Pat Tillman killed by Americans

[RickSp]

Unbeliveable. Talk about beating the deadest of all horses. Who gives a rats ass about puerile documentation when anyone not drinking Bush kool-aide knows that Saddam was no immediate threat? And yes, oh by the way folks - he had no WMD. It was all destroyed after the first Gulf War. And continuing to pick on poor Blix is unfair and not fair especially since the Bushbots all but claimed he worked for Saddam.

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with an American soldier killed by "friendly fire, who was the subject of an immediate and intentional cover-up by the Pentagon.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: dilligras Yeah, THERE was a reliable source.:rolleyes: Did you see the report from Hans Blix, aka Inspector Clouseau?? Here are a few quotes: (bold mine)............ blah blah blah.....

If you'll look back, you'll notice that my question to you wasn't about "a reliable source.:rolleyes:", and it wasn't about Blix or any of the inspectors.

I asked you, "You really have no way of knowing what saddam accounted for, do you? Have you seen the report Iraq released?"

The answer, of course, is no. And you never will see it, will you? The first thing done to it was the U.S. edited it, and only certain parties were allowed to see the "unedited" version. Who really knows if even they got to see an unedited report. So your statement that ".we may yet discover what happened to them, because Saddam refused to account for them." is pretty much garbage, isn't it? Only someone that has seen a truly unedited version of the Iraqi documents really knows exactly what saddam accounted for. And baby, you're only gonna see what Bush wants you to see!!

[dilligras]

Quote by: Zeebadee I believe that condoning and supporting an unecessary and immoral war is a far greater danger to this nation and it's people than the "ENEMY taking "comfort" and the troops losing morale from a seeming lack of resolve on the part of our population as a whole". It is therefore not only our right to object to the war, it is a citizen's duty and obligation. The logic used by the war's supporters is simply amazing - it's not the one's that send our GI's out to fight that are responsible for the dead and maimed, it's the one's that want to bring them home that are. Like I said in a seperate post, "Support the troops - keep the war going".

The only amazing logic here is from those who claim to be "supporting" the troops, by saying exactly the kinds of things in public that the enemy wants to hear. There was another fine example of the enemy cheering for the lefty traitors just today. Perhaps you heard about the letter Zarwahiri sent to your favorite headchopper, Zarqawi.

Left-wing traitors to America will no doubt claim a victory for "peace", should we be forced by media propaganda to abandon the Iraqi people prematurely, before they have gained control of the insurgency.....just as they did in Vietnam, That abandonment will undoubtably result in the same kind of slaughter and victimization of anyone who opposes the fanatics of the religion of "peace"---who seek nothing more than to spread their brand of insanity to the far corners of the planet, using terrorism as their method and submission by all to their will as their ultimate goal.

I find this ironic, given that the lefties try to promote themselves as being against slavery while unconsciously and unconscionably supporting the very people who will resurrect that abomination at the first opportunity. Anyone who doubts it need only read Islam's prime sources: the Sira (biography), Ta'rikh (history), and Hadith (report), or Qur'an (recital).

But most in the West are so arrogant in their ignorance that they will not bother.......least of all the secular left, who wouldn't touch a religious book of any kind with the proverbial ten foot pole.

Danger? Ha! You ain't seen nuthin' yet, bro.

[RickSp]

Quote by: dilligras Left-wing traitors to America will no doubt claim a victory for "peace", should we be forced by media propaganda to abandon the Iraqi people prematurely, before they have gained control of the insurgency.....just as they did in Vietnam, That abandonment will undoubtably result in the same kind of slaughter and victimization of anyone who opposes the fanatics of the religion of "peace"---who seek nothing more than to spread their brand of insanity to the far corners of the planet, using terrorism as their method and submission by all to their will as their ultimate goal.

Speaking of insanity - so you wanted the National Guard to shoot more American students at Kent State and now you say that you would have liked more American soldiers to die in Vietnam? For what? I guess 58,000 dead wasn't enough for you? You like seeing Americans die needlessly?

I guess you haven't noticed that the longer we have occupied Iraq the larger the insurgency has grown. The longer we occupy Iraq the worse the situation will become until we get our asses thrown out, just like in Vietnam. History always repeats itself when we are being arrogant and stupid.

[Jack]

As a left-hander, I must object to your persistant use of phrases like, "repeating lefty talking points". The term "lefty" is far more appropriate to the discussion of handedness than it is to politics. "Lefty" is ours; you cannot have it. No Creative Commons license.

[dilligras]

Quote by: RickSp Speaking of insanity - so you wanted the National Guard to shoot more American students at Kent State

Shoot traitors? Why that's just downright crazy......they should be given a place of honor in the war museums of our enemies and elected to the Senate, like Kerry.......I must have lost my head.:rolleyes:

and now you say that you would have liked more American soldiers to die in Vietnam?

I said no such thing, mr. strawman......perhaps you would like to furnish a quote to support your vicious lie.

I guess you haven't noticed that the longer we have occupied Iraq the larger the insurgency has grown.

Round and round and round she goes......where the spin stops, no one knows......

There are no al-qaeda in Iraq......never have been......Saddam had no part in bombing the WTC, even though his henchman helped Al-Qaeda bomb it in '93.......Al-Qaeda would never work with Saddam or the Ba'aath Party, even though they obviously do today, that is only because they hate America, and that only started in Mar of '03......pay no attention to the election this weekend.....it's only another sign that the insurgency is controlling everything in that country and soon the troops will be forced to run in abject defeat.:rolleyes:

Do you ever listen to the crap you parrot?

Can you say "quagmire"? How about "Vietnam"? I'll bet you support the troops in your dreams and are so in tune with them that your hair moves everytime a bullet whistles past one of their heads.:rolleyes:

The longer we occupy Iraq the worse the situation will become until we get our asses thrown out, just like in Vietnam.

Thrown out? HA!! That's rich, that is. And just who was it that did the throwing, my revisionist spinmeister? You obviously have no clue, being steeped in the tea of commie propaganda as you are.

Perhaps you would care to recount the names of the battles that the NVA and the Cong won over our troops? C'mon, I'm dying to hear the names of those cities that they retained after Tet.......put up or shut up about things you know not a whit about.

History always repeats itself when we are being arrogant and stupid.

NOW you have said something profound and intrinsically true.....especially the part about "we".......you got a mouse in your pocket, do you?

[dilligras]

Quote by: Isherwood As a left-hander, I must object to your persistant use of phrases like, "repeating lefty talking points". The term "lefty" is far more appropriate to the discussion of handedness than it is to politics. "Lefty" is ours; you cannot have it. No Creative Commons license.

D I L L I G R A S???

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: RickSp
Speaking of insanity - so you wanted the National Guard to shoot more American students at Kent State

Quote by: dilligras Shoot traitors? Why that's just downright crazy......they should be given a place of honor in the war museums of our enemies and elected to the Senate, like Kerry.......I must have lost my head.

Was William Schroeder a traitor?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Schroeder_(Kent_State_massacre)

William Knox Schroeder (July 20, 1950–May 4, 1970) was a student at Kent State University, Ohio, when he was killed by Ohio National Guardsmen in the Kent State shootings on May 4, 1970. At age 17, Schroeder applied for the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps Scholarship. He received the Academic Achievement award from both the Colorado School of Mines and from Kent State University, where he was a psychology student. He also earned the Association of the United States Army award for excellence in history. Schroeder was killed with a shot in the back from an M-1 semi-automatic military rifle. According to reports, he was not taking part in the Vietnam war protests that preceded the shootings, but simply going from one class to the next. [1] His college roommate, Lou Cusella, stated that he believed Schroeder was trying to flee when shot. "Bill was 332 feet away from the nearest National Guardsman, not much of a threat. He was shot with a textbook in his hand."

I am glad you come here, dilligras, so people can see what putrid opinions some Americans can have. Feel free to continue to open your mouth and insert your foot.

[RickSp]

Quote by: dilligras Shoot traitors? Why that's just downright crazy......they should be given a place of honor in the war museums of our enemies and elected to the Senate, like Kerry.......I must have lost my head.:rolleyes:

Fine. Nuff said. Anyone who doesn't support your flavor of militaristic madness is a traitor. Anyone who doesn't believe all of the Bushbot lies is a fool.

You know what dilly, your trolling is really boring.

[dilligras]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Was William Schroeder a traitor? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Schroeder_(Kent_State_massacre)

It's possible he was just an innocent bystander, caught up in the middle of a commie-agitated shitstorm, if what his roommate said is accurate.....one has to wonder about his presence on the commons after tear gas was being tossed back and forth between the protestors and the obviously armed National Guard soldiers........especially since his sister said she begged him to stay home, after the ROTC building was burned to the ground by the same traitors/protestors the night before.......which, along with violent protests by "students" in town during the weekend, was the reason the Nat'l Guard was on campus in the first place.

Here is a video reenactment of the shooting

If Bill was over 100 yards away, with all the tear gas affecting visibility, I think it's unlikely that he was targeted.....probably a stray bullet, just like the one that hit the statue.

Only an idiot throws rocks at armed soldiers, when they could just as easily have dispersed as ordered......no doubt just as many idiots populate our country's campuses today, judging by the number of left-minded pinheads posing as "professors".

Ward Churchill comes to mind........ a pinheaded traitor if ever there was one.

I am glad you come here, dilligras,

Why, thank ye laddie......'tis good to be appreciated

Feel free to continue to open your mouth and insert your foot.

Ditto, my obstreperous epistoleer.

[dilligras]

For those who scoff at the idea of commie pinkos at the "peace" rally
(scroll down to the sixth photo)
But no worries, maite........everyone knows there are no more commies in America.........RIGHT???

[PatrickHenry]

Now Tillman's death is being investigated as a crime: http://sportsillustrated.netscape.cn...=20060305NY107

Tillman's mother, Mary, told the Washington Post Saturday that the criminal investigation should have been launched at the onset. ``The military has had every opportunity to do the right thing and they haven't,'' she said. ``They knew all along that something was seriously wrong and they just wanted to cover it up.'' His father, Patrick Tillman Sr., told the Post that he questioned whether another investigation would provide anymore answers. ``I think it's another step,'' he said. ``But if you send investigators to reinvestigate an investigation that was falsified in the first place, what do you think you're going to get?'' Two initial fact-finding investigations were conducted at the unit level right after Tillman's death. He was a member of the Army's 75th Ranger Regiment. A third investigation was conducted by U.S. Army Special Operations Command, and a concurrent investigation was done by the Army's Safety Center. Tillman, 27, died on April 22, 2004, when he was struck by gunfire during a firefight along a canyon road near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. The Army said at the time that the barrage of bullets came from enemy fire. A report by the Army later found that troops with Tillman knew at the time that friendly fire had killed the football star. Officers destroyed critical evidence and concealed the truth from Tillman's brother, also an Army Ranger, who was nearby, the report found. More than three weeks after a memorial service in San Jose, Calif., the Army announced on May 29, 2004, that friendly fire rather than an enemy encounter caused Tillman's death. However, even at the time of the memorial, top Army officials were aware that the investigation showed the death had been caused by an act of ``gross negligence,'' the report said.

[Osborn F Enready]

Thanks for the update Patrick. A damn shame.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: dilligras It's possible he was just an innocent bystander, caught up in the middle of a commie-agitated shitstorm, if what his roommate said is accurate.....one has to wonder about his presence on the commons after tear gas was being tossed back and forth between the protestors and the obviously armed National Guard soldiers........especially since his sister said she begged him to stay home, after the ROTC building was burned to the ground by the same traitors/protestors the night before.......which, along with violent protests by "students" in town during the weekend, was the reason the Nat'l Guard was on campus in the first place. Here is a video reenactment of the shooting If Bill was over 100 yards away, with all the tear gas affecting visibility, I think it's unlikely that he was targeted.....probably a stray bullet, just like the one that hit the statue. Only an idiot throws rocks at armed soldiers, when they could just as easily have dispersed as ordered......no doubt just as many idiots populate our country's campuses today, judging by the number of left-minded pinheads posing as "professors". Ward Churchill comes to mind........ a pinheaded traitor if ever there was one.

All of We the Peoples power comes from banding together under a common cause. Only somebody not sympathetic to the the cause of the people would wish to take away the right to protest, or dissent.


Only an idiot throws rocks at an armed soldier, but what of the mentality of an armed soldier who takes up arms against their countymen for voicing their opinion?

[dilligras]

Since when is burning buildings and attacking people with rocks considered to be an example of "voicing their opinion"?

Oh yeah, I forgot........since the commie-inspired socialist/leftists targeted and took over our institutions of higher learning in the 50's, turning them into pc indoctrination centers.

[PatrickHenry]

No buildings were being burned at the time of the killings at Kent State, dilligras. The ROTC building was already in ashes for two days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

The President's Commission on Campus Unrest avoided the question of why the shootings happened, but harshly criticized both the protesters and the Guardsmen, concluding that "the indiscriminate firing of rifles into a crowd of students and the deaths that followed were unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable."

[dilligras]

Yeah, 2 days, not 2 years. The atmosphere created by burning buildings contributed to the state of mind of the weekend soldiers as well as that of the rabble rousers.

If you don't want to be attacked by authorities, it would make more sense to avoid such violent confrontations, especially as part of an unruly and dangerous mob of "peace" activists, n'est pas?

Of course, I suppose one shouldn't expect good sense from any mob.

[SaintLucifer]

Quote by: Suburbanite CNN "U.S. Army Cpl. Pat Tillman, the former professional football player killed last month in Afghanistan, was probably killed by gunfire from his own unit during an intense firefight, the U.S. Army said Saturday." What does everyone think about this?

I absolutely positively believe this happened. Everyone knows of the ineptitude of American servicemen. Did not a USAF F-16 Fighting Falcon kill 4 of my country's servicemen in Afghanistan when they thought they were being fired upon (by small arms fire no less which could not possibly reach them at such heights) during Canadian live fire exercises. Rather reminds me of the old saying my grandfather told me when he was living under the bombardment of his homeland by the Nazis during the Battle of Britain - 'If the British hear German warplanes approaching the British duck for cover, if the Germans hear British warplanes approaching the Germans duck for cover but if the both sides of WWII hear American warplanes approaching EVERYONE ducks'. This is a lament about allied friendly-fire deaths at the hands of the Americans. The AMericans killed more of their allies via friendly-fire than all over services killed their own COMBINED. This means everyone involved with WWII. This is why the British, French and Canadians absolutely refuse to serve alongside American forces.
So yes I do believe it was American forces who killed Pat Tillman who was absolutely a great patriot that gave up his football career to serve his country. Such a wonderful country the USA.

SaintLucifer
The Dark Saint

[dilligras]

Oooooo, the bad 'ol Americans, killin' everyone in sight........what a crock.

Got any hard data to back up those characterizations? I doubt it.

One of the obvious drawbacks to having more than one uniform per side in a conflict, is that troops tend to shoot first and ask later when they see one they don't recognize.

That would appear to me to be a strong argument against using "coalitions" in a conflict, oui?

[SaintLucifer]

Quote by: dilligras Oooooo, the bad 'ol Americans, killin' everyone in sight........what a crock. Got any hard data to back up those characterizations? I doubt it. One of the obvious drawbacks to having more than one uniform per side in a conflict, is that troops tend to shoot first and ask later when they see one they don't recognize. That would appear to me to be a strong argument against using "coalitions" in a conflict, oui?

I have all the hard data I need. My relatives fought in WWII. They actually heard about such things happening. As for your argument regarding coalitions, the Canadians fought well with the British in WWII both doing most of the fighting whilst the Americans sat back and waited for us to clear the way for them. Americans were famous for friendly-fire killings, a fact kept quiet after the war. Too bad my relatives already knew everything. What do you think the Canadian/British forces were but a coalition? Please do not injure your brain in future. It may lead to consequences.

SaintLucifer
The Dark Saint