Pat Tillman

[Heibges]

I am so angry right now I cannot even stand it.:nope:

"The doctors — whose names were blacked out — said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away."

"In his last words moments before he was killed, Tillman snapped at a panicky comrade under fire to shut up and stop "sniveling"."

"Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments".

Tillman’s mother, Mary Tillman, who has long suggested that her son was deliberately killed by his comrades, said she is still looking for answers and looks forward to the congressional hearings next week.

“Nothing is going to bring Pat back. It’s about justice for Pat and justice for other soldiers. The nation has been deceived,” she said.

[Reaves]

:nope:

[Konovalov]

It sounds like the horrible and deliberate exploitation of a soldiers death for propoganda purposes. :nope:

The only honourable one in all this is Pat Tillman. Really sad.

[Happy Times]

Link please. That sounds like something to investigate.

[bradclark1]

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/26/ap3958728.html

Three rounds is no mistake. Thats intentional murder.

[Konovalov]

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/26/ap3958728.html

Three rounds is no mistake. Thats intentional murder.

Murder, a cover up, and Pat Tillman being used as a propoganda tool. Could it be any worse? :nope:

[SUBMAN1]

Uhh - that article is totally suggestive. That is bad journalism suggesting something like that based on some of the last wrods out of the guys mouth. Maybe the guy he said it to needed a good smack across the face to get his head back? So what.

-S

[tycho102]

It's definitely a nasty situation. If I went looking, I'd bet all the "friendly fire" situations are pretty nasty. One of the three-stars is getting his pension chopped. There might end up some serving officers getting their penis choppped.


The fact the guy was ex-NFL doesn't make much difference to me. The fact he was special-forces does because those are usually the guys that wind up on the receiving end of regular-infantry fire. Operational security ain't always all that secure. :x

[Heibges]

The fact he was shot from 10 yards aways is the really chilling part.

Sadly, if you've been in the military you've probably seen similiar situations.

You get guys who have been up for 2 or 3 days, out on a training exercise, it's late at night, someone says something in a overly aggressive tone, and someone ends up getting a little tap with the butt of an M-16.

I remember at basic training, I saw 2 guys get in a fight over who was going to use the latrine next.

[bradclark1]

Uhh - that article is totally suggestive.
Three rounds in the head is very suggestive.

[TLAM Strike]

Three rounds is no mistake. Thats intentional murder.

M16s can fire in 3rd busts so one acadental discharge could cause someone to be hit with three rounds.

Not saying thats what happend I'm just saying M16s can fire in 3 round bursts...

[SUBMAN1]

Three rounds is no mistake. Thats intentional murder.
M16s can fire in 3rd busts so one acadental discharge could cause someone to be hit with three rounds.

Not saying thats what happend I'm just saying M16s can fire in 3 round bursts...

Exactly. 3 rounds is fired with one pull of the trigger. They will all fall in a similar pattern in a similar area on the target.

The fact you know it is only one trigger pull is due to the spacing of the rounds - they are tight.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Uhh - that article is totally suggestive. Three rounds in the head is very suggestive.
US Military is trained for a body shot. That is very interesting that it is a head shot. Maybe this is really not friendly fire after all, but maybe enemy?

-S

[Tchocky]

Why keep investigators away from a case of enemy action? Surely that would fit the propoganda effort better..

[SUBMAN1]

Why keep investigators away from a case of enemy action? Surely that would fit the propoganda effort better..

It s a conspiracy! :D

Actually, I bet they are a pain in the ass when trying to conduct your own investigation. That is the most logical reason.

-S

[Tchocky]

This was image-management. They knew it was friendly-fire, but let the country go on believing that it was freedom-haters etc.
I don't know about the murder angle, an accidental three-round burst at close range isn't common, but it's certainly possible. But it seems like those at the top prefered not to tell the whole truth.
I mean, why ruin a perfectly good heroic tale with facts? The guy was already famous for sacrificing his football career, it looks pretty good to have sacrificed his life as well, in pursuit of whatever cause is dying at the polls.

[SUBMAN1]

This was image-management. They knew it was friendly-fire, but let the country go on believing that it was freedom-haters etc.

THat may or may not be the case. Either way, imagine if the UK's Prince were in the limielight this time - and imagine what they would have said/done if it were friendly fire?

Right now, I don't think we will get to know if it were friendly or not.

Another angle - it is not known the size of the round that hit him at this point in time. Still could be AK fire, but I would not put it past the bad guys to own AR's / M-16's either. THe US Gov does not own a monopoly on the M-16.

-S

[Tchocky]

THat may or may not be the case. Either way, imagine if the UK's Prince were in the limielight this time - and imagine what they would have said/done if it were friendly fire? Tell the truth, if only to the family of the deceased. If Prince Harry gets his head seperated by an Enfield, that's the story that should go out. Not that it was Al-Qaida or whoever. No government should lie about dead volunteers for propoganda purposes. I can see the appeal in lying about it, but hey, I can see the appeal in line-dancing too, doesn't make it a good idea.

Right now, I don't think we will get to know if it were friendly or not.
It seems fairly shut. From the WashPost, two years ago. Scratch "fairly".

Soldiers on the scene said they were immediately sure Tillman was killed by a barrage of American bullets as he took shelter behind a large boulder during a twilight firefight along a narrow canyon road near the Pakistani border, according to nearly 2,000 pages of interview transcripts and investigative reports obtained by The Washington Post.
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.

I've been poking around th'interweb for a while now, can't find anyone saying that it was enemy action. I mean, except for the guys who knew that it was friendly fire.
Another angle - it is not known the size of the round that hit him at this point in time. Still could be AK fire, but I would not put it past the bad guys to own AR's / M-16's either. THe US Gov does not own a monopoly on the M-16.
Little search for the calibre of bullet reveals that fellow soldiers identified it as 5.56. I know that round isn't specific to the M16/M4, but it does rule out 7.62.
"Then, after we were back, [REDACTED] my 1SG [REDACTED] asked me to come with him to destroy Pat Tillman's equipment. The first thing I pulled out was his Molle vest. I said to my 1SG that the holes in the vest appeared to be made by 5.56mm [American bullets] not 7.62mm [enemy ammunition]. He said they know and to keep quiet and let the investigators do their job. At this time was when I had realized Tillman may have been killed by friendly fire."


Anyway, it seems the lack of enemy involvement was pretty obvious.

Both the military's medical examiner and coroner in Delaware were not told of fratricide suspicions when Tillman's body was brought there for autopsy. They nonetheless determined that cause of death could not be enemy fire, and they asked Army criminal investigators to look into it. According to the inspector general, three officers were complicit in keeping the fratricide information from the examiners, "thereby impeding completion" of the final autopsy report. It was finally signed July 22, 2004.

[SUBMAN1]

Tell the truth, if only to the family of the deceased. If Prince Harry gets his head seperated by an Enfield, that's the story that should go out. Not that it was Al-Qaida or whoever. No government should lie about dead volunteers for propoganda purposes. I can see the appeal in lying about it, but hey, I can see the appeal in line-dancing too, doesn't make it a good idea.
No Gov has done that since the beginning of time. It has to do with building morale, and for propoganda. Our Red baron thread is a similar vein - the Red Baron was not shot down by airpower, but was brought down by a simple rifleman on the ground. This was covered up for morale purposes. I don't see this being any different.

It seems fairly shut. From the WashPost, two years ago. Scratch "fairly".

Not at all in the slightest is it shut. This is the problem and why it is still news.

I've been poking around th'interweb for a while now, can't find anyone saying that it was enemy action. I mean, except for the guys who knew that it was friendly fire. Which puts them in a position to know it was enemy fire if they are saying so. Check your source by the way - the Wahington Post is known to raise this kind of crap out of nothing to generate news. They are probably my least favorite paper.

Little search for the calibre of bullet reveals that fellow soldiers identified it as 5.56. I know that round isn't specific to the M16/M4, but it does rule out 7.62.

What I read was 5.56 was the most likely round due to the degree of spacing, but no one could firmly pin it down, so this is still a mystery.

Anyway, it seems the lack of enemy involvement was pretty obvious.

Not at all. It was actually pretty likely since why was that one soldier freaked out by enemy fire? Being SOF, I think they can tell the diff between 5.56 fire and 7.62. I personally can, and I hope they are better than me since it is their job to know.

Both the military's medical examiner and coroner in Delaware were not told of fratricide suspicions when Tillman's body was brought there for autopsy. They nonetheless determined that cause of death could not be enemy fire, and they asked Army criminal investigators to look into it. According to the inspector general, three officers were complicit in keeping the fratricide information from the examiners, "thereby impeding completion" of the final autopsy report. It was finally signed July 22, 2004.

And whom else is reporting this? Just the Washington Post?

The point is, this is not a clear cut case by any means. This is one paper that I can see reporting BS again. The Washington Post has been known to twist stories consistently, so I doubt this is any different.

-S

[Tchocky]

the beginning of time. It has to do with building morale, and for propoganda. Our Red baron thread is a similar vein - the Red Baron was not shot down by airpower, but was brought down by a simple rifleman on the ground. This was covered up for morale purposes. I don't see this being any different.
That it happened in the past is no excuse. "Morale purposes" is no excuse at all, it makes the situatio so much worse.

Not at all in the slightest is it shut. This is the problem and why it is still news. What I referred to as being shut is that it was not enemy action that killed him. If you can find any story that says otherwise please post it. I haven't seen one yet.

Which puts them in a position to know it was enemy fire if they are saying so. No. The consensus was that it was a FF incident, yet the press and family were told it was enemy action.
Check your source by the way - the Wahington Post is known to raise this kind of crap out of nothing to generate news. They are probably my least favorite paper.
Just that first quote is from the Post. The rest are from other sources.

Anyway, it seems the lack of enemy involvement was pretty obvious.

Not at all. The coroners could tell it was friendly fire, even without being told by other soldiers. That seems fairly obvious to me. I'll quote it again.
Both the military's medical examiner and coroner in Delaware were not told of fratricide suspicions when Tillman's body was brought there for autopsy. They nonetheless determined that cause of death could not be enemy fire, and they asked Army criminal investigators to look into it. According to the inspector general, three officers were complicit in keeping the fratricide information from the examiners, "thereby impeding completion" of the final autopsy report. It was finally signed July 22, 2004.
Source, sfgate - link (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/04/21/MNGE7PD64H1.DTL)

The point is, this is not a clear cut case by any means. This is one paper that I can see reporting BS again. The Washington Post has been known to twist stories consistently, so I doubt this is any different. I should have made it clear that I was drawing on more than one article, sorry. I honestly can't find sources that say it wasn't friendly fire.

Article I just ran over - http://www.zerosummind.com/tillman.htm

not from washpost :wink:

[bradclark1]

M16s can fire in 3rd busts so one acadental discharge could cause someone to be hit with three rounds.

Not saying thats what happend I'm just saying M16s can fire in 3 round bursts...
You still have to keep the trigger depressed to get those three rounds out on top of which an accidental three round burst would not be grouped unless you are holding it on target.

[bradclark1]

Exactly. 3 rounds is fired with one pull of the trigger. They will all fall in a similar pattern in a similar area on the target.

The fact you know it is only one trigger pull is due to the spacing of the rounds - they are tight.

-S
No! You have to keep the trigger depressed. Automatic means it will pump out as long as you hold the trigger down. Not one pull and it streams out. In fact I thought I heard that the 3 round feature was being removed in the newest models. (Not positive)

[SUBMAN1]

That it happened in the past is no excuse. "Morale purposes" is no excuse at all, it makes the situatio so much worse.

I disagree

What I referred to as being shut is that it was not enemy action that killed him. If you can find any story that says otherwise please post it. I haven't seen one yet.

I saw suggestions of friendly fire, but no proof anywhere. That is the problem. No one claims to have pulled the trigger, and the people on scene didn't see anything either. This is the problem.

No. The consensus was that it was a FF incident, yet the press and family were told it was enemy action. And which is could still be. The M-16 is an easy to get weapon in any country that allows them.


Just that first quote is from the Post. The rest are from other sources.

Got it - that was not clear because you only referenced one source

The coroners could tell it was friendly fire, even without being told by other soldiers. That seems fairly obvious to me. I'll quote it again.
Both the military's medical examiner and coroner in Delaware were not told of fratricide suspicions when Tillman's body was brought there for autopsy. They nonetheless determined that cause of death could not be enemy fire, and they asked Army criminal investigators to look into it. According to the inspector general, three officers were complicit in keeping the fratricide information from the examiners, "thereby impeding completion" of the final autopsy report. It was finally signed July 22, 2004. Source, sfgate - link (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/04/21/MNGE7PD64H1.DTL)


They can't determine that without seeing the shooter or finding the weapon. This is a blatent lie! I have a problem with this. A medical group like this would also not issue such a statement, but can only recommend a course of action due to a high likelyhood of fracticide. That is why the investigators are called - who would then determine the likely events that took place on the day.

SFGate just went down several notches in my book.

I should have made it clear that I was drawing on more than one article, sorry. I honestly can't find sources that say it wasn't friendly fire.

Article I just ran over - http://www.zerosummind.com/tillman.htm

not from washpost :wink:

All is speculation until an actual investigation is done. That is what I am getting at. Anything else that says this is 100% prrof positive of murder is a source that cannot be trusted ever again, period. They are selling news, not truth.

-S

[bradclark1]

Uhh - that article is totally suggestive. Three rounds in the head is very suggestive.
US Military is trained for a body shot. That is very interesting that it is a head shot. Maybe this is really not friendly fire after all, but maybe enemy?

-S
There was no enemy there.

[Tchocky]

I don't think anyone is saying that there is 100% proof of murder, SUBMAN.

As regards the withholding of information for "morale purposes", how does that work? It's ok to lie to people if it's to make them feel better?

All is speculation until an actual investigation is done. That is what I am getting at. Anything else that says this is 100% prrof positive of murder is a source that cannot be trusted ever again, period. They are selling news, not truth.
From wiki, I bring tidings of great joy
A more thorough investigation concluded that no hostile forces were involved in the firefight and that two allied groups fired on each other in confusion over an exploded mine or remote controlled bomb
You can't write off soldiers testimony and army documents as "all speculation"

[KLARCH]

From what I've heard, Tillman was a TURD. Good riddance.

[Konovalov]

From what I've heard, Tillman was a TURD. Good riddance.

I think that your comment is an absolute disgrace to a man that is now dead. :nope: :nope: :nope:

If your comment was aimed at a murderer, a rapist, or any other criminal for that matter then I could understand. But this guy was none of the above. He was simply a person that gave up what was a very high paying job to serve his country. So for my money you are so bloody far out of line on this one. Withdrawing your personal attack would be a start.

[bradclark1]

From what I've heard, Tillman was a TURD. Good riddance.
How did you here of this piece of wisdom?

[U-533]

hmm

Kinda reminds me of some stories my uncle told me about WW2.

Also some I heard from another uncle about Korea and Vietnam.

Odd how stories can be twisted to make whatever be whatever wants to be.

Odd too how the truth may never be known.

Guess it all depends on what your definition of "is" is.

[Heibges]

From what I've heard, Tillman was a TURD. Good riddance.
How did you here of this piece of wisdom?

I would be intererested where you heard this also.

Or is it simply a personal attack?

I heard from friends that you had to have a fairly likeable personality to get through Ranger School. If Pat had snapped at a fellow student there on a long patrol, he may, as one of my friends put the analogy to me, "been voted off Ranger Island".

[Chock]

I do not wholeheartedly agree with the Coalition's involvement in Iraq, but regardless of that, I think anyone who is selfless enough to volunteer to serve their country can hardly be described in that way. He may indeed have been a complete asshat for all I know, as I know very little about the man, but I do know he stepped up and did his bit, and it's in very poor taste to insult him.

:D Chock

[KLARCH]

I really don't care what anyone here thinks of my comment, it still stands.

I could say worse things about his supposed "grief stricken family" and the way they are using his death to make political statements, but why bother here. It seems that a few have already bought into the celebrity aspect of what he "gave up" when he joined up to serve. Everyone has to "give up" things when they join and serve, that's what service is.

[bradclark1]

I really don't care what anyone here thinks of my comment, it still stands.

I could say worse things about his supposed "grief stricken family" and the way they are using his death to make political statements, but why bother here. It seems that a few have already bought into the celebrity aspect of what he "gave up" when he joined up to serve. Everyone has to "give up" things when they join and serve, that's what service is.
More accurately you are talking smack but not backing it up. Most people when making a comment such as yours provides some kind of proof unless of course you are just out to troll.

[KLARCH]

Most people when making a comment such as yours provides some kind of proof unless of course you are just out to troll.

Call me whatever a fool like you needs to, but I don't need to justify my comments to you or anyone. Remember that.

[bradclark1]

A troll.

[KLARCH]

A troll.

You are the troll.

I'm just voicing my opinion on this topic.

[August]

A troll.

Brad we don't agree on much but we do agree here. Anyone who can back up a statement like that will do so, he obviously can't.

[KLARCH]

:88) :88) :88)
:roll:
:rotfl:

[Takeda Shingen]

Call me whatever a fool like you needs to, but I don't need to justify my comments to you or anyone. Remember that.

Brad didn't call you a fool. Regarding justification to 'anyone', that ain't necessarily so. Knock off the personal attacks.

The Management

[KLARCH]

Call me whatever a fool like you needs to, but I don't need to justify my comments to you or anyone. Remember that.

Brad didn't call you a fool. The Management

I know, I called him one.:rotfl: