Originally Posted by chinese-canadian

en..I think it is an isolated case, usually U.S military will give a clear explanation for the cause of death, but this one comes with a lot of confusion.

You think wrong. But then many people believe or choose to believe that same myth.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

You think wrong. But then many people believe or choose to believe that same myth.

What do you mean?

Originally Posted by Chief Bones

The part about Bush pisses me off ...but ... it doesn't change my view (see last post).

Questions were brought to the IG's attention and instead of sweeping it under the carpet he directed the CID to check out the circumstances and file a final report to clear up any misunderstanding (or) confusion.

Irregardless of 'who' he was, I feel this is the least we can do for one of our own ... don't you?

Dear Member,

I have no issue with the friendly-fire death of Tillman. That is war. As they say sh*t happens. My father in WW2 was on a destroyer escort off of Okinawa and he stated he saw US Navy fighters shot down by US warships more than once. It was a fast decision about incoming Kamikazies and it had to be made. During the invasion of Sicily the incoming C-47s towing assault gliders flew over the invasion force and lost a large number of both aircraft and gliders to friendly-fire.

You have to accept friendly fire by ground forces - ie especially infantry -- in a more understanding way. If a fighter-bomber does not release all that happens is some bad guys might not be killed. If a warship refuses to fire a missile it has its close in back up and low level missiles. But if an infantry man in the heat of combat holds fire it can result in his death.

Finally, I have no doubt that those soldiers who accidently fired on Tillman will feel bad about it the rest of their lives. But I think they need a lot more understanding. It is the one time that President Teddy Roosevelts famous statement quoted by JFK is so true "... the credit and blame belongs to the man in the arena in the dust in blood ...." or something to that effect if I remember correctly. If they hang one of those poor soldiers involved it will be one of the grosses injustices of the 9/11 War. It will show that officers are held to no standard and enlisted to the maximum standard.

Jack E. Hammond

PS> I once talked to a retired colonel and he stated that in warfare it is not like wine. To wit "Bad news does not get better with age." That is something every new US Army general staff officer is taught. But for what ever reason that US Army general when Tillman was killed was as Tony Soprano stated "If you can quote the rules, you can obey the rules." He couldn't do that. And now the piper must be paid I fear.

jackehammond
Death by friendly fire happens ... I recognize this and I have personally seen it happen ... but ... rumors surfaced that this death MAY NOT have been a case of 'friendly fire' but something else. The IG didn't have a choice at that point - not if the military didn't want to be accused of a cover up.

LET'S FACE IT ... IF IT WASN'T 'FRIENDLY FIRE' OR 'ENEMY FIRE' THE ONLY OTHER THING IT COULD BE IS A CRIMINAL ACTION BY AN INDIVIDUAL OR INDIVIDUALS UNKNOWN.

I would sure like to know for sure if it was as first reported - wouldn't you?

If not - then I would like to see the person responsible brought to justice.

Bones is right. There have been stories about friendly fire accidents from as far back as the ancient Greeks. Nor was Tillman the only friendly fire accident in Afganistan. One might remember on of our F-16 dropping a LGB on a group of Canadian troops back in 2002. Its unfortunate, but it happens.

Something else is brewing with this story...

Either it was a friendly fire accident that the military slopply tried to cover up, and the cover-up is being investigated. OR, there are still additional details about Tillmans death that have not been made public.

I tend to lean toward the latter, Army cover-ups are not exactly new (i.e Mai Lai massacre), and it says something when even the Pentagon thinks that the Army's conclusions behind Tillmans death was bull, thats why they have reopened the investigation.

How are those armchairs workin' out? Are they nice and comfortable? I hope so.

I tend to lean toward the latter, Army cover-ups are not exactly new (i.e Mai Lai massacre), and it says something when even the Pentagon thinks that the Army's conclusions behind Tillmans death was bull, thats why they have reopened the investigation.

All it says is that they are bending to the pressure of the media and the family in an attempt to appease those, like you, sitting in armchairs thinking they actually know a little something about what it is like in a hostile area. If Tillman wouldn't have been a famous NFL player, this would all be moot, that's the bare bones of it.

Mai Lai has nothing to do with this incident, the two aren't even comparable. Negligence is being looked at, not homicide.

Funny how all of the other friendly fire incidents never saw reason to be investigated past the initial inquiry for negligence. And I'm not talking about with the Canadians.

Unless you've been there, it's really hard to understand it, despite what you think you (the general you, not necessarily you specifically) know from watching the news, reading the news or from history/military channel documentaries.

All I can say is that I hope the investigation is carried out properly, and they see that no one is at fault. Bad things happen in war, sometimes they happen to your own by your own hand. It is a harsh, cold reality.

Originally Posted by PJ24

How are those armchairs workin' out? Are they nice and comfortable? I hope so.

*Snicker*




All it says is that they are bending to the pressure of the media and the family in an attempt to appease those, like you, sitting in armchairs thinking they actually know a little something about what it is like in a hostile area. If Tillman wouldn't have been a famous NFL player, this would all be moot, that's the bare bones of it.

Mai Lai has nothing to do with this incident, the two aren't even comparable. Negligence is being looked at, not homicide.

Funny how all of the other friendly fire incidents never saw reason to be investigated past the initial inquiry for negligence. And I'm not talking about with the Canadians.

Unless you've been there, it's really hard to understand it, despite what you think you (the general you, not necessarily you specifically) know from watching the news, reading the news or from history/military channel documentaries.

All I can say is that I hope the investigation is carried out properly, and they see that no one is at fault. Bad things happen in war, sometimes they happen to your own by your own hand. It is a harsh, cold reality.

I agree.

Dear Chief Bones,

I have heard no one suggest it is nothing more than Friendly-Fire. (If it was murder by his own mates, the US Army is in serious problems and in serious danger as a fighting force). The problem is that his parents in their grief believe that someone should be punished for what is basically an unfortunate act of war. Similar to that TV show with Carol Burnett about the Mother of a son killed in Vietnam by a 105mm round that hit the tree tops where is unit was and who wanted someone punished at the battery who fired the round not takign into consideration the trees. Or the British parents that demanded a corner inquest after the 1st Gulf War over their sons killed by the FF of a USAF A-10. To wit, If their son was not a famous NFL player the DoD would not even be considerintg this. And DoD reopening this investigation beyond the cover up of the fact that general knew he died of FF is a dangerous precedent. If anyone in the unit involved in that firefight is hanged or seriously investigated, in the future in FF incidents they will lie and claim enemy action. And their commanders will not know they have a problem with FF.

To wit, the Chief of Staff of the US Army should write a letter to the parents expressing his sorrow at their lost. But the matter of the friendly fire incident is closed. Nothing will be accomplished by reopening. But that statement after their sons death by that general claiming he died do to enemy fire while bravely charging a Taliban/AQ position will be fully investigated and the wrath of God brought down on those that knew the whole truth and twisted it.

Jack E. Hammond

PS. A famous US Army writer, Colonel Ralph Peters, once wrote a book on future wars the US would fight, and he stated that because "death" until old age (ie in days not far back a mother gave birth to four babies and two would die before five years and after 45 years of age death would claim a lot of people before 65) is not common that the American people expect the same in wars - ie wars without (or with just a few) deaths. For example the US in Iraq has lost less people than what the US lost in the first day of the Battle of the Bulge or on Iow Jima or heaven forbid again, Tarawa. In past wars (ie till Vietnam) there was no military group in Class As with a Chaplin in tow that went to the family to tell of their sons death in war. It was a simple telegram. And the American public fully accepted that and seen no cruelty in it. Not today. And our enemies know it. And they make their war plans accordingly.

[quote=PJ24]How are those armchairs workin' out? Are they nice and comfortable? I hope so.
All it says is that they are bending to the pressure of the media and the family in an attempt to appease those, like you, sitting in armchairs thinking they actually know a little something about what it is like in a hostile area. If Tillman wouldn't have been a famous NFL player, this would all be moot, that's the bare bones of it.

My armchair is quiet confortable (I espically like the cushion), but tell me, how's yours? Where you with Tillman when he was killed? I'll wager no. So therefore your opinion is no different than my own. Like the old saying goes 'opinions are like a*****, everybodys got one and nobody thinks theirs stinks". You should consider getting the same chair as me, its comfy...

The fact is the Army isn't always truthful about these events and whatever their conclusion is, it should be taken with a grain of salt. Like I said, it was odd that even the Pentagon didnt seem to buy the events as they were described by the Army. I think there might be more at stake than what was disclosed, that doesnt necessarly mean Tillman was murdered (it very well may have been an accident), but perhaps Tillman's or some other unit was doing something in secret, or was somewhere else than where it should have been. Of course this is just my armchair opinion...

Mai Lai has nothing to do with this incident, the two aren't even comparable. Negligence is being looked at, not homicide.

If you bothered to read my post I was comparing the Army's Cover-up in both cases, not the actual crime itself. Abu Garib is another classic case of Army Cover-up. Classic Scapegoating.

Funny how all of the other friendly fire incidents never saw reason to be investigated past the initial inquiry for negligence. And I'm not talking about with the Canadians.

I think all Friendly Fire Accidents are eventually investigated. Its just not all friendly fire incidents involve NFL players. Plus as Tillman died 6 months after 9/11, I think the media and military may have been shopping for a hero, like Jessica Lynch (Kudos to Prv.Lynch in refuting the Army's Tall Tales) Another example, there where 3 US Soldiers killed in 2001 by an errant B-52. It was reported in the press but didnt get past a day or two of media coverage.

Unless you've been there, it's really hard to understand it, despite what you think you (the general you, not necessarily you specifically) know from watching the news, reading the news or from history/military channel documentaries.

I agree. I dont think I want to understand it neither.

All I can say is that I hope the investigation is carried out properly, and they see that no one is at fault. Bad things happen in war, sometimes they happen to your own by your own hand. It is a harsh, cold reality.

Exactly as I stated earlier, but just because the Army says this is what happened doesnt necessary mean it did. Thats all I'm saying...

Originally Posted by mmarsh

My armchair is quiet confortable (I espically like the cushion), but tell me, how's yours? Where you with Tillman when he was killed? I'll wager no. So therefore your opinion is no different than my own. Like the old saying goes 'opinions are like a*****, everybodys got one and nobody thinks theirs stinks".

I wasn't detailed with the Rangers that day, but we were in the immediate AO and that's all I'll say. It really doesn't matter anyway.

I'm not trying to make it a pissing match, but your profile indicates you have no military experience, I know it's kind of a trend these days to assume you know just as much as those dudes that have actually gone out and done the deed, but c'mon, let's be realistic.

I don't tell a computer guru about his job, or how things are when the networks crash.

Whether me or anybody else was actually there is irrelevent, if you know how things are in combat, you know what types of accidents can happen and just how easily they can happen.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not begruding you for not serving. I'm not any better than you because I have, but I have been in Afghanistan, I have served with the unit in question, and I am familiar with the caliber of men and their training within that unit. So my comments on this aren't just coming out of my ass.

If I wanted an armchair, I wouldn't have reupped, I'm a masochist, what can I say.

The fact is the Army isn't always truthful about these events and whatever their conclusion is, it should be taken with a grain of salt. Like I said, it was odd that even the Pentagon didnt seem to buy the events as they were described by the Army. I think there might be more at stake than what was disclosed, that doesnt necessarly mean Tillman was murdered (it very well may have been an accident), but perhaps Tillman's or some other unit was doing something in secret, or was somewhere else than where it should have been. Of course this is just my armchair opinion...

You'll just have to assume what you want on that, I guess. Most of the operations in Afghanistan are still classified. I will tell you that it isn't that Tom Clancy-ish.

To even assume he was murdered shows very little understanding of how this particular unit operates.

If you bothered to read my post I was comparing the Army's Cover-up in both cases, not the actual crime itself. Abu Garib is another classic case of Army Cover-up.

You'll have to excuse me, I was busy wading through much of the other crap you wrote.

I think all Friendly Fire Accidents are eventually investigated. Its just not all friendly fire incidents involve NFL players. Plus as Tillman died 6 months after 9/11, I think the media and military may have been shopping for a hero, like Jessica Lynch (Kudos to Prv.Lynch in refuting the Army's Tall Tales)
Another example, there where 3 US Soldiers killed in 2001 by an errant B-52. It was reported in the press but didnt get past a day or two of media coverage.

All friendly fire incidents are investigated from the start. There is a three step process. Criminal Investigation, to determine if any negligence was involved. Safety investigation, to prevent it to happen again. Commanders inquiry to determine of any admin action is needed.

No one, not even the Pentagon wanted to handle incident by the book, and now because of the media, they want to pretend like they're going to jump in and save the day. Like I said earlier, it's a case of CYA, and it is a complete farce.

And btw, military has plenty of heros, it doesn't need to shop to find them, they're just there.

Exactly as I stated earlier but just because the Army says this is what happened doesnt necessary mean it did. Thats all I'm saying

And just because they say something happened, doesn't mean it isn't true.

It might be fun to dislike the military, assume we're the big bad guys while passing judgement on actions you've no experience with from the safety and security of your home, but it doesn't make it right.

Anyway, I don't want this to turn into some pissing match, like I said, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.