http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/05/04/tillman.death/

What a load of horse manure this is.

The US is now saying that immediately stripping and burning a fallen soldier clothing and body-Armor is SOP? What the hell are these people trying to cover up? It was a cover up plain and simple. It seems like every 3 months something else comes out in this cover up.

I wonder what will be next? Here let me guess....Before the US Investigators began the Autopsy on Pat Tillman, the US Army had his body cremated?....Yeah, that sounds like SOP to me? :D

Please someone site me the so called "Strip and Burn rule"

Of anything it was probably for hygeinic purposes. Them being in the field and all. Probably to prevent any chance of bloodborne pathogens from infecting others. Or maybe it's a tradition in the Rangers ala Viking tradition to burn the equipment when a warrior dies.

umm... where did you see that the US is "saying that immediately stripping and burning a fallen soldier's clothing and body armor is SOP"?

I read just the opposite, that the report (done by the US military) says that the clothing and body armor should not have been destroyed.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/05/04/tillman.death/

What a load of horse manure this is.

The US is now saying that immediately stripping and burning a fallen soldier clothing and body-Armor is SOP? What the hell are these people trying to cover up? It was a cover up plain and simple. It seems like every 3 months something else comes out in this cover up.

I wonder what will be next? Here let me guess....Before the US Investigators began the Autopsy on Pat Tillman, the US Army had his body cremated?....Yeah, that sounds like SOP to me? :D

Please someone site me the so called "Strip and Burn rule"
And you would have done what with the body armor soaked in blood? Washed it and given it to someone else? I'm sure those capabilities were available in the mountains of Afghanistan. :rolleyes:

Before you go shouting about a cover up, the details of Tillman's death were released a long time ago. December if I'm not mistaken. If you care to read about it, links are here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35717-2004Dec4.html) and here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37679-2004Dec5.html). So if there's a cover up, it's a pretty crappy one.

Where's the news in the announcement that friendly fire killed Tillman? I thought everyone had concluded that last fall?

Here's what I got from the story:

Initial reports of Tillman's death on April 22, 2004, said he was shot by Taliban forces during an ambush.

top U.S. commanders, including Gen. John P. Abizaid of U.S. Central Command, were told that Tillman's death occurred by fratricide days before a nationally televised memorial service was held for him. Nonetheless, Tillman's family was not notified of that until May 29, 2004, when the first investigation was completed.

Army officials said the Jones report concludes that the Tillman family should have been told at once that "friendly fire" was suspected. The report, however, found no official intent by military commanders to hide the truth.

So, it seems the real meat of the article is that the family probably should have been told about the friendly fire incident in early to mid May (as soon as the Army knew) instead of late May.

Again, I don't see where anything was covered up? The family knew all the details by a month after his death. That's a pretty decent turnaround when you consider the investigation that took place.

Again, I don't see where anything was covered up? The family knew all the details by a month after his death. That's a pretty decent turnaround when you consider the investigation that took place.
And considering Kevin Tillman was in the group shooting at Pat (according to the WaPo articles linked above), I think it's a safe bet to assume the family already knew.

Here is the current Conspiracytheory.

Pat Timan was shot in the back by his own men who were standing less than 10 feet away from him. The possibility of involuntary-manslaughter chargers may be brought against members of Pats unit if this is ever proved.

Now, would destroying the clothes and Body Aromor be able to hide the fact that he was shot from less than 10 feet away?

BTW---the phrase "Nothing out of the ordinarywas done" means to me SOP.

Here is the current Conspiracytheory.

Oh. You're one of... those.

Here is the current Conspiracytheory.

Pat Timan was shot in the back by his own men who were standing less than 10 feet away from him. The possibility of involuntary-manslaughter chargers may be brought against members of Pats unit if this is ever proved.

Now, would destroying the clothes and Body Aromor be able to hide the fact that he was shot from less than 10 feet away?

BTW---the phrase "Nothing out of the ordinarywas done" means to me SOP.
I would think the entry wound and trajectory of the bullet in Tillman would have been much more useful that the puncture in his body armor. If the shot was indeed 10 feet away, I don't see clothes providing much help. And, again, if this was on purpose, I would think his brother would have caught wind considering he was in the same group.

Pat Timan was shot in the back by his own men who were standing less than 10 feet away from him. The possibility of involuntary-manslaughter chargers may be brought against members of Pats unit if this is ever proved.
Linky?

Linky?
www.thearmyisbad-whenwillyouadmitthat.com

The thing with most conspiracy theories is that they were started by people who dont know the facts and are in some sort of denial about a cretain incident (s

Arent you guys missing the point? The Army knew Tillman was killed by FF immediately, as in the second it happened, and then lied to the country about it for weeks. Not that it matters that much, but they covered up the fact that he was killed by FF for a few weeks.

<a href="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/bs20040428.shtml">WTF is wrong with people in this country?</a>

Arent you guys missing the point? The Army knew Tillman was killed by FF immediately, as in the second it happened, and then lied to the country about it for weeks. Not that it matters that much, but they covered up the fact that he was killed by FF for a few weeks.
I'm not missing the point. I just don't care.

It doesn't diminish what Tillman did, nor does it make him any less of the hero he is.

Arent you guys missing the point? The Army knew Tillman was killed by FF immediately, as in the second it happened, and then lied to the country about it for weeks. Not that it matters that much, but they covered up the fact that he was killed by FF for a few weeks.

They did a great disservice to his family and the nation as a whole by outright lying about the circumstances.

Of course, most everything else about why the army is in Iraq has been a lie, why not this? It just fits the general pattern of deceit.

I'm not missing the point. I just don't care.

It doesn't diminish what Tillman did, nor does it make him any less of the hero he is. Why would you respond this way.. is in, how does your brain go from the Army covering up how Tillman died, to thinking we're questioning the patriotism of Tillman?

I just said i could careless the Army covered it up, and im not surprised. http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

<a href="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/bs20040428.shtml">WTF is wrong with people in this country?</a>

Given the source and that Indymedia is down, it's hard to prove or disprove. But he lost me when he stated that "Indymedia is made up of leaders in the anti-globalization and anti-war movement, coordinating massive protests. They revel in wild conspiracy theories. They're rabidly anti-capitalist and generally anti-American. In short, they're a bunch of left-wing nuts". Bias shown, point lost.

I'm not missing the point. I just don't care.

It doesn't diminish what Tillman did, nor does it make him any less of the hero he is.

Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't care when you're lied to by this administration. Lying must only be wrong when it's from a Democratic administration?

Given the source and that Indymedia is down, it's hard to prove or disprove. But he lost me when he stated that "Indymedia is made up of leaders in the anti-globalization and anti-war movement, coordinating massive protests. They revel in wild conspiracy theories. They're rabidly anti-capitalist and generally anti-American. In short, they're a bunch of left-wing nuts". Bias shown, point lost. cmon guys, thats a year old opinion article from a college news paper, which got slammed from every way possible when it came out. really old, old news.

indymedia.org has nothing to do with that "article".

Why would you respond this way.. is in, how does your brain go from the Army covering up how Tillman died, to thinking we're questioning the patriotism of Tillman?

I just said i could careless the Army covered it up, and im not surprised. http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
I simply stated that I could care less how the Army handled the story of Tillman's death. I further stated that the actions of the Army doesn't diminish the importance of the Tillman story.

Interesting how you assumed that I was acusing you of questioning his patriotism.

Given the source and that Indymedia is down, it's hard to prove or disprove. But he lost me when he stated that "Indymedia is made up of leaders in the anti-globalization and anti-war movement, coordinating massive protests. They revel in wild conspiracy theories. They're rabidly anti-capitalist and generally anti-American. In short, they're a bunch of left-wing nuts". Bias shown, point lost.

So op/ed writers can't have valid points in spite of their bias?

cmon guys, thats a year old opinion article from a college news paper, which got slammed from every way possible when it came out. really old, old news.

indymedia.org has nothing to do with that "article".

Yes, but Indymedia.org must be at fault since it's "anti-American" and run by "left-wing nuts". The facts shouldn't get in the way of that!

cmon guys, thats a year old opinion article from a college news paper, which got slammed from every way possible when it came out. really old, old news.

indymedia.org has nothing to do with that "article". Uh, no.

If you bother reading the whole thing, the author does not agree with the characterization of Tilman and his death by various Indymedia.org outlets.

You are thinking of another article that was linked from FOFC around that time and was an opinion piece about Tilman himself by some college kid...

Yes, it is old - it turned up when I was searching on Pat Tilman and Conspiracy Theories. It still deserves a wtf. :)

I'm not missing the point. I just don't care.

It's sad what has become of Repubs these days (to deter you from a standard response, I'm not a Dem, either).

It doesn't diminish what Tillman did, nor does it make him any less of the hero he is.

It's interesting that he decided to serve, and I have respect for our servicemen/women, but why is he a "hero"?

Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't care when you're lied to by this administration. Lying must only be wrong when it's from a Democratic administration?
And you've made it very clear you assume this Administration is lying, even when it's not. We can keep going in circles like this, but it's pointless. Don't you think? You're not going to change my mind, and I won't change yours.

I could care less how the Army conducts its press efforts. Tillman is dead. However the Army wants to spin it, I don't care. For me, and what I think about Pat Tillman, the story isn't how he died and how the Army handled it.

Yes, but Indymedia.org must be at fault since it's "anti-American" and run by "left-wing nuts". The facts shouldn't get in the way of that!
oh... yea sorry, i havent had enough coffee this morning. I thought the article subby posted was the original article that literally called Tillman a "dumb jock", the one that Shapiro guy ends up bashing on.. http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/redface.gif

Uh, no.

If you bother reading the whole thing, the author does not agree with the characterization of Tilman and his death by various Indymedia.org outlets.

You are thinking of another article that was linked from FOFC around that time and was an opinion piece about Tilman himself by some college kid...

Yes, it is old - it turned up when I was searching on Pat Tilman and Conspiracy Theories. It still deserves a wtf. :)
lol, yea... what you said. http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/redface.gifhttp://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/redface.gifhttp://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/redface.gif

They did a great disservice to his family and the nation as a whole by outright lying about the circumstances.

Of course, most everything else about why the army is in Iraq has been a lie, why not this? It just fits the general pattern of deceit.


By the way, if you believe CNN, there was no outright lie.


Nonetheless, Tillman's family was not notified of that until May 29, 2004, when the first investigation was completed. That was nearly four weeks after the service.


In other words, when the army completed its investigation, they told the family Tillman had died from friendly fire. How is that an "outright lie"?

I guess the ultimate question is, if the Army knew immediately that Tilman was killed by friendly fire, WHY did they take so long to come forward with the true story.

I see that question as completely separate from Tilman's heroism or patriotism or how I remember him. The guy died defending our country - he will always be a hero to me, regardless of how he met his end.

Uh, no.

If you bother reading the whole thing, the author does not agree with the characterization of Tilman and his death by various Indymedia.org outlets.

You are thinking of another article that was linked from FOFC around that time and was an opinion piece about Tilman himself by some college kid...

Yes, it is old - it turned up when I was searching on Pat Tilman and Conspiracy Theories. It still deserves a wtf. :)

The article deserves every wtf thrown at it.

Indymedia.org, which I will say is a very liberal - and radical at times - site, is a decentralized and autonomous network of hundreds of media activists. Each IMC is an autonomous group that has its own mission statement, manages its own finances and makes its own decisions through its own processes.

To use the same logic of the op/ed, it's like looking a list of RNC donors, finding a KKK member and then immediately concluding that all RNC donors are KKK members.

Dola

I should have waited for Cam to post.

:D

I guess the ultimate question is, if the Army knew immediately that Tilman was killed by friendly fire, WHY did they take so long to come forward with the true story.

I see that question as completely separate from Tilman's heroism or patriotism or how I remember him. The guy died defending our country - he will always be a hero to me, regardless of how he met his end.

I'm reading the reports as the military may have had a pretty good idea right way, but that they wanted to wait until the full investigation had concluded before they told the family (and the public).

I could care less how the Army conducts its press efforts. Tillman is dead. However the Army wants to spin it, I don't care. For me, and what I think about Pat Tillman, the story isn't how he died and how the Army handled it.

Tell that to his family. Do you think they don't care how he died and how the Army handled it?

Interesting how you assumed that I was acusing you of questioning his patriotism.
When you make off the cuff statements like..

It doesn't diminish what Tillman did, nor does it make him any less of the hero he is.
it makes me think you are... because why would it make Tillman less anything in the first place?

Im really surprised though you think its ok our military "used" his death as a recruitment ploy or some sort of rambo story to make it look like were kicking some terrorist ass. Look up the story the Army did release at the time of his death, they pretended really well to know what happened.

Tell that to his family. Do you think they don't care how he died and how the Army handled it?
Kevin Tillman was there when Pat died, do you think he didn't know the full story? Do you think he wouldn't tell his parents what really happened?

Kevin Tillman was there when Pat died, do you think he didn't know the full story? Do you think he wouldn't tell his parents what really happened?
He didnt actually, in fact Kevin was on patrol with another unit near by and when Pat got killed - they told Kevin he was killed by enemy fire, even though everyone in Pats unit knew what really happened.

Kevin Tillman was there when Pat died, do you think he didn't know the full story? Do you think he wouldn't tell his parents what really happened?

Which leads to an interesting question: should the families of all the soldiers who died now believe what the Army tells them about how their sons/daughters died?

Having said that, I tend to agree with CamEdwards on this one: I think that while the Army may have had their suspicions, they decided not to tell the family of their suspicions until the investigation would be completed. Sounds like SOP for the Army to me.

However, I'll bet that given the hoopla surrounding Tillman's death & funeral, there were some sighs of relief amongst Army brass when it became evident that the investigation (and thus the disclosure) wouldn't finish until after his funeral. Imagine the PR headache if they came out with their suspicions on the eve of his funeral.

For the moment, I'm going to hope that the conspiracy theories (that he was deliberately shot by his fellow soldiers) are untrue.

However the Army wants to spin it, I don't care.

THE MOTHERLAND IS OVERRUNING MOSCOW! THE WAR IS ALMOST OVER!

Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't care when you're lied to by this administration. Lying must only be wrong when it's from a Democratic administration?

Wow can we reach any farther on this topic?
:rolleyes:

THE MOTHERLAND IS OVERRUNING MOSCOW! THE WAR IS ALMOST OVER!

Farah's hero:

http://www.brainyquote.com/images/sidebar_infomin871.jpg

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg

Wow can we reach any farther on this topic?
:rolleyes:

Nah, we can try harder. See my above post. :)

So exactly what part of this timeline am I getting wrong?

- Pat Tillman killed in action
- Early media reports indicate it was enemy fire
- Army investigates incident, determines friendly fire, tells parents and world within a month
- A year later, everyone up in arms about how the Army is a bunch of lying cheating power-mongers

I mean, was there actually an official announcement that claimed enemy fire early on, or did an overzealous media latch on to any info they could find?

When you make off the cuff statements like..
it makes me think you are... because why would it make Tillman less anything in the first place?
It doesn't, in my opinion. That's why I said so. So I'm guilty of stating the obvious. Why take it as an accusation at you rather than a "duh Farrah, we all think he's a hero" moment?

Im really surprised though you think its ok our military "used" his death as a recruitment ploy or some sort of rambo story to make it look like were kicking some terrorist ass. Look up the story the Army did release at the time of his death, they pretended really well to know what happened.
Using Tillman's death as a recruitment tool and the spin immediately after the incident are two differnet things. I don't recall addressing the recruitment issue, where did I say it was ok?

As far as the spin and Rambo etc. I've already said it doesn't matter to me.

He didnt actually, in fact Kevin was on patrol with another unit near by and when Pat got killed - they told Kevin he was killed by enemy fire, even though everyone in Pats unit knew what really happened.
According to the details of the WaPo article (linked here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35717-2004Dec4_3.html) again), Kevin was in the unit that was firing on Tillman's unit.

Serial 1, led by Uthlaut and including Pat Tillman, would move immediately to Manah.

<nitf>Serial 2, with the local tow truck hauling the Humvee, would follow, but would soon branch off toward a highway to drop off the vehicle.</nitf>
.....
Kevin Tillman was also assigned to Serial 2. He manned an MK19 gun in the trailing vehicle, well behind Baker.
......
Pat Tillman's serial, with Uthlaut in command, soon turned into a steep and narrow canyon, passed through safely and approached Manah as planned.

Behind them, Serial 2 briefly started down a different road, then stopped. The Afghan tow truck driver said he could not navigate the pitted road. He suggested they turn around and follow the same route that Serial 1 had taken. After Serial 2 passed Manah, the group could circle around to the designated highway. Serial 2's leader, the platoon sergeant, agreed.
<nitf>There was no radio communication between the two serials about this change in plans.</nitf>

<nitf>At 6:34 p.m. Serial 2, with about 17 Rangers in six vehicles, entered the narrow canyon that Serial 1 had just left.
......</nitf>
Tillman and his team fired toward the canyon to suppress the ambush. His brother Kevin was in the canyon.


Several of Serial 2's Rangers said later that as they shot their way out of the canyon, they had no idea where their comrades in Serial 1 might be.

So either the WaPo's account is incorrect (if so, please send me the link I'd really like to read it) or Kevin was there. Not on patroll.

I'm disappointed in myself.

Reading through this topic (admittedly, my first big mistake) I actually found myself surprised at how conveniently nearly everyone just scurried right to their pre-determined corners, all based on pre-existing political affiliations. I found myself wondering... "Isn't it possible for a Bush hater to see that this might not be a conspiracy, and that many of these criticisms seem overwimplified?" and "Isn't it possible for a Bush supporter to see that this hasn't been handled very well, and that divulging this sort of information is substantial and meaningful?"

It's like I forgot everything that FOFC has taught me about politics. Shame on me. Voted blue? Bush does no right. Voted red? Bush does no wrong. Adapt only very slightly to fit one and all circumstances. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Carry on, then. Sorry for the intrusion -- my curiousity was misplaced.

Farah's hero:

http://www.brainyquote.com/images/sidebar_infomin871.jpg

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg
Actually Bahgdad Bob is quite amusing. I heard he was getting a talk show on the BBC. Do you think BBC America comes in HD? http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/tongue.gif

I'm disappointed in myself.

Reading through this topic (admittedly, my first big mistake) I actually found myself surprised at how conveniently nearly everyone just scurried right to their pre-determined corners, all based on pre-existing political affiliations. I found myself wondering... "Isn't it possible for a Bush hater to see that this might not be a conspiracy, and that many of these criticisms seem overwimplified?" and "Isn't it possible for a Bush supporter to see that this hasn't been handled very well, and that divulging this sort of information is substantial and meaningful?"

It's like I forgot everything that FOFC has taught me about politics. Shame on me. Voted blue? Bush does no right. Voted red? Bush does no wrong. Adapt only very slightly to fit one and all circumstances. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Carry on, then. Sorry for the intrusion -- my curiousity was misplaced.
Hey now! I wore my patriotic thong and gimp mask when posting in this thread...

You wore pants?!?!?!? (of a sort)

Hey now! I wore my patriotic thong and gimp mask when posting in this thread...
I'm really trying hard not to picture your butt with waffle weave patterns from sitting in your chair in a thong. http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/mad.gif

I'm really trying hard not to picture your butt with waffle weave patterns from sitting in your chair in a thong. http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/mad.gif
It's a much prettier picture now that its 'Thin Subby' as opposed to 'Lard Ass Subby'.

However the Army wants to spin it, I don't care.

I still can't believe you haven't address this, or why Pat Tillman is a "hero".

So either the WaPo's account is incorrect (if so, please send me the link I'd really like to read it) or Kevin was there. Not on patroll.

You realize that two people can be in the same area without knowing exactly what's happening in the whole area, right?

It's a much prettier picture now that its 'Thin Subby' as opposed to 'Lard Ass Subby'.

I WILL EAT YOUR FAMILY!!!!


http://community.reinsurance.org/staticcontent/images/motivation.gif

According to the details of the WaPo article (linked here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35717-2004Dec4_3.html) again), Kevin was in the unit that was firing on Tillman's unit.

So either the WaPo's account is incorrect (if so, please send me the link I'd really like to read it) or Kevin was there. Not on patroll.
There are half dozen or so WaPo articles on this subject, and this one is partially correct. kevin and pat both served in the same unit, that unit was split up into 2 parts for this patrol that day. Kevins half was the half that killed Pat, but kevin was not in the vacinity when it happened, and after it happened, Kevin was sent to guard the perimeter and was not told of Pats death.

this article below was written the day after the one you posted..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37679-2004Dec5.html

http://community.reinsurance.org/staticcontent/images/motivation.gif
I love that skinny subby pic ;)

5 more pounds for me to hit the 60# mark (although I'm now a month behind).

I still can't believe you haven't address this, or why Pat Tillman is a "hero".
I don't know why you care honestly. It's just my opinion, not some official designation given out by anyone official.

But anyway since you asked again...In general, and in a nutshell - I think most who serve in the military are heros. They sacrifice much for this country and those who live here, they do things which I can't/won't do but would really like to. They serve whatever President regardless of party affiliation, go wherever the country asks because it asked. And they do so for very little reward or recognition.

Tillman's story is particularly moving for me because he did something after 9/11 instead of sitting back and bitching about the way things happened (like me). He wanted to do something to help eliminate the threat, and instead of talking or forming some task force or advocacy group, he took the fight to the source of the threat.

And lest anyone here think I only singled Tillman out because he's a former NFL player - I am also very moved by the story of Lori Piestewa (http://www.oshadavidson.com/Piestewa.htm), but that's probably a different discussion for a different thread.

.....why Pat Tillman is a "hero".He's a hero because he turned down a multi-million dollar contract, which could have set him up for life, to volunteer in the Army special forces and risk his own life for the betterment of others. That's more courage than most of the people you and I both know.

Folks who think death by friendly fire is in any way different from death by enemy fire are just incredibly ignorant of so many different things that it makes me want to throw up. A soldier dies in a combat zone - often the exact circumstances of the death aren't pieced together EVER, never mind this fast. There is no story here, none whatsoever.

There are half dozen or so WaPo articles on this subject, and this one is partially correct. kevin and pat both served in the same unit, that unit was split up into 2 parts for this patrol that day. Kevins half was the half that killed Pat, but kevin was not in the vacinity when it happened, and after it happened, Kevin was sent to guard the perimeter and was not told of Pats death.

this article below was written the day after the one you posted..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37679-2004Dec5.html
FYI - I posted that article in one of my very first posts here (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showpost.php?p=779257&postcount=4). It's the second in a two part series. The one I quoted from is the first part. So looking at part two, (the article you posted), on Page 1 we have this:

During several weeks of memorials and commemorations that followed Tillman's death, commanders at his 75th Ranger Regiment and their superiors hid the truth about friendly fire from Tillman's brother Kevin, who had fought with Pat in the same platoon, but was not involved in the firing incident and did not know the cause of his brother's death. Yet the citations from the first part of the series, citations which are eye witness accounts, contradict this paragraph. In the article you posted, the author offers no evidence to suggest that Kevin Tillman knew nothing of what happened to Pat, other than the statement by the author.

Edit for clarification: The author makes two statements here - that military brass didn't tell Kevin what happened, AND that Kevin knew nothing of the details of Pat's death. I don't take issue with the statement that the military gave Kevin no information.

Further, from part one of the two part series (direct link here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35717-2004Dec4_5.html))...

<nitf>His brother Kevin arrived on the scene in Serial 2's trailing vehicle.</nitf>

<nitf>Kevin Tillman declined to be interviewed for these articles and was not asked by Ranger investigators to provide sworn statements. But according to other statements and sources familiar with the investigation, Kevin was initially asked to take up guard duty on the outskirts of the shooting scene.</nitf>

<nitf>He learned that his brother was dead only when a platoon mate mentioned it to him casually, according to these sources. </nitf>

<nitf>So the platoon mate casually mentioned Pat Tillman was dead, but provided no details and Kevin asked for none? I don't buy it. Kevin finds out his brother is dead, and asks no questions of trusted fellow soldiers who were there? I don't buy it either, not after seeing how upset he was at the funeral. Rangers are a tight knit group, I can't see how the details wouldn't get back to Kevin. </nitf>

And lest anyone here think I only singled Tillman out because he's a former NFL player - I am also very moved by the story of Lori Piestewa (http://www.oshadavidson.com/Piestewa.htm), but that's probably a different discussion for a different thread.

Yep, it is interesting who gets singled out for hero status and who gets ignored (e.g, Jessica Lynch vs. Shoshana Johnson). But yeah, that's probably a discussion for another thread.

Folks who think death by friendly fire is in any way different from death by enemy fire are just incredibly ignorant of so many different things that it makes me want to throw up. A soldier dies in a combat zone - often the exact circumstances of the death aren't pieced together EVER, never mind this fast. There is no story here, none whatsoever.

Thank you.

I'm disappointed in myself.

Reading through this topic (admittedly, my first big mistake) I actually found myself surprised at how conveniently nearly everyone just scurried right to their pre-determined corners, all based on pre-existing political affiliations. I found myself wondering... "Isn't it possible for a Bush hater to see that this might not be a conspiracy, and that many of these criticisms seem overwimplified?" and "Isn't it possible for a Bush supporter to see that this hasn't been handled very well, and that divulging this sort of information is substantial and meaningful?"

It's like I forgot everything that FOFC has taught me about politics. Shame on me. Voted blue? Bush does no right. Voted red? Bush does no wrong. Adapt only very slightly to fit one and all circumstances. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Carry on, then. Sorry for the intrusion -- my curiousity was misplaced.

Problem with this line is that the first shot was fired by the left. There was nothing politically mentioned until someone started going off about "this administration" lying. This issue should have nothing to do with politics but a good number of anti-Bush folks have to make everything be political. Hell, they could blame a rainy day on him.

My take. Bad early information which led to a corrected report. Nothing new has surfaced to suddenly make this some sort of conspiracy as the nut jobs want to find, maybe the same person that killed Kennedy took the kid out.

I mean, was there actually an official announcement that claimed enemy fire early on, or did an overzealous media latch on to any info they could find?

From the Washington Post story:
-----
The records show Tillman fought bravely and honorably until his last breath. They also show that his superiors exaggerated his actions and invented details as they burnished his legend in public, at the same time suppressing details that might tarnish Tillman's commanders.

Army commanders hurriedly awarded Tillman a posthumous Silver Star for valor and released a nine-paragraph account of his heroism that made no mention of fratricide. A month later the head of the Army's Special Operations Command, Lt. Gen. Philip R. Kensinger Jr., called a news conference to disclose in a brief statement that Tillman "probably" died by "friendly fire." Kensinger refused to answer questions.
-----

The two-part WaPo story on this is actually very well written and worth a read. Not really a conspiracy; it's mostly a lot of incompetence and ass-covering, with a bit of crass exploitation thrown in for good measure.

I had pasta for lunch

I had pasta for lunch

I had conservatives for lunch. They were kind of chewy and bland, but they always go down easy. :)

but they always go down easy. :)I think that's what led to me getting pregnant. :eek:

I think that's what lead to me getting pregnant. :eek:


L E D :mad:

Led

Arles did say she always spreads her legs when Zepplin is playing, or something like that

A fun game to play when the left and/or right starts to get worked up into their righteous indignation mode: Try to guess what their response would be if the adminstration had done exactly the opposite of what they really did.

In this case, I think there would have been a lot of "this Bush administration cares so little for the sacrifices of our soldiers that they can't even let Tillman have a decent burial before they start pointing fingers and diminishing his heroism -- and the official investigation wasn't even completed yet!"

Arent you guys missing the point? The Army knew Tillman was killed by FF immediately, as in the second it happened, and then lied to the country about it for weeks. Not that it matters that much, but they covered up the fact that he was killed by FF for a few weeks.
It was made public once the investigation was complete. I don't think many logical people are upset with the military for withholding the true cause of Tillman's death for a few weeks until their investigation was done. That seems to me to be the prudent thing to do. Now, if they withheld it for 6 months after the investigation, then I would agree.

The point seems to be that Tillman's family was informed (late May) after the Army knew (early May). This is the source of most of the outrage in these articles. But, again, this is a gap of a few weeks and hardly consistent with some type of massive coverup.

The sad fact is that Soldiers have died from friendly fire for the last 10,000 years now.
Its an inevitable fact of war. The thing with a firefight is that they are short and intense. Nobody really knows what's going on they just react. I think that just as with most cases of fratricide this one involving Tillman was just that and not heinous in any way.

He's a hero because he turned down a multi-million dollar contract, which could have set him up for life, to volunteer in the Army special forces and risk his own life for the betterment of others. That's more courage than most of the people you and I both know.

Yeah, that's a really interesting story, but wouldn't call someone like that a hero.

Yeah, that's a really interesting story, but wouldn't call someone like that a hero.
The man died for his country. How could you not call him a hero?

The man died for his country. How could you not call him a hero?

Wouldn't that be a patriot?

I think it's semantics - depends on your personal definition of a hero. I'd say he was a patriot. He was a man of his convictions. He was an inspiration. Hero? I'm not qualified to judge.

Wouldn't that be a patriot?

I think it's semantics - depends on your personal definition of a hero. I'd say he was a patriot. He was a man of his convictions. He was an inspiration. Hero? I'm not qualified to judge.

It's an interesting semantic point--if "dying in service to one's country" is the litmus test for hero status, would a federal employee killed in the OK City bombing, or a State Department worker assasinated or killed in a terror bombing abroad also be considered heroes?

It's an interesting semantic point--if "dying in service to one's country" is the litmus test for hero status, would a federal employee killed in the OK City bombing, or a State Department worker assasinated or killed in a terror bombing abroad also be considered heroes?
The difference between Tillman and those examples you give is simple. Tillman knowingly put his life at risk to protect our country. The others did not. While all deaths are tragic, there is a difference in how they died.

No offense to the "Keep XXXXX in your thoughts/Pray for XXXXX" threads, but I find it funny that some of you who will pray for a situation that is tragic and show the humanity to post words of encouragement will not recognize the humanity of Pat Tillman and recognize what he sacrificed for his country. Not only did he sacrifice millions of dollars, but he paid the ultimate sacrifice for his country.

A federal employee killed in the OK City bombing died tragically; but that employee did not knowingly sacrifice his/her life for our country.

Wouldn't that be a patriot?

I think it's semantics - depends on your personal definition of a hero. I'd say he was a patriot. He was a man of his convictions. He was an inspiration. Hero? I'm not qualified to judge.

You're not qualified to judge who you'd consider to be a hero?

As for having conservatives for lunch... better watch out. You know, "you are what you eat" and all that.

A fun game to play when the left and/or right starts to get worked up into their righteous indignation mode: Try to guess what their response would be if the adminstration had done exactly the opposite of what they really did.

In this case, I think there would have been a lot of "this Bush administration cares so little for the sacrifices of our soldiers that they can't even let Tillman have a decent burial before they start pointing fingers and diminishing his heroism -- and the official investigation wasn't even completed yet!"

But this has nothing to do with "the administration", or any administration. That would be like getting cut off by someone driving a Ford and blaming the president of Ford.

What this story is mostly about is how little understanding and respect people (posters and media included) have for the military and war.

The difference between Tillman and those examples you give is simple. Tillman knowingly put his life at risk to protect our country. The others did not. While all deaths are tragic, there is a difference in how they died.

I just don't think there's anything particularly heroic about just dying in a war. Who knows what motivations that person had to go there in the first place. I don't know, I won't judge, and I won't call the person a hero for that reason.

That's my point. So to me, it's an interesting story, and that's about it.

What this story is mostly about is how little understanding and respect people (posters and media included) have for the military and war.

I'm not sure what you mean by respect war.

I just don't think there's anything particularly heroic about just dying in a war. Who knows what motivations that person had to go there in the first place. I don't know, I won't judge, and I won't call the person a hero for that reason.

That's my point. So to me, it's an interesting story, and that's about it.
So being a policeman and a firefighter isn't heroic either, by your definition? He placed his life in danger for our country (regardless of motivations...and in his specific case it obviously wasn't for the money) and he isn't a hero.

To each his own, but I'm wondering, who IS a hero to you?

To each his own, but I'm wondering, who IS a hero to you?
I'm wondering the same thing. :confused:

Voted blue? Bush does no right. Voted red? Bush does no wrong. Adapt only very slightly to fit one and all circumstances. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Or those few of us that voted in a color no one can figure out yet?

It does, however, sound like you are perpetuating the red/blue myth despite what we have seen here. I would venture to say that those in this thread are a minority in their true redness and blueness, whereas the majority are various shades of purple or brown (if you mix most of the colors).

What this story is mostly about is how little understanding and respect people (posters and media included) have for the military and war.

If you remember your military philosophy, the famed Clausewitz wrote that "war is merely the continuation of policy by other means". In other words war is an instrument of a nation's foreign policy, not an end in and of itself. The military is in the employ of a nation's foreign policy leadership and their sole purpose is to implement those tools of statecraft, nothing more nothing less.

So exactly what part of this timeline am I getting wrong?

- Pat Tillman killed in action
-->All physical evidence immediately destroyed by his own unit<--
- Early media reports indicate it was enemy fire
- Army investigates incident, determines friendly fire, tells parents and world within a month
- A year later, everyone up in arms about how the Army is a bunch of lying cheating power-mongers
There, I think I fixed that for you.

If it is true that Pat Tillman was killed by men in his own unit then:
The body Armor would of helped invistagtors determine where the bullet had come from.
The investigators could of also determined if he was in fact shot at point-blank range by checking his clothing for gun powder residue.

Well, that is if all this evidence wasn't immediately ordered to be destroyed by the same men who would of been under investigation for Tillmans's death.

There, I think I fixed that for you.

If it is true that Pat Tillman was killed by men in his own unit then:
The body Armor would of helped invistagtors determine where the bullet had come from.
Uh, the bullet was in his body - that's how he was killed. If the body armor had prevented the bullet from reaching Tillman, he would still be alive.

The investigators could of also determined if he was in fact shot at point-blank range by checking his clothing for gun powder residue.
The wound itself and trajectory of the bullet in his body was enough to determine that. Unless people were firing a howitzer at him, it's doubtful any power or anything of value could have been gained from a puncture hole in his clothing.

The military was able to glean more information from the wound on Tillman's body than anything they could have hope to learn from his clothes.

Well, that is if all this evidence wasn't immediately ordered to be destroyed by the same men who would of been under investigation for Tillmans's death.
And what would be the point of that? You're acting as if there was some mobile camera on his body armor that was destroyed after the fact. The punctures in the body armor and clothing would not have been half as usefull as seeing the actual entry wound on his body and where the bullet ended up. That's where the trues clues existed and that was thoroughly investigated.

The only way your conspiracy theory would have any value is if they would have burned Tillman's body. Given the firefight and the wound Tillman received, all the clothes would have told investigators is where the bullet entered - something they already knew.

So being a policeman and a firefighter isn't heroic either, by your definition? He placed his life in danger for our country (regardless of motivations...and in his specific case it obviously wasn't for the money) and he isn't a hero.

To each his own, but I'm wondering, who IS a hero to you?

Not at all (the firemen/policeman)! Some of those guys have a lot of balls but I wouldn't call them heroes for simply doing the job they're paid and signed up to do.

As far as who is a hero to me...good question. I don't really have any. I admire certain people, while realizing that they too have their faults and that no one is perfect.

I'm wondering the same thing. :confused:

Do you guys need heroes to live your lives or something?

Uh, the bullet was in his body - that's how he was killed.

You should give the detectives some tips next time you hang out with 'em!

You should give the detectives some tips next time you hang out with 'em!
Hey I wasn't the one stating there was no way to determine where the bullet had come from without having Tillman's shirt ;)

There, I think I fixed that for you.

If it is true that Pat Tillman was killed by men in his own unit then:
The body Armor would of helped invistagtors determine where the bullet had come from.
The investigators could of also determined if he was in fact shot at point-blank range by checking his clothing for gun powder residue.

Well, that is if all this evidence wasn't immediately ordered to be destroyed by the same men who would of been under investigation for Tillmans's death.
Don't forget about the missile that took down TWA Flight 800, either. You're reaching here...

Uh, the bullet was in his body - that's how he was killed. If the body armor had prevented the bullet from reaching Tillman, he would still be alive.
Why did the body armor fail? The body Armor failed becase we was shot from less than 10 feet away. Body Armor is not designed to stop a bullet fired at point plank range.


Unless people were firing a howitzer at him, it's doubtful any power or anything of value could have been gained from a puncture hole in his clothing.

The military was able to glean more information from the wound on Tillman's body than anything they could have hope to learn from his clothes.

Examining the clothing, not the bullet, or the wound on his body, remember, that the bullet went through his body armor, through his clothing and then hit his skin. An investigation of Both his clothing and Body Armor would of resulted in massive amounts of gun powder residue, because the bullet was fired from less than 10 feet away.


What the Army is trying to prevent is a Invistagation for members of Tillmans own unit for shooting him in the back from less than 10 feet away. Court Martial. Manslaughter charges. Big Headlines and Bad Press.

Why did the body armor fail? The body Armor failed becase we was shot from less than 10 feet away. Body Armor is not designed to stop a bullet fired at point plank range.


Uhh, the WaPo story said the dude's head got taken off. I don't think the body armor is going to do anything about that..

And what are you trying to insuate with the whole point blank thing? That the Man had Tilman killed? Because... he was going to expose the secret plot to enslave the human race?

Not at all (the firemen/policeman)! Some of those guys have a lot of balls but I wouldn't call them heroes for simply doing the job they're paid and signed up to do.

As far as who is a hero to me...good question. I don't really have any. I admire certain people, while realizing that they too have their faults and that no one is perfect.


Pheraps maybe one day you will take the time to look up and comprehend what it even takes to become a United States Army Ranger. Then maybe you can make the leap to the actual missions and harrowing roles Rangers are placed into. That should be enough to gain your respect for any individual. Throw in Ranger Tillman's backstory and you should be there.

If you dont?

Thats ok too. Ranger Pat Tillman is a HERO to me. May God have him rest in peace.

HOOAH!

The only situation where Tillman would have been shot intentionally by his own men is if had tried to retreat without hearing the order to do so. That would fall under desertion during war time in the UCMJ. That is an automatic death sentence where he is killed without a trial.

However, the likelihood of that is very very low.

The only situation where Tillman would have been shot intentionally by his own men is if had tried to retreat without hearing the order to do so. That would fall under desertion during war time in the UCMJ. That is an automatic death sentence where he is killed without a trial.

However, the likelihood of that is very very low.
OOPS, It is supposed to be Involuntary-Manslaughter. It was an accident.

The report I read months ago, reported that Tillman was accidentally shot in the back by members of his own unit from less than 10 feet away.

I thought it was a load of BS, untill now, when I read about his clothes and body armor being destroyed immediately after his death. OOPS, make that accidentally burned and destroyed by his unit.

OOPS, It is supposed to be Involuntary-Manslaughter. It was an accident.

The report I read months ago, reported that Tillman was accidentally shot in the back by members of his own unit from less than 10 feet away.

I thought it was a load of BS, untill now, when I read about his clothes and body armor being destroyed immediately after his death. OOPS, make that accidentally burned and destroyed by his unit.
But, again, what evidence would the clothes have provided that we don't already know. We know he was shot by friendly fire and the investigators knew the nature and proximity of the shooting by the entry wound into Tillman and the trajectory of the bullet (both mentioned in the Washington Post story).

There is no mystery left for the clothes to clear up - nor was there after the investigators report made back in May of 04. It was a tragic friendly fire accident that was the result of poor visibility and mistaking an afghan fighter working with the US for an aggressive member of the Taliban.

If you really think some soldier just summarily executed Tillman because he didn't like the guy or because of some sinister plot, you need to stop reading moveon.org and get back to the known facts of this case. Between the dozens of witnesses, source of the wounds on Tillman and the trajectory from which he was hit show this could not have been the case. So, unless Lee Harvey Oswald was hidden in Tillman's body armor, there's nothing new it could have told the investigators.

Pheraps maybe one day you will take the time to look up and comprehend what it even takes to become a United States Army Ranger. Then maybe you can make the leap to the actual missions and harrowing roles Rangers are placed into. That should be enough to gain your respect for any individual. Throw in Ranger Tillman's backstory and you should be there.

If you dont?

Thats ok too. Ranger Pat Tillman is a HERO to me. May God have him rest in peace.

HOOAH!

Funny you say that. I actually have a good friend who is a Ranger and was overseas!

I do respect the dedication and mental toughness required to become a Ranger. Doesn't mean they're my heroes. Do you see where I'm going with this?

I think the word/concept of hero was invented in a world where all intelligent people realized that "no ones perfect." So a hero doesn't have to ALWAYS be heroic in ALL things, just have certain heroic qualities.

Saying or thinking that there are no or hardly any heroes because of imperfections is like saying there are no "good" people for the same reason. If someone does a heroic thing by a set of societal standards, then there is no reason not to call him a hero for that reason. It doesn't mean he is 100% hero, it just means that he is heroic in a way that that person admires. And it gives something for others to live up to. They don't have to be that exact person in there lives and shouldn't be, but its good to have ideas of where one can go in one's life.

Embracing dedication towards people or a cause over a life with more comforts is heroic to a lot of people, as it should be.

But, again, what evidence would the clothes have provided that we don't already know. We know he was shot by friendly fire and the investigators knew the nature and proximity of the shooting by the entry wound into Tillman and the trajectory of the bullet (both mentioned in the Washington Post story).And this would tell us why his body armored failed?

The report I read said there was NO engagement, NO friendly fire accident. Tillman was shot in the back by a member of his own unit just on accident. The gun was accidentally discharged.

The Army is trying to put some kind of "Hero BS Spin" on this accidental killing. Count the number of dead and you tell me who is killing more Americans overseas; American Stupidity, or Revolutionaries? Maybe to close to call.

In other words shit happens. You have a bunch of people running around with guns, eventually someone is going to get shot. And, you do not need an engagement, or an accidental friendly fire excercise to tell you that.

BTW--It was Tillman's Autopsy that revealed it was a US issued bullet that killed him. Surprise, Surprise, Surprise.

The Army is trying to put some kind of "Hero BS Spin" on this accidental killing. Count the number of dead and you tell me who is killing more Americans overseas; American Stupidity, or Revolutionaries? Maybe to close to call.

1. American stupidity=fratricide. What. The. Fuck. Try walking a mile in the soldiers' boots in Afghanistan or Iraq.

2. Try watching the news. If you truly believe that more soldiers are dying because of fratricide or accidents than enemy contact, then you're delusional.

Do you guys need heroes to live your lives or something?
Thanks for giving us your point of view (no sarcasm intended). As it was said before, it's simple semantics. My definition of a hero is someone that I respect and aspire to be like.

The report I read said there was NO engagement, NO friendly fire accident. Tillman was shot in the back by a member of his own unit just on accident. The gun was accidentally discharged.
Who wrote the report? Did you see the actual copy or did you just heard second hand information in a "news" article? Unless you have a Department of the Army document what happened, you are probably reading BS information.

The Army is trying to put some kind of "Hero BS Spin" on this accidental killing. Count the number of dead and you tell me who is killing more Americans overseas; American Stupidity, or Revolutionaries? Maybe to close to call.
I'm not going to dignify this statement with an answer.

BTW--It was Tillman's Autopsy that revealed it was a US issued bullet that killed him. Surprise, Surprise, Surprise.
Duh? That's why it's called a "friendly fire" accident. The wound that Tillman died from was in his head. No body armor would have protected him from that kind of wound. If you had done any research outside conspiracy theory site, you would realize that.

And this would tell us why his body armored failed?


Uh, let me mention this again: his body armor didn't fail, his fucking head got blown off. From the story:

On the ridge the young Ranger nearest Pat Tillman screamed, "Oh my [expletive] God!" again and again, as one of his comrades recalled. The Ranger beside Tillman had been lying flat as Tillman initially called out for a cease-fire, yelling out his name. Then Tillman went silent as the firing continued. Now the young Ranger saw a "river of blood" coming from Tillman's position. He got up, looked at Tillman, and saw that "his head was gone."

Thanks for giving us your point of view (no sarcasm intended). As it was said before, it's simple semantics. My definition of a hero is someone that I respect and aspire to be like.

Ok, that's cool. I guess I respect these people, I just don't necessarily aspire to be like them. I'm sure you can (and do) respect that as well! :)

Thanks-

WrongWay, I'd really like to see this "report" you've looked at. Any links to where one could find it?

In my book Pat Tillman has easilly passed the minimum threshold for consideration as a hero. Anyone who doesn't at least give him that much credit is....Well I'll just say unenlightened.

He voluntarilly left a dream job to help his country. He became an Army Ranger, no simple task in itself. Went to war, bringing the fight to his nation's ememies, and was killed in action. He doesn't have to be perfect. Perfection isn't a requirement for "hero". He had courage, and he had principles. He willingly put his life on the line to back up his principles. Yeah. Pat Tillman is a hero.

And this would tell us why his body armored failed?

The report I read said there was NO engagement, NO friendly fire accident. Tillman was shot in the back by a member of his own unit just on accident. The gun was accidentally discharged.

The Army is trying to put some kind of "Hero BS Spin" on this accidental killing. Count the number of dead and you tell me who is killing more Americans overseas; American Stupidity, or Revolutionaries? Maybe to close to call.

In other words shit happens. You have a bunch of people running around with guns, eventually someone is going to get shot. And, you do not need an engagement, or an accidental friendly fire excercise to tell you that.

BTW--It was Tillman's Autopsy that revealed it was a US issued bullet that killed him. Surprise, Surprise, Surprise.

Even if we take this at face value, it doesn't in any way diminish his life and death. He died in a combat zone, wearing the uniform of the US of A, serving with honor.

Somebody look up the number of US dead from friendly fire during WW2. None of those deaths were ever considered less honorable than the ones shot by germans storming normandy, for example.

Also, how could anybody OUTSIDE the military know more about Pat Tillman's service than those INSIDE the military? This whole thread is just bullshit. WrongWay, you are aptly named.

So being a policeman and a firefighter isn't heroic either, by your definition? He placed his life in danger for our country (regardless of motivations...and in his specific case it obviously wasn't for the money) and he isn't a hero.

To each his own, but I'm wondering, who IS a hero to you?

Not at all (the firemen/policeman)! Some of those guys have a lot of balls but I wouldn't call them heroes for simply doing the job they're paid and signed up to do.

As far as who is a hero to me...good question. I don't really have any. I admire certain people, while realizing that they too have their faults and that no one is perfect.

hero (n) - a man distinguished by exceptional courage, nobility and strength.

Pat Tillman is easily a hero.

Also, how could anybody OUTSIDE the military know more about Pat Tillman's service than those INSIDE the military? This whole thread is just bullshit. WrongWay, you are aptly named.

I am bothered by both sides in this debate. I tend to think that WrongWay is overstating things a bit with the cover up charge. The facts are well established, and the military has been rather open about what happened. The burning of Tillman's armor and uniform might be indicative of some CYA activity on the part of his unit, but it is quite a leap to suggest something more sinister.

With that being said, I don't think that there is anything wrong with WrongWay's attempts to question the incident. Perhaps the military folks on the board can help with the questions: "Is the future career advancement of those persons responsible for a friendly fire incident impacted negatively? Are there criminal repercussions? Is it SOP to dispose of the Body Armor/uniform of a soldier killed in combat?" These seem to be fair questions that would go a long way in resolving the issue of whether the body armor doesn't mean anything, or whether there is a little CYA going on among soldiers trying to protect their careers. I don't have an opinion either way, but asking those questions could shed some light on to this debate.

Finally, I've said it before: the military serves at the behest of the citizens of the United States, not the other way around. I don't question the heroism of soldiers in combat, but that does not exempt the military from the oversight of the American people.

With that being said, I don't think that there is anything wrong with WrongWay's attempts to question the incident. Perhaps the military folks on the board can help with the questions: "Is the future career advancement of those persons responsible for a friendly fire incident impacted negatively? Are there criminal repercussions? Is it SOP to dispose of the Body Armor/uniform of a soldier killed in combat?"
My take on it, and my take only:

Yes, the future career advancement of those persons responsible for a friendly fire incident can be negatively impacted. The hard part is finding out who is to blame (if anyone). There are varying degrees of punishment, some criminal, some administrative, and some a little of both. It would depend on the unit as to whether you dispose of the body armor/uniform of a soldier killed in combat. As far as I know, it wasn't SOP in our battalion.

Finally, I've said it before: the military serves at the behest of the citizens of the United States, not the other way around. I don't question the heroism of soldiers in combat, but that does not exempt the military from the oversight of the American people.
I agree completely...however, if more people served, they might have a better understanding of what we go through. When the "American people" make uninformed decisions and have uninformed opinions that are colored by the media, it is frustrating to serve.

I agree completely...however, if more people served, they might have a better understanding of what we go through. When the "American people" make uninformed decisions and have uninformed opinions that are colored by the media, it is frustrating to serve.

Thanks for your responses. As for my last comment (which I believe you also responded to in measured agreement the last time I brought it up in another thread), it is not directed against the military--I am just trying to suggest that there is a middle ground of asking fair questions in the attempt to maintain understanding among the citizenry and accountability among the military. This middle ground is between not asking questions because you already have demonized and assume the worst from our military and not asking questions because you believe the military is beyond reproach--neither is a good thing...

Thanks for your responses. As for my last comment (which I believe you also responded to in measured agreement the last time I brought it up in another thread), it is not directed against the military--I am just trying to suggest that there is a middle ground of asking fair questions in the attempt to maintain understanding among the citizenry and accountability among the military. This middle ground is between not asking questions because you already have demonized and assume the worst from our military and not asking questions because you believe the military is beyond reproach--neither is a good thing...
Oh, I absolutely believe that the military must answer to the people which we serve. I like your opinion and the fact that you can lucidly and unbiasedly state your mind.

hxxp://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2066326

Tillman's parents rip Army in separate interviews
Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- The family of former NFL player Pat Tillman says the Army disrespected his memory by lying in its investigation of his death in Afghanistan last year.

In interviews with The Washington Post, the Army Ranger's mother and father said they believe the military and the government created a heroic tale about how their son died to foster a patriotic response across the country.

"Pat had high ideals about the country; that's why he did what he did," Mary Tillman told the Post. "The military let him down. The administration let him down. It was a sign of disrespect. The fact that he was the ultimate team player and he watched his own men kill him is absolutely heartbreaking and tragic. The fact that they lied about it afterward is disgusting."

Tillman, a player for the Arizona Cardinals, left the NFL after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to join the Rangers with his brother. After a tour in Iraq, they were sent to Afghanistan in 2004 to help hunt for the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.

Shortly after arriving in the mountains to fight, Tillman was killed in a barrage of gunfire from his own men, mistaken for the enemy as he got into position to defend them.

After a public memorial service, at which Tillman received the Silver Star, the Army told Tillman's family what had really happened.

The separate interviews with Tillman's parents, who are divorced, appeared on the Post's Internet site for Monday's editions.

Patrick Tillman Sr., a lawyer, told the Post he is furious about a "botched homicide investigation" and blames high-ranking Army officers for presenting "outright lies" to the family and to the public.

"After it happened, all the people in positions of authority went out of their way to script this," the father said. "They purposely interfered with the investigation, they covered it up. I think they thought they could control it, and they realized that their recruiting efforts were going to go to hell in a handbasket if the truth about his death got out. They blew up their poster boy."

"In the case of the death of Corporal Patrick Tillman, the Army made mistakes in reporting the circumstances of his death to the family," Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks told the Post. "For these, we apologize. We cannot undo those early mistakes."

After reading the above article, everyone who defended the Army's actions in this thread should be ashamed of themselves.

Man, the military sounds like the supreme CYA organization.

After reading the above article, everyone who defended the Army's actions in this thread should be ashamed of themselves.
http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Heaven forbid some of us would wait for some actual evidence before condemning their actions. Lots of hearsay and innuendo up until this point. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. And I think if you re-read, you'll see that many of us were simply stating that the evidence of an Army coverup was flimsy at best.

Now that we're actually hearing from people involved very early on, I'm willing to change my opinion. I'd like to see a few more details of what specifically went wrong (what specifically were the families told, and how do they know what the military knew when?), but this evidence actually carries a bit of weight (unlike most of the conspiracy theory garbage that filled much of this thread).

As far as I can tell, the only new information is that the family is unhappy with the military, which is far from unusual in friendly fire cases. Friendly fire cases are touchy, because to the military, they are no different from any other combat deaths. Hardly anybody else sees it the same way, especially families of those killed, so there's often some discomfort.

Friendly fire cases are touchy, because to the military, they are no different from any other combat deaths.

I find this highly questionable. There is a difference between accepting the fact that accidents will happen and that friendly fire deaths are inevitable, and treating them no differently than deaths by enemy fire. Broken down to a base level, when in combat the goal is to take out as many enemy combatants as possible with as few losses as possible. In the case of enemy fire, the army has control only over how they protect themselves. In the case of friendly fire, they have control over both the shooting and the defending. The army should (and almost assuredly does) take steps to reduce the possibility of friendly fire as much as is reasonably possible.

I find this highly questionable. There is a difference between accepting the fact that accidents will happen and that friendly fire deaths are inevitable, and treating them no differently than deaths by enemy fire. Broken down to a base level, when in combat the goal is to take out as many enemy combatants as possible with as few losses as possible. In the case of enemy fire, the army has control only over how they protect themselves. In the case of friendly fire, they have control over both the shooting and the defending. The army should (and almost assuredly does) take steps to reduce the possibility of friendly fire as much as is reasonably possible.
I think they do (and have) over the past decades of warfare. But the point remains that accidents will happen from time to time and the military trying to prevent all friendly fire incidents is like asking a car manufacturer to prevent all fatal car wrecks between two sober drivers. There's a great deal of weapons, tactics ans overall skills training that goes on to try and prevent these things. But, often in the heat of the battle, someone misinterprets one thing and a trajedy occurs. I think st. cronin's point was that the military does not look down on any soldier that dies in friendly fire and, once the investigation is complete, treats that soldier the same as any other who died in enemy fire.

As to the bigger point, it certainly appears the army could have handled things with the family a lot better. Maybe simply stating everything was under investigation and not giving a full report until it was complete - as to not jump the gun. That would have been the better thing to do and I think the army is taking it on the chin now for coming out before the investigation was complete and saying something they did not know to be true. All that said, the army had the story straight and the Tillmans were told the truth less than six weeks after the incident occured. So, the odds of this being a planned massive coverup seem remote since the army came clean shortly after the investigation was complete.

I think they do (and have) over the past decades of warfare. But the point remains that accidents will happen from time to time and the military trying to prevent all friendly fire incidents is like asking a car manufacturer to prevent all fatal car wrecks between two sober drivers. There's a great deal of weapons, tactics ans overall skills training that goes on to try and prevent these things. But, often in the heat of the battle, someone misinterprets one thing and a trajedy occurs.

I concur. But, just like in the case of the car manufacturers, you go to reasonable lengths to limit these incidents; you don't just throw up your hands and say "shit happens" - you look at why it happens and see if there are reasonable procedural, equipment or training changes that can reduce this risk without unreasonably increasing the risk to the soldiers from enemy fire. I'm sure the military already does this, so I'm assuming I'm just stating the obvious.

I think st. cronin's point was that the military does not look down on any soldier that dies in friendly fire and, once the investigation is complete, treats that soldier the same as any other who died in enemy fire.

That may well be his point, and I agree with the idea that the military would not look down on a soldier killed by friendly fire (why would they?). However, because it was friendly fire, there is a difference between this kind of death and one caused by enemy fire - one is accidental, the other deliberate. Because of this fundamental difference, there should be a difference in how the military views combat deaths by enemy fire and by friendly fire. This contradicts what st.cronin seems to be saying when he says:

Friendly fire cases are touchy, because to the military, they are no different from any other combat deaths

Once the military determines there was no fault in the friendly fire incident, that is the case though. I'm not sure what you would prefer the military do in those cases.

I find this highly questionable. There is a difference between accepting the fact that accidents will happen and that friendly fire deaths are inevitable, and treating them no differently than deaths by enemy fire. Broken down to a base level, when in combat the goal is to take out as many enemy combatants as possible with as few losses as possible. In the case of enemy fire, the army has control only over how they protect themselves. In the case of friendly fire, they have control over both the shooting and the defending. The army should (and almost assuredly does) take steps to reduce the possibility of friendly fire as much as is reasonably possible.

Wrong. All combat deaths are studied for lessons learned; the lessons learned may be different in friendly fire situations, but otherwise it is considered an honorable combat death.

People are often shocked when they hear how many American soldiers were killed by friendly fire during WW2 for example; some estimates make it almost half our total casualties.

Wrong. All combat deaths are studied for lessons learned; the lessons learned may be different in friendly fire situations, but otherwise it is considered an honorable combat death.

I guess we have a difference of semantics here. Yes the military will study both types of deaths for lessons learned, but in the situation of friendly fire, they have a greater degree of control over the outcome; hence, there is a difference (or should be) in the perception of, and dealing with friendly fire deaths.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/22/AR2005052200865.html

Tillman's Parents Are Critical Of Army
Family Questions Reversal On Cause of Ranger's Death

By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 23, 2005; Page A01

Former NFL player Pat Tillman's family is lashing out against the Army, saying that the military's investigations into Tillman's friendly-fire death in Afghanistan last year were a sham and that Army efforts to cover up the truth have made it harder for them to deal with their loss.

More than a year after their son was shot several times by his fellow Army Rangers on a craggy hillside near the Pakistani border, Tillman's mother and father said in interviews that they believe the military and the government created a heroic tale about how their son died to foster a patriotic response across the country. They say the Army's "lies" about what happened have made them suspicious, and that they are certain they will never get the full story.

"Pat had high ideals about the country; that's why he did what he did," Mary Tillman said in her first lengthy interview since her son's death. "The military let him down. The administration let him down. It was a sign of disrespect. The fact that he was the ultimate team player and he watched his own men kill him is absolutely heartbreaking and tragic. The fact that they lied about it afterward is disgusting."

Tillman, a popular player for the Arizona Cardinals, gave up stardom in the National Football League after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to join the Army Rangers with his brother. After a tour in Iraq, their unit was sent to Afghanistan in spring 2004, where they were to hunt for the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. Shortly after arriving in the mountains to fight, Tillman was killed in a barrage of gunfire from his own men, mistaken for the enemy as he got into position to defend them.

Immediately, the Army kept the soldiers on the ground quiet and told Tillman's family and the public that he was killed by enemy fire while storming a hill, barking orders to his fellow Rangers. After a public memorial service, at which Tillman received the Silver Star, the Army told Tillman's family what had really happened, that he had been killed by his own men.

In separate interviews in their home town of San Jose and by telephone, Tillman's parents, who are divorced, spoke about their ordeal with the Army with simmering frustration and anger. A series of military investigations have offered differing accounts of Tillman's death. The most recent report revealed more deeply the confusion and disarray surrounding the mission he was on, and more clearly showed that the family had been kept in the dark about details of his death.

The latest investigation, written about by The Washington Post earlier this month, showed that soldiers in Afghanistan knew almost immediately that they had killed Tillman by mistake in what they believed was a firefight with enemies on a tight canyon road. The investigation also revealed that soldiers later burned Tillman's uniform and body armor.

That information was slow to make it back to the United States, the report said, and Army officials here were unaware that his death on April 22, 2004, was fratricide when they notified the family that Tillman had been shot.

Over the next 10 days, however, top-ranking Army officials -- including the theater commander, Army Gen. John P. Abizaid -- were told of the reports that Tillman had been killed by his own men, the investigation said. But the Army waited until a formal investigation was finished before telling the family -- which was weeks after a nationally televised memorial service that honored Tillman on May 3, 2004.

Patrick Tillman Sr., a San Jose lawyer, said he is furious about what he found in the volumes of witness statements and investigative documents the Army has given to the family. He decried what he calls a "botched homicide investigation" and blames high-ranking Army officers for presenting "outright lies" to the family and to the public.

"After it happened, all the people in positions of authority went out of their way to script this," Patrick Tillman said. "They purposely interfered with the investigation, they covered it up. I think they thought they could control it, and they realized that their recruiting efforts were going to go to hell in a handbasket if the truth about his death got out. They blew up their poster boy."

Army spokesmen maintain that the Army has done everything it can to keep the family informed about the investigation, offering to answer relatives' questions and going back to them as investigators gathered more information.

Army officials said Friday that the Army "reaffirms its heartfelt sorrow to the Tillman family and all families who have lost loved ones during this war." Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, an Army spokesman, said the Army acts with compassion and heartfelt commitment when informing grieving families, often a painful duty.

"In the case of the death of Corporal Patrick Tillman, the Army made mistakes in reporting the circumstances of his death to the family," Brooks said. "For these, we apologize. We cannot undo those early mistakes."

Brooks said the Army has "actively and directly" informed the Tillman family regarding investigations into his death and has dedicated a team of soldiers and civilians to answering the family's questions through phone calls and personal meetings while ensuring the family "was as well informed as they could be."

Mary Tillman keeps her son's wedding album in the living room of the house where he grew up, and his Arizona State University football jersey, still dirty from the 1997 Rose Bowl game, hangs in a nearby closet. With each new version of events, her mind swirls with new theories about what really happened and why. She questions how an elite Army unit could gun down its most recognizable member at such close range. She dwells on distances and boulders and piles of documents and the words of frenzied men.

"It makes you feel like you're losing your mind in a way," she said. "You imagine things. When you don't know the truth, certain details can be blown out of proportion. The truth may be painful, but it's the truth. You start to contrive all these scenarios that could have taken place because they just kept lying. If you feel you're being lied to, you can never put it to rest."

Patrick Tillman Sr. believes he will never get the truth, and he says he is resigned to that now. But he wants everyone in the chain of command, from Tillman's direct supervisors to the one-star general who conducted the latest investigation, to face discipline for "dishonorable acts." He also said the soldiers who killed his son have not been adequately punished.

"Maybe lying's not a big deal anymore," he said. "Pat's dead, and this isn't going to bring him back. But these guys should have been held up to scrutiny, right up the chain of command, and no one has."

That their son was famous opened up the situation to problems, the Tillmans say, in part because of the devastating public relations loss his death represented for the military. Mary Tillman says the government used her son for weeks after his death, perpetuating an untrue story to capitalize on his altruism -- just as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal was erupting publicly. She said she was particularly offended when President Bush offered a taped memorial message to Tillman at a Cardinals football game shortly before the presidential election last fall. She again felt as though her son was being used, something he never would have wanted.

"Every day is sort of emotional," Mary Tillman said. "It just keeps slapping me in the face. To find that he was killed in this debacle -- everything that could have gone wrong did -- it's so much harder to take. We should not have been subjected to all of this. This lie was to cover their image. I think there's a lot more yet that we don't even know, or they wouldn't still be covering their tails.

"If this is what happens when someone high profile dies, I can only imagine what happens with everyone else."

Patrick Tillman Sr. believes he will never get the truth, and he says he is resigned to that now. But he wants everyone in the chain of command, from Tillman's direct supervisors to the one-star general who conducted the latest investigation, to face discipline for "dishonorable acts." He also said the soldiers who killed his son have not been adequately punished.
I was with them until this. Why should the soldiers that shot Tillman be punished? There's no reason to think this was any different than an unfortunate trajedy that happens in warfare.

That their son was famous opened up the situation to problems, the Tillmans say, in part because of the devastating public relations loss his death represented for the military. Mary Tillman says the government used her son for weeks after his death, perpetuating an untrue story to capitalize on his altruism -- just as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal was erupting publicly. She said she was particularly offended when President Bush offered a taped memorial message to Tillman at a Cardinals football game shortly before the presidential election last fall. She again felt as though her son was being used, something he never would have wanted.
Then why did the family setup this site shortly after his passing (and raise a significant amount of money):
http://www.pattillmanfoundation.net/

They didn't seem to mind when the US government and military was going out of its way to promote Pat Tillman's foundation (which many of the spots they referenced did) and it never bothered the family until now. I think the fact that Pat's story is an inspiration to many people is independent of how he passed. The heroic acts Pat made to forgo millions in the NFL and enlist is what separates Pat and makes him a hero - it has nothing to do with how he died.

If the family is frustrated with the way the military handled the investigation and their involvement - I'm right there with them. It took the investigators longer than it should have to come clean with the family, and the military should have kept quiet until they knew for sure. And, quite honestly, the military is paying a PR price for the way they handled this - which is a good thing. But to suddenly change from appreciating all the donations, good will and inspiration the family received in Pat's memory to now lashing out against some movement to capitalize on Pat's name seems out of character.

Why can't they promote a foundation that helps others, it doesn't help them. The difference is that the Army and Bush used Tillmans death to promote themselves. The aremy used it as a recruiting tool and and so did Bush. The Tillmans are promoting a foundation that helps others. There is a clear difference, and the family isn't doing anything wrong here. Don't attack people who are promoting altruism and raising money for a noble cause, thats wrong.

A few thoughts:

Put yourself in their place. You've just lost a son (a son who gave up much to serve his country). You were told one thing, and then something very different. Of course you're still grieving. So wouldn't it be natural to blame someone? Furthermore, we all know that the media is not biased whatsoever, right?

Look at some of these snippets:

Immediately, the Army kept the soldiers on the ground quiet

The most recent report revealed more deeply the confusion and disarray surrounding the mission he was on, and more clearly showed that the family had been kept in the dark about details of his death.

I don't see anything wrong with that. It's not the soldiers' place to say anything to the media. Because there was confusion, that is why there was an erroneous report.

"If this is what happens when someone high profile dies, I can only imagine what happens with everyone else."
Does that mean that they think they've received better treatment than another KIA's family?

Also, it's Pat Tillman's parents that are speaking out right now. His wife and brother have remained silent. Think about losing one of your children as opposed to someone else. All I'm saying is that parents take the loss of a child harder than anyone else.

Why can't they promote a foundation that helps others, it doesn't help them.
First of all, I am thrilled they setup the foundation and know many good people who are involved with it in some capacity. My point was much of the military's publicity and involvement with Tillman since his passing has often involved promoting the foundation. They have sanctioned some TV spots and allowed the Tillman family a great deal of access to stock footage and different people. To throw all that out because the military ran a few things in Pat's honor (including a very complimentary message about Tillman at a Cards game) seems like a little bit of sour grapes. I completely understand it and don't blame the parents one bit for reasons that Raiders Army cited. But you would think the media would pick up on that as well and mention some of the many things the military and, more specifically, the administration has done to help with the foundation Tillman's family setup.

The difference is that the Army and Bush used Tillmans death to promote themselves. The aremy used it as a recruiting tool and and so did Bush. The Tillmans are promoting a foundation that helps others. There is a clear difference, and the family isn't doing anything wrong here. Don't attack people who are promoting altruism and raising money for a noble cause, thats wrong.
Expecting Bush and the military not to use a story like Tillman's (prior to his death) in recruiting is silly. Every politician and military person would have done the same thing. And, let's not forget that a vast majority of the recruiting angle on Tillman happened when Tillman was alive and part of the military. Once Tillman passed, the only references to him were tributes to his memory or references to his foundation.

Both you and this article are making it seem like the moment Tillman passed away, Bush and the army started this massive campaign of using his death to promote each other. That is simply not the case. Tillman's story was used as an inspiration to others while he was alive (promoted primarily by the media). Yet since his death, Bush and the army have done very little to reference Tillman except in regards to his family's foundation, the small tribute they did to his service at the Cards game (very non-political) and in answering questions by the media.

Update:

hxxp://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/04/tillman/index.html