http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7727612/
I am just speechless
Full Version: Army lied about Tilmons death.
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > U.S. Military Issues > U.S. Military Issues Archive
QUOTE(bigtom @ May 4 2005, 08:50 AM)
We had too many incidents like this happen in Grenada too, I'd guess between a quarter and a third of the casaulties in Grenada where a result of blue on blue. It wasn't as bad in Panama but it still happened.
Stuff like this isn't anything new either. I was reading the after action report of the Army's amphibious operations on the counter invasion of the Aleutions to drive the Japs out during WW2. The last island was taken in one day and resulted in only 79 American casualties. Had the Japanese not evacuated that island the previous week, there would have surely been more casualties.
As long as there are wars things like this kind of stuff will happen. Combat is the most choatic situation a human being can get involved with. Even if you think you know what's going on it can all change in a second.
I don't know why someone in the military would withhold this kind of information, this stuff happens all too often. I certainly did not see anything in the story about anyone lying or trying to cover it up. If gross negligence was involved, which is a very serious allegation, it may have been they wanted to be really sure before they threw those kind of allegations around.
QUOTE(Marine @ May 4 2005, 10:42 AM)
We had too many incidents like this happen in Grenada too, I'd guess between a quarter and a third of the casaulties in Grenada where a result of blue on blue. It wasn't as bad in Panama but it still happened.
...
I don't know why someone in the military would withhold this kind of information, this stuff happens all too often. I certainly did not see anything in the story about anyone lying or trying to cover it up. If gross negligence was involved, which is a very serious allegation, it may have been they wanted to be really sure before they threw those kind of allegations around.
...
I don't know why someone in the military would withhold this kind of information, this stuff happens all too often. I certainly did not see anything in the story about anyone lying or trying to cover it up. If gross negligence was involved, which is a very serious allegation, it may have been they wanted to be really sure before they threw those kind of allegations around.
Marine,
You are missing the best part where it says:
"The documents also show that officers made erroneous initial reports that Tillman was killed by enemy fire, destroyed critical evidence and initially concealed the truth from Tillman's brother, also an Army Ranger, who was near the attack on April 22, 2004, but did not witness it."
QUOTE(picadilly @ May 5 2005, 04:55 AM)
Marine,
You are missing the best part where it says:
"The documents also show that officers made erroneous initial reports that Tillman was killed by enemy fire, destroyed critical evidence and initially concealed the truth from Tillman's brother, also an Army Ranger, who was near the attack on April 22, 2004, but did not witness it."
You are missing the best part where it says:
"The documents also show that officers made erroneous initial reports that Tillman was killed by enemy fire, destroyed critical evidence and initially concealed the truth from Tillman's brother, also an Army Ranger, who was near the attack on April 22, 2004, but did not witness it."
So are you saying Tllman's own brother is responsible for his death?
QUOTE(Marine @ May 5 2005, 06:27 AM)
So are you saying Tllman's own brother is responsible for his death?
No, that the report of "destroying critical evidence" is obvious wrongdoing that you failed to notice for asserting ...
QUOTE
I certainly did not see anything in the story about anyone lying or trying to cover it up. If gross negligence was involved, which is a very serious allegation, it may have been they wanted to be really sure before they threw those kind of allegations around.
In other words, you re-framed the report from a serious case of moral wrongdoing to a technical issue of blue shoots blue. It is this kind of minimizing that I have a problem with.
QUOTE(picadilly @ May 5 2005, 10:33 AM)
No, that the report of "destroying critical evidence" is obvious wrongdoing that you failed to notice for asserting ...
In other words, you re-framed the report from a serious case of moral wrongdoing to a technical issue of blue shoots blue. It is this kind of minimizing that I have a problem with.
In other words, you re-framed the report from a serious case of moral wrongdoing to a technical issue of blue shoots blue. It is this kind of minimizing that I have a problem with.
That was my issue. I hate that the army is lying.
Army Withheld Details About Tillman's Death
A terrible burden for all involved.
QUOTE
A new Army report on the death shows that top Army officials, including the theater commander, Gen. John P. Abizaid, were told that Tillman's death was fratricide days before the service.
QUOTE
Another soldier wrote: "I wish that I would have taken a half second to positively identify the targets instead of following another SOP (shoot where your team leader shoots). Maybe CPL Tillman would still be alive or maybe the outcome would still have been the same, but at least I wouldn't have to live with the guilt and reexperience that ambush while I sleep."
A terrible burden for all involved.
QUOTE(picadilly @ May 5 2005, 09:33 AM)
No, that the report of "destroying critical evidence" is obvious wrongdoing that you failed to notice for asserting ...
In other words, you re-framed the report from a serious case of moral wrongdoing to a technical issue of blue shoots blue. It is this kind of minimizing that I have a problem with.
In other words, you re-framed the report from a serious case of moral wrongdoing to a technical issue of blue shoots blue. It is this kind of minimizing that I have a problem with.
So why does the Army get blamed for wrong doing when the Army's role was investigating and reporting something one or maybe two individuals did? This logic elludes me, the Army investigated the incident and fully disclosed what they found, where is the Army at fault here?
This was blue shoots blue, it's what the Army report says happened, but it is also something you don't shoot from the hip at in investigating it either.
The reporter did not go out and find this stuff out on his own, he found it out by reading an Army report. You can bet your bottom dollar the Army will deal with some one if they tried to be deceitful.
QUOTE(Marine @ May 5 2005, 01:55 PM)
So why does the Army get blamed for wrong doing when the Army's role was investigating and reporting something one or maybe two individuals did? This logic elludes me, the Army investigated the incident and fully disclosed what they found, where is the Army at fault here?
This was blue shoots blue, it's what the Army report says happened, but it is also something you don't shoot from the hip at in investigating it either.
The reporter did not go out and find this stuff out on his own, he found it out by reading an Army report. You can bet your bottom dollar the Army will deal with some one if they tried to be deceitful.
This was blue shoots blue, it's what the Army report says happened, but it is also something you don't shoot from the hip at in investigating it either.
The reporter did not go out and find this stuff out on his own, he found it out by reading an Army report. You can bet your bottom dollar the Army will deal with some one if they tried to be deceitful.
Because I KNOW for a fact that the US military faithfully carry the orders of the Joint Chief of Staff to conceal friendly fire incidents, with the consequences that no reviews of rules of engagement, which are at fault here as well as for hundreds of civilian deaths, have been undertaken to limit the risks of friendly fire, because the Pentagon, with the complicity of US military officers, doesn't present the true number of such friendly fire incidents which could justify such reviews.
Tillman's case came out public because some honest kid who was there and saw what happened, refused to let the truth be squashed by the propaganda machine, and twisted to fit the DOD's and Rumsfeld constant effort for politically irreproachability. Sounds familiar, Marine ?
For every friendly-fire case that becomes public like Tillman's, dozens, if not hundreds, of other cases go unreported because US officers routinely agree to tamper with facts and falsify after action reports, on politically motivated orders from command staff who don't want to see friendly fire reports and won't pass them on above.
The US military chain of command is under political influence all the way down to operational ground commanders. This was generally the job of Political Komissars deployed in military institutions at the service of totalitarian regimes. It appears that the US military institution is so politically oriented that it doesn't need any ideological supervisors to align itself with the doctrine of the current administration.
QUOTE(picadilly @ May 5 2005, 02:41 PM)
Because I KNOW for a fact that the US military faithfully carry the orders of the Joint Chief of Staff to conceal friendly fire incidents, with the consequences that no reviews of rules of engagement, which are at fault here as well as for hundreds of civilian deaths, have been undertaken to limit the risks of friendly fire, because the Pentagon, with the complicity of US military officers, doesn't present the true number of such friendly fire incidents which could justify such reviews.
Tillman's case came out public because some honest kid who was there and saw what happened, refused to let the truth be squashed by the propaganda machine, and twisted to fit the DOD's and Rumsfeld constant effort for politically irreproachability. Sounds familiar, Marine ?
For every friendly-fire case that becomes public like Tillman's, dozens, if not hundreds, of other cases go unreported because US officers routinely agree to tamper with facts and falsify after action reports, on politically motivated orders from command staff who don't want to see friendly fire reports and won't pass them on above.
The US military chain of command is under political influence all the way down to operational ground commanders. This was generally the job of Political Komissars deployed in military institutions at the service of totalitarian regimes. It appears that the US military institution is so politically oriented that it doesn't need any ideological supervisors to align itself with the doctrine of the current administration.
Tillman's case came out public because some honest kid who was there and saw what happened, refused to let the truth be squashed by the propaganda machine, and twisted to fit the DOD's and Rumsfeld constant effort for politically irreproachability. Sounds familiar, Marine ?
For every friendly-fire case that becomes public like Tillman's, dozens, if not hundreds, of other cases go unreported because US officers routinely agree to tamper with facts and falsify after action reports, on politically motivated orders from command staff who don't want to see friendly fire reports and won't pass them on above.
The US military chain of command is under political influence all the way down to operational ground commanders. This was generally the job of Political Komissars deployed in military institutions at the service of totalitarian regimes. It appears that the US military institution is so politically oriented that it doesn't need any ideological supervisors to align itself with the doctrine of the current administration.
No it doesn't sound familiar Picadilly. In my original post I stated between one quarter and one third of the casualties in the Grenada operation are known to be friendly fire casualties.
I have never heard a soul in the thirty years I was a Marine ask anyone to cover up a friendly fire incident.
When was the last time you heard of a military coup in the United States? We don't engage in politics in the military, we owe our allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America. If we owed our allegiance to the republican party or the democratic party we would have a culture and a form of government pretty much like the banana republics in Latin America. When the election is over it is behind us and whoever won is whoever that won; no move-on.org, no wringing our hands for years, no tears, and no celebrations.
By political orientation I presume you mean the military gennerally votes republican. I personally consider myself orientated to the democratic party, in fact have voted most of the time for the democratic candidate, and the only times I have voted republican is when the democratic party fielded a candidate so piss poor I couldn't in good conscience vote for them.
It might be a bit surprise for you to learn an independent thinker is the rule rather than the exception in the United States military.
I saw this disscussed on hardball tonight. They said they burned Tillman's clothes to hide the evidence. The Army knew. 
QUOTE(Marine @ May 5 2005, 01:55 PM)
So why does the Army get blamed for wrong doing when the Army's role was investigating and reporting something one or maybe two individuals did? This logic elludes me, the Army investigated the incident and fully disclosed what they found, where is the Army at fault here?
This was blue shoots blue, it's what the Army report says happened, but it is also something you don't shoot from the hip at in investigating it either.
The reporter did not go out and find this stuff out on his own, he found it out by reading an Army report. You can bet your bottom dollar the Army will deal with some one if they tried to be deceitful.
This was blue shoots blue, it's what the Army report says happened, but it is also something you don't shoot from the hip at in investigating it either.
The reporter did not go out and find this stuff out on his own, he found it out by reading an Army report. You can bet your bottom dollar the Army will deal with some one if they tried to be deceitful.
You are kidding right? You are amazed the Army was deceitful? The Army will deal with someone for not being a success at deceit.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/stor...1476754,00.html
QUOTE
Tillman's Army Rangers realised almost immediately after his death on April 22 2004 that he had been killed by friendly fire
QUOTE
The military sat on the truth until May 29 2004, when commanders realised that the official version of Tillman's death would not hold up against the eyewitness accounts emerging from homecoming troops, the newspaper said.
So the Army only disclosed, when they knew they would be caught in lie. People like Tillman sign up to risk thieir lives for a living, and these people play games, that should tell you the true value they place on the lives of your fellow citizens. The truth would have been the right thing to tell right away, but the sensed the PR dividend they could cash in, and they never looked back.
QUOTE(Marine @ May 5 2005, 07:12 PM)
No it doesn't sound familiar Picadilly. In my original post I stated between one quarter and one third of the casualties in the Grenada operation are known to be friendly fire casualties.
I have never heard a soul in the thirty years I was a Marine ask anyone to cover up a friendly fire incident.
I have never heard a soul in the thirty years I was a Marine ask anyone to cover up a friendly fire incident.
Covering up friendly fire isn't new. My Dad was a first row witness in Korea.
QUOTE
When was the last time you heard of a military coup in the United States? We don't engage in politics in the military, we owe our allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America.
It doesn't mean the US military is not politicized, more today than ever. The same could be said of the Red Army.
QUOTE
By political orientation I presume you mean the military gennerally votes republican. I personally consider myself orientated to the democratic party...
It might be a bit surprise for you to learn an independent thinker is the rule rather than the exception in the United States military.
It might be a bit surprise for you to learn an independent thinker is the rule rather than the exception in the United States military.
I'm happy to concede and agree this should the case among grunts and NCOs.
I'll contest your assertion though for active duty, career and staff officers.
Reports of military sex assaults are up, Pentagon discloses Houston Chronicle
QUOTE(wliberty @ May 5 2005, 08:27 PM)
I saw this disscussed on hardball tonight. They said they burned Tillman's clothes to hide the evidence. The Army knew.
Did they allude to the Jessica Lynch fables that they held up for weeks.?
the military either hiding facts or outright lying..........that might have been a News
Flash in 1966, Since then it's been SOP!
Flash in 1966, Since then it's been SOP!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.