The Real Pat Tillman, Still An America Hero - Page 5 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

boneheaddoctor · #61 10-29-2005, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Doctor of perception: The Tillman family feel they were used as a recruiting prop by a Pentagon who wanted to maintain the illusion that Tillman was killed by IslamoFascists/Terrorists/ScumSuckersFromHell. So the friendly fire part was buried and Tillman's uniform burned. Some of his personal effects went missing also.

No one is complaining that friendly fire happens sometimes. Just that the Army was not truthful -- interested more in propaganda, uh, I mean public relations.

Did you even read what I said prior to you posting this...

but of course YOU would preffer to belittle the guys sacrafice becasue like the reporters who did so you have an anti-war agenda driving your decisions.

#62 10-29-2005, 11:47 AM

The anti-war movement isn't always a bad thing because in reality if there was not an anti-war movement we would be at war all of the time. I personally wish the anti-war movement would not be the Micheal Moores and Cindy Sheenans and the anti-war Generals would take a more active role because they know how to reach a more effective and lasting means to end a war.

Making war instead of proactive policy is NOT a good thing or habit to get into. War should only be waged when all policy attempts fail.....like they did in Iraq. The part I don't agree with about the Iraq war is the way that it's being fought.

Botnst · #63 10-29-2005, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MedMech

The anti-war movement isn't always a bad thing because in reality if there was not an anti-war movement we would be at war all of the time. I personally wish the anti-war movement would not be the Micheal Moores and Cindy Sheenans and the anti-war Generals would take a more active role because they know how to reach a more effective and lasting means to end a war.

Making war instead of proactive policy is NOT a good thing or habit to get into. War should only be waged when all policy attempts fail.....like they did in Iraq. The part I don't agree with about the Iraq war is the way that it's being fought.

Yep.

B

cmac2012 · #64 10-29-2005, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MedMech

CMAC, how many US troops do you think wanted to be in Somalia? The answer is almost zero BUT they didn't want to leave when Clinton ordered the withdraw. Why do you think that is.

A soldier isn't a mindless robot he/she does have political leanings but they are secondary to completing a task that they were ordered to do. It's difficult and maybe impossible to describe why a person enlists with that attitude that most soldiers possess. This stuff isn't taught in basic training most soldiers come hardwired to accept the orders they are given whether they like it or not.

I have a little brother in the CG that thinks the war on drugs is a total waste of money and time.

I have a brother O-5 KC-10 pilot that despises anything the Bush admin does but he still does what he does.

I have a another brother Army O-6 that is in the game but he continues to complete his missions but he does it anyway....he thinks it sucks too.

We have a forum member here that was a drill instructer I think he could best explain why recruits are hardwired to do what their told unlike the civilians that chose mot to serve.

There's a lot of validity to what you say here. On a much smaller scale and in less dangerous (by far) circumstances, I've experienced a young, headstrong apprentice who questions my instructions way too much. Sure, I want him to think for himself, and there'll be plenty of time for that but I don't want to go into a detailed description of every last item, specially when it will become clear to him shortly.

Still, there are times throughout history, in military arenas, when orders have been way over the top, some of the Vietnam scorched earth policy in that category I think, and of course, a lot of what went down in Nazi Germany. At such times, the soldier on the ground is the last line of defense against pointless and criminal slaughter. I'm thinking we should preserve and honor the right of soldiers to make decisions now and then.

Botnst · #65 10-29-2005, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

...Still, there are times throughout history, in military arenas, when orders have been way over the top, some of the Vietnam scorched earth policy in that category I think, and of course, a lot of what went down in Nazi Germany. At such times, the soldier on the ground is the last line of defense against pointless and criminal slaughter. I'm thinking we should preserve and honor the right of soldiers to make decisions now and then.

That is why a soldier is only compelled by law to follow lawful orders. If an order is unlawful, it is the subordinate's duty to indicate that he believes a command is unlawful. If it is not in direct combat, he can refuse the order. If it is a combat situation, he has an awful dilemma. Failure to follow direct orders in battle is extremely dangerous for the subordinate, punishable by death.

B

cmac2012 · #66 10-30-2005, 12:14 AM

A sober and cogent synopsis there, doctor. Worth pondering.

cmac2012 · #67 10-30-2005, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

Did you even read what I said prior to you posting this...

but of course YOU would preffer to belittle the guys sacrafice becasue like the reporters who did so you have an anti-war agenda driving your decisions.

I read every muddled word.

An anti-war agenda. The opposite being: pro-war agenda. People who live and breath a pro-war agenda are why games like football were invented: to give you a chance to blow off some steam the 95% or more of the time they ain't no war goin' on.

When war is the right decision, I say pound them til they can't be pounded no mo'. You said it yourself: "American loves a good war." That's the kind of er, uh, malady that befalls people who have a pro-war agenda.

boneheaddoctor · #68 10-30-2005, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

I read every muddled word.

An anti-war agenda. The opposite being: pro-war agenda. People who live and breath a pro-war agenda are why games like football were invented: to give you a chance to blow off some steam the 95% or more of the time they ain't no war goin' on.

When war is the right decision, I say pound them til they can't be pounded no mo'. You said it yourself: "American loves a good war." That's the kind of er, uh, malady that befalls people who have a pro-war agenda.

What I said is your love of the peacenik agenda colors your perspective...which you admit is quite far removed from the people who have to deal with this day in and day out.

#69 10-30-2005, 11:38 AM

Here's a good example of a common Ranger/SEAL/SF manuver. If it looks confusing on video you should see it in real life with return fire.

http://www.m90.org/view_image.php?image_id=8480

peragro · #70 10-30-2005, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

fratricide=friendly fire

On May 28, the Army finally admitted to Tillman’s family that he had been killed by friendly fire.

See, this is one of the problems with the author and the article. The phrase "the Army finally admitted..." is poorly written and shows the author's obvious bias. The Army, like all branches of the DoD and Gov. as a whole for that matter, investigates all fatalities that happen. This does not happen instantaneously the investigation takes time as does the report generated. The characterization that the Army "finally" "admits" connotes that they were hiding something in the first place rather than simply performing an investigation. When a person dies it is owed to that person a thourough investigation to determine exactly how the event occured. Reporting using the "just the facts" approach appears to be completly dead in the major news arenas. I guess that's the symptom of too liberal a liberal arts education.

Furthermore,

[/QUOTE=MTI]Wouldn't you agree that the family deserved to know that as soon as possible?[/QUOTE]

(I cannot figure out why the quote thing isn't working here... and yes I typed uppercase, but it changed it to lower case...)

is definatly a loaded question and not at all what you mean. Your meaning, like many, would be better stated using a personal pronoun rather than "the family". Ideally, the family would, and maybe does, know. What is the point of everyone else "knowing" via biased speculation from a biased reporter? If the family wants to make a big deal of it have a press conference, but do it with dignity and don't "Sheehan" it.

MTI · #71 10-30-2005, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

See, this is one of the problems with the author and the article. The phrase "the Army finally admitted..." is poorly written and shows the author's obvious bias. The Army, like all branches of the DoD and Gov. as a whole for that matter, investigates all fatalities that happen. This does not happen instantaneously the investigation takes time as does the report generated. The characterization that the Army "finally" "admits" connotes that they were hiding something in the first place rather than simply performing an investigation. When a person dies it is owed to that person a thourough investigation to determine exactly how the event occured. Reporting using the "just the facts" approach appears to be completly dead in the major news arenas. I guess that's the symptom of too liberal a liberal arts education.

Furthermore,

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

Wouldn't you agree that the family deserved to know that as soon as possible?

(I cannot figure out why the quote thing isn't working here... and yes I typed uppercase, but it changed it to lower case...)

is definatly a loaded question and not at all what you mean. Your meaning, like many, would be better stated using a personal pronoun rather than "the family". Ideally, the family would, and maybe does, know. What is the point of everyone else "knowing" via biased speculation from a biased reporter? If the family wants to make a big deal of it have a press conference, but do it with dignity and don't "Sheehan" it.

Then, using our explanation, shouldn't the Army have refrained from announcing the cause of death until the investigation was infact complete? What the did, instead, was to create a war hero, killed by the enemy and used by them to promote "the honored dead" image splashed around the world.

Again, it's just amazing how far some will go to accept anything the government/military does, especially its obvious mistakes and missteps, and condem anyone who challenges it as "pro-terrorist" "biased" or unpatriotic. I would have thought that the troops we were supporting were the ones getting shot at, wounded and killed, not the "troops" in the Pentagon spinning a tragic story to their advantage at the expense of the family of an American combat soldier.

Progress Being Made:

WASHINGTON, Oct 12 (Reuters) - The U.S. Army has launched a review into how it notifies families that a soldier has been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan after hearing complaints from some of them, including the parents of former professional football player Pat Tillman, officials said on Wednesday.

Army Secretary Francis Harvey has directed that the review into the notification process be completed by January, said his spokesman, Lt. Col. Thomas Collins.

"We're going to fix this," Collins said. "The whole goal here is to make the system more accurate and quicker, too."

"The last thing we want to do is have somebody get the wrong information about how their loved one died," Collins added.

Collins said that the problem was not thought to be widespread, but cited some instances in which family members were given incorrect information about how loved ones died. He mentioned former National Football League player Tillman, killed in Afghanistan in April 2004, and tank commander 1st Lt. Kenneth Ballard, killed in Iraq in May 2004.

Tillman was fatally shot by fellow Army Rangers in a wild spree of gunfire in a remote canyon near the Pakistani border. The Army determined almost immediately that he had been the victim of friendly fire, but the service notified the family he had died in combat with the enemy. His family was not told for more than a month that he died due to friendly fire.

His father, Pat Tillman Sr., has assailed as "shams" and a cover-up Army investigations into his son's death. His mother, Mary Tillman, said it was "disgusting" that the Army lied about it.

The Army initially told Ballard's family that he had been killed by enemy fire even though an investigation already had determined he died when his tank hit a tree, making its gun turret swivel and fire on him. The family was not told the actual cause of his death for more than a year.

Harvey met last month with Ballard's mother, Karen Meredith, to discuss the matter.

"The bottom line is we had notification problems with Pat Tillman, and we had the case of Lieutenant Ballard who was killed in Iraq and initially his family had been told he was killed in action," Collins said.

"What Dr. Harvey has done is directed an Army-wide review of how we notify family members," Collins added.

Most of the U.S. troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan served in the Army. The Pentagon has reported 1,954 U.S. military deaths in Iraq, including 1,528 killed in combat and 426 in "non-hostile" circumstances such as vehicle accidents, illness or suicide. The Pentagon has reported 200 U.S. military deaths in the Afghanistan war, including 116 in combat and 84 "non-hostile."

The "quote" function isn't working for you due to the backslash in the first QUOTE command.

peragro · #72 10-30-2005, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

Then, using our explanation, shouldn't the Army have refrained from announcing the cause of death until the investigation was infact complete? What the did, instead, was to create a war hero, killed by the enemy and used by them to promote "the honored dead" image splashed around the world.

Again, it's just amazing how far some will go to accept anything the government/military does, especially its obvious mistakes and missteps, and condem anyone who challenges it as "pro-terrorist" "biased" or unpatriotic. I would have thought that the troops we were supporting were the ones getting shot at, wounded and killed, not the "troops" in the Pentagon spinning a tragic story to their advantage at the expense of the family of an American combat soldier.

The "quote" function isn't working for you due to the backslash in the first QUOTE command.

Aha, I looked at that quote thing a dozen times and couldn't see it, now it's clear as a bell, thanks. It just didn't compute at the time.

Now, regarding Tillman. Having done a little research it appears, according to wikipedia, that Ted Rall, the loving left-wing cartoonist, was the first to lob criticism at Tillman. Tillman died on 22 April. on 4 May Rall published a none to kind cartoon ridiculing his service and by proxy the nation. A year later he was at it agian. On the 28th of April, 6 days post death of Tillman an article was written by a graduate student at UMASS which also made fun of Tillman's death. It is fairly repugnant but I'm sure many here will identify with it so it can be found here.
More evidence of the glee felt on the left at Tillman's death here
and here

A snippet from wikipedia:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

A report described in the Washington Post on May 4, 2005 (prepared upon the request of Tillman's family) by Brig. Gen. Gary M. Jones revealed that in the days immediately following Tillman's death, U.S. Army investigators were aware that Tillman was killed by friendly fire. Jones reported that senior Army commenders, including Gen. John Abizaid, knew of this fact within days of the shooting, but nevertheless approved the awarding of the Silver Star, Purple Heart, and a posthumous promotion. The citation report accompanying these awards said that Tillman was killed by enemy forces and contained a detailed account of the alleged battle which Army leadership knew had never taken place.

Jones reported that members of Tillman's unit burned his body armor and uniform in an apparent attempt to hide the fact that he was killed by friendly fire. Several soldiers were subsequently punished for their actions by being removed from their Ranger unit. [8] Jones believed that Tillman should retain his medals and promotion, since he intended to engage the enemy, and behaved heroically. [9]

Tillman's family was not informed of the finding that he was killed by friendly fire until weeks after his memorial service, although at least some senior Army officers knew of that fact prior to the service. [10] Tillman's parents have sharply criticized the Army's handling of the incident; they charge that the Army was more concerned about protecting its image and its recruiting efforts than about telling the truth. [11] His mother, Mary Tillman, told the Washington Post:

The fact that he was the ultimate team player and he watched his own men kill him is absolutely heartbreaking and tragic. The fact that they lied about it afterward is disgusting.
Tillman's father Patrick Tillman Sr., was incensed by the coverup of the cause of his son's death, which he attributed to a conscious decision by the leadership of the U.S. Army to protect the Army's image:

After it happened, all the people in positions of authority went out of their way to script this. They purposely interfered with the investigation, they covered it up. I think they thought they could control it, and they realized that their recruiting efforts were going to go to hell in a handbasket if the truth about his death got out. They blew up their poster boy," [12]
He also blamed high-ranking Army officers for presenting "outright lies" to the family and to the public. [13]

Later, Tillman's father suggested in a letter to the Washington Post that the Army hierarchy's purported mistakes were part of a pattern of conscious misconduct:

With respect to the Army's reference to 'mistakes in reporting the circumstances of [my son's] death': those 'mistakes' were deliberate, calculated, ordered (repeatedly) and disgraceful -- conduct well beneath the standard to which every soldier in the field is held." [14]
He also alleged that the soldiers who had burned Tillman's body armor had done so on the direct orders of their superiors. [15]

These complaints and allegations led the Pentagon's Inspector General to open a further inquiry into Tillman's death in August 2005.[16]

Yet, lo and behold. When it comes out that Tillman may have not supported the war in Iraq and was critical of President Bush he is now elevated to hero status by the left. Rall says that he's sorry he wrote those cartoons about him. Evidently only the deaths of right wing baby killers should be lampooned. The majority of sane folks have contended that he was a hero all along. Is not the duplicity of the left nauseating to you if you are a free thinker?

Obviously the circumstances that were involved in his death were tragic. They were not unusual. The military has a saying for this, Charlie Foxtrot. Indeed there is a saying for what happened directly afterwards with his uniform as well; gundecking. As of August this year there is still an ongoing investigation. I'm sure that it will move at the speed of government, which is not fast.

Obviously, and rightly so, the family is upset as to how things were handled. Did the Army make mistakes? Most likely. Does this alter Tillman's service? No. Do his personal beliefs alter his service? Only if you are left-wing evidently.

Did it ever occur to anyone that it would be more heroic for a soldier to die whilst in combat against the enemy rather than by the hand of his fellow soldier? I would submit that this is the more likely reason for why things have gone the way they have. Bearing in mind that the final report is still not in and speculation seems hasty at this point.

MTI · #73 10-30-2005, 05:30 PM

Again, the cause of "upset" by the Tillman family is not how their son died or that he died in combat. Failure to see that is akin to not seeing the backslash. It's not about being from the left or right, it's not about being pro or anti-war, it's about being truthful and not using a soldier as a piece of advertising "meat."

The issue is why the people in charge didn't come forward with the truth faster when it was fairly obvious to the officials in charge what had happened to Tillman in the battle. So far, the only only folks that want to object to what the Tillman familly is after are those that want to protect the folks in charge. Do they deserve your protection in this case?

Here's a test for all the folks that think that the Tillman family should just STFU . . . is your knee experiencing an involuntary reflex reaction when you read the SF Chron article?

GermanStar · #74 10-30-2005, 05:42 PM

Who exactly is using Mr. Tillman as a piece of advertising "meat."? I have never once heard his name used in conjunction with our shameful invasion of Iraq, nor have I heard it used in support of the current administration. Admittedly, I may not have been paying attention. AFAIK (and I should think that Tillman gets a lot more press here than in most places), he enlisted to defend his country in direct response to the 9/11 attack -- and that's as far as it goes.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode