Posted on 05/22/2005 9:32:05 PM PDT by drt1
Handling of Ranger’s death called a ‘sign of disrespect’. 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
I was going to respond no, that I was referring to the attorney quoted in the article. When I went back to find his name, I realized it was in fact his father. I retract my original post. I'm not going to criticize a grieving parents comments no matter how much I disagree. I can only imagine the pain his parents are in. I should have paid closer attention to the name. I'm the jackass
No he wouldn't, Pat Tillman always went against the grain. He's probably looking down, as he stands his watch at the Gates, applauding his parents.
The article states:
The U.S. Army determined days after Army Ranger Pat Tillman's 2004 death in Afghanistan that the former NFL player had been killed by friendly fire, but kept it secret for weeks and even destroyed evidence, Army officials said this month.
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.
Why do you choose to side with ARMY PR hacks rather than this hero's parents?
Too late the turdburgler from Canookistan has been banned.......damn !
Stay Safe D !
People here know me as a nasty SOB. But I try to keep my Irish temper under control unless I feel a poster truly realizes what he may have said.
I've read too quickly myself, too many times! ;o)
Willdo!
You may be able to reply to him using this link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1408480/reply?c=39
Incidentally, copying that link and replacing '39' with the number from any removed post should show you the post unless it's been completely wiped.
Since you bypassed that, I can only assume that you attempted to, and failed, to a provide a single quote of a military source saying Pat Tillman was killed by enemy fire.
If the Article is correct, and your quote from the ARTICLE is correct in that The Army "told the public that he was killed by enemy fire", then i assume you will have no problem finding the the quote from Centcom press releases saying Pat Tillman was killed by enemy fire". Come back when you do.
Bear in mind, that allthough the results of the investigation was released at a later date. Pat Tillman's brother was in the same Ranger Unit and had all the information of what happened as anybody in the unit did. He immediatly went home for the funeral and to see his family. If i did the math correctly, he is still in the military and poised to get out in July unless he Re-Ups.
Why do you choose to side with ARMY PR hacks rather than this hero's parents?
To what Charge, that military claimed Tillman died from enemy fire? I've read the original press release and no, they did not claim anything of the sort. So i side with my own visual eyesight reading the Centcom release and not finding anywhere that they claimed he was killed by enemy fire to know that they did not claim he was killed by enemy fire!
The people you call Army Pr Hacks are the people who released the details of Pat Tillmans Death and the same people who release details of the Jessica Lynch debaucle, both after the media whipped up a ratings-fed frenzy.
Read my post 143. Pat Tillman's courage and bravery are not matched by their Parents. I dont find that they have rights to make outlandish charges freely and unhinged based on the Sacrifices of their Son. Many military parents exhibit extreme cowardice, my own being included. I find that using being a military parent to make charges against the military, amounts to manipulating and using their sons sacrafice for selfish purposes. So, i make it very clear, i dont find it necessary to automatically side with the parents; i side with reason, logic, and common sense.
Why? "Hostile" is a term-of-art, it means enemy. If they had wanted to say that he was killed by friendly fire, they would have used the term "friendly."
Were talking semantics. But the on all grounds, the ARMY never did release that he was killed I enemy fire. He did recieve enemy fire, he was killed. The two were never linked togethor.
I=BY
/what happens when your surfing 5 sites at a time
No.
There is certainly nothing amusing about this thread, but you, chudogg, are turning out to be a hoot.
And snot on a doorknob isn't slick.
The point of this article is that the Parents are saying they were lied to. When in reality, in a sufficient amount of time, the full details of what happened were given out. And honestly, FF is not that extraodinary and does not diminish anything in the situation. In addition to the fact that Tillman's brother was there, and went home for the Funeral.
Your article is USASOC, which appears they put out a few briefs in the following days after the incident. I could have sworn there was a CentCom release that stated that there was an investigation in his death and that the Exact details would be released later. (CentCom has taken it down from their site)
The release was (a) correct and (b) the best information that they had at the time. Tillman's death was a direct result of taking enemy fire, they weren't sitting around a fire playing William Tell.
If, in fact, they had absolutely no idea how Cpl. Tillman had been killed, they should have simply stated: "It is unknown at this time whether Cpl. Tillman was killed by hostile or friendly fire." If they had made this simple statement and kept with it until all of the facts were determined in the Report, they could not be accused of preferring one scenario over the other for public relations purposes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.