So Fint, rcecale et al- about US Military lies.

[Moneyguy1]

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.

[rcecale]

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

[Seahawk]

.

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...

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.

[gavinlit]

"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.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by Seahawk
.

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.

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.

[fintstone]

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.

[stuartj]

Right fint.

Do the reading.

[fintstone]

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

[rcecale]

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

[CamB]

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.

[Moneyguy1]

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...

[stuartj]

"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.

[djmcmath]

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.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by stuartj
. Do pay special attention to the comments of Tillman's family.

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

Tillman's family has expressed outrage over how the Army has handled the information concerning his death.

His father, Pat Sr., told the Post, "Maybe lying's not a big deal anymore."

Not long ago his mother, Mary, told me, "They could have told us upfront that they were suspicious that it was a fratricide, but they didn't. They wanted to use him for their purposes. . . . They needed something that looked good, and it was appalling that they would use him like that."

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

[widebody911]

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.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by djmcmath


(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.

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?

[djmcmath]

Originally posted by stuartj
The WP has simply reported the inconsistencies between the Army's original account of the incident, and the accounts that emerged later.

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.

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

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.

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!

[stuartj]

Originally posted by djmcmath
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.

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.

[CamB]

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.

[rcecale]

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