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

[stuartj]

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?

[araine901]

was that link from December 2004?

[gavinlit]

The goodies never lie stu.

[djmcmath]

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.

[Tim Hancock]

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.

[lendaddy]

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?

[kach22i]

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?

[djmcmath]

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?

[stuartj]

Originally posted by djmcmath
Ok, now I've read the article, and I'm a lot less impressed with you, Stu.

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

[ubiquity0]

Originally posted by stuartj
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?

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

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.

[rcecale]

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

[stuartj]

Originally posted by rcecale



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?

[fintstone]

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.

[djmcmath]

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.

[rcecale]

Originally posted by stuartj
Sigh.

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.

Randy

[350HP930]

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.

[rcecale]

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

Randy

[350HP930]

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.

[rcecale]

Originally posted by 350HP930
Read the detailed report about Tillmans murder. There is a reason why his shooter was charged with being 'undiciplined'.

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.

Originally posted by 350HP930
Then again if he had shot a bunch of surrendering enemy combatants they would have just pinned a medal on him instead.

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

[350HP930]

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'.

Men in Serial One heard an explosion that preceded the attack, and Tillman and two other fire team leaders were ordered to head toward the attackers, the Post said. The canyon's walls prevented them from radioing their positions to their colleagues, just as Serial Two had not radioed its change in plans.

Tillman's group moved toward the north-south ridge to face the canyon, and Tillman took another Ranger and an Afghan ally down the slope.

"As they pulled alongside the ridge, the gunners poured an undisciplined barrage of hundreds of rounds into the area Tillman and other members of Serial One had taken up positions," the Post said Army investigators concluded. It said the gunner handling the platoon's only .50-caliber machine gun fired every round he had.

The first to die was the Afghan, whom the Americans in the canyon mistook for a Taliban fighter.

Under fire, Tillman and almost a dozen others on the ridge "shouted, they waved their arms, and they screamed some more," the Post said.

"Then Tillman 'came up with the idea to let a smoke grenade go.' As its thick smoke unfurled, 'This stopped the friendly contact for a few moments,"' a Ranger was quoted as saying.

Assuming the friendly fire had stopped, the Ranger said, he and his comrades emerged and talked with each other, the Post reported.

"Suddenly, he saw the attacking Humvee move into 'a better position to fire on us.' He heard a new machine gun burst and hit the ground, praying, as Pat Tillman fell," the Post reported.

The Ranger said Tillman had repeatedly screamed out his name and shouted for the shooting to stop, the Post said. He and others waved their arms, only attracting more fire. Tillman was shot repeatedly by rifles, finally succumbing to the machine gun.

Early in the firing, the Post said, the driver of one of the Serial Two vehicles pulled out of the canyon and recognized the parked U.S. Army vehicles in front of him.

"The driver shouted twice: 'We have friendlies on top!' ... Then he yelled several more times to cease fire, he recalled.

"'No one heard me."'