So Randy, using your logic was the US military also 'EVIL' when its propaganda cameras rolled and it spun the tale of the 'rescue' of Jessica Lynch?

Of course the military uses propaganda. The question is, is it anti-American for the U.S. media to be skeptical of the military and to call it out when it is caught in an untruth?

I say that our world would be a much scarier place if the media didn't turn a skeptical eye to the military. And I'm not bashing the military. I know it has its reasons for propagandizing.

Thats the most inane thing Ive ever seen on this board. You idiot.

Jewish World News. Fab.

yes, I have seen that rcecale, or least I think i have, I couldnt see you clip for some reason.

It saddens me that you cant tell the difference.

Methinks thou hast been blinded by thine hatred.

Let go of the rage, stu, it's eating you alive. It's already devoured your vision. :rolleyes:

Randy

That wasn't his point at all, silly. He was demonstrating by a similar example how ridiculously untenable Stu's position was. If one lie within a group of people makes the entire group liars, then the Arabs are all liars, too. The assertion is just asinine.

Thanks for explaining it to him, Dan. I'd have done it myself, but I am just so tired of having to break things down to a second grade level, just so he can understand it. ;)

Randy

The problem is that you haven't managed to progress beyond that second grade level of understanding about most things of importance.

The world is a complex place full of many competing factions. Once you are able to cast aside your myopic and simplistic view of things perhaps might be able to start viewing the world from a 4000 level college couse level like most of the more educated members of this board do.

But this is the basis of your relationship with him, he is the bratty child, you are the bewildered educator.

Remember it's just a game (to him) - he's going to learn something whether he wants to or not.;)

What, you mean, like logic?

Ok, then let me see if I follow the reasoning in this thread:
1 - Stu posts the argument that if a single lie occurs in an organization, the entire organization is made up of liars. The elements of the offense "false official statement," the substance of the account, the range of a .50 caliber machine gun, and several other discussed items are immaterial to this logical sequence.
2 - Randy posts a counter-argument, demonstrating with Stu's argument that all Arabs are also all liars. This is obviously ridiculous, so Stu's argument must also be ridiculous.
3 - 350hp930 asserts that if all Arabs are liars, then all US military members are also liars, using Randy's argument which was asserted in absurdity to ridicule Stuart's argument, which was ridiculous to begin with. 350 is, therefore, is both mocking Stuart's argument and attempting to support it. This is a logical fallacy.



Meanwhile, on the related topic of the substance of the alleged lie, Stuart has been unable to progress past calling me an idiot and announcing that my simple question is inane. Not only are we calling each other names, we're calling the _questions_ names. Predictably, he'll come back by calling me "Shadowfax," and say some nonsense about how I've been blinded by my Nationalistic tendencies, or maybe I'm just another inane progandistic spokesman with mild delusions. For all of that, I'm having a hard time getting around the coherency of the above argument.


I love PPOT.

Dude, you drive Subs...none of us are worthy. Relax, Stu contains his own solution.
All the best.

Stu
I recently went to Australia for a month or so. After hearing here on PP OT that Aussies were so anti-war...and hearing on the news that there were massive protestests....I went to see one of the "massive" protests myself. Here is a picture that one of guys who works for me took. Is that lonesome guy you Stu?
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1121572614.jpg

You named your car "Shadowfax". Seems an odd thing for a grown man to do, but I have nieces who are pony nuts so i understand.

The "coherency of the argument" rests, quite deliberately, with one very simple point. Its unfortunate that you struggle with it. I will make it again for your benefit.

If the US military constructed a fiction around the high profile Tillman case, is it also plausible that this august institution may lie to us on other matters? If so, when should we believe them, and when shouldnt we?

stu, you forgot some important points. Mainly, even after the local military authority reported this incident, they continued probing for information. They interviewed more people involved with this incident, and as more and more information became known, the military CHANGED their report. The Army reported the truth.

Had the Army clung to the original report, despite the information gatehered after the original had been given, I'd be right there with you, stu. But they did not. Seems a pretty honorable thing to do, if you ask me.

I'd like to see a politician do that. (From either side of the aisle.)

Randy

Thanks, Captain. I'm really looking forward to going back to driving submarines. This desk job is killing me. I'm sure you understand.

Oddly, I'm not at all spun up by this thread. I mean, Stu has come out and all but called me a liar, along with every other military man out there, and I'm just not interested. Sometimes I get pretty riled up about these things, but this one just completely failed to get me excited. Maybe I'm getting used to Stu's name-calling and failures to grasp the Big Picture, maybe I just care less than I used to. Maybe I should start a good solid religion thread -- pick an arbitrary doctrinal statement from 4th century Christianity, or maybe something eschatalogical. Nobody understands that stuff. :) Maybe I could assert that modern Roman Catholicism is fundamentally just a pagan religion with different names? I wonder if anybody would be interested in that discussion?

(yawn) But redundantly covering the same ground over and over again with Stu is just getting old.

Dan.............
Nooooo religious threads pleeeeeasee!
Everybody who know anything whatsoever about tha US miliitary knows the score anyways. Polls in this country historically put our profession ahead of almost all others for trustworthiness....and for good reason.
Note the picture above with the protestor in Rockhampton holding the sign "End the War on Terror." That is the kiind of moron we are dealing with....Sure, lets end the war on terrorists and let them have whatever they want. That would really make the stop, wouldn't it...LOL heck, conservatives tried that with liberals for years...and they just wanted more and crazier things.
The part about this thread that I really find in poor taste is actually using poster's names in the title....

Dan,

Heh, I chased you guys to no avail for YEARS...thank goodness for Yankees in the 80's!
I enjoy your posts, get back to the fleet and do that vodoo that you do.
Look me up if you ever get to DC, we have some very interesting roads here if you know where to look.
All the best, Shipmate.

Has anybody mentioned that Pat's parent are livid with the US Army for using his name to spin public emotion for the administrations goals?

Alan Poh
'77 Carrera 3.0

See Dan, there's your problem. You haven't reached that level 4000 level college couse level. Of couse you can't understand how to level the world at that level.

What I find amusing is that you guys who are currently serving/have served seem to take it as a personal affront if it's suggested that an administration or military spokesperson might bend the truth somewhat (for the record I don't think it's limited to any particular party) ESPECIALLY when they're dealing with an emotive area such as war. Do you really think it dosn't happen - is it really such a personal insult? Yawn...

My years in the Coast Guard confirm the fact that the armed forces can say things that are not necessarily true..Can't argue with your conclusion..

As for the 4000 level college course, specialization has led us to the following point in our evolution

We learn more and more about less and less until we reach the pinnacle where we know absolutely everything about nothing at all.

Personally, I really could care less about what course level somone may have reached. I have known plenty of "professional students" in my time and have rarely been impressed.

If you really want to prove your intelligence, show me the application of your education. Book knowledge is one thing. Actually being able to do something with it is something entirely different.

Randy

. Try to comprehend...we KNOW large organizations bend the truth,,,yawn...it is your failure to stop harping on the obvious that has become tedious. For the Life of Brian read the past posts.

"Try to comprehend...we KNOW large organizations bend the truth,,,yawn...it is your failure to stop harping on the obvious that has become tedious."
Fair enough - that wasn't the impression I was under. I now stand corrected - we all agree on this obvious central issue. Time to close all the threads regarding media/military/iraq. I will henceforth watch with great amusement as people argue about issues they agree on.

OK then, thanks. A confirmation from someone with personal knowledge supporting the premise that the US military cannot be extended the benefit of the doubt.

And Shadowfax, I called you an idiot, not a liar. The reason I called you that was for your peurile and predictable (although I wouldnt have predicted it to be you) attempt to derail the premise of this thread. It was never about the rights or wrongs of Tillman's death, it was about the Army's manipulation of the circumstances of his death.

Once again, "the Army" did not manipulate the circumstances of Tillman's death. Some of the soldiers involved reported his death incorrectly. "The Army" investigated and corrected the record. Your continued repeating of misleading information here is far more calculated ...and damaging than anything "the Army" has done because you make no attempt to post what really happened....only whatever story you can fabricate that might seem believable...and harm the reputation of the US military.

Right fint.

Do the reading.

The article you posted to begin this thread is pretty clear. Perhaps you should read what you post.

Hey stu, fint just supplied you with some pretty good advice. "You should read what you post."

For instance, the article states that the Army's published account witheld all evidence of fratricide, and yet, if you follow one of the links, you can see you can see where they state that on May 29th, a full 6 months before this article was written, that the "Army released a one-page public statement acknowledging that Tillman died 'as a probable result of friendly fire"

Could it be that maybe the Washington Post is guilty of lying? Well, that would suck, now wouldn't it? I would assume that you would take that to mean you could never trust anything they say, wouldn't it? I mean, if the Post lied in this case, then EVERYTHING they print must be lies, right?

Again, stu, do you not see how ridiculous your position is? Look, the Army was honorable enough to admit their initial report was incorrect. Don't you think you would find the honorable thing for YOU to do is to admit YOU made a mistake here also?

C'mon stu, be the man. You can do it. Just think of all the respsect it would earn you on this BBS. ;)

Randy

Isn't the problem that the military often seems (understandably) reluctant to release information that paints it in a bad light?

The question is whether the truth about Tillman would have been determined (and announced) by the military without the extraordinary glare of attention from the media. It seems to me that the default position of the military would be to avoid correcting itself if it reflected badly. It will be doing what it can get away with.

The end result is that while I wouldn't believe the "terrorists" over the US military, I'll probably believe a reporter. No matter what your view on media bias, you should be able to recognise that they are straighter than the military.

Although it seems to be funny, think about how the military handled Roswell!!

I think it was brilliant!! The public to this day doesn't know what actually went on or maybe they do...

"Corporal Tillman put himself in the line of devastating enemy fire as he maneuvered his Fire Team to a covered position from which they could effectively employ their weapons on known enemy positions. While mortally wounded, his audacious leadership and courageous example under fire inspired his men to fight with great risk to their own personal safety, resulting in the enemy's withdrawal and his platoon's safe passage from the ambush kill zone."

Lies or incompetence, lads? Tillman's false citation stands, btw, at least as ASFAIK.

I think this writer pretty much somes up the Tillman issue. Do pay special attention to the comments of Tillman's family.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0607montini07.html

However, none of that addresses the systemic issue of lies and obfuscation as SOP in the US military. It is not an organisation that deserves our uncritical trust. Quite the opposite, in fact.

The ironic part is- you all know it, as well.

Sorry. I've been a pretty close to a number of relatively pressworthy items myself -- I've known what happened, and why, and who it happened to. I've been party to some investigations, and I've seen guys lose their careers at the drop of a hat, simply because the example needed to be made, not necessarily because the mistake was their own. I've seen investigations so intense they make the Salem Witch Trials look pretty friendly. I've also seen the idiocy in the local press afterwards, and I'm not impressed with the arrogant ignorance of those poor fools. I've seen stories so ridiculous they made me laugh at their sheer idiocy. Am I reading a professional newspaper or a tabloid, I wonder? Did we attend the same event? Are they writing about the same incident? ... They spin stories for entertainment value, not for truth. When you realize that, the MSM suddenly gets a lot less interesting.

(shrug) So I've got a lot more "personal experience" data on this one, Stu. I didn't just read the news article. I've been there. I've done that. I got the coveralls. When you get some front line experience under your belt, you can tell us how accurately the Washington Post portrays combat, when compared to the people who were there. Until then, maybe you'd be better off keeping your half-baked insubstantiated whacko theories to yourself.

Lies are wrong - they hurt people, they hurt Tillman's parents.

Tillman was simply being used as a posthumous recruiting poster boy and propganda tool. Nothing more, nothing less.

Just like Jessica Lynch Wiki on Jessica here A huge list of links here: http://www.unitedjustice.com/jessica-lynch.html

Just one step below using well-racked models to consumer products.

Shadowfax are you being deliberately obtuse? The WP has simply reported the inconsistencies between the Army's original account of the incident, and the accounts that emerged later.

Tell me, has the US Army retracted the citation (quoted above) was is now known to be inaccurate? If not, why not, IYO?

Inconsistencies ... you mean like Dan Rather's inconsistencies between the initial report on that Bush memo, and the later reports that came out because of massive external pressure? Oh, I guess we can't trust the MSM either, because they changed their account once.

Sure they did -- they put out a correct final report. Heck, they may have also issued a formal statement of apology, but do you think the Post would print that? The Post thrives on publishing dirt about the military -- an apology wouldn't fit with their theme.

:rolleyes: Listen, Stu -- you've taken one weak story and tried to use it as an example of military lies. You've tried to extend military dishonesty to every member of the military. But your own "team mates" have reduced your argument to absurdity, and I've just demonstrated that the media is no more trustworthy than the military.

Now _go_away_, or I shall taunt you a second time-a!

Best leave the Python to the experts.

I think you will find the citation for Tillman's decoration stands. I stand to be corrected, as always.
"They" may have issued an apology? Please direct us to it.

You are being deliberatley disingenous. This is not about "every member of the military", and you know it, nor is it about the media, and you know that, too.

Dig deep Shadowfax, you can do it.

I agree with Stuart - the way in which the military has been caught (in several instances) in wilful propoganda and, in some cases, outright deceit means that I will not trust their version of accounts without questioning it.

This is the core of this particular argument, and given the admissions from you, and other members of the military, as to the fact that the deception really does happen, I'm not sure why we're still debating it.

Cam,

Not to change the subject, but did you realize you could replace the word "military" with the words "liberal press" and it would fit?

...the way in which the liberal press has been caught (in several instances) in wilful propoganda and, in some cases, outright deceit means that I will not trust their version of accounts without questioning it.

This is the core of this particular argument, and given the admissions from you, and other members of the liberal press, as to the fact that the deception really does happen, I'm not sure why we're still debating it.

I now return you to your regululary scheduled military bashing.


Randy