Newsweek Lied, People Died

Deny your nonsense all you wish, equivicator.

Nah - if I were into spurious nonsensical associations, I would make the same leap you made - but shirk now - about Blatham - but the opposite.

You know, like atrocity sympathiser - supporter of murderers of helpless prisoners - stuff like that.

Quote:

It strikes me that you are making quite a leap from my simple observation that blatham is at a place in his life where he chooses to believe a terrorist over a US military spokesperson.

Well, here's an interesting thing: the terrorist is far more reliable than the military spokesperson.

I can't recall ever having been lied to by a terrorist, personally; they are usually pretty straight-forward about why they are blowing you up. What's the point of lying about why they are blowing you up?

On the contrast, our military is completely unreliable these days when it comes to self-examination; just look at the fact that noone got punished for AG at all, or the myriad lies our military has been wrapped up in over the years.

It is somewhat bizzare, isn't it?

Cycloptichorn

In fact, you are not the worst of those exhibiting this "reasoning" and attempts to blacken by spurious association.

The reason I am going after it is that it is way too common around here - and I have just got sickened by it - not because it is an effective tactic, but because it is so specious.

Yes, I know you are trying to say you never meant that - but please, what exactly WERE you attempting to convey?

What did you think people would make of your comment? Honestly.

Well, I think I've previously outright accused you of empathizing with terrorists, so I need not make any baseless accusations about you right now, do I?

blatham wrote:

Now there is a question begging an answer. You frame it such that only one answer makes any sense tico. But nothing like that framework exists in this instance. I might just as well ask you...all else being equal, would you consider an Abu Ghraib guard more credible than a priest? The answer one gets is useless.

Or are you just checking to see if I hate American military/government people so enthusiastically that I think Osama ought to run Alabama?

I'd still like to know what your answer is.

In my estimation, a minority of Abu Ghraib guards are dishonorable, and a minority of priests are dishonorable. There are obviously bad apples in every barrel. But as a general statement, I can tell you that in answer to your question, I would find a priest to be more credible. I think most priests heed a calling to serve a higher power, and live honorable lives to a high moral standard. I think most prison guards are basically good people as well, but all other things being equal, I would trust the priest over the prison guard. But I acknowledge it was a fairly tough call.

On the other hand, it isn't even close when I try to answer the question I posed to you. Are you still having difficulty deciding your answer?

Tillman's Parents Are Critical Of Army


Family Questions Reversal On Cause of Ranger's Death

By Josh White / Washington Post

Former NFL player Pat Tillman's family is lashing out against the Army, saying that the military's investigations into Tillman's friendly-fire death in Afghanistan last year were a sham and that Army efforts to cover up the truth have made it harder for them to deal with their loss.

More than a year after their son was shot several times by his fellow Army Rangers on a craggy hillside near the Pakistani border, Tillman's mother and father said in interviews that they believe the military and the government created a heroic tale about how their son died to foster a patriotic response across the country. They say the Army's "lies" about what happened have made them suspicious, and that they are certain they will never get the full story.

"Pat had high ideals about the country; that's why he did what he did," Mary Tillman said in her first lengthy interview since her son's death. "The military let him down. The administration let him down. It was a sign of disrespect. The fact that he was the ultimate team player and he watched his own men kill him is absolutely heartbreaking and tragic. The fact that they lied about it afterward is disgusting."

Tillman, a popular player for the Arizona Cardinals, gave up stardom in the National Football League after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to join the Army Rangers with his brother. After a tour in Iraq, their unit was sent to Afghanistan in spring 2004, where they were to hunt for the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. Shortly after arriving in the mountains to fight, Tillman was killed in a barrage of gunfire from his own men, mistaken for the enemy as he got into position to defend them.

Immediately, the Army kept the soldiers on the ground quiet and told Tillman's family and the public that he was killed by enemy fire while storming a hill, barking orders to his fellow Rangers. After a public memorial service, at which Tillman received the Silver Star, the Army told Tillman's family what had really happened, that he had been killed by his own men.

In separate interviews in their home town of San Jose and by telephone, Tillman's parents, who are divorced, spoke about their ordeal with the Army with simmering frustration and anger. A series of military investigations have offered differing accounts of Tillman's death. The most recent report revealed more deeply the confusion and disarray surrounding the mission he was on, and more clearly showed that the family had been kept in the dark about details of his death.

The latest investigation, written about by The Washington Post earlier this month, showed that soldiers in Afghanistan knew almost immediately that they had killed Tillman by mistake in what they believed was a firefight with enemies on a tight canyon road. The investigation also revealed that soldiers later burned Tillman's uniform and body armor.

That information was slow to make it back to the United States, the report said, and Army officials here were unaware that his death on April 22, 2004, was fratricide when they notified the family that Tillman had been shot.

Over the next 10 days, however, top-ranking Army officials -- including the theater commander, Army Gen. John P. Abizaid -- were told of the reports that Tillman had been killed by his own men, the investigation said. But the Army waited until a formal investigation was finished before telling the family -- which was weeks after a nationally televised memorial service that honored Tillman on May 3, 2004.

Patrick Tillman Sr., a San Jose lawyer, said he is furious about what he found in the volumes of witness statements and investigative documents the Army has given to the family. He decried what he calls a "botched homicide investigation" and blames high-ranking Army officers for presenting "outright lies" to the family and to the public.

"After it happened, all the people in positions of authority went out of their way to script this," Patrick Tillman said. "They purposely interfered with the investigation, they covered it up. I think they thought they could control it, and they realized that their recruiting efforts were going to go to hell in a handbasket if the truth about his death got out. They blew up their poster boy."

Army spokesmen maintain that the Army has done everything it can to keep the family informed about the investigation, offering to answer relatives' questions and going back to them as investigators gathered more information.

Army officials said Friday that the Army "reaffirms its heartfelt sorrow to the Tillman family and all families who have lost loved ones during this war." Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, an Army spokesman, said the Army acts with compassion and heartfelt commitment when informing grieving families, often a painful duty.

"In the case of the death of Corporal Patrick Tillman, the Army made mistakes in reporting the circumstances of his death to the family," Brooks said. "For these, we apologize. We cannot undo those early mistakes."

Brooks said the Army has "actively and directly" informed the Tillman family regarding investigations into his death and has dedicated a team of soldiers and civilians to answering the family's questions through phone calls and personal meetings while ensuring the family "was as well informed as they could be."

Mary Tillman keeps her son's wedding album in the living room of the house where he grew up, and his Arizona State University football jersey, still dirty from the 1997 Rose Bowl game, hangs in a nearby closet. With each new version of events, her mind swirls with new theories about what really happened and why. She questions how an elite Army unit could gun down its most recognizable member at such close range. She dwells on distances and boulders and piles of documents and the words of frenzied men.

"It makes you feel like you're losing your mind in a way," she said. "You imagine things. When you don't know the truth, certain details can be blown out of proportion. The truth may be painful, but it's the truth. You start to contrive all these scenarios that could have taken place because they just kept lying. If you feel you're being lied to, you can never put it to rest."

Patrick Tillman Sr. believes he will never get the truth, and he says he is resigned to that now. But he wants everyone in the chain of command, from Tillman's direct supervisors to the one-star general who conducted the latest investigation, to face discipline for "dishonorable acts." He also said the soldiers who killed his son have not been adequately punished.

"Maybe lying's not a big deal anymore," he said. "Pat's dead, and this isn't going to bring him back. But these guys should have been held up to scrutiny, right up the chain of command, and no one has."

That their son was famous opened up the situation to problems, the Tillmans say, in part because of the devastating public relations loss his death represented for the military. Mary Tillman says the government used her son for weeks after his death, perpetuating an untrue story to capitalize on his altruism -- just as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal was erupting publicly. She said she was particularly offended when President Bush offered a taped memorial message to Tillman at a Cardinals football game shortly before the presidential election last fall. She again felt as though her son was being used, something he never would have wanted.

"Every day is sort of emotional," Mary Tillman said. "It just keeps slapping me in the face. To find that he was killed in this debacle -- everything that could have gone wrong did -- it's so much harder to take. We should not have been subjected to all of this. This lie was to cover their image. I think there's a lot more yet that we don't even know, or they wouldn't still be covering their tails.

"If this is what happens when someone high profile dies, I can only imagine what happens with everyone else."

blatham wrote:

Now there is a question begging an answer. You frame it such that only one answer makes any sense tico. But nothing like that framework exists in this instance. I might just as well ask you...all else being equal, would you consider an Abu Ghraib guard more credible than a priest? The answer one gets is useless.

Or are you just checking to see if I hate American military/government people so enthusiastically that I think Osama ought to run Alabama?

I'd still like to know what your answer is.

In my estimation, a minority of Abu Ghraib guards are dishonorable, and a minority of priests are dishonorable. There are obviously bad apples in every barrel. But as a general statement, I can tell you that in answer to your question, I would find a priest to be more credible. I think most priests heed a calling to serve a higher power, and live honorable lives to a high moral standard. I think most prison guards are basically good people as well, but all other things being equal, I would trust the priest over the prison guard. But I acknowledge it was a fairly tough call.

On the other hand, it isn't even close when I try to answer the question I posed to you. Are you still having difficulty deciding your answer?

I'm very happy and feeling excellent this morning since obviously we'll get again lot's of quotation by the greatest jurist of all times, Posner.

Quote:

Well, I think I've previously outright accused you of empathizing with terrorists, so I need not make any baseless accusations about you right now, do I?

No, they would still be baseless. Why? Not because they are false, but because it doesn't mean anything to empathize with anyone.

One can empathize with a murderer; that doesn't mean one sympathizes or supports their actions, just understands them (or attempts to).

You will never get me to apologize for trying to understand someone's actions. Knowing the mind of your enemy is the only sure way to defeat him.

Cycloptichorn

Ticomaya wrote:

blatham wrote:

Now there is a question begging an answer. You frame it such that only one answer makes any sense tico. But nothing like that framework exists in this instance. I might just as well ask you...all else being equal, would you consider an Abu Ghraib guard more credible than a priest? The answer one gets is useless.

Or are you just checking to see if I hate American military/government people so enthusiastically that I think Osama ought to run Alabama?

I'd still like to know what your answer is.

In my estimation, a minority of Abu Ghraib guards are dishonorable, and a minority of priests are dishonorable. There are obviously bad apples in every barrel. But as a general statement, I can tell you that in answer to your question, I would find a priest to be more credible. I think most priests heed a calling to serve a higher power, and live honorable lives to a high moral standard. I think most prison guards are basically good people as well, but all other things being equal, I would trust the priest over the prison guard. But I acknowledge it was a fairly tough call.

On the other hand, it isn't even close when I try to answer the question I posed to you. Are you still having difficulty deciding your answer?

My quite unvaluable answer would be that I would presume it more likely that the terrorist suspect was the least credible, given I had trust that his categorization was other than completely random.

I empathize with every living human being and most non-living ones.

If you believe this is some sort of enditement of my character, perhaps you need to look up the definition of empathize.

This may be a 'tactic,' but you still score zero points.

Cycloptichorn

tico

Much more discourse like you've just gone through with deb and a lot of us are going to conclude you've been misoverestimated. Deb is as bright and clear-headed as anyone on this board. Her arguments are always worth attending and she offers up more "I don't know"s and more "Yup, you had that better than I"s in one week than I've seen from you in total.

Why resist so strenuously the admission of US (Bush administration and military) culpability? Will your country be hurt more by acknowledging negatives which are true or by denying them when they pop up?