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

Away from the uncertainty of the daily goings on in various theatres of war, away from the claim and counter claim about wedding massacres, missile strikes, hotel shellings and like, lets look at one case where the facts are largely known. The death of Pat Tillman. For anyone unfamiliar with the fairytale invented by the US Army, here is a pretty comprehensive article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37679-2004Dec5.html

Tillman died in a friendly fire incident, the circumstances of which may simply be tragic, or more sinister, who knows. The Army however, invented a completely new set of circumstances surrounding Tillman's death and paraded them in front of the American public in a cynical PR exercise. They even decorated him posthumously on the basis of the fabricated story. In doing so, surely called into question the credibility of any decoration ever awarded, and justifiably earned the wrath of decorated vets.

The Tillman incident is shameful. My question to you gents is this: If this litany of military lies can be concocted in regard to a high profile American citizen killed on active duty, why do you find it incredible that the Army might be tempted to tell more big fat stinking rancid lies where 40 non voting, unnamed Bedouins in the deserts of Iraq are concerned?

was that link from December 2004? SmileWavy

The goodies never lie stu.

I'm not even going to read the article before admitting that lies happen. The US military is made up primarily of humans, who make mistakes of a human caliber. If they (we) didn't lie to cover up their actions from time to time, I'd be a bit disappointed. That said, I still believe that most military members take most action with an eye towards the greatest good, towards following the orders of their superiors, towards doing The Right Thing. Cases where it can be demonstrated the the military actually lied are relatively few, especially when compared to the number of times that the military has stepped up to the plate with their mistakes.

Stuart, are you a US citizen? I am just seriously wondering where your viewpoint comes from?

"Push back time. Nutbags=Zero Tolerance" How ironic, my sentiments exactly.:)

Did the Army ever claim he was killed by enemy fire? I don't claim to know the answer, but is this a lie or a "lie by omission" in your reasoning?

Here is a good one;

Once there was this obnoxious Italian woman and two goombas in the front seat of a little Toyota pickup truck. It was dark and raining when they took this tight cloverleaf turn at 50 mph, which others typically took at 25 mph - under the best of road conditions. The satellite clocked them doing 60 mph average up to the checkpoint. They refused to stop despite several warnings, were shot at with hundreds of rounds before they surrendered. One guy died, but he was not an American – so does that really count?

Ok, now I've read the article, and I'm a lot less impressed with you, Stu. This is your one major historical example of military lies? This is your shining expose against the great evil of the US Army? Let me lay this out:
1 - Bad thing happens.
2 - Immediate response: tell a good story, primarily for the benefit of the parents and immediate family, painting Tillman as "The Honored Dead." Don't wait for the facts to come in, just get something that's close enough.
3 - Commence investigation, take statements, hunt down people who were there or nearby.
4 - Compile a collection of eyewitness accounts to determine the truth.
5 - Apply appropriate discipline to the individuals who may or may not have been guilty of negligent fire.

So what's your gripe? And what's your friendly fire story? What experience do you have in combat, to dictate the actions of honorable men? Who are you, to say that these men were not adequately punished?

Im heartbroken, naturally, Shadowfax.

I am not interested in the action itself, or in impugning Tillman or any of his colleagues. Totally irrelevant to the point, as you well realise being a smart guy.

The logic here is simple. The Tillmam episode represents an example of the Military's lies where the lies have been exposed in the full light of day to the American market for which the lies were constructed. If the military is prepared to COMPLETELY fabricate the events surrounding Tillman's death, is it possible that the Military may also be willing to fabricate certain facts surrouding events that have even less visibilty in the USA?

There will, for exasmple, be no such exposure of any lies that concern events such as the wedding massacre which may or may not have ocuured in May 04 in the Iraq desert if in fact May 04 ever occured at all

So if they lie once that proves they are lying all the time? :confused:

I think its a given that the Military will temper the details they release to the media to 1/ protect sensitive info & 2/ rally support & morale. Its also pretty much a given that such stories 'sell' well to the public so the media will be happy to carry them until interest turns to something new. Such tactics were rampant in WW2 (& IMO necessary). Does that condemn all allied accounts of the war??

I don't see how the Tillman story really helps determine whether they were telling the truth about the wedding party incident or anything else.

stu,

Where is the fabrication? I read the article you posted, even clicked on a few of the "related" links and I have yet to see anything was "fabricated.

Had the Army stopped their investigation upon the awarding of the medal, I would say you had a point. They didn't! They acquired the statements from the people who were in the area. They investigated, even after making their initial statements. After the awarding of the Silver Star.

Then....THEN, despite the fact they had already awarded Tillman, they came to a determination that their initial assessment of the incident was incorrect....innaccurate....wrong! So they made that announcement too.

What would you expect for the Army to do, rescind the award?

Mistakes were made in this incident. Some tragic, some harmless, but mistakes just the same. The tragic mistake, the death of Tillman, totally sucks! No doubt about it. I think we're all in agreement over that one.

The mistake in rushing to decorate Tillman before all the facts were in? A "victimless crime", if you ask me.

Perhaps Tillman only rated a Purple Heart. Is this the "sinister conspiracy" you write of? Awarding a soldier a hire medal that he possibly may not have deserved? If this is all you have, stu, please, do us all a favor, make yourself useful...post some funny pics in the "...More Random Pics" thread.

Randy

Sigh.

Randy, its not about what Pat Tillman did or didnt deserve. Its about the fact that the military deliberately, cynically, fabricated the circumstances of his death for its own ends.

Why then should we believe this same organisation when it says, for example, the wedding party inicidnt didnt happen, despite the numerous eyewitness accounts and physical evidence to the contrary?

Face it, the only reason that you even know about this is because the Army investigated it and released the info. If anything, this is just the opposite of what you describe....a shining example of thj military policing itself.

For its own ends? Hardly. The initial story 1) came out before many facts were known, and 2) was tailored so the victim was portrayed in an inaccurately positive light. No family wants to hear about how their very junior soldier son did something stupid and got himself creamed by friendly fire. If, instead, you tweak the story so that he was more senior, and leading brilliantly and courageously, the family is less pained about the loss. The Army had nothing to gain or lose either way. Telling the story one way or the other made no difference to the massive bureaucracy. Cynicism would have been telling it as friendly fire and a stupid mistake, and not caring about how badly the family grieved over that truth.

(sigh) I've just seen so many cases where the Navy has gone absolutely overboard to beat people up over stupid mistakes that I can't manage to believe that the Army is really any different. I mean, one of the boats missed test depth by a few feet, and the CO, XO, and COB were all relieved of their duties immediately on their return to port. Remember the SFO, the one that hit the uncharted seamount? After months of hunting, someone discovered that there was, in fact, a chart somewhere that might have had that seamount on it -- so the CO was sent home in shame. Remember the Japanese fishing vessel sunk by a surfacing submarine? Yup, that CO got fired too.

But we'll focus on a case where the Army told a more polite version of the story to a grieving family, and use that to extend into the idea that the Army is full of liars, and can't be trusted to ever do the right thing, and assume that all soldiers everywhere are working in their own personal best interests and blah blah blah. It just begins to sound like the same verbal diahrea after a while, Stu, except your logic is worse this time. ;)

Yeah.....I know the feeling.

stu, there is no debating with you. Typical of your kind, you'll look at one word, one sentence, and overlook the rest of the entire book, just to substantiate your point of view. No matter how bent and twisted. And then you have the balls to claim that about anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Read what I wrote, stu. Then read your article again. Then, as I asked you earlier, go play around with Google and find some funny pics to post. Then I may begin to take you seriously. :rolleyes:

Randy

Another sad fact related to the tillman homicide is the fact that the gunner that killed his fellow soldiers deliberately gunned down a group of men who were signalling surrender.

Another case in point why the military following its own supposed rules of war has all sorts of advantages.

And a much sadder fact is that you actually believe you post intelligent thought. sheesh...!

Randy

Read the detailed report about Tillmans murder. There is a reason why his shooter was charged with being 'undiciplined'.

Then again if he had shot a bunch of surrendering enemy combatants they would have just pinned a medal on him instead.

I read the report. it said, The decision by a Ranger commander to divide Tillman's 2nd Platoon into two groups, despite the objections of the platoon's leader, "created serious command and control issues" and "contributed to the eventual breakdown in internal Platoon communications." The Post could not confirm the name of the officer who issued this command.

It's called "the fog of war." But I wouldn't expect you to understand even what that means.

Ya know, it's almost comical how the same people who accuse military people of "shooting surrendering enemy combatants" are also the people who are protesting that we have so many of them in captivity down in Guantanamo. Would you please just make up your mind?

Randy

Yeah, I guess reading isn't one of your strong suites. You say 'fog of war', but here are the details of the cluster****. I guess guys screaming and waving their arms at their attackers is their way of saying 'shoot at us some more'. :rolleyes:

For the record- Its not my intent to start a discussion on the rights or wrongs of the Tillman incident.

It certainly is my intent is to hold this incident out as an example- a well documented and supported example- of type of manipulation and lies dished out by the US military.

Stu or 350 -- when is the last time you fired a .50 caliber machine gun?

Why do you ask? Does it somehow justify shooting at a target you can't identify or does it make shooting at people who are attempting to surrender OK?

Ok, let me ask it a little differently ... you've been to the track, right? In fact, iirc, you're something of a track junkie, right? You feel competent to talk about racing, and about handling and vehicle dynamics, about engine noise, and The Line, and helmet selection, and that sort of thing, right? If someone who had never driven a car came up to you and announced that you were a crappy driver, because from their location in the stands, it was clear that you had missed the obvious line, and you should have seen it, and all drivers are lying sacks and blah blah blah, you'd probably just ignore him, right?

So I've got two guys who have probable never even seen a .50 caliber machine gun telling me that the user of said machine gun should have been able to hear human voices at a great distance over that ruckus? They should have known the other guys were trying to surrender, because they yelled? Over a .50 cal? You've got to be kidding me.

I don't know, 350, I somehow feel the need to tell you how to restore a 930, despite the fact that I couldn't identify all the parts of a turbo system if they were neatly laid out and labeled.

Reading may be your strong suite....but appartently so is believeing second and even third hand information and proclaiming it as gosple truth.

the POST?

350HP930 posted part of a report, it speaks for it's self.

I know people who have fired 50 cal's, as far as I know they did not do it blindfolded.

The report said they killed the local guy helping them out because they thought he was Talliban - they could see clothing and facial features but still unloaded on their own guys after repositioning for a better view?

Sad story, covered up with even more sadness.

This analogy has never made sense to me. I have a few track miles under my belt (thousands) and if some "spectator" came up to me afterwards with some *valid* criticism, I would obviously have to agree. Just because he might have a hard time actually driving the correct line doesn't mean he doesn't know what the correct line is.

I can't sing to save my life, but that doesn't mean I can't tell when other people can't carry a tune.

Now, if there was some intrinsic knowledge about the Tillman situation that could only be gleaned by actually shooting a .50 caliber machine gun, then you're argument might hold more water. I don't think that was the point you were trying to make, though.

Mike

To me it all amount to arm-chair QB'ing. Hind-sight 20/20 and all that.

You can't hear s*** over a .50 cal. And if you're wildly unloading .50 caliber rounds downrange, there's not a whole lot of waving going on, either. Anything getting waved around is going to get shot at. For this story to make sense, you have to put yourself in the position of these soldiers -- and unless you've fired some weapons, or been in a combat situation, that's pretty tough to do. I sincerely doubt they heard Tillman, or if they did, I can't imagine they could have understood what he was saying or recognized his voice. I'm sure the waving was quite apparent to those hiding behind the rocks with Tillman, but probably much less apparent to those on the other end of the machine guns.

There are facts of combat that you can't understand unless you've been there. I'll buy valid criticism, but this isn't even an educated criticism. A tragic mistake happened, and rather than mourning the loss, and more than just punishing the mistake, you'd like to apply a broad and inaccurate brush to the entire military, based on zero experience and zero applicable knowledge.

//shaking head// Whatever.

So you are saying that the shooter's superiors coming to the conclusion that he screwed up and drumming him out of the special forces is also a case of those who don't understand war engaging in armchair quarterbacking?

Thats a pretty weak argument but I guess you want to discuss anything but military lies.

By your statements it appears that you are the only person that you think is qualified to pass judgement on military screw ups.

By your logic (or lack of it) if I ever enter a turn too hot and ball up my car are you saying that no one else is allowed to have an opinion about it unless they were in the car with me and/or are an expert driver?

djmc,

Apparently, once bitten by the US hating bug, all logical attempts at curing the ensuing disease are pointless.;) :D

Stuart is right...but to what end other than the obvious, that all organizations lie to some degree, either blantantly, poorly or as covertly as possible to either manipulate a mistake or champion a cause.
So what is your point, Stu? Was there a point in your life where you believed otherwise? Were you ever so gullible?
Santa and the Tooth Fairy are helping me with some engine work this weekend, you coming?

How else would we know that the reason you entered your turn hot was because the doobie you were toking on at the time had dropped it's ember into your lap. DAMN, that thing was hot, wasn't it? Got to burning so bad, it took your attention off the task at hand (that would be driving...) You started squirming all over your seat to get at it and put it out and BAM...right into the wall.

Sure, I wasn't there to see it, but I know your type. Who needs an investigation, anyway? I've already determined the cause of your fuch up. Anything you tell me to the contray is just a bunch of bs lies. :rolleyes:

Randy

Ok, I'll bite. But take it easy on me cause I'm just some redneck from the south (that lives up north) and I'm not near as smart as you......

Ok, I agree with you, they lied. Now what? What's your point?

I'm almost certain there is one or two more lies out there. Does that make them the evil empire?

Now here's a couple of questions (and a rationalization) for you. Do you speed? Have you ever rolled through a stop sign? Have you ever passed a car in a no passing zone? Have you ever copied a CD/tape? Cheated on your taxes? If you have answered yes to any of those, can I now assume you are a no good criminal? Are you destined to become a mass murderer?

If you are so at odds with this country/government why don't you get the F' out of it. I'm pretty sure France would take you:rolleyes:

Andrew, welcome to PPOT. :D

Andrew, it looks like you'll fit in here just fine! :D

Randy

I just call 'em like I see 'em.

Thats a wonderful first step, well done. Now take a leap of faith.

You have agreed that the US military lied. So when you see a US military spokesman make a statement like this:

"During the operation, coalition forces came under hostile fire and close air support was provided," it said in a statement. Soldiers at the scene then recovered weapons, Iraqi dinar and Syrian pounds (worth approximately £800), foreign passports and a "Satcom radio", presumably a satellite telephone.

"We took ground fire and we returned fire," said Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, deputy director of operations for the US military in Iraq. "We estimate that around 40 were killed. But we operated within our rules of engagement."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1221658,00.html

Remember the Tillman incident, and ask yourself if there may a reason the truth might be not be forthcoming.

There may be hope for you, welcome to the board.

I've never understood this sentiment. One can love their country yet hate what any given group has done to it. And dogging France is so 2003. The hip are dogging Spain this year.

Lies, eh, stu?

AN ARAB 'FUNERAL'
An Israeli drone flying over Jenin on Monday, April 28 caught a modern-day resurrection. Well, sort of.

As Arab propaganda cameras rolled, pallbearers repeatedly tried to carry a "dead" man wrapped in a green blanket. The only problem is that he couldn't keep his balance and kept falling. A highlight: At 1:35 on the film, a crowd of onlookers quickly breaks up, when the "corpse" picks himself off the floor and gets back up on the stretcher.

If the purpose of this video were not so EVIL, it would belong on one of those Dick Clark TV specials. After the 'massacre' and now this, can you believe ANYTHING the Arabs say? To view, click
here.

I suppose this would mean that anything and everything said (or even done) by any Arab (whether they were terrorists or not) would be a lie.

Are you beginning to see how ridiculous you sound yet, stu?

Randy