The Killing of Pat Tillman

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

D'Torchia,

The report you are quoting from is false, just as false as the ridiculous story the army put forward that Tillman died from enemy fire while leading his troops against the Taliban.

Now let's get real.

If you're going to try to argue in this matter you have to use reports that are factual, and not part of the ever-changing narrative the army cooked-up to seek to conceal the facts.

The REAL army findings which were finally handed to Tillman's family showed that THERE WAS NO MORTAR ATTACK ON THE DETACHMENT WHICH FIRED ON TILLMAN. THERE WERE NO HOSTILES ANYWHERE IN MORTAR RANGE OR ANYWHERE ELSE.

If you want any credibility, provide a link to the report you're speaking of just as I provided a link to the Inspector General's report. Otherwise you're commenting without facts. Please, I want you to tell me what "REAL" army findings you're speaking of. Because in both the documentary that you quoted from and in Jon Krakauer's book, no one disputes the facts that I wrote above.
Second, as you can see in my subsequent post, I also quoted from Jon Krakauer's book who read over 4000 pages of documents, interviewed the Rangers who were at the scene and interviewed Pat Tillman's family members. Are they ALL lying? In other words, only YOU know the REAL truth yet you can't or won't provide a single credible link to back up your assertions.

TILLMAN'S DETACHMENT DIDN'T FIRE ON THE DETACHMENT FIRING ON HIM.

No one said they did. I certainly didn't. What I stated and what Jon Krakauer and various reports (including the Inspector General's report and the Army Criminal Investigation Division report) stated was that the section Tillman was in had taken the high ground in order to support Section 2 which was 15 minutes behind them and which HAD taken fire. It is quite obvious that you are getting your facts mixed up. So, try to follow along here. The Army initially said that Tillman's section had taken fire, that Tillman and his section had charged up the hill and that he was killed by enemy fire.
Now, follow along closely TAE. The facts that came out, facts that are undisputed by the Rangers involved, by whichever report you care to name are this: The SECOND section, the one that was 15 minutes behind Pat Tillman's section DID take fire and was ambushed in the Canyon.
Upon hearing the ambush, Tillman's squad leader ordered them to take the high ground in order to support the Second Section as it came out the canyon.
The Second Section was laying down suppressive fire and obviously did not pause to obtain target identification to see who they were shooting at.
HUNDREDS OF ROUNDS were fired by this section. When they saw the Afghan next to Tillman pop up after having been shot at further down the canyon, they opened up without bothering to identify him or Tillman.


The CID (Criminal Investigation Division) Report summary, dated 19 March 2007, stated that: "during their movement through the canyon road, Serial 2 was ambushed and became engaged in a running gun battle with enemy combatants. Serial 1 [Tillman's portion of the platoon] had just passed through the same canyon without incident and were approximately one kilometer ahead of Serial 2. Upon hearing explosions, gunfire, and sporadic radio communication from Serial 2, Serial 1 dismounted their vehicles and moved on foot, to a more advantageous position to provide overwatch and fire support for Serial 2's movement out of the ambush." Upon exiting the gorge, and despite attempts by Serial 1 to signal a "friendly position," occupants of the lead vehicle of Serial 2 opened fire on Tillman's position, where he was fatally shot.

Guess the Criminal Investigation Division report was false too TAE? Like I said, I don't mind you telling us that every single official report is wrong, that an author who spent 3 1/2 years researching this incident is wrong, even after he traveled to Afghanistan, even after he interviewed the men who were there, I think we all would just appreciate if you provide us some facts proving them all wrong.

THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT TILLMAN WAS MORTALLY HIT AT A RANGE OF APROXIMATELY 40 METERS.

SO WHAT???!!!! They were in MOVING HUMVEES, bouncing all over the freaking place, had just broken through an ambush and were a little bit trigger happy. As has been documented, over half the platoon had never seen combat. As the young Private with Tillman testified, upon seeing the ambush in the canyon of section 2, his adrenaline went through the roof and his squad leader had to tell him to calm down. So did Tillman.
But, given the fact that you yourself have never served, have never been involved in combat, it's not surprising that you can't or won't understand the dynamics of a fluid, lethal situation like this. Mistakes were made. No doubt about it but malice did not play a part in this case. Prove otherwise!
Again,

The only other soldier killed was an Afghan next to Tillman, and the fact that two other army soldiers were hit doesn't change the fact that only Tillman and the Afghan were killed, and once Tillman went down the firing stopped. I repeat - AFTER TILLMAN WENT DOWN ALL FIRING STOPPED.

Ok, first you said Tillman and the Afghan were the only ones hit. Now you're saying it doesn't matter that two other soldiers were hit during this exact same time period? Of COURSE IT MATTERS because it shows that the Ranger section that engaged Tillman was spraying bullets everywhere, not just at Tillman. The Lieutenant and Specialist that were also hit were further away and STILL got shot by the same section during the same time period. That matters!

You can label others "conspiracy mongers" and so forth only after you've succeeded in defeating their arguments. The fact that you resort to such childish labels displays your lack of maturity and inability to argue competently.

TAE, please, own up to what you are and what you have done. I'll leave it up to any reader here to search your prior posts. They will find you writing at length about conspiracy theories involving Kennedy, Israel, the CIA, etc etc. I'm not making that up. You wrote all those posts writing about one conspiracy after another. You even stated that they were conspiracies. Now you want to act hurt because someone calls you out on it? I simply chose not to let you spin one here. So provide facts or credible links to your assertions, otherwise, you're spun out on this one.

[theaustinescorts]

Uhhhh, how it is that you claim to know whether I've been in combat or not pretty much sums up your approach to every point in this discussion.

Actually I have been in combat. And when I was trained for it, and when I was in it, I had some discipline and knew what the hell I was shooting at. That's the way real soldiers are trained, and it's the reason why friendly fire involving small arms is so very rare. YOU DON'T SHOOT AT SOMETHING YOU CAN'T SEE! I didn't go spraying rounds all over everywhere in some general direction of where I thought enemy fire was come from.

But that's not the point in this matter because TILLMAN'S DETACHMENT NEVER FIRED ANY ROUNDS AT THE OTHER ONE.

The detachment firing on Tillman's CLAIMED they came under enemy fire in the form of a single mortar round.

However members of Tillman's detachment said that the round never happened.

And once again the reports you are stupidly continuing to quote from are just as much garbage as the first reports that Tillman was killed by enemy fire. These idiotic reports are spun and spun over and over again and they're not consistent with the interview transcripts.

You are simply continuing to spew out phoney reports from completely discredited sources.

MY SOURCES ORIGINATE FROM THE RAW DATA.....the transcripts of the interviews from the participating unit soldiers. Go find them.

NOT THEIR MISLEADING INTERPRETATIONS WHICH YOU ARE FALLING FOR because you will BELIEVE ANYTHING YOUR GOVERNMENT FEEDS TO YOU SO YOU CAN GO ON LIVING IN YOUR HEROIC DELUSIONS.

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Uhhhh, how it is that you claim to know whether I've been in combat or not pretty much sums up your approach to every point in this discussion.

Actually I have been in combat. And when I was trained for it, and when I was in it, I had some discipline and knew what the hell I was shooting at. That's the way real soldiers are trained, and it's the reason why friendly fire involving small arms is so very rare. YOU DON'T SHOOT AT SOMETHING YOU CAN'T SEE! I didn't go spraying rounds all over everywhere in some general direction of where I thought enemy fire was come from.

Hmmm, that would contradict previous statements you have made on this site Mr. Diamond Courier. You stated in the past that you never were involved in actual combat but that you were in "Government Service" in Pakistan during the 80's.
TAE-"My graduate degree was in Defense Studies from one of the University programs in Cambridge, Mass.,"
TAE-I worked in Pakistan from 1983 to 1986"
TAE-"What's worse is the "defense intelligensia," of which I was once a part."
TAE-"Ten years ago I was working third shift in a manufacturing plant that paid $8 an hour to new workers"
Subsequently you claimed to have been a Diamond Courier of some sorts, you claimed to have been in Sierra Leone when it was overrun, and now you're the proud graduate degree holding Escort Service Business owner.
If it weren't getting late by me I'd search the post where you actually told me you had never been in actual combat. Alas, I'm getting a bit tired tonight and am gonna call it quits for now. Of course, if you'd like to save me the trouble while I'm sleeping, just name the time, place and unit that you saw combat with. And reading John Plaster's book on SOG doesn't mean you saw combat.
But like you said, none of that matters.

But that's not the point in this matter because TILLMAN'S DETACHMENT NEVER FIRED ANY ROUNDS AT THE OTHER ONE.

The detachment firing on Tillman's CLAIMED they came under enemy fire in the form of a single mortar round.

However members of Tillman's detachment said that the round never happened.

And once again the reports you are stupidly continuing to quote from are just as much garbage as the first reports that Tillman was killed by enemy fire. These idiotic reports are spun and spun over and over again and they're not consistent with the interview transcripts.

You are simply continuing to spew out phoney reports from completely discredited sources.

MY SOURCES ORIGINATE FROM THE RAW DATA.....the transcripts of the interviews from the participating unit soldiers. Go find them.

I did find them. The interviews you speak of are clearly detailed in Jon Krakauer's book. They dispute what you assert here. That's why I posted excerpts of the book and it's why you continue to refuse to provide any links to the very interviews you claim support your position here.

NOT THEIR MISLEADING INTERPRETATIONS WHICH YOU ARE FALLING FOR because you will BELIEVE ANYTHING YOUR GOVERNMENT FEEDS TO YOU SO YOU CAN GO ON LIVING IN YOUR HEROIC DELUSIONS.

LOL, had I only quoted government reports, you may have a point. Unfortunately for you, I also quoted from the only person to have conducted 3 1/2 years of extensive research into this.

Jon Krakauer is about as anti-government when it comes to this incident as you can get. He is EXTREMELY critical of the war, the government and the way the military handled this entire situation. So as I stated above, he DID interview the soldiers involved, they DID say what I have documented above and you have failed to provide a single link to a single credible source. I understand it's frustrating when you run across someone that won't let you spin your way but accusing U.S. Soldiers of murder is something I won't let you get away with unless you have some facts. It's bad enough these guys have to deal with the fact that they mistakenly shot 3 of their own and one Afghan assigned to their unit without someone like you accusing them of murder.
As far as heroic delusions? When 101st Airborne soldiers gang raped and killed an Iraqi girl and her family (The Mahmudiyah killings), I was very outspoken with my outrage of that incident and my opinion of the soldiers involved.
So I have no problem calling a spade a spade when the facts warrant it. What I won't do is let someone like you accuse soldiers of murder without proof.
As the saying goes....put up or shut up.

[theaustinescorts]

Why and for what purpose do you parse through my previous statements in such detail? I find that more than a little strange. I think the issue here is firing discipline, and your bold challenge that a person can't know what it is, or the lack of it, unless one's actually been in combat. Actually I have been in combat, and done the things that go on in combat, which I found rather disgusting rather than the enobling feeling you claim it is. For reasons which are my own I prefer normally not to disclose that. However I have now admitted to it because of your nonesensical challenge, which was my mistake. My problem in this thread is that I take you far too seriously than you, or any other habitual reader of Soldier of Fortune, deserves.

I have not read the Jon Krakauer book and have no idea who he is. Frankly I'm satisfied with the accounts of the participants' interviews which were released to the Tillman family. Those raw interviews conducted by the Dept. of Defense are all I need. I don't need anyone else's filtering, analysis, or possible agenda, to further understand these interviews. I will say this however. Anyone reading the raw transcripts would reach the same conclusion I have, and if Krakauer reached an opposite view I have my suspicions, PARTICULARLY if he's in the dovish camp on Afghanistan.

As far as the accusation of "murder."

I have laid out the case from my source, the raw interviews of the participants.

You on the other hand quote from sources which are interpretations, selected quotations, etc.

You and I could simply agree to disagree in this matter.

However you just won't let a dead horse lie, or admit that another point of view can exist.....

Instead you villify me and bring up other matters altogether because your not "gonna let me get away with...."

So lets do this.

I'll agree never to post anything again accusing anyone you have faith in of murder, and in exchange you go back to Iraq and continue looking for all those weapons of mass destruction your government claimed were all over the place.

When you finally find the WMDs your faithfull government swore were there I'll reconsider my views that our government is composed of liars.*

*Swore to such effect as to justify the use of deadly force.

ps..

This board is supposed to be about controversal issues. It's not however a High School Debate Tournament (which sadly I used to participate in and know all too well). We are not required here to post or cite in verse quotations from sources. Frankly doing so proves nothing. What this is about is expressing our views and hopefully arguing intelligently and in a civil manner without resorting to insults.

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Why and for what purpose do you parse through my previous statements in such detail? I find that more than a little strange. I think the issue here is firing discipline, and your bold challenge that a person can't know what it is, or the lack of it, unless one's actually been in combat. Actually I have been in combat, and done the things that go on in combat, which I found rather disgusting rather than the enobling feeling you claim it is.
For reasons which are my own I prefer normally not to disclose that. However I have now admitted to it because of your nonesensical challenge, which was my mistake. My problem in this thread is that I take you far too seriously than you, or any other habitual reader of Soldier of Fortune, deserves.

Ahhhh, I see. So you now feel you can "admit" to having been in combat although you stated in the past on this site not to have been. My challenge was anything BUT nonsensical. You see, if you had ever been around young, inexperienced soldiers seeing combat for the first time, you'd know that fire discipline is many times the fist thing to go. That is why competent NCO's are CRITICAL and it's one of the findings that came out of this investigation, that the first line NCO's did NOT control their troops' fire discipline as they should have and in fact it was one of the NCO's in the HUMVEE that first opened up on Tillman's position without obtaining target identification. So really it's you TAE that has a glorified view of young soldiers, believing that they are all trained to such standards, that when they experience combat for the first time they automatically would display fire discipline. That fact alone shows you've never been around young troops in combat. The fact that you won't reveal what conflict you saw action in just puts the finishing touches on the fact that you never were in combat as you had previously admitted. I'm done with that part of your assertions.


"One of the four shooters, Staff Sgt. Trevor Alders, had recently had PRK laser eye surgery. Although he could see two sets of hands "straight up," his vision was "hazy," he said. In the absence of "friendly identifying signals," he assumed Tillman and an allied Afghan who also was killed were enemy.
Another, Spc. Steve Elliott, said he was "excited" by the sight of rifles, muzzle flashes and "shapes." A third, Spc. Stephen Ashpole, said he saw two figures, and just aimed where everyone else was shooting.
Squad leader Sgt. Greg Baker had 20-20 eyesight, but claimed he had "tunnel vision." Amid the chaos and pumping adrenaline, Baker said he hammered what he thought was the enemy but was actually the allied Afghan fighter next to Tillman who was trying to give the Americans cover: "I zoned in on him because I could see the AK-47. I focused only on him."
All four failed to identify their targets before firing, a direct violation of the fire discipline techniques drilled into every soldier."


"One of the gunners who shot Tillman said his unit didn't even have time to look at a map before getting back on the road.
"We were rushed to conduct an operation that had such flaws," said Alders. "Which in the end would prove to be fatal."
"If anything, this sense of urgency was as deadly to Tillman as the bullet that cut his life short," Alders wrote in a lengthy statement protesting his expulsion from the Rangers. "We could have conducted the search at night like we did on the follow-up operations or the next morning like we ended up doing anyway. Why, I ask, why?"



"Later, at least one of the same Rangers turned his guns on a village where witnesses say civilian women and children had gathered. The shooters raked it with fire, the American witnesses said; they wounded two additional fellow Rangers, including their own platoon leader."


I have not read the Jon Krakauer book and have no idea who he is. Frankly I'm satisfied with the accounts of the participants' interviews which were released to the Tillman family. Those raw interviews conducted by the Dept. of Defense are all I need. I don't need anyone else's filtering, analysis, or possible agenda, to further understand these interviews. I will say this however. Anyone reading the raw transcripts would reach the same conclusion I have, and if Krakauer reached an opposite view I have my suspicions, PARTICULARLY if he's in the dovish camp on Afghanistan.

O.K., so you've never read the book, you don't even know WHO the author is but you start making assumptions about his ability to relay the facts accurately after he conducted 3 1/2 years of research into this incident and interviewed many of the Rangers who were there when this tragedy took place. He also interviewed the family members and got access to Tillman's own thoughts and observations through letters he wrote home. Ok, that says about all there is to say about your credibility on this issue. .

As far as the accusation of "murder."

I have laid out the case from my source, the raw interviews of the participants.

No, you see TAE, that's just it. You NEVER provided any link to any of these "raw" interviews you speak of. I on the other hand DID quote their interview above including the statement from the actual shooter who was found to have shot Pat Tillman. Searching high and low on the internet, I simply can't seem to find these other "raw" interviews you speak of. What I did find is interviews conducted of some of these Rangers by the DOD's Inspector General, by the Army's Criminal Investigation Division, by author Jon Krakauer and by ESPN. I provided links or direct quotes which I included in my posts as to why your assertions are false in this matter. In all those interviews of the Rangers involved, NOWHERE could I find anything that supports your assertions. I did run across several "conspiracy websites" that are spewing forth the same misinformation that you listed but much like you, those sites couldn't provide any credible, factual source that they were willing to list. If you by some miracle are the only one who has read this "raw interview" data, then by all means share where I may find it. If not, then as far as I'm concerned your "raw data" is a figment of your imagination. Plain and simple.

You on the other hand quote from sources which are interpretations, selected quotations, etc.

I'm quoting from "interpretations"? The Army's Criminal Investigation Division is an interpretation? They granted immunity to at least one of the soldiers involved so that they could get the truth, documented his interview ("Elliott struck a deal with authorities; in exchange for his testimony to investigator Jones, the Army gave him immunity from prosecution "in any criminal proceedings.") word for word and released it as part of their report along with interviews of the other Rangers involved and you call that an interpretation? Then there's the OIG report. Then Krakauer's book which if you want to call that an interpretation, fine, but you yourself admitted not even having read the book so how could you state that with any degree of accuracy?
No TAE, what's happened here is plain for all the readers to see. Since you started this thread you have not provided ONE SINGLE LINK to a credible source that would support your assertions that Pat Tillman was murdered. That is the truth.

You and I could simply agree to disagree in this matter.

However you just won't let a dead horse lie, or admit that another point of view can exist.....

Instead you villify me and bring up other matters altogether because your not "gonna let me get away with...."

You're right. I won't let you accuse U.S. Soldiers of murder on this or any other site unless you have the facts to back it up.

In the days after the shootings, the first officer appointed to investigate, then-Capt. Richard Scott, interviewed all four shooters, their driver, and many others who were there. He concluded within a week that the gunmen demonstrated "gross negligence" and recommended further investigation.

It is here, after this initial investigation that things went terribly wrong. Scott had already concluded that there was "gross negligence" (not murder, not intentional, but "gross negligence) on the part of these shooters and he was the first to conduct the investigation and he stated that it was possible that the negligence could arise to a criminal nature.

So lets do this.

I'll agree never to post anything again accusing anyone you have faith in of murder, and in exchange you go back to Iraq and continue looking for all those weapons of mass destruction your government claimed were all over the place.

MY Government? Hmm, I thought it's OUR Government. Guess you don't consider yourself a citizen of this country?

When you finally find the WMDs your faithfull government swore were there I'll reconsider my views that our government is composed of liars.* (Please note where I ever stated that our Government or the higher-ups involved in the Tillman case were NOT liars.)

*Swore to such effect as to justify the use of deadly force.

So when all else fails, when you can't make a logical case as to why you accused U.S. Soldiers of murdering with malice, then throw out the WMD in Iraq card? LOL, that's AWESOME! I love it!

ps..

This board is supposed to be about controversal issues. It's not however a High School Debate Tournament (which sadly I used to participate in and know all too well). We are not required here to post or cite in verse quotations from sources. Frankly doing so proves nothing. What this is about is expressing our views and hopefully arguing intelligently and in a civil manner without resorting to insults.

TAE, I will "argue intelligently and in a civil matter" with you all day. What I won't do is let you smear U.S. Soldiers undeservedly and accuse them of intentional murder based on malice. Sorry, not when you yourself have never served in the military, have never been in their shoes and when you simply choose to make up your facts and call them "raw data" without any other proof to back it up. There's no insults here, just me pointing out where your arguments fall short. Way short.
Listen, if even half the stuff you say you've done you actually have done then you've lived an interesting and full life up until now. Heck, your experiences as a manager/owner of your current business alone could probably fill a book. All I'm saying is there's no need to make things up to justify a position that you can't prove with facts and there's no need to accuse soldiers of murdering with malice if you're lacking those facts. You're right when you say everyone is entitled to their opinion. I would simply say that when you're making such a serious allegation as murder and cloaking it as an "opinion", maybe the facts should line up with such an opinion.

[theaustinescorts]

We're never going to agree on what happend given that I'm relying on my interpretation of the interviews, whereas you're relying on an interpretation of them made by Krakauer.

However, what are your [or Krakauer's] explaination for all the other circumstances indicating motive, bad faith, and malice, including:

1.Why was the diary burned?

2.Why was several false accounts of events announced?

3.Why did the army offer to release Tillman from service before his commitment was over?

4.Why did the army attempt to have a government funeral despite Tillman's written instructions to the contrary?

Regarding fire discipline....
Lack of it still can't be used to explain what happened given that the detachment which continued firing on Tillman's detachment until Tillman was dead never received any fire from Tillman's detachment.

Or is this one of the many points of disagreement between myself and Krakauer?

What was Krakauer's motive in writing this book? Why would someone claiming to be critical of government wade into this of all issues to try to make the government's case in a matter where all other observers [including myself] who have seen the raw information have reached the opposite conclusion?

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

We're never going to agree on what happend given that I'm relying on my interpretation of the interviews, whereas you're relying on an interpretation of them made by Krakauer.

You continue to distort the truth. I have listed quotes that the Rangers involved gave not to just to Krakauer in his book, but statements they made throughout the investigation, up to and including the Congressional hearings where the Ranger that was laying next to Pat Tillman when Tillman was shot, testified.

You have yet to provide the source for your "raw" interviews. You claimed you had access to the "raw interviews". I want to know where you supposedly read these raw interviews. It seems like a really simple question, one I've asked you 5 times now and one you still refuse to answer. I also made clear to you and posted responses the Rangers gave that were documented in the Army's CID investigation (where at least one Ranger received complete immunity in exchange for his statements) and the OIG report. I watched the Documentary as you did, read the book, so my question to you is, where are these so called "raw interviews" and please be more specific then the "report that was given to Tillman's parents".
This isn't about your interpretations, this is about you not providing any credible source.
Now here is the U.S. House of Representatives report, issued in 2008 AFTER the Congressional hearings that were held where the Tillman's testified, where the Ranger who laid next to Tillman when Tillman was shot testified and a host of others testified:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...Km308iMZFS4VGQ

So one last time, what report after 2008 are you aware of that contained the "raw interviews" of Pat Tillman's fellow Rangers who were at the scene or involved in the friendly fire death of Tillman??

However, what are your [or Krakauer's] explaination for all the other circumstances indicating motive, bad faith, and malice, including:

1.Why was the diary burned?

No one's been able to satisfactorily answer that. Could be because it contained Tillman's anti-war views, could be a lot of things. There's also at least one more possibility. The fact that someone just said it was burned because they felt they could profit off it down the line. Who knows? I certainly don't and I haven't come across anyone that does with any degree of certainty.

2.Why was several false accounts of events announced?

Well if you care to believe Pat Tillman's brother, Kevin, who was in Section 2 during this incident, he believes that because of Tillman's fame the Army didn't want to take a "black eye" by admitting that he died in a needless friendly fire incident. Much easier to make him out to be a hero....good for the war cause and all. That's Kevin's assertion.

Read the reports. It's quite obvious that the Army at first wanted to conceal that Tillman was killed by friendly fire.

Are you really telling me to read the reports after I informed you of every report I read and provided the links for YOU to read them?
No one has EVER disputed that. Least of all me. The disagreement began when you started making statements about murder and intentional killing. This was a massive cover-up as I stated from the start. It was shameful and the people involved should have been dealt with much more severely. Some escaped punishment all together. It was a disgrace, from the lack of discipline that the troops who fired on Tillman showed, to the top officials in the White House including Donald Rumsfeld.

3.Why did the army offer to release Tillman from service before his commitment was over?

Because they had been made aware of his strong views against the Iraq war. They probably felt it was better to let him go than to risk him speaking out publicly while still in the Army. Tillman however was a man of his word and felt that since he signed up for 3 years, he needed to complete his entire enlistment.

4.Why did the army attempt to have a government funeral despite Tillman's written instructions to the contrary?

Again because they felt it would be better for the morale of the country and the war effort. Tillman was afraid the military would do something like that so he left specific instructions with his wife that he did not want to be used in that way after his death. It was just another stupid, arrogant decision on the part of the Government and par for the course in regards to how they handled this entire situation.


Regarding fire discipline....
Lack of it still can't be used to explain what happened given that the detachment which continued firing on Tillman's detachment until Tillman was dead never received any fire from Tillman's detachment.

Section 2 had already been firing before they reached Tillman's position.
Again, according to the Sgt and the Specialist that shot at Tillman, they saw a bearded Afghan stand up holding an AK-47 and opened up on him. Tillman was directly next to him. They opened up with both the M-249 SAW belt fed machine gun and their personal weapons. Once the Sgt engaged, everybody else in the truck started shooting except for the driver I believe. And again, they didn't just shoot at Tillman's position, they fired in the direction of the village as well hitting their Platoon leader and another Ranger E-4.

Or is this one of the many points of disagreement between myself and Krakauer?

What was Krakauer's motive in writing this book? Why would someone claiming to be critical of government wade into this of all issues to try to make the government's case in a matter where all other observers [including myself] who have seen the raw information have reached the opposite conclusion?

First off, please don't speak as if everyone believes as you do. That's simply not the case. Most people who have informed themselves of the available information in this incident realize it for what it is. A negligent friendly fire incident that occurred because soldiers who were inexperienced when it came to combat made some really poor decisions.
Second of all, Krakauer takes the Government severely to task in this book. He pulls no punches as to the military and the Government's culpability in this cover-up. So why you would make a ridiculous statement that Krakauer was making "the government's case"....well, again, I can only ascribe that to your lack of information since you didn't even bother to read the book yet you continue to make assumptions about the author and his motives.
The Army and the Government compounded this tragedy by trying to orchestrate a cover-up. You're not speaking for the "many" here TAE, in fact, not a single poster has stated they agree with your position. Please, PLEASE stop using the term "raw information" if you're not willing to provide a source or a link that the readers here can check out for themselves.

As to Krakauer:
Krakauer is a famous mountaineer and adventurer. He is considered sort of a "free spirit" much like Tillman was considered. He had also been involved in a tragedy on a mountain expedition that resulted in the death of several well known climbers and he wrote a book about it. Tillman had a copy of Krakauer's book in his rucksack when he died. When Krakauer found out and started hearing about the cover-up he wanted to dig and find the truth. You're asking me to speculate on a author's motive for writing a book, maybe you should just read the book and judge for yourself the author's motives. At least then you'd have something to base your assertions on as far as the author goes.

[theaustinescorts]

As I suggested, all these circumstances of bad faith comprise a motive as well as a pattern of deception.

In an ordinary forensic situation this is powerful evidence.

In that unit he was the only American soldier killed, and there is bad faith, deception and ill will all around.

The only defense you've provided is a parsed interpretation of the interviews.

As I've said before my interpretation of the interviews reaches a different conclusion.

In these situations the shooters are going to try to bend events and facts as much as they can to try to get away with less-than-purposeful interpretation.

When one reads the transcripts OBJECTIVELY, and reads the FACTS OF WHAT THEY ARE SAYING instead of their claimed motives at every step, then it's obvious what happened.

I enjoy debating with you because you have a lot of data at your disposal. However I think in this case you are involved in drinking a little koolaid in that it takes a lot of trust in the shooters and some wishful thinking to buy their interpretation of what happened.

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

As I suggested, all these circumstances of bad faith comprise a motive as well as a pattern of deception.

In an ordinary forensic situation this is powerful evidence.

In that unit he was the only American soldier killed, and there is bad faith, deception and ill will all around.

Bad Faith? Out of every single Ranger that was interviewed, not ONE stated that anyone is the unit had ill will toward Pat Tillman or motive to do him harm. In fact in interview after interview it was asked if Pat Tillman was disliked once his anti-Iraq war views became known. The answers to that question provided by the Rangers interviewed were always the same. Even those that disagreed with him respected him for doing his job, remaining in the military even AFTER he was offered an easy way to get out by the Army. His fellow Rangers respected that and if you truly had read the interviews that fact would have stood out to you.
If you had ever served in the military you would know what kind of bond is created by men who have to share the same hardships day in and day out. Politics means nothing at that point. You're all in it together. Add to that the fact that his fellow Rangers KNEW he had given up a multi-million dollar job, KNEW he was offered an easy way out of that hellhole and yet remained right there with them, that's the kind of thing that earns you respect amongst you fellow soldiers, it doesn't instill the will to want to murder you. Something you couldn't understand because you've never served.

The only defense you've provided is a parsed interpretation of the interviews.

As I've said before my interpretation of the interviews reaches a different conclusion.

You can't provide even the simplest of answers in regards to WHAT interviews you are referring to. Therefor I simply can't give any credence to your viewpoint since you have absolutely NO source to base it on.

In these situations the shooters are going to try to bend events and facts as much as they can to try to get away with less-than-purposeful interpretation.

When one reads the transcripts OBJECTIVELY, and reads the FACTS OF WHAT THEY ARE SAYING instead of their claimed motives at every step, then it's obvious what happened.

What transcripts? I will continue to ask that question until you either admit that they don't exist or you provide a link. WHAT TRANSCRIPTS DID YOU READ TAE????!!!!! There is nothing OBJECTIVE about making things up.

I enjoy debating with you because you have a lot of data at your disposal. However I think in this case you are involved in drinking a little koolaid in that it takes a lot of trust in the shooters and some wishful thinking to buy their interpretation of what happened.

Drinking the Kool Aid? LOL! This from the guy who when confronted with the fact that two other Americans besides Tillman were shot by the same Ranger Section that shot Tillman says......"yeah but Tillman was the only one killed". As if somehow the fact that the Ranger Lieutenant and the Specialist that were both wounded by the same section, the Lieutenant seriously, was somehow not relevant because they didn't die. Even when someone points out the forensic facts to you, such as the fact that the Lieutenant and Specialist were much further away, meaning that the fire directed at them was less accurate, you still can't wrap your head around how this scenario played out. It completely escapes you that if the Rangers mistakenly fire on their OWN PLATOON LEADER, then it's certainly possible that they mistakenly fired on Tillman who had an Afghan National with an AK-47 standing right next to him. In the end, it's as I said. The simple reason you cannot wrap your head around it is because you've never been involved in combat and because you've never served in the military. Say what you will but that has A LOT to do with your inability to comprehend how something like this could possibly happen.

[theaustinescorts]

Let me try to frame the credibility issue this way.

All senior levels of the army have been caught using deception in this matter. You have conceeded that they repeatedly put out false accounts of Tillman's death, tried unsuccessfully to use a government funeral against his written instructions, tried to get him out of the service but he refused, etc.

This pattern of deception ordinarily puts an aspect of SKEPTICISM on further statements made by participants to TRY TO SHADE OR EVADE what actually happened.*

The shooters comprise a group within Tillman's unit which went completely along with these deceptions as long as they went un-exposed, whereas other members of the unit DID NOT EVER GO ALONG with these various deceptions.

Yet when it comes to accounts of what happened on the ground that day you are very willing to accept the accounts of those who've been caught lying over and over again about other issues in this affair.

I and many others have read the transcripts and have reached the conclusion that the shooters are being deceptive in their answers to the extent that they can be without being directly contradicted, although a few direct contradictions were unavoidable - such as the mortar fire issue.

This is the reason why I'm critical of your "evidence," and your insistence that the INTERPRETATIONS by Krakauer, et al. should be taken as gospel.

You are showing in this matter a very strong bias, and a motivation to believe whatever is constructed to explain away the circumstances, whether logic permits it or not.

Taken as a whole all the evidence indicates that the shooters are deceptive in their characterizations that they didn't dispise Tillman, and that they killed him by accident.

*Please remember that alll the investigations, etc. which either came to light or occured became public ONLY because the Tillman family applied pressure. If it were not for these efforts the blantantly false account would be all anyone would have heard from the army.

ps...

Do you remember in the 1980s there was a powder explosion on a battleship? The Navy tried to claim it was the fault of a gunner because he was homosexual? Do you remember what happened when that contruction by the Navy was discredited? The Navy wouldn't admit that such an accident could happen so they framed it as a suicide. Their story was elaborate and echoed at every level until finally the truth came slowly out.

[DTorrchia]

This is my last post on this issue. It's obvious that you simply have no facts to back up your assertions. My point in posting these many responses was not to convince YOU, but simply to provide information for other readers so that they can judge for themselves and form an opinion on facts rather than on hearsay and made up conspiracy theories.
Right up to your last post above, you continue to talk about what Rangers in his unit did or didn't say, before, during or after the investigations and yet you cannot provide ONE single link or source to back up your assertions. Not One! That alone speaks for itself.

1. No Ranger that served in Tillman's unit has come forward since his death to say that he was disliked. Not one. So for you to allege that the shooters will bend the truth etc....all that is simply smokescreen on your part. You cannot provide one quote from one Ranger that Tillman served with that shows he was disliked. Yet you continue to claim that's what was revealed in these mysterious "raw interviews" you keep talking about. You cannot provide one quote, a link or a source for these interviews yet you continue to reference them. Therefor you have ZERO facts to back up your statements.

2. You can not account for, dispute or explain how two other Rangers were wounded by the same section that mistakenly killed Tillman and the armed Afghan standing next to him. You can not explain why they shot their own Platoon leader during the same time period that Tillman was shot. Again, you simply have no facts that could explain how FOUR people were shot by the same section that would back up your assertion that Tillman was shot on purpose. The fact that the Platoon leader was shot as well, along with 2 others, completely debunks this myth you keep repeating. Those are facts, facts for which you cannot provide one shred of evidence to the contrary.

3. You continue to bring up the lies and cover-up as some sort of "proof" that Tillman must have been killed on purpose. Yet the most rudimentary search of prior wars and of the current wars would show MANY similar cover-ups in friendly fire incidents.
A good place to start would be the book "Friendly Fire" by C.D.B. Bryan.
It was the story of the death of Michael Eugene Mullen, a draftee from LaPorte City, Iowa, who, on Feb. 18, 1970, was killed by shrapnel from an errant artillery shell fired by his fellow troops. His parents, Peg and Gene, doubted the Army’s official account of his death. They were frustrated and aggrieved by the shabby treatment their further inquiries received, and the book traces their path — focusing on Peg Mullen’s life-altering outrage — from quietly patriotic Americans, members of what President Richard M. Nixon called “the silent majority,” to antiwar activists.

The above sound familiar TAE?? Son gets killed by friendly fire, massive cover-up, anguished parents continue to press the government for the truth.....

I've already mentioned the Army's attempt to lie about the accidental shooting of a Lieutenant in Iraq. I can provide you further examples of cover-ups of friendly fire incidents in the Israeli Army and other Armies from around the world. It has happened in almost every war in recent history and it's likely that it's happened since the beginning of mankind.

Again, you have NO FACTS to challenge these prior incidents and cover-ups, you cannot explain why the military lied to the parents in those cases, why they forged documents etc yet you somehow KNOW that Tillman was shot on purpose?

I will end this last post by simply asking readers to look into the facts for themselves. Read the interviews that are available, watch the Documentary, research the history of the military when it comes to "Friendly Fire" incidents and how they've reacted and see if those cases don't match almost exactly what took place here in the Tillman case.

I'm sorry TAE, you have simply failed to provide ANY credible source, quote, interview or fact that would support your position. I will now give you the last word since it's obvious you care more about being right in your own mind than you care about the true facts in regards to the death of Pat Tillman.

[LaredoZeta]

Chingao! Some boys need pinocha. People are killed by their own friends every day in war. You fight like so much women!

[theaustinescorts]

D'Torchia,

How many times do I have to say it.

Read everything said by the unit's participants and judge according to each's credibility. Providing links isn't necessary; just do it.

Credibility is not problematic here. Some people have credibility and others don't.

Your passion on this issue only serves to illustrate your bias.

Personally I don't care who killed Tillman or why.

I've reached the conclusions I have because that's what the facts indicate, and they're rather conclusive if you interpret them objectively.

[stealthyguy]

As a former Ranger, I take offense to your irresponsible conspiracy theory allegations. I know Rangers who were there that evening. It was dusk and visibility was horrible. One Ranger swears to me that they were under a mortar attack. This is a classic mistaken identity in what we call "the fog of war".

Furthermore, Ranger Tillman was highly respected by his fellow Rangers. He lead by example and never used his celebrity status to not carry his load. There are many Rangers out there who are not religious--including myself. If you do your job, no one holds that against you. Ranger Tillman was NEVER considered a "buddy fucker"--one of our favorite terms for slackers who don't carry their load.

As to how the chain of command tried to cover this up, I agree that it was wrong. But you don't hold the boots on the ground fighting our wars responsible for what those looking for political gains out of this tragedy. The tragedy is that we lost a great Ranger. The travesty is that those in charge lied about how it happened.

BTW, friendly fire accidents happen more than you may expect. In fact training deadly accidents are so common in the Ranger Regiment that if you go to the Ranger memorials there are almost as many deaths from training as there are from combat. I was just at the 1st Ranger Bn memorial and noticed that both training and combat deaths were honored there.

If you've never been there, please refrain from falsely accusing those who have dared to be there!!!

Rangers Lead the Way

[DTorrchia]

Stealthyguy, thanks for your input. If you read this entire thread, you'll see that no matter how many facts I produced, this nut job TAE continues to spew forth conspiracy theories. It's what he does. All over this board. He accuses WWII soldiers as being cowards who had to be drafted because they didn't want to fight and says that 90% of them wouldn't shoot at Germans because they didn't want to kill. (See the Occupy What?" thread for that debate). TAE also claims to have worked with "Delta Force, SAS and the French Foreign Legion" and holds himself out to be a CIA undercover NOC officer on this board. Long story short, he's a nut job that's a member of the "Sovereign Citizen Movement"....a pimp who has intimidated some of the girls who left his agency.

Thanks again though for your input and thanks for your service as a U.S. Army Ranger. Stay safe!