that everyone else, and in particular, PatrickHenry, has not done. My style and yours are completely different. The reason I don't get warned is that I have been careful to follow Sean's very reasonable rules. Sourcing an argument is VERY important, and not something I have seen from you with any consistency. I like to post from published newspaper articles. And I try to respond to challenges to my thinking with a reasoned, sourced argument.

I will not attempt to characterize your style, for I think that it might be misinterpreted as a flame. But I think you could do better as a debater, if you wanted to. Just sticking to the issues is a worthy endeavor. If you have something to say about Tillman's enlistment or death, say THAT, and leave the accusations for a dedicated flame thread.

Nobody wants to see you gone, OberonDOtherseid. Just debate right and all the controversy goes away.

Now here is the second part of the Washington post story on Tillman: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...c5.html?sub=AR
or truthout if you won't register for the Post: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/120704X.shtml

Just days after Pat Tillman died from friendly fire on a desolate ridge in southeastern Afghanistan, the U.S. Army Special Operations Command released a brief account of his last moments. The April 30, 2004, statement awarded Tillman a posthumous Silver Star for combat valor and described how a section of his Ranger platoon came under attack. "He ordered his team to dismount and then maneuvered the Rangers up a hill near the enemy's location," the release said. "As they crested the hill, Tillman directed his team into firing positions and personally provided suppressive fire ... Tillman's voice was heard issuing commands to take the fight to the enemy forces." It was a stirring tale and fitting eulogy for the Army's most famous volunteer in the war on terrorism, a charismatic former pro football star whose reticence, courage and handsome beret-draped face captured for many Americans the best aspects of the country's post-Sept. 11 character. It was also a distorted and incomplete narrative, according to dozens of internal Army documents obtained by The Washington Post that describe Tillman's death by fratricide after a chain of botched communications, a misguided order to divide his platoon over the objection of its leader and undisciplined firing by fellow Rangers. The Army's public release made no mention of friendly fire, even though at the time it was issued, investigators in Afghanistan had already taken at least 14 sworn statements from Tillman's platoon members that made clear the true causes of his death. The statements included a searing account from the Ranger nearest Tillman during the firefight, who quoted him as shouting "Cease fire! Friendlies!" with his last breaths. Army records show Tillman fought bravely during his final battle. He followed orders, never wavered and at one stage proposed discarding his heavy body armor, apparently because he wanted to charge a distant ridge occupied by the enemy, an idea his immediate superior rejected, witness statements show. But the Army's published account not only withheld all evidence of fratricide, but it exaggerated Tillman's role and stripped his actions of their context. Tillman was not one of the senior commanders on the scene -- he directed only himself, one other Ranger and an Afghan militiaman, under supervision from others. And witness statements in the Army's files at the time of the press release describe Tillman's voice ringing out on the battlefield mainly in a desperate effort, joined by other Rangers on his ridge, to warn comrades to stop shooting at their own men. The Army's April 30 press release was just one episode in a broader Army effort to manage the uncomfortable facts of Pat Tillman's death, according to internal records and interviews. During several weeks of memorials and commemorations that followed Tillman's death, commanders at his 75th Ranger Regiment and their superiors hid the truth about friendly fire from Tillman's brother Kevin, who had fought with Pat in the same platoon, but was not involved in the firing incident and did not know the cause of his brother's death. Commanders also withheld the facts from Tillman's widow, his parents, national politicians and the public, according to records and interviews with sources involved in the case. On May 3, Ranger and Army officers joined hundreds of mourners at a public ceremony in San Jose, Calif., where Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Denver Broncos quarterback Jake Plummer and Maria Shriver took the podium to remember Tillman. The visiting officers gave no hint of the evidence investigators had collected in Afghanistan. In a telephone interview, McCain said: "I think it would have been helpful to have at least their suspicions known" before he spoke about Tillman's death in public. Even more, he said, "the family deserved some kind of heads-up that there would be questions." McCain said yesterday that questions raised by Mary Tillman, Pat's mother, about how the Army handled the case led him to meet twice earlier this fall with Army officers and former acting Army secretary Les Brownlee to seek answers. About a month ago, McCain said, Brownlee told him that the Pentagon would reopen its investigation. McCain said that he was not certain about the scope of the new investigation but that he believed it is continuing. A Pentagon official confirmed that an investigation is underway, but Army spokesmen declined to comment further. When she first learned that friendly fire had taken her son's life, "I was upset about it, but I thought, 'Well, accidents happen,' " Mary Tillman said in a telephone interview Sunday. "Then when I found out that it was because of huge negligence at places along the way -- you have time to process that and you really get annoyed."

This was a deliberate Pentagon deception. It was undertaken to manage public perception of the war in general and to cover their own ass in particular. It has backfired on them and given the brass a black eye. The real issue is how to prevent this type of thing from recurring. No one in America wants to view our troops in disarray, killing their brothers in arms. It's tragic. But how to remedy this situation?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: OberonDOtherseid I got that and some PM spankings from Scribbler which is usually how it goes whenever someone like Patrick et al screw up, I get lambasted with convenient warnings and threats of "I'm all done with friendly reminders". I doubt I will be here much anymore, you just can't win, either you're an ass for giving as you get or if you get sick of it you're a whiner or some such label that never sticks to the lefties on here when they do it. I suppose if one cannot handle debating the opposition one has to control them somehow. This will no doubt be the obligatory straw they're looking for so, if my account vaporizes, nice knowing ya! It just isn't worth the hassle. :rolleyes:

Since you have chosen to bring a private message into the forum I have to respond, and I'll just do it once so as not to start a useless back-and-forth with you. Instead of warning you about one of your constant one-liners I said "This isn't an official warning but just cool it with the one-liners OK?"

You responded with:"Yea, I'm starting to get the message, take it and don't give it back, right, Scribbler? You're right, I'm wrong, as usual."

So it seems "friendly reminders" don't work with you, if it just creates a childish response, so I won't bother anymore, that's all. Follow the rules and you don't have to worry about me at all.

That's all for this. PM if you have anything to say.

[OberonDOtherseid]

Quote by: Truth Probably killed doesn't equal killed

Quote by: 'JCgadfly" He's dead. There were no enemy forces in the area. Kinda takes the "probably" out of it (unless you think another friendly unit took him out).

Well if it is so damned obvious why use the term 'probably', then? Who reported that there was no enemy fire, the same idiot who said 'probably'?