Pat Tillman: Shot Point Blank? by SignyM

I got a question for you Signy. Do you think Tillman was intentionally killed by his fellow soldiers for apparently not supporting the Afghanistan campaign?
Remember that this fellow turned down a lucrative NFL contract and voluntarily enlisted in the army.
I'm curious as to how far you are willing to reach to condemn Bush, how many people you are willing to walk over.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 5:36 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Some points that come to mind. First of all, the M-16 settings allow it to fire three-round bursts in rapid succession, not just semi-auto or auto. Secondly, is that an M-16 is a very high-powered rifle, but it does not impart a large change in velocity to its target. To say that a target necessarily “swings wildly” on impact with an M-16 bullet before the other two rounds impact is categorically false. This statement sounds suspiciously like something someone would get from watching movies. Hollywood has created the impression that bullets transfer large amounts of energy to their targets, but that’s not true.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 5:43 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

A bit more from the AP story referenced in the crooks and liars site, but not included in their quotes:

Quote:
It has been widely reported by the AP and others that Spc. Bryan O'Neal, who was at Tillman's side as he was killed, told investigators that Tillman was waving his arms shouting "Cease fire, friendlies, I am Pat (expletive) Tillman, damn it!" again and again.

But the latest documents give a different account from a chaplain who debriefed the entire unit days after Tillman was killed.

The chaplain said that O'Neal told him he was hugging the ground at Tillman's side, "crying out to God, help us. And Tillman says to him, `Would you shut your (expletive) mouth? God's not going to help you; you need to do something for yourself, you sniveling ..."

Current M-16s don't fire full auto. They have a three round burst control. These three rounds are all fired within 1/4 of a second. I have little trouble believing that a scared troop not remembering to keep his finger off the trigger could accidentally fire a burst when alarmed by a close round or explosion. If he was close to Tillman, and the rifle gripped tightly, as a scared man would, I would expect all three rounds to hit close together.

I see the scenario of Spec. O'Neal accidentally killing Tillman and his buddies covering for him as much more likely than some sinister assassination plot.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 5:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I see the scenario of Spec. O'Neal accidentally killing Tillman and his buddies covering for him as much more likely than some sinister assassination plot.

I was playing Call of Duty and something similar happened. But I did always hate the guy I shot...he had a smart mouth.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 5:51 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

First of all, let's be very clear that Pat Tillman was NOT killed by "the enemy". The military admitted that their original story (the heroic Pat Tillman killed by the enemy in a firefight) was fabricated. So they had to step back from that story, and they came up with a "friendly fire" scenario. And THAT scenario doesn't make any kind of sense at all given the autopsy report.

I was shocked when I heard about the autopsy report. I don't mean piqued or bitter, I mean shocked. So given the M16's rate of fire, plus the recoil and the motion of someone who has been hit would it be even possible to create that kind of grouping from 30 feet away? There are folks on the board who know a whole lot more about weapons that I do. I was hoping they would weigh in.

ETA: As they apparently have. Xposted.

So, according to Geezer the essential elements of the Vietnam vet's scenario are true: Tillman couldn't have been standing up waving his arms, he would had to have been shot so that his position was constrained (ie on the ground) from just a very few feet away. And the reason why the second "friendly fire" scenario didn't make sense was because soldiers will naturally cover up for each other (As do police www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=30754)

The only fly in THAT ointment is SOMEONE had to subsequently cover up (deliberately fail to investigate) the ME report, and it sure wasn't anyone from Tillman's platoon it would be someone higher up and removed from the battle scene. So this would just be another example of the military in full butt-covering mode: making up heroic stories (Jessica Lynch) and engaging a coverup (abu Ghraib).

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 6:38 AM

I believe it is generally recognized by most objective folks that Pat Tillman's death
a) was friendly fire.
b) was covered up.

Does anyone still dispute this?

Sig, are you just trying to figure out how far up the chain the coverup 'went', or do you have more sinister concerns?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 7:19 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

My problem was that I couldn't come up with an accident scenario consistent with the ME report. Geezer's scenario is both plausible and consistent with the ME report, so now I CAN add "accident" to the list of possibilities.

Tillman thought the war was illegal, he was going to publicize his concerns when he got home, and he was very open about it. Because of that, even the accidental death of someone as well-known and outspoken as Tillman would cause such immense butt-puckering that it would trigger a multi-level coverup... as big as if he'd been fragged (or worse). At this point there's no way to definitively know what happened (since bullet fragments and other physical evidence was destroyed by the military) except to go back to his platoon and give them all polygraph tests and try to sort it out from there. I'd like to see that happen, if only to get something that looks, sounds, and smells like the truth. I don't know how the military would respond to an accidental close-range shooting, but I think the popular response would be to understand and forgive, and that would be my response as well.

I'd also like to see the coverup pursued as a separate issue. The military (like the police) "police" themselves. They're beyond the reach of independent judicial review (for the most part) and of civil lawsuits. Like police departments, it's a system ripe for corruption and abuse.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 7:49 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, according to Geezer the essential elements of the Vietnam vet's scenario are true: Tillman couldn't have been standing up waving his arms, he would had to have been shot so that his position was constrained (ie on the ground) from just a very few feet away.

Not so much. The three round burst of the later M-16s occurs so fast it pretty much sounds like one shot, and the bullets all follow about the same path. I've seen folk hit a 10" target with all three rounds at 100yds. so a 1" group at 10 yards is not unlikely. Tillman could have been in pretty much any position, standing, prone, or in between, and all three rounds would have hit him before he could react. I can reasonably envision several scenarios in which just standing up in the wrong place could have gotten him shot.

M-16s used in Vietnam were capable of full auto (at least all the ones I handled) and the usual technique at close range was to use them like a fire hose. If the Vietnam guy hit 4 VC with his first 5 or six rounds, he was probably swinging the barrel side to side as he shot, not the way to make a tight grouping.

I don't doubt that this could have been a fratracide accident, and that folks tried to cover it up, even on up the chain of command. I think that Vietnam guy's theory of three individual shots is informed more by him wanting a conspiracy than by any logical reconstruction of the event.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 8:01 AM

FREMDFIRMA

I don't smell conspiracy coming off of this, but rather a shorter, smaller coverup - Tillman, since disillusioned with the war and how it was being conducted, had begun to keep a journal of some of the more blatant events and actions, a journal which was not found on his person in the aftermath of the incident.

Most likely scenario, some other troop ratted that fact up the chain of command, as soldiers are notorious gossips and suckups, especially in the mid-NCO ranks, and couldn't keep a secret worth a damn - and someone who might possibly be incriminated by events recorded in that journal decided to solve the problem in time-tested military fashion... cap the troop involved, cover it with some bullshit story and make that journal dissappear.

I don't see great grand conspiracy written on this, I see a low or mid level officer covering his own ass, just a theory mind you, but one that fits the facts we know.

As far as the autopsy goes, imma say M4 on three round burst from about 10 meters, anything closer and you'd see possibly powder flash/burns, and from further away you're not likely to get a group THAT tight, no.

The rounds had to have been fired at the same moment, or they'd have gone in at different angles, weakening the skull structure to the point of collapse and thus causing more fragmentation than apparent in the autopsy report.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 8:02 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
react

I think the Vet's point was that the first bullet imparts momentum, not (necessarily) a reaction. So this is where I would have to rely on people more familiar with guns. A 10" well-braced target can be hit at 100 yards. What if the target were being capable of being spun, for example? Would the first round have enough momentum to spin someone around fast enough to make the second (and third) round hit far from the first?

Ah, I see xposted.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 8:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I believe it is generally recognized by most objective folks that Pat Tillman's death
a) was friendly fire.
b) was covered up.

Does anyone still dispute this?

It was friendly fire and it was covered up. Covering up the truth actually serves an important purpose in that it allows the underlying truth to be presented to the public without confusing facts that can only serve to harm the war effort.

The underlying truth is that despite the manner of his death, the nature of his death was that he died a hero and a patriot in the loving service of his nation. I would suggest the truth is better off not known, or kept to his family. The public does not need all the facts in cases like this. It is similar to the reasons why photos of his bloody, bullit ridden corpse are not shown and instead the media is given stock photos of his football days and pictures of him in uniform.

Clearly he was proud to give his body to the service of his nation, I think he'd sacrifice a few details for it as well, because the larger truth remains undisturbed.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 8:07 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Covering up the truth actually serves an important purpose in that it allows the underlying truth to be presented to the public without confusing facts that can only serve to harm the war effort.

So Hero believes in coverups!

And then he wonders WHY we think about police states, his work as a prosecutor, and government conspiracies!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 8:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Covering up the truth actually serves an important purpose in that it allows the underlying truth to be presented to the public without confusing facts that can only serve to harm the war effort.

Wow. Straight out of 1984. What was the Bush quote about "Educating the public too much just leads to confusion"? That's right, keep us all as stupid as possible so we can be led like good little sheep...

So, Hero, if you were in Germany during WWII you'd be all for hiding the atrocities of the concentration camps from the public, right? I mean, that might have eroded support for the war effort.

Criminy. What kind of world do you want to live in?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 8:38 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Eh, more like "What kind of world do you want us to live in?"

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 8:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I believe it is generally recognized by most objective folks that Pat Tillman's death
a) was friendly fire.
b) was covered up.

Does anyone still dispute this?

It was friendly fire and it was covered up. Covering up the truth actually serves an important purpose in that it allows the underlying truth to be presented to the public without confusing facts that can only serve to harm the war effort.

The underlying truth is that despite the manner of his death, the nature of his death was that he died a hero and a patriot in the loving service of his nation. I would suggest the truth is better off not known, or kept to his family. The public does not need all the facts in cases like this. It is similar to the reasons why photos of his bloody, bullit ridden corpse are not shown and instead the media is given stock photos of his football days and pictures of him in uniform.

Clearly he was proud to give his body to the service of his nation, I think he'd sacrifice a few details for it as well, because the larger truth remains undisturbed.

H

Interesting.
Are you sure he would feel that way if part of the cover up was the fact he was deliberately killed to suppress his journal, which has also gone missing?

I believe that one of the biggest problems with permitting 'low level cover up' is that it does allow conspiracy theorists with a field day. I believe it is wiser in the long run to provide the truth so citizens of a democratic nation can make informed decisions (and no, I don't think it is necessary to broad cast pictures of bullet ridden bodies for enough information to be available for informed decisions be made).

Personally, I suspect it was an accidental shooting, and the journal going missing simply part and parcel with the rest of the butt covering going on. On the flip side, I am sympathetic to those who would now like to see proof of this theory.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 9:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So Hero believes in coverups!

In time of War coverups, misinformation, deception...they're all perfectly acceptable forms of strategy.

"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.

O divine art of subtlety and secrecy! Through you we learn to be invisible, through you inaudible and hence we can hold the enemy's fate in our hands." Sun Tzu

If a coverup or lie distorts the greater truth, then I am against it. In this case Tillman was a patiot and hero, the details are not necessary and would only serve to cloud and overshadow who he was and WHAT he died for.

I think you'll find this common among fallen heroes...soldiers, firefighters and the like. They all died heroic deaths in service to their fellow Americans. The family is entitled to more detail...but what more do the rest of us left behind to struggle on, what more do we NEED to know?

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 9:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
So, Hero, if you were in Germany during WWII you'd be all for hiding the atrocities of the concentration camps from the public, right?

Again, the larger truth is what's important. In that case the larger truth is a monstrous crime against humanity and we need as much detail as possible to punish the guilty and educate the future.

I suppose in 1944 you'd want detailed accounts of American soldiers dropping their weapons and running before the German counter-attack in the Ardennes. As the matter of fact, a liberal press would deem that a more important story then the heroic siege of Bastonge.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 9:25 AM

The heroism of Pat Tillman is indisputable, and not sold short by the truth of how he died. The heroism of the folks running the war is the thing called into question by the facts.

Hmmmm......

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 9:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
If a coverup or lie distorts the greater truth, then I am against it. In this case Tillman was a patiot and hero, the details are not necessary and would only serve to cloud and overshadow who he was and WHAT he died for.
...
but what more do the rest of us left behind to struggle on, what more do we NEED to know?
H

If we did not live in a democracy, you might have me sold on this.

I understand (but don't necessarily agree with) your positions on what is proper for a 'supporting citizery' should and should not do in a time of war; but I harken back to a comment you made in another thread (and if I butcher the paraphrase, please accept it as an unintended act); once the war starts you expect the citizens to fully back the government.

I submit to you that in a democracy, the populace should have input as if a war should start. To some extent, the approval will be based on our understanding of past wars, and the realities of war, and the 'costs' of wars (besides the money, which is considerable). Of the realities of war is friendly fire deaths, and it is one of the costs of war. If we are not forthright to our citizens in this war about the frequency of friendly fire deaths, will this not inhibit their understanding such that they might make faulty decisions in the future? This is a burden that non-democratic states need not worry about; however, I believe this is an issue we need to have our citizen properly informed of. The 'fact of' friendly fire should not have been suppressed IMHO in this case. Pictures of the body, details of exactly 'who' (though assurances of appropriate investigation would be wise, and that any penalties would be applied), etc. I might see reason for not advertising widely.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 9:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Again, the larger truth is what's important.

And who gets to define "larger truth?" You?

Like Bush in 2003, Hitler in WWII was the Decider. He got to do the defining. The "larger truth" was the defense of the Homeland and the purity of the Aryan bloodline, and by your logic the reality of the camps was rightfully hidden.

Fair's fair - let me do some defining. Permaybehaps, the real "larger truth" of today is the erosion of our rights and the selling of an unjust war. Therefore, the cover-up of Tillman's death is the real issue here, the big truth.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 9:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Again, the larger truth is what's important.
And who gets to define "larger truth?" You?

Like Bush in 2003, Hitler in WWII was the Decider. He got to do the defining. The "larger truth" was the defense of the Homeland and the purity of the Aryan bloodline, and by your logic the reality of the camps was rightfully hidden.

Fair's fair - let me do some defining. Permaybehaps, the real "larger truth" of today is the erosion of our rights and the selling of an unjust war. Therefore, the cover-up of Tillman's death is the real issue here, the big truth.

One thing to be a trifle careful about, is Roosevelt made similar decisions during world war II about what to suppress. This is -not- a new issue; but it is a new world with different expectations as to what the government should or should not be empowered to do (or... perhaps it isn't???). Also our war on terror has already lasted longer than WWII; how long are we supposed to endure the reduced 'freedoms' they felt obliged to do during WWII?

Just fuel for thought, I'm more expanding upon your thoughts than arguing against them (in case that wasn't clear).

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 9:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
The heroism of Pat Tillman is indisputable...

He's not my hero, so I guess that makes it disputable.

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 9:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Like Bush in 2003, Hitler in WWII was the Decider. He got to do the defining.

Is it just me or is Bush being compared to Hitler far too often these days?

How can you link the death of millions of Jewish people to a friendly fire incident? Trying to downplay a friendly fire incident concerning a known person is hardly akin to covering up mass genocide.

Pat Tillman, the patriot willing to forego riches in service of his country, good press. Pat Tillman died in a friendly fire incident, bad press. Is it right? That's a personal opinion, but I do see perhaps why it was done. Is this a larger conspiracy to silence a critic? Well some will find conspiracy in anything.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 10:01 AM

Quote:
One thing to be a trifle careful about, is Roosevelt made similar decisions during world war II about what to suppress. This is -not- a new issue;

I'm not saying it's a new issue. The use of lies by anyone at any time in history doesn't justify the way lies are used today. I wasn't alive then, I'm alive now, and I have a chance to call it like I see it.

Hey, I don't want to see this poor guy's body, and I understand that the military can't be publishing all their plans. But the idea that we can't question our government once they've started a war is insane. Totally and completely insane. The idea that they should be encouraged to lie to us as they see fit, to define the truth however they want, is even more insane. Hero may want to live in a world like that, but I sure as hell don't.

Succatash - but the way Tillman died, friendly fire versus enemy fire, isn't the basis of your judgement, right? I mean, some folks seem to think that the truth makes him suddenly a big loser. I think that's ridiculous!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 10:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
He's not my hero, so I guess that makes it disputable.

Your dislike of the military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq aside, What could you possibly have against Pat Tillman?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 10:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
What could you possibly have against Pat Tillman?

I have nothing against Pat Tillman, I simply dispute the indisputable claim that he is a hero.

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 10:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
I have nothing against Pat Tillman, I simply dispute the indisputable claim that he is a hero.

Your linked comic portraying him as a genocidal, corporate lemming, idiot, sap leads me to think otherwise.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 10:18 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Pat Tillman, the patriot willing to forego riches in service of his country, good press. Pat Tillman died in a friendly fire incident, bad press. Is it right?

Yes...you got it right....100% right I believe.
It was a great PR story for the military, but they should never have attempted to cover anything up about his death. Friendly fire deaths have occurred in every war we've ever fought in....it really sucks for the victims & their families, but it can't be 100% avoided. Things get sqirrely out on the battlefield, especially like in Afghanistan where no one is wearing a uniform. I think initially the Tillman story upset the anti-war crowd to no end, and now they're getting payback; using his unfortunate death to once again blame America for something.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 10:23 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
My problem was that I couldn't come up with an accident scenario consistent with the ME report. Geezer's scenario is both plausible and consistent with the ME report, so now I CAN add "accident" to the list of possibilities.

Another possibility is that Tillman got shot while doing something stupid, like not checking where he was in relation to the other Rangers and their fire zones before he stood up. I can see that the military might want to cover this up to protect Tillman's reputation.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 10:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
How can you link the death of millions of Jewish people to a friendly fire incident? Trying to downplay a friendly fire incident concerning a known person is hardly akin to covering up mass genocide.

My comparison is not of the events, nor of Bush to Hitler. I'm comparing Hero's mentality to that of the people of Germany who closed their eyes, kept their heads down, and let themselves be led.

Obviously, the overuse of power going on now doesn't come close to WWII. Does that mean we can't learn from the past and avoid the same mistakes? So... as long as someone committed a really gruesome, cruel murder in the past, then it's okay for me to kill someone quickly and cleanly? Whatever.

I don't want to be part of a political and military system that's based on fear and blind, unquestioning devotion. I'm amazed that, after all the sacrifices that have been made to build this country, anyone can argue that we don't exercise our hard-won freedoms. Is it at all respectful to soldiers and politicans, past and present, to give up our rights with a smile and a thank you?

Unbelievable.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 11:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
I have nothing against Pat Tillman, I simply dispute the indisputable claim that he is a hero.

Your linked comic portraying him as a genocidal, corporate lemming, idiot, sap leads me to think otherwise.

He may have been those things, I don't know. I posted the cartoon to demonstrate that Tillman's heroism is disputable.

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 11:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
If we did not live in a democracy, you might have me sold on this.

I submit to you that in a democracy, the populace should have input as if a war should start.

If we lived in a Democracy you would be correct. We don't live in a Democracy. We have a Democratic form of government, but not a Democracy.

We actually live in a Representative Republic. The populace has a great deal of input into when and if a war should start. It comes when they elect members of the body politic to serve as their representatives. Because of that input the people have a responisbility to support their government, especially in times of war and disaster when reasoned debate can lead to unreasonable consequences.

There are not 300 million Presidents of the United States...such a system is unworkable. Instead 300 million folks elect a single President to serve as chief executive and 535 persons to serve as our chief legislators and together those persons so empowered by the exercise of our democratic rights make the decision of when, if, and how wars are conducted.

Because we are ultimately responsible for our representative we are bound to support them...although we remain free to voice our dissenting opinion and to elect other leaders to replace those we feel have abused or mishandled our trust. I note for the record that President Bush was elected to make these decisions and his decision was ratified by a subsequent vote.

Congress, if they truly oppose what he is doing and acting as the voice of the people, has the power to end this war with the stroke of a pen (and I note for the record that the stroke of their pen would accomplish that which our enemies cannot by force of arms...our capitulation in Iraq). That they choose not to is telling on this point.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 11:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
And who gets to define "larger truth?" You?

Larger truths are self evident. Thats why your Hitler argument is flawed. He tried spin things a different way, he understood the use of propaganda. But when he told lies and when he told the truth about the deeds of his people, it was not about defending Germany...it was about his crime against humanity, the larger truth.

Tillman was a patriot that died for his country, this truth is self-evident.

Hitler was a monster committing horrible crimes against humanity. Self evident.

How about:
1. Slavery is wrong. Certainly the South had numerous persons fighting bravely for freedom and in the finest American traditions...but the details of the southern war effort are irrelevant to the larger truth.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 11:30 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Larger truths are self evident.

Once you stray from truth and transparency into something like "lies" and larger truths" you get into a deeply subjective realm, like religion.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 11:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
If we lived in a Democracy you would be correct. ...
We actually live in a Representative Republic. The populace has a great deal of input into when and if a war should start. It comes when they elect members of the body politic to serve as their representatives. Because of that input the people have a responsibility to support their government, especially in times of war and disaster when reasoned debate can lead to unreasonable consequences.

There are not 300 million Presidents of the United States...such a system is unworkable. Instead 300 million folks elect a single President to serve as chief executive and 535 persons to serve as our chief legislators and together those persons so empowered by the exercise of our democratic rights make the decision of when, if, and how wars are conducted.

Because we are ultimately responsible for our representative we are bound to support them...although we remain free to voice our dissenting opinion and to elect other leaders to replace those we feel have abused or mishandled our trust. I note for the record that President Bush was elected to make these decisions and his decision was ratified by a subsequent vote.

Congress, if they truly oppose what he is doing and acting as the voice of the people, has the power to end this war with the stroke of a pen (and I note for the record that the stroke of their pen would accomplish that which our enemies cannot by force of arms...our capitulation in Iraq). That they choose not to is telling on this point.

Sigh. I mean a democracy in the same way that Bush says he wishes to 'spread democracy'.

I have adjusted my terminology to be more precise, and made a few modifications to address your points:
---
If we did not live in a Representative Republic (RR), you might have me sold on this.

I submit to you that in a RR, the populace should have input as if a war should start. To quote a well respected orator 'The populace has a great deal of input into when and if a war should start.' In order for this input to have meaning, to reflect the true desire and wishes of the people, they must have a realistic understanding of past wars, and the realities of war, and the 'costs' of wars (besides the money, which is considerable). Of the realities of war is friendly fire deaths, and it is one of the costs of war. If we are not forthright to our citizens in this war about the frequency of friendly fire deaths, will this not inhibit their understanding such that they might make faulty decisions in what opinions to express to their representatives in the future? This is a burden that non-RR states need not worry about; however, I believe this is an issue we need to have our citizen properly informed of. The 'fact of' friendly fire should not have been suppressed IMHO in this case. Pictures of the body, details of exactly 'who' (though assurances of appropriate investigation would be wise, and that any penalties would be applied), etc. I might see reason for not advertising widely.

Obviously, this is assuming that the events leading to war, for instance, like the Iraq war, are such that reasoned discussion is possible. If we were attacked by the Russians on our homeland, I'd expect at least two things:
1) Folks will get out their guns and start shooting Russians.
2) At the President's earliest possible chance, get the military moving (if they haven't already reacted, of course).

It won't surprise me in the least if 1 occurs before 2.

Some day later we can discuss my opinion about Congress and how they have handled this war; I do not believe it is necessarily pertinent to this discussion.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 11:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Tillman was a patriot that died for his country, this truth is self-evident.

I agree with your assessment about Tillman; but I am a bit fuzzy on the 'self-evident' part. I expect there are folks who will not find it 'self-evident', and some of them may agree with you (like I do) that he was a patriot.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 11:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Tillman was a patriot that died for his country, this truth is self-evident.
I agree with your assessment about Tillman; but I am a bit fuzzy on the 'self-evident' part. I expect there are folks who will not find it 'self-evident', and some of them may agree with you (like I do) that he was a patriot.

The only fact self-evident and undisputable is:

Tillman died.

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 11:58 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
react
I think the Vet's point was that the first bullet imparts momentum, not (necessarily) a reaction. So this is where I would have to rely on people more familiar with guns. A 10" well-braced target can be hit at 100 yards. What if the target were being capable of being spun, for example? Would the first round have enough momentum to spin someone around fast enough to make the second (and third) round hit far from the first?

No. The bullet isn’t heavy enough to impart enough. An impact from a high velocity 0.227 round in the head would kill immediately, and the only significant motion in the body would be the effect of gravity and whatever momentum the individual had before he died, none of which would likely produce a large enough change in position before the other rounds hit to cause them not to impact the body in close to the same location as the first.

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I understand (but don't necessarily agree with) your positions on what is proper for a 'supporting citizery' should and should not do in a time of war; but I harken back to a comment you made in another thread (and if I butcher the paraphrase, please accept it as an unintended act); once the war starts you expect the citizens to fully back the government.

To a certain degree, yes. Much of the restrictions that much of the anti-war camp seem to want to place on the way nations wage certain wars is unrealistic to impossible to implement. Wars can’t be turned off and on like a faucet. In fact, it is a rare war indeed that you can just throw your arms up and claim game over when you discover that things are messier then you originally thought and suffer no ill effect. Wars can’t be fought with full disclosure of strategy or logistics to the enemy, so “cover-ups” are unavoidable. And it is more difficult to expedite a war to a favorable or even acceptable conclusion when the population of a country refuses to provide a reasonable level of cooperation, particularly in a liberal democracy. Because of this, police states have the ability to wage wars far more affectively then liberal democracies, and that’s the reason why the Constitution allows for the use of martial law in certain circumstances or why the republican Romans created the office of Dictator. Because the policymakers of bother understood that the state could never defend itself divided as well as it could united. Whether we’re fighting the Nazis in WWII or the Ba’aths in the Iraq War, a divided nation and an uncooperative citizenry will not improve matters. It will not only complicate and possibly prolong the conflict, but it may likely make the government in charge of expediting the war feel the need to reach further to maintain control in a time of war. And a responsible populous must weigh these matter with their desire to protest a war they may not agree with.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 12:46 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Meh, some relative commentary, then.

"once the war starts you expect the citizens to fully back the government."

This nonsense came out back in 1812 via the Democratic-Republican party after their break with the Federalists after the insanity of the Alien and Sedition acts, the DR's as well as the F's considered anything but slavish support of their ideas and policies to be little short of treasonous, and the shadow of secession and civil war was looming even then.

The basic concept proposed, was that dissent was acceptable only up to the moment war was declared, and then everyone should support it - an idiocy blindly accepted by many, and the cause of many evils since, due to presidents starting unneccessary wars just to GET that kind of support.

In short, it's a damn ridiculous sentiment and always was.

"If we are not forthright to our citizens in this war about the frequency of friendly fire deaths, will this not inhibit their understanding such that they might make faulty decisions in the future?"

An excellent point, but limited in scope - essentially, the current form of the US Govt is not at all forthright to it's citizens about ANYTHING, and how then can the citizenry be expected to provide input or make voting choices when all they have for information is a torrent of lies and misinformation, IF they have any information at all, being that Govt secrecy directly contradicts any thought of an informed vote, since if you don't even know something exists, how can you vote for or against it, or even protest it ?

"Is it just me or is Bush being compared to Hitler far too often these days?"

Yep, and the even dumber part of that is that in practice and action, Bush compares far more accurately to Mussolini !

But since Hitler is the Fascism poster boy, you're gonna get that, remember, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, most folk are gonna take it for a duck - and thus many folks take Bush for a fascist, and when that word comes up, the first face that comes to mind isn't Mussolini, cause he wasn't even a competent one.

"Your linked comic portraying him as a genocidal, corporate lemming, idiot, sap ..."

Umm, what do you think soldiers ARE ? as a general rule... dupes.
Go read Smedley Butlers "War is a Racket", and that guy was a GENERAL, mind you.

Remember, these are folk that somehow believe, in spite of it never, EVER happening even once since 1860, that the military will be there for them, support them in some way after they've used em like a kleenex, and actually keep it's promises to them.

"We actually live in a Representative Republic."

No, we ACTUALLY live in a Totalarianist Corpocratic Oligarchy *pretending* to be a Representative Democracy.

In the end, Tillman's dead, ok - in a war, people DIE, not just from enemy action, but from friendly fire, accidents, or just plain bad luck, wars are dangerous places full of powerful machinery and weapons which can harm or even kill you even in the event that you do everything right, much less when things go wacky on you.

I fail to see how concern over the fate of a single grunt, no matter his status, is of greater import than concern over how to end a war before many more share his fate, whatever it's cause.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 12:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Larger truths are self evident.

A million times NO!

Just because YOU believe something doesn't make it self-evident! Bush saying something doesn't make it self-evident. Hitler and a few million Nazi's saying something didn't make it self-evident.

This is why transparency is vital - we need to know WHY our leaders make the decisions they do so we can minimize abuse of power.

It truly astounds me. How can you be so comfortable that people with ties to corporations define "truths" that directly benefit those corporations at the cost of lives like Tillman's? And you call that patriotism?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 1:17 PM

KANEMAN

"This is why transparency is vital - we need to know WHY our leaders make the decisions they do so we can minimize abuse of power."

Transparency? Like between the FED and Congress? I'm with you on that.........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 3:19 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Some points that come to mind. First of all, the M-16 settings allow it to fire three-round bursts in rapid succession, not just semi-auto or auto. Secondly, is that an M-16 is a very high-powered rifle, but it does not impart a large change in velocity to its target. To say that a target necessarily “swings wildly” on impact with an M-16 bullet before the other two rounds impact is categorically false. This statement sounds suspiciously like something someone would get from watching movies. Hollywood has created the impression that bullets transfer large amounts of energy to their targets, but that’s not true.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

Mythbusters showed this neocon's statement to be true....Well, he's got a point.........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 3:27 PM

KANEMAN

Hero,
"In time of War coverups, misinformation, deception...they're all perfectly acceptable forms of strategy."

Same can be said about prosecutions eh, Hero? Spoken like a true statist....what a tool! Who declared war anywho? Last I checked, Mr. lawman, only congress can declare war........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 4:57 AM

JONGSSTRAW

My theory on Tillman's death is that he actually asked his buddies to shoot him, rather than face the prospect of having St. Louis trade him to the Dolphins.

p.s. :

Any Browncoats have the ability to do any of the following? ::
a) throw a football
b) catch a football
c) run with a football
d) tackle somebody with a football

Please contact coach Cam Cameron at the Chim-Chim-Chereee lounge at Dolphin Stadium ...tryouts begin Saturday.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 5:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
we need to know WHY our leaders make the decisions they do so we can minimize abuse of power.

Suppose we have intellegence from a secret source that compels our leaders to act, yet divulging the information to the public would compromise the source leaving us blind to an enemy's movements? It would be irresponsible for the leaders to divulge the information under those circumstances.

I think what your really in need of is greater srutiny of our leader BEFORE they get into office. Because its too late to consider whether or not to trust them AFTER they've been elected.

Is the truth always prefferable? Suppose that telling someone the truth will definately result in their suicide? And keeping the truth from them will not harm them. In the same way, the truth about Tillman could only serve to hurt the family, the military, the war effort, and the country. Keeping that truth secret...or private to the family is the better option.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 5:52 AM

FREMDFIRMA

You know hero, you've really got gall to dare calling PN crazy.

You're every bit as insane, just more eloquent about it, and if anything, that's even creepier.

-F

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 7:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Suppose we have intellegence from a secret source that compels our leaders to act, yet divulging the information to the public would compromise the source leaving us blind to an enemy's movements?

OK, let's not be obtuse here. Obviously, I'm not saying the military should put up post-its: "OBL, we will be dropping a bomb on at 0600 hours on thursday, coordinates to follow. Have a nice day!"

I already said, "I understand that the military can't be publishing all their plans." Field operations are not what I'm talking about. I'm disagreeing with your idea that that the govt has a free ticket to lie about anything it chooses, to present events in any way they choose including blatant works of fiction, for their own purposes which we MUST NOT ask about. I'm strongly disagreeing with your proposal that all good Americans should turn off their brains and get in step.

Call me naive, but I'm astounded that an intelligent person, an intelligent American, can give up their rights as easily as you seem willing to do.

Scrutiny before getting in office? Sure, I'd love it! Except that it's not likely. Have you watched the debates and interviews? How often have you seen a candidate actually answer the question they're asked? How often do they adhere to the half-assed ramblings they use to win votes? There's a reason we have the power to keep questioning people while they are in power, and why we have the right to not support a war even after it's been started. That's what makes America great: our leaders are not nobility, not divine, and they must answer to us. Do you really want to give that up?

Quote:
Is the truth always prefferable?

Again with the obtuseness. I'm not advocating telling a morbidly obese person "you're a fat useless piece of crap" and cackling evilly while they kill themselves. I'm saying that we shouldn't tell them "Oh, you're gorgeous and perfect and don't need to change a thing so why don't you go on and eat that whole package of bacon and those cheeseburgers and let me get you a big ole shake," then sit back and be smug about our kind and optimist natures while this poor person gets confined to bed and dies of heart failure.

Some lies are based in denial and self-centeredness and are used to hold and abuse power. The lies about Tillman were not told to save his honor, it had nothing to do with him really. Those lies were about saving the honor of Bush and his war machine. That is reprehensible.

(BTW, succatash - you are right about my misuse of "indisputable." What I meant was that the honour of Pat Tillman is not the issue in dispute.)

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 7:32 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Again with the obtuseness. I'm not advocating telling a morbidly obese person "you're a fat useless piece of crap" and cackling evilly while they kill themselves. I'm saying that we shouldn't tell them "Oh, you're gorgeous and perfect and don't need to change a thing so why don't you go on and eat that whole package of bacon and those cheeseburgers and let me get you a big ole shake," then sit back and be smug about our kind and optimist natures while this poor person gets confined to bed and dies of heart failure.

Obtuseness works in both directions. One of the problems is that people hear what they want to hear. People claim Bush lied because he said there were WMDs in Iraq, but while I believe Bush believed that, that’s not really what he said. What he said was the Hussein’s Iraq and the UN need to give the US some reason to believe that we can trust the political infrastructure in place to contain and assure the world that Iraq didn’t have WMDs. People claim that Bush said that the war would be easy, and while I think the administration was hoping it would be, that’s not what they said. It was repeated numerous times that this war was a long commitment. It’s not all the fault of the government – people hear what they want to hear.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 8:04 AM