Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (153818)	12/9/2004 6:21:25 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

C'mon Jlallen, we're talking about Pat Tillman here. An American soldier who believed in integrity and honesty and in an America that stood tall and told the truth. You shouldn't be trying to protect people who tried to personally profit from lying about his death. I wrote: It's clear that the army initially hid the truth. It's also clear that when the truth began to leak out they came out with a terse statement that Pat Tillman "may" have been killed by friendly fire. At the time of the incident they knew that he had been killed by friendly fire. They knew that when they made up a lie about how he was killed, awarded him a Silver Star, and paraded him in front of the country as a poster boy who had been killed by the enemy leading his troops and exhorting them to aggressive action. You replied: That's how you read it....I don't see it that way....the investigation was incomplete.....and rumors are rife in any kind of situation like this.....the bottom line is the Army got it right with not an unreasonable delay.... So I'll ask you: Did the men on the ground in squad that got shot up as well as the squad that did the shooting EACH know, on the day of the incident, that Tillman had died as a result of friendly fire? Did the Army take 14 affidavits from the men on the scene and did it have that information when it was making the initial totally misleading "killed by insurgents" and then the "may have been killed by friendly fire" statements? Why would the Army not only get it wrong, but also come up with a series of detailed factual misstatements that were not supported by ANY of the statements of those on the scene? And finally, when you say "the bottom line is the Army got it right with not an unreasonable delay," do you mean they came out with the truth shortly after it became apparent that they were going to get caught in a lie? Do you think that our military's psych ops guys had anything to do with this deception? Ed