Was Pat Tillman Murdered?

Brown Bomber

Pat Tillman was a PR dream for the US war party, a white American football player who turned down a million dollar contract to serve his country by joining the army after the 9-11 attacks.

He was killed by Al Qaeda forces in the tribal regions in Pakistan fighting the enemy.

U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Matthew Beevers said Saturday that Tillman was killed Thursday night in a firefight at about 7 p.m. on a road near Sperah, about 25 miles southwest of a U.S. base at Khost.
After coming under fire, Tillman’s patrol got out of their vehicles and gave chase, moving toward the spot of the ambush. Beevers said the fighting was “sustained” and lasted 15-20 minutes.

Beevers said Tillman was killed by enemy fire, but he had no information about what type of weapons were involved in the assault, or whether he died instantly
MSNBC 26/4/2006

Turns out that was a complete pack of lies. The same pack of lies that were also given to the Tillman family.

Some weeks later the official lie changed to Tillman was killed by "friendly fire".

The fire doesn't seem to be "friendly" when it is three bullets to head from point-blank range.

SAN FRANCISCO -- Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player's death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

"The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described," a doctor who examined Tillman's body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/26/AR2007072602025.html

And evidence was tampered with or destroyed according to his own brother and fellow solider Kevin Tillman, under oath.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTzumHykgO4

But why would you they kill their own poster-boy? Well Tillman had seen through their bull**** colonial wars and had become anti-war.

Tillman had very unembedded feelings about the Iraq War. His close friend Army Spec. Russell Baer remembered, "I can see it like a movie screen. We were outside of [an Iraqi city] watching as bombs were dropping on the town.... We were talking. And Pat said, 'You know, this war is so f***ing illegal.' And we all said, 'Yeah.' That's who he was. He totally was against Bush."
http://www.thenation.com/article/pat-tillman-our-hero

A far more perilous prospect for the war party was the fact that Pat Tillman looked all set to go public. He had arranged through his mother a meeting with high-profile anti-war activist Naom Chomsky.

Mary Tillman says a private meeting was planned between him and Pat after Pat's return--a meeting that never took place, of course. Chomsky confirms this scenario
http://www.thenation.com/article/pat-tillman-our-hero

A meeting confirmed by Chomsky here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puavbn0W4dI

pacquiao

Doesn't surprise me. Correct me if i'm wrong but didn't they do the same to the men who supposedly killed osama? The special forces team all died from a helicopter crash.

Witcher

pacquiao wrote: »

Doesn't surprise me. Correct me if i'm wrong but didn't they do the same to the men who supposedly killed osama? The special forces team all died from a helicopter crash.

They were from the same unit, ST6, wasn't necessarily the same guys.

pacquiao

The same unit. I wonder how big the units are?

hooradiation

pacquiao wrote: »

The same unit. I wonder how big the units are?

That's classified, but guesses are about sixty or so (each squad is divided into three troops, which are subdivided again so, sixty seems like a good fit) but it's all just speculation.

Jonny7

Pat Tillman was killed in a friendly fire incident, but this was covered up/glossed over by the Bush/Rove administrator who wanted to use him as a poster boy for heroism/patriotism - he was hurriedly posthumously awarded the silver star - even his family pointed all this out

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

wanted to use him as a poster boy for heroism/patriotism

And you've just described the motive for taking him out. He became anti-Bush and anti-war and it seemed as if he could become the poster boy for the anti-war movement. Blowback I believe they call it.

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And you've just described the motive for taking him out. He became anti-Bush and anti-war and it seemed as if he could become the poster boy for the anti-war movement. Blowback I believe they call it.

If you think every thing is a conspiracy theory then chances are you'll stumble across one or two that might actually be. A numbers game I believe they call it.

humanji

Jonny7 wrote: »

If you think every thing is a conspiracy theory then chances are you'll stumble across one or two that might actually be. A numbers game I believe they call it.

Enough of that.

hooradiation

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And you've just described the motive for taking him out. He became anti-Bush and anti-war and it seemed as if he could become the poster boy for the anti-war movement. Blowback I believe they call it.

Alternative hypothesis - Armies, like all professional organisations, are very loathe to admit internal failures, in this case a friendly fire incident.
They are usually played down, mostly because of the massive negative impact they have on esprit de corps. In fact it's believed that a friendly fire incident is far more devastating on morale than a similar loss inflicted by enemy forces.

Not quite as sexy as "killed to stop him becoming an anti-war poster boy" but at least as plausible.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

If you think every thing is a conspiracy theory then chances are you'll stumble across one or two that might actually be. A numbers game I believe they call it.

Why do you feel the need to bring me into it? Actually, nevermind. FWIW I don't believe everything is a conspiracy theory so your point against me is judgemental nonsense.

Am I to read from your above point that you reluctantly accept that there just might be something to this?

Brown Bomber

hooradiation wrote: »

Not quite as sexy as "killed to stop him becoming an anti-war poster boy" but at least as plausible.

FWIW I do accept this.

jackiebaron

Of course he was murdered. Anyone with half a brain would know that. He was completely against the war but unlike many soldiers who see through the lies he would have been the first on Oprah upon his return to "the world" so he had to be silenced.

Boo Radley

Here's a wee video on the events for anyone interested.

jackiebaron

Boo Radley wrote: »

Here's a wee video on the events for anyone interested.

So a soldier was WHACKED. A soldier who had something to say. Much like Private Jessica. A complete fabrication. And everyone who calls foul is a conspiracy wanker.

Jessica Lynch came out and stated that she NEVER fired her gun. In fact she was unconsciouse and helped by Iraqi nurses. They tried to make her say that she was gunning until her rifle clicked "empty" and she refused. And all those refrigerator stickers around the country were slowly taken off. Such ****. And NOBODY ... especially the tossers who love pantomime come out and say "yeah, that WAS a propaganda job"

steelcityblues

He was a great man of integrity - would have made a better political representative than 99% of today's crowd in DC.

hooradiation

jackiebaron wrote: »

Of course he was murdered. Anyone with half a brain would know that. He was completely against the war but unlike many soldiers who see through the lies he would have been the first on Oprah upon his return to "the world" so he had to be silenced.

Question - there is an organisation called IVAW, which stands at over 1,800 members. Why, if speaking out against the war publicly is an apparent death sentence, are these people and their very public organisers like Michael Hoffman still alive?


And less of the "half a brain" nonsense, if you don't mind.

steelcityblues

hooradiation wrote: »

Question - there is an organisation called IVAW, which stands at over 1,800 members. Why, if speaking out against the war publicly is an apparent death sentence, are these people and their very public organisers like Michael Hoffman still alive?


And less of the "half a brain" nonsense, if you don't mind.

The fact that he was a very patriotic army servicemen out in Iraq, made him more of an interesting case than the usual anti-war protestor. In other words, he saw first hand what was going on.

Plus, given the popularity of NFL in middle America, and him being ex-NFL, would have made him a highly attractive spokesperson to that demographic.

hooradiation

steelcityblues wrote: »

The fact that he was a very patriotic army servicemen out in Iraq, made him more of an interesting case than the usual anti-war protestor. In other words, he saw first hand what was going on.

Everyone in IVAW has served and a majority would therefore share the same criteria of having seen what was going on, first hand. So it can't be that.

Also, Tillman severed in Afghanistan, not Iraq - but IVAW covers opposition to both wars.

steelcityblues wrote: »

Plus, given the popularity of NFL in middle America, and him being ex-NFL, would have made him a highly attractive spokesperson to that demographic.

That's about the only real difference, but I am unconvinced that this makes him amazingly unique among the many thousands of servicemen and women in the US armed forces.

steelcityblues

hooradiation wrote: »

Everyone in IVAW has served and a majority would therefore share the same criteria of having seen what was going on, first hand. So it can't be that.

Also, Tillman severed in Afghanistan, not Iraq - but IVAW covers opposition to both wars.



That's about the only real difference, but I am unconvinced that this makes him amazingly unique among the many thousands of servicemen and women in the US armed forces.

Most of them didn't get to play football at the biggest level. NFL players for favourite teams are feted as 'heroes' by a fair amount of fans, bizarre as that it may sound to some.

Tillman - on a superficial level - went against the typical image of an anti-war protestor, which is why he would have been a potentially great anti-war spokesperson.

hooradiation

steelcityblues wrote: »

Most of them didn't get to play football at the biggest level. NFL players for favourite teams are feted as 'heroes' by a fair amount of fans, bizarre as that it may sound to some.


Tillman - on a superficial level - went against the typical image of an anti-war protestor, which is why he would have been a potentially great anti-war spokesperson.

I would have thought that being in the service would have been against that image too. But I get the NFL pro turned solider would be a unique piece of PR for both sides, I just don't think he was important enough to warrant being murdered for going from one to the other.

davoxx

hooradiation wrote: »

I would have thought that being in the service would have been against that image too. But I get the NFL pro turned solider would be a unique piece of PR for both sides, I just don't think he was important enough to warrant being murdered for going from one to the other.

obviously he was ... (well he was important enough to warrant the true circumstances of his death being lied about)

it's shocking how people still believe the us military in usa ... fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice ....

antybots

Another theory is that it could be just a plain old murder. He could have fallen out with someone and they decided to 'off' him during a firefight. The cover up could be the military trying to squeeze the propaganda value out of a dead hero rather than air the dirty linen of a soldier being murdered by one of his own. It wouldn't be the first time it's happened.

hooradiation

davoxx wrote: »

obviously he was ... (well he was important enough to warrant the true circumstances of his death being lied about)

But friendly fire incidents are played down all the time, owing to the effect they have on morale - so how do we know that what we know for a fact, is in, the circumstances of his death were misreported to begin with, can be actually attributed to his status as NFL pro turned solider turned anti-war activist and not anything else like professional organisations reluctance to accept the occurrence of internal failures?

davoxx

hooradiation wrote: »

But friendly fire incidents are played down all the time, owing to the effect they have on morale - so how do we know that what we know for a fact, is in, the circumstances of his death were misreported to begin with, can be actually attributed to his status as NFL pro turned solider turned anti-war activist and not anything else like professional organisations reluctance to accept the occurrence of internal failures?

it was not played down, it was played up ...

and from what i've heard it was four bullet holes to the head at close range ... not very friendly .... (i might be wrong about the number of bullet holes to the head)

hooradiation

davoxx wrote: »

it was not played down, it was played up ...

Well, if the reality is a friendly fire incident, I'd imagine calling it "killed by insurgents" is playing down the reality, but that's just me.

davoxx wrote: »

and from what i've heard it was four bullet holes to the head at close range ... not very friendly .... (i might be wrong about the number of bullet holes to the head)

Well, that old joke not withstanding, I am a little puzzled as to why accident is so far from peoples minds as a possible answer.

The case for murder is predicated on very little, beyond his status as an Ex NFL pro.
For everything else we can find many people who are analogous to his mindset and service record who are still alive, so I'm really unconvinced that he's so special as to require being murdered.

davoxx

hooradiation wrote: »

Well, that old joke not withstanding, I am a little puzzled as to why accident is so far from peoples minds as a possible answer.

The case for murder is predicated on very little, beyond his status as an Ex NFL pro.
For everything else we can find many people who are analogous to his mindset and service record who are still alive, so I'm really unconvinced that he's so special as to require being murdered.

how easy is it to shot someone four times in the head by accident?

and regarding downplaying it ... they gave him a Silver Star

Joshua Jones

I knew I'd heard the name before somewhere. Used to buy The Mirror back in the day to read Oliver Holt, a sports correspondant. Its a rag tbh but I just got it for his coloum. Anyway this article gives his insight into the whole affair and hints at the reasons he may have been a special story (turning down a multi million contract to join the army).

Nwm2

davoxx wrote: »

how easy is it to shot someone four times in the head by accident?

Four times or three times?

"SAN FRANCISCO -- Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player's death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. "

The M4s which I presume they were carrying have a 3 round burst capability. In a helter-skelter sustained firefight could Tillman have popped his head up as someone else was loosing off a 3 round burst at the enemy?

davoxx

Nwm2 wrote: »

Four times or three times?

"SAN FRANCISCO -- Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player's death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. "

The M4s which I presume they were carrying have a 3 round burst capability. In a helter-skelter sustained firefight could Tillman have popped his head up as someone else was loosing off a 3 round burst at the enemy?

i was not sure if it was four or three ... there might have been a misquote somewhere with four mentioned ....

anyway .. that does seem plausible ... so why lie? why not just say killed in combat and not state who actually killed him? they do it for many other friendly fire casualties ... though that maybe because for those it is already established by the media ...

Nwm2

davoxx wrote: »

anyway .. that does seem plausible ... so why lie? why not just say killed in combat and not state who actually killed him? they do it for many other friendly fire casualties ... though that maybe because for those it is already established by the media ...

Say you're a ranger in a firefight, life or death situation, extremely confused, shooting at glimpses of the enemy. Scared ****less. You see movement out of the corner of your eye, swivel to take a snapshot. Tillman moves into the line of fire 10 feet away, takes a three round burst to the head. You've just killed Pat Goddam Tillman. Now what? You try to bury it of course, who want to be known as the guy who shot Pat Tillman? Your buddies and immediate superiors either know what happened and say nothing or else don't ask too many questions just in case. 'Killed by enemy fire' is what passes up the line, the further it gets up the line the less someone wants to investigate, and the happier they are with the story they hear.

Brown Bomber

hooradiation wrote: »

Everyone in IVAW has served and a majority would therefore share the same criteria of having seen what was going on, first hand. So it can't be that.

Also, Tillman severed in Afghanistan, not Iraq - but IVAW covers opposition to both wars.

That's about the only real difference, but I am unconvinced that this makes him amazingly unique among the many thousands of servicemen and women in the US armed forces.

I think you are very much missing the point. Tillman would have considered himself a regular solider, he declined any media attention himself but the military/media created with him a persona of all American superhero.

Some of it was deserved. He was patriotic, principled and loyal to a fault. He gave up a life of fame and fortune for to serve his country and countrymen and paid the ultimate sacrifice. He also had just been married when he enlisted. He enlisted because he wanted to help prevent another 9/11.

The Bush administration abused his sacrifice for their PR purposes. This is understandable to be fair. He was white, looked like an action man - the newer ones I played with, not the skinny ones my dad had - an NFL star
who in deed satisfied the right side of the Bush narcissistic false compaison "either you are with us are you are with the enemy". He was very much with " with us".

The only problem was that Tillman was highly principled and smart.

As a scholar, Tillman carried a 3.84 grade point average through college and graduated summa cum laude in 31/2 academic years with a degree in marketing.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/news/2002/05/23/cards_tillman_ap/

And he was well read. His Wiki page says he has read the Qu'uran, The Bible and the Book of Mormon despite being an atheist for example. He seen through the lies and barabarity of war and looked like he was going to speak out. Far from being the Bush/media's archetype of an all American patriot-warrior he looked set to become a textbook Frankenstein's monster.

Is he any different in reality to any of the IVAW members? No I'd say, but the war party created the illusion around Tillman that could give themselves some very difficult times.

How many regular (GI) Joe's from IVAW had the media salivating over them before they'd even enrolled? And these are just examples.

The New York Times
[URL="Published:%20June%2001,%202002"]Published: June 01, 2002[/URL]

The Orlando Sentinel
May 27, 2002

Los Angeles Times
May 30, 2002

Sports Illustrated
[FONT=helvetica,arial]Thursday May 23, 2002 [/FONT]

And even in the European Press.

The Guardian
Tuesday 9 July 2002

The Telegraph
04 Jun 2002

And he is still in the news years after his death. http://www.google.se/search?q=irish+time+pat+tillman+enlists+army&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=%22Pat+Tillman%22&hl=sv&client=firefox-a&hs=pDZ&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvnsol&source=lnms&tbm=nws&ei=lZm5TsmJB-rf4QTmqsz3Bw&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=5&ved=0CBwQ_AUoBA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=96db679281a4a0d5&biw=1024&bih=602

None of this is proof that he was murdered of course but there is a motive in the same manner that there would have been motive to kill Muhammed Ali during the Vietnam era. What they didn't have with Ali was means, at least to the extent of trained killers at your disposal trained to follow orders in a desert and the means of controlling any likely investigation.

So you have motive, means and a subsequent coverup and the plausible deniability defense of an "accident". It stinks to high Heaven.

stuar

Good thread Bomber, havent been around here in a while, I'll be back.........keeping the head down.

hooradiation

davoxx wrote: »

how easy is it to shot someone four times in the head by accident?

very.
And it was three times. Given three round burst setting on most rifles, then it's pretty easy.

davoxx wrote: »

and regarding downplaying it ... they gave him a Silver Star

Ok, you seem to be determined to constantly not read what I'm writing, so lets pretend that initially misreporting it, followed by admitting it and then posthumously awarding the victim of a friendly fire incident a silver star is "playing up" the fact that he was shot by someone on his side.
I mean it's not, that's not what any of those things mean, but if you're determined to believe all these actions equate to shouting their own failures from the rooftops then go for it.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So you have motive, means and a subsequent coverup and the plausible deniability defense of an "accident". It stinks to high Heaven.

The motive is highly suspect, he was not indispensable nor was he very unique. Nor is his being smart unique, stereotypes of solders notwithstanding, nor him being well read or him being principled nor an atheist.
The only thing that sets him apart from anyone in IVAW is his before service life as a NFL star
Are we to believe that this hyper competent PR machine that made him into such a 'hero' would not be able to relegate him to an irrelevance?
Did he posses undocumented mastery of oration, was he magical?

Because frankly the idea that because he was a minor piece of useful PR meant that he simply had to be killed doesn't make any sense, considering that if they really wanted to make him an irrelevance, letting him speak out and then using their massive PR engine to paint him as malcontent and a traitor would be much easier and effective, look at the vitriol that gets focused at people in IVAW for example and they're just as principled and smart as Tillman.

And with the motive so full of holes, without getting into the means being suspect as well I have no reason to suspect he was murdered.

davoxx

Nwm2 wrote: »

Say you're a ranger in a firefight, life or death situation, extremely confused, shooting at glimpses of the enemy. Scared ****less. You see movement out of the corner of your eye, swivel to take a snapshot. Tillman moves into the line of fire 10 feet away, takes a three round burst to the head. You've just killed Pat Goddam Tillman. Now what? You try to bury it of course, who want to be known as the guy who shot Pat Tillman? Your buddies and immediate superiors either know what happened and say nothing or else don't ask too many questions just in case. 'Killed by enemy fire' is what passes up the line, the further it gets up the line the less someone wants to investigate, and the happier they are with the story they hear.

well not me personally, i have a bit more cop on and am stupidly honest ...

but yeah if you just wanted to kill some muslims or what not for the sake of the all holy usa with god obviously on their side and a liar as a president that nobody voted for .... well i can follow that scenario ... only because as you rightly presume all Americans in the military are either stupid and liars or corrupt or both ...

you do realise covering up a death is a criminal offence?

davoxx

hooradiation wrote: »

very.
And it was three times. Given three round burst setting on most rifles, then it's pretty easy.

yeah fair enough, but easy is relative ....

hooradiation wrote: »

Ok, you seem to be determined to constantly not read what I'm writing, so lets pretend that initially misreporting it, followed by admitting it and then posthumously awarding the victim of a friendly fire incident a silver star is "playing up" the fact that he was shot by someone on his side.
I mean it's not, that's not what any of those things mean, but if you're determined to believe all these actions equate to shouting their own failures from the rooftops then go for it.

not really, i just don't agree with your assumptions on this case.
i think in fact you did not read what was posted by everyone on this thread.

the fact that he was given the silver star is playing up his death.
the fact that it LATER emerged how he died which is different to the official story for which he was given the silver star shows what exactly?
well to me it shows that the played his death up 100%, to you it shows, well i actually have no idea ...

Jones reported that senior Army commanders, including General John Abizaid, knew of this fact within days of the shooting but nevertheless approved the awarding of the Silver Star, Purple Heart, and a posthumous promotion to the rank of Corporal.

do you actually understand what "playing up"" means vs "playing down"? maybe this is why you can't follow the reaction to the account of his death being a huge lie.

hooradiation wrote: »

The motive is highly suspect, he was not indispensable nor was he very unique. Nor is his being smart unique, stereotypes of solders notwithstanding, nor him being well read or him being principled nor an atheist.
The only thing that sets him apart from anyone in IVAW is his before service life as a NFL star
Are we to believe that this hyper competent PR machine that made him into such a 'hero' would not be able to relegate him to an irrelevance?
Did he posses undocumented mastery of oration, was he magical?

he was a great pr tool, if he was black no one would care ...
and it was not the army pr machine that made him into a hero, he was a hero before he joined .. he was in the NFL ...

hooradiation wrote: »

Because frankly the idea that because he was a minor piece of useful PR meant that he simply had to be killed doesn't make any sense, considering that if they really wanted to make him an irrelevance, letting him speak out and then using their massive PR engine to paint him as malcontent and a traitor would be much easier and effective, look at the vitriol that gets focused at people in IVAW for example and they're just as principled and smart as Tillman.

it makes plenty sense.
war is money, people die for it, people are murdered for money, that does not make sense?
i think you need to stop trying to argue and try reading up on what happened and think for yourself does it make sense to lie in a war ... does it make sense to murder in a war? how about on your own side ....

hooradiation wrote: »

And with the motive so full of holes, without getting into the means being suspect as well I have no reason to suspect he was murdered.

i think your premise is full of holes ...

hooradiation

davoxx wrote: »

the fact that he was given the silver star is playing up his death.
the fact that it LATER emerged how he died which is different to the official story for which he was given the silver star shows what exactly?
well to me it shows that the played his death up 100%, to you it shows, well i actually have no idea ...

The cause is important.
The fact that it was a friendly fire incident and that aspect was played down, it always is. Giving him a silver star is a glossing over. What are people more likely to remember, that he received a silver star or that he was the victim of an accident?

davoxx wrote: »

he was a great pr tool, if he was black no one would care ...
and it was not the army pr machine that made him into a hero, he was a hero before he joined .. he was in the NFL ...

no, that makes him a professional athlete. His decision to leave that behind and join the armed forces made him eligible to considered a hero, which is
what the US PR picked up on.

davoxx wrote: »

it makes plenty sense.

Not in the slightest.
So far the case that Tillman needed to be killed has not been made or a suitable explanation for why murder was the only option.

davoxx wrote: »

war is money, people die for it, people are murdered for money, that does not make sense?

Faulty generalization.

davoxx wrote: »

i think you need to stop trying to argue and try reading up on what happened and think for yourself does it make sense to lie in a war ... does it make sense to murder in a war? how about on your own side ....

And same again.
If your argument is that if we accept that lies are told in war, which is true, and that murder happens, which is less true but lets roll with it, then it therefore must be true that Pat Tillman was murdered and that murder was lied about.

Which is a logical fallacy.

davoxx

hooradiation wrote: »

If your argument is that if we accept that lies are told in war, which is true, and that murder happens, which is less true but lets roll with it, then it therefore must be true that Pat Tillman was murdered and that murder was lied about.

Which is a logical fallacy.

that is not what i said, but good use of the strawman ...

and just to be 100% clear he was murdered, whether that was accident by misadventure, manslaughter or something else, we will not know until there is a trail and a verdict is given ...

like i said your premise if flawed, hence your assumptions are wrong.


ps i like your "Faulty generalization." for war is money ... i have no idea why you think it is faulty ... but then again i have no idea why you think giving someone an award and making a big deal is glossing over and playing down ... saying he died in combat is playing it down, saying he was killed by enemy fire is lying ... i'm hope you get the difference ...

hooradiation

davoxx wrote: »

that is not what i said, but good use of the strawman ...

it's not a strawman unless I'm deliberately misrepresenting your position. If it's something other than what you wrote, please feel free to expand upon it.

davoxx wrote: »

and just to be 100% clear he was murdered, whether that was accident by misadventure, manslaughter or something else, we will not know until there is a trail and a verdict is given ...

Incorrect. What we know is that he was killed. Murder is a different thing altogether.
We have no idea if he was murdered that's why this very conspiracy theory exists.

davoxx wrote: »

like i said your premise if flawed, hence your assumptions are wrong.

much like the motive for this alleged murder, this has no compelling basis.

davoxx wrote: »

ps i like your "Faulty generalization." for war is money ... i have no idea why you think it is faulty

Firstly war has many causes, not just money.
Secondly, that's not the whole quote so stop cherry picking.
Thirdly, the whole quote was

war is money, people die for it, people are murdered for money, that does not make sense?

So, faulty premise here is linking war to money (which is a half truth) to the statement that 'people are murdered for money' as if they have any connection.

The you do it again in the next sentence, trying to link the atomic statements of "does it make sense to lie in a war" and "does it make sense to murder in a war" then begging the question of "how about on your own side..." and then you accuse me of misrepresenting your position?

If you meant something else or there is a nuance I'm missing here, please let me know, because otherwise I'm forced to conclude you're basing a lot of this on a series of fallacies.

davoxx wrote: »

... but then again i have no idea why you think giving someone an award and making a big deal is glossing over and playing down ...

yes, that is glossing over and playing down, specifically the glossing over and playing down the cause of his death, a friendly fire accident.

davoxx

hooradiation wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

that is not what i said, but good use of the strawman ...

it's not a strawman unless I'm deliberately misrepresenting your position. If it's something other than what you wrote, please feel free to expand upon it.

the fact that lies are told in war and that people are murdered in wars does not prove that he was murdered and he murder lied about. that is not my stance.

it proves that this scenarios is possible.

i am not saying that because murder does happen therefore murder did happen.
i am saying that it has been wide established that murder does happen in war, even on the same side, therefore is is conceivable that he was murdered. this is against the "he's on our side so why kill him?" argument.

hooradiation wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

and just to be 100% clear he was murdered, whether that was accident by misadventure, manslaughter or something else, we will not know until there is a trail and a verdict is given ...

Incorrect. What we know is that he was killed. Murder is a different thing altogether.
We have no idea if he was murdered that's why this very conspiracy theory exists.

actually to be 100% correct, we know it was homicide, murder is a layman's term for it, that was my mistake.
the difference with killed vs murdered is not only intent, but how his death happened. ie had he fallen into a large pit and was killed is different to him being pushed in. i used murder to show that it was a human that directly caused his death.

i even clarified my point in saying that we did not know whether it was an accident, manslaughter or something else.

i think murdered is more apt here to describe his death, but technically speaking, only a court can decide if someone has been murdered.

hooradiation wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

like i said your premise if flawed, hence your assumptions are wrong.

much like the motive for this alleged murder, this has no compelling basis.

there are many compelling reasons, firstly the cover-up. there is no good reason why they had to lie.
tilman might have chosen to desert, he might have had a fight with a commanding officer, he might not have wanted to kill civilians when he was told ... there are many reasons, you just choose to ignore it.

if i remember correctly, they have not returned his diary to his family ...

hooradiation wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

ps i like your "Faulty generalization." for war is money ... i have no idea why you think it is faulty

Firstly war has many causes, not just money.
Secondly, that's not the whole quote so stop cherry picking.
Thirdly, the whole quote was

war is money, people die for it, people are murdered for money, that does not make sense?

So, faulty premise here is linking war to money (which is a half truth) to the statement that 'people are murdered for money' as if they have any connection.

The you do it again in the next sentence, trying to link the atomic statements of "does it make sense to lie in a war" and "does it make sense to murder in a war" then begging the question of "how about on your own side..." and then you accuse me of misrepresenting your position?

If you meant something else or there is a nuance I'm missing here, please let me know, because otherwise I'm forced to conclude you're basing a lot of this on a series of fallacies.

well truth be told, the main reason of war has always been about money/resources. this is a fact.
secondly the war machine is about money, this is also a fact.

while people may spout nonsense about why they go to war, the reasons behind them are about money/resources.

if you can find some examples that counter this claim, i'm sure there are and i'd love to know.


well there is a link between war is money. and people are killed for money. it implies that tillman may have been killed as had he deserted and came back to usa saying "they are just killing civilians" the war machine, which is worth a load of money, would be upset.
i think that is a connection.

you seem to be of the opinion that it makes sense to lie, regarding friendly fire, but somehow murder is out of the question.

i still think you misrepresented what i said, or maybe it was misinterpreted, either way, i hope i have clarified my position.

i don't see the series of fallacies. it seems that you disregard possible reasons arbitrarily.

why would it make sense to lie about friendly fire but not about murder?

hooradiation wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

... but then again i have no idea why you think giving someone an award and making a big deal is glossing over and playing down ...

yes, that is glossing over and playing down, specifically the glossing over and playing down the cause of his death, a friendly fire accident.

i think we will have to agree to disagree on this.
glossing over a death for me would say he was killed on duty not in the line of fire and not give him a silver start and publicising his death.

playing up his death is saying he was a hero and giving him military honours and honouring him.

it is lying about his death, but to me it is playing up his death to use it as a pr tool.

hooradiation

davoxx wrote: »

the fact that lies are told in war and that people are murdered in wars does not prove that he was murdered and he murder lied about. that is not my stance.

it proves that this scenarios is possible.

Possible, certainly.
Plausible - I don't believe that makes much of case for it. as you go on to point out the presence of A and B don't make C, which is the bones of this. The factors that would push this from possible to plausible are, in my opinion, missing.

davoxx wrote: »

there are many compelling reasons, firstly the cover-up. there is no good reason why they had to lie.

Well there is the fact that friendly fire incidents are very damaging to morale, I can see how there may have been a temptation to keep it quiet.

And all this is before the more mundane possibility that a mistake was made.

davoxx wrote: »

tilman might have chosen to desert, he might have had a fight with a commanding officer, he might not have wanted to kill civilians when he was told ... there are many reasons, you just choose to ignore it.

I tend to ignore things I haven't got any reason to imagine. Is there any indication of any of the above being the case?

davoxx wrote: »

well truth be told, the main reason of war has always been about money/resources. this is a fact.
secondly the war machine is about money, this is also a fact.

Those are simplifications of the reasons like everything it's always a lot more complicated.

davoxx wrote: »

if you can find some examples that counter this claim, i'm sure there are and i'd love to know.

The crusades is one that springs to mind - they began as a response to Turkish incursions to the declining Byzantine empire and the Islamic invasion of Gaul - nations reasons for war are usually more about soverignity than money - the best quick summation I know is from Niccolò Machiavelli's The prince - "For war is made on a commonwealth for two reasons: to subjugate it, and for fear of being subjugated by it."

davoxx wrote: »

well there is a link between war is money. and people are killed for money. it implies that tillman may have been killed as had he deserted and came back to usa saying "they are just killing civilians" the war machine, which is worth a load of money, would be upset.

i think that is a connection.

yeah - here is where this really comes apart for me.

There is the problem that taking the axioms that "War is money" and "people are killed for money" and using it to assert that because people are killed for money then people can be killed for the sake of a war (which, according to the first axiom, is money) therefore it possible here.
It kind of misses out on there being several other factors to prompt either A or B - it's kind of a variant on the Correlation does not imply causation fallacy as it ignores the possibility of a third factor.

Sort of like balancing an equation in maths, taking out facts common to both sides of an equation does not lead to an more simplified and equivocally correct statement.

davoxx wrote: »

you seem to be of the opinion that it makes sense to lie, regarding friendly fire, but somehow murder is out of the question.

why would it make sense to lie about friendly fire but not about murder?

Not at all. It would make sense to lie about both, however - I'm of the opinion that there is no compelling cause to believe he was murdered.
It's not a false dichotomy between lying in two scenarios - it's that there is no reason to suspect the second scenario of being true.

If his opinion needs to be silenced - then the massive PR machine at home could do that without murdering the man.
If it's that his opinion was unique - then why are the 1,800 people in IVAW still alive?
If it's that you believed his testimony would have damaged the money being made from the war (which has been a massive financial black hole for america and china seems to have done better out of it then the Americans) then what makes him so unique that he could do what constant reports, other veterans speaking out, the dead soldiers coming home could not do?

To be blunt, Pat Tillman was not important enough to murder - the motives put forward centre on the idea that he was some kind of ace in the hole for the anti-war movement, yet nothing seems to back this up.

davoxx wrote: »

i think we will have to agree to disagree on this.
glossing over a death for me would say he was killed on duty not in the line of fire and not give him a silver start and publicising his death.

playing up his death is saying he was a hero and giving him military honours and honouring him.

it is lying about his death, but to me it is playing up his death to use it as a pr tool.

Fair enough.

davoxx

not a direct reply to ^^^ but i'll do that when i get a chance ...

but this is why article might explain why he was important enough and why his diary being missing is key to my doubt regarding the second official story ...

http://cunningrealist.blogspot.com/2007/07/diary.html

Brown Bomber

stuar wrote: »

Good thread Bomber, havent been around here in a while, I'll be back.........keeping the head down.

Cheers

Brown Bomber

hooradiation wrote: »

If his opinion needs to be silenced - then the massive PR machine at home could do that without murdering the man.

How exactly? (Assuming there are no skeletons in his closet) How could they bring down that which they created without looking foolish?

hooradiation wrote: »

If it's that his opinion was unique - then why are the 1,800 people in IVAW still alive?

Tillman was more famous than the members of the 1,800 members of IVAW put together.

I find it incredible that you can't accept that the military had a motive to kill a likely future influential anti-war figurehead. That you can't accept that the military would have a motive to liquidate a potential threat before it damages them.

clever_name

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How exactly? (Assuming there are no skeletons in his closet) How could they bring down that which they created without looking foolish?

if I was in charge (and I hand no conscience) i would have waited for him to give a few speeches, get a bit of publicity and then wait for him to share a stage with someone very famous for their "liberal anti-war stance", anyone from a politician to george clooney. at this point i would smile to myself and prepare for the headlines damming the liberal scum for destroying american values by turning a solid all american guy like pat into someone who wants to let the death of all those he served with to be for nothing.

Seems much easier and gets a better result but thats just me opinion.

hooradiation

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How exactly? (Assuming there are no skeletons in his closet) How could they bring down that which they created without looking foolish?

A cursory glance at the reaction to IVAW shows that all it takes is people to put themselves in the anti-war camp and it practically takes care of itself. Accusations will quickly build up of them being liars, malcontent's, dishonouring the troops, sympathising with terrorists, cowards, traitors etc.
It's not like you need actual skeletons, you just need to keep repeating accusations over and over.
There have been plenty of threads around here on how the media can sell an angle, fox news being an exceptional example, so lets not pretend this isn't a reality.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Tillman was more famous than the members of the 1,800 members of IVAW put together.

He's a knowable name, but he's not indispensable or magical, which seems to be the reasoning behind he simply had to be killed.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I find it incredible that you can't accept that the military had a motive to kill a likely future influential anti-war figurehead. That you can't accept that the military would have a motive to liquidate a potential threat before it damages them.

I can't accept a motive as flimsy as the one being argued for here.
And I think people are vastly overestimating the 'damage' he could do. Of course it's all speculation but at the risk of being called an armchair psychologist I think people like the narrative of Tillman being an amazing force for good that was killed by an evil organisation to the detriment of reason.

And, the argument I have been repeatedly making, lest I have to retread this particular falsehood again, is not that it isn't possible, but that it isn't plausible.

And unless something compelling comes to light, I don't see how that is going to change.

Di0genes

brown bomber wrote:

I find it incredible that you can't accept that the military had a motive to kill a likely future influential anti-war figurehead.

Why would they?

I reject that entire premise of your motive, particular as you seem to think the military is one giant mono clique who act with one clear agenda at all times.

davoxx

i think some people here have no idea just how big the nfl is.

here is a linky - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL

here is what happens when a coach gets fired - http://www.kare11.com/news/article/945971/396/Penn-State-riots-over-Paterno-firing

now, can we put to rest that he was not 'that' special ...

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

i think some people here have no idea just how big the nfl is.

here is a linky - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL

here is what happens when a coach gets fired - http://www.kare11.com/news/article/945971/396/Penn-State-riots-over-Paterno-firing

now, can we put to rest that he was not 'that' special ...

If anything this strengthens the argument that Military wouldn't murder Tillman.

Imagine the furor if it was discovered that the Military had killed such a star?

tfitzgerald

If Tillman was killed by his own side then I believe that it was someone in his own platoon who he fell out with I can't see the American government being responsible for doing it if they did they would have taken out the whole squad so there would be no witness'

davoxx

hooradiation wrote: »

The crusades is one that springs to mind - they began as a response to Turkish incursions to the declining Byzantine empire and the Islamic invasion of Gaul - nations reasons for war are usually more about soverignity than money - the best quick summation I know is from Niccolò Machiavelli's The prince - "For war is made on a commonwealth for two reasons: to subjugate it, and for fear of being subjugated by it."

the crusades were also about european trade with asia, spices were worth a LOT of money.
though to be fair debate still continues over the exact reasons ...

hooradiation wrote: »

<text removed>
yeah - here is where this really comes apart for me.
<text removed>

Not at all. It would make sense to lie about both, however - I'm of the opinion that there is no compelling cause to believe he was murdered.
It's not a false dichotomy between lying in two scenarios - it's that there is no reason to suspect the second scenario of being true.

If his opinion needs to be silenced - then the massive PR machine at home could do that without murdering the man.
If it's that his opinion was unique - then why are the 1,800 people in IVAW still alive?
If it's that you believed his testimony would have damaged the money being made from the war (which has been a massive financial black hole for america and china seems to have done better out of it then the Americans) then what makes him so unique that he could do what constant reports, other veterans speaking out, the dead soldiers coming home could not do?

To be blunt, Pat Tillman was not important enough to murder - the motives put forward centre on the idea that he was some kind of ace in the hole for the anti-war movement, yet nothing seems to back this up.

it seems the whole reason for your belief that there was no foul play (after you've disregarded the facts of the lies, the missing diary and the silver star), is that pat was just a guy, run of the mill guy the media could ignore ...

this is where you are wrong, and this is the crux of the problem.

i think you need to read up on american culture regarding american football ...