Fuck you, Pat Tillmans brother

So because ten people say I’m wrong I’m wrong? I’m not fighting a battle here anyway, I said my piece and you are supposed to answer queries in your own thread, right? You’re not supposed to drop one and leave.Plus I’m getting paid to do this right now, its not like I’m going to Capital Hill on wherever on my own dime on my own time.

Byt you have a point though, I did think sound reasoning would convert some of those who initially took umbrage at the OP, but you know the herd mentality. I did think that was more for an IMDB type board though, and that there were some independent thinkers in this post, but looking back on previous pile on pit threads, with those that begin with all people against the OP, very few have the balls to go against the grain, but thats how it goes.

If that were the only goal, it would indeed be pointless. However, the facts of the matter may occasionally be revealed in such a way that the perpetrator has no choice but to confess, and even if he doesn’t, the truth becomes so obvious that it really doesn’t matter whether the accused continues to make weak, pathetic denials. If everyone realizes the emperor has no clothes, he’s just as naked whether he admits it or not.

I believe Charles Manson, to this day, denies he did anything wrong. Was his trial and imprisonment a waste of time for that reason?

The fact that Bush (or whoever proves to be the mastermind) of this or any other scandal may never actually cry “uncle,” or confess on the stand in a Perry Masonlike dramatic flourish, does not mean we should all roll over and enjoy eating a plate of horseshit that someone calls paté de foie gras. Surely you are not so dense that you do not understand that.

Wanna bet?

I agree with some of your post. But I will add that, for example, everyone knows Alberto G. is lying, but yet it keeps on and will keep on, and is that particular hearing not a waste of everyone’s time?

One you start a lie, its hard to back out of it. And also, what is the point if the family gets someone to admit to anything anyway? If my powdered donuts are missing and you have powder all over your face, do I really need for you to admit you ate them? If you swear you didn’t, I still know you did, so why bother asking? Again, if anyone is fingered here, it will probably be a fall guy, not the real guy.

And even if you “uncover” it, this isn’t friggin Watergate, its “who decided to call this guy a hero when he wasn’t?” How does that rate in the grand scheme of the war right now? People continue to die, and they are spending all this time on this one guy, and over something as trivial as some hero nonsense?

The Manson analogy you know is silly, so let’s skip that.

No, you’re wrong because you’re pitting someone who’s only offense (in your eyes) seems to be fighting to set the record straight about his dead brother. Even if he’s an idealistic fool who’s tilting at windmills he deserves your sympathy, not your scorn.

Your bravery in the face of such odds is staggering.

You know, you could have ended this on page one by saying that you screwed up and posted without having all the facts. In fact, when you asked for the thread to be closed, I assumed that’s what you were doing. Why you keep defending this particular bunker is beyond me.

I asked for it to be close because someone pointed out I was wrong about when he enlisted, and didn’t want the thread to be derailed on a point that had nothing to do with my main argument. Once I realized that I clarified it, and the point still stands. So with askeptics encouragement, I soldiered on.

Maybe this will help- the big dick analogy. I’m in the military and someone says I have big dick, and uses it in campaign ads “our soldiers have big dicks”. I don’t like this at all, and take it court. We have hearings, trials, whatever, and I finally find the exact person who started the ads. It is gunnery sgt. Hartman. Ok, now what?

This post encouraged me to soldier on as well.

Jesus, enough with the analogies already! If you think the hearings are such a waste of time, why aren’t you pitting Henry Waxman? He’s the one responsible for them.

Not on a par with the “powdered donut,” “big dick,” or “Disney day care” analogies, I suppose.

Would that we were all such talented anal./linguists.

Ok, lets make this simple. I have an analogy for you. Lets say Pat Tillman is Theodoric the Great. President Bush and his advisors are, obviously, the Emperor Zeno and his court. Now, the Taliban is, of course, the Italians under Odoacer. Now, Kevin Tillman is Clovis the Frank, and Henry Waxman is Pope Felix III. Alberto Gonzales is Peter Mongus and Dick Cheney is the Patriarch Acacius.

Now, obviously Clovis the Frank is upset because he feels his family member, Theodoric the Great was manipulated into attacking Odoacer by Zeno, and that Zeno used Theodoric’s heroics for his own glory. So, of course, Clovis asks Felix III for help, and Felix wants to help, because he dislikes Zeno and Acacius because of their support for Peter Mongus, who Felix considers a heretic, and Mongus was condemned after a bad hearing in the synod (ie. the Congress).

There, doesn’t that make everything clear?

Check the San Jose Mercury News article about this- his Mom believes Rumsfeld knew- guess she’s an idiot too.

I gots nothin for this one

Wait, which one has the big dick again?

If I’ve been following the thread correctly, apparently Wee Bairn’s slutty granny.

I’m not sure I get your point, Wee Bairn, but maybe I lucked out and did. You’re pitting Kevin Tillman because, instead of mourning, he’s doing something you see as pointless – trying to find out the truth. If Kevin accomplishes his goal, his brother won’t spring back to life, yeah? So his goal is pointless, and he should just be sad.

Couple of things I see wrong with that logic:
(1) Bringing Pat back to life isn’t the only possible result. It’s possible that, if Kevin’s crusade is particularly successful, the Army will institute better procedures to prevent future incidents of friendly fire. That seems pretty worthwhile to me, even if it’s maybe a long shot. Also, the 20-year-old who stupidly did it will either be rightfully exculpated if it was unfortunate but understandable, or will be held responsible and booted out of the military if he truly was at fault.

(2) I use “fuck” 100 times a day, too, but I have a hard time believing that the titular profanity is totally without vitriol. You do indeed seem pretty riled up. If Kevin Tillman wants to grieve by speaking in front of Congress, crying his eyes out for the rest of his life, or carving model airplanes out of potatoes, what the hell difference does it make to you?

(3) Re: the big dick/being called a hero is a good thing line of reasoning. I won’t speak for all, but I definitely consider Pat Tillman admirable and perhaps heroic. Here was a man who, I imagine, dreamed of making the NFL for probably somewhere around two decades of his life. It was his DREAM, almost certainly the biggest dream in his life and almost equally certainly the motivation for 90% of his actions. And he frickin’ made it. He had his dream, his life’s goal. And then he went and gave it up for something as selfless as serving his country. THAT IS WHAT MAKES HIM HEROIC. He gave up his dream for his country when he clearly did not have to. Again, that’s what made him a hero, worthy of admiration and emulation. Write it down; it’ll be important below.

When the jingoists saw that he had died, they held media orgies of mourning, saying, “Oh, how sad that he died!” This is true. “How noble and heroic!” THIS is bullshit, and the part that pisses me off and, I believe, Kevin Tillman and his mother. Pat dying in Afghanistan wasn’t heroic. Lots of people die in war. It happens and it’s sad. But it’s not heroic. It was the first bit – the giving up his dream and selflessly serving his country – that was heroic. Not getting shot; that’s just dumb misfortune. By mixing the two, as the media and the politicians did, you diminish the first, truly heroic aspect. In my opinion, when he decided to join the Army in the first place, THAT was the time for, “Holy shit, look at this hero.” And in fairness, I think there was some of that, at least on ESPN. When he died, the response should have been, “Holy shit, this hero has died,” NOT, “Holy shit, what a heroic death.” A subtle distinction, but meaningful to me.

Saying, “Eh, he’s a hero either way,” would be like saying, “Dude, Martin Luther King, Jr. was the shit because he was such a good speaker.” It’s true, MLK Jr. was the shit, and it’s true that he was such a good speaker. But don’t you see how it sucks to ignore his efforts towards racial equality? Yes, he’s the shit either way, but I’d rather he be the shit for the right reason.

To summarize, Pat’s life was heroic, not his death. And, if I were his brother, making sure everyone knew that would stir me to action. Hell, I’m not even a Cardinals fan, and I’m stirred to chip in my $0.02 on some pointless post on a message board that will likely be disregarded by some Ross Perot-esque analogy. “It’s like Groucho Marx with a parachute in the freezer…” Um… you fill in the rest; I haven’t your ability.

Biggus Dickus, of course. :slight_smile:

Using the standard shorthand of P(Y|X) = “the probability that Y is true, given that X is true,” P(patriot|theist) doesn’t imply anything about P(patriot|atheist).

And having read Captain Amazing’s reply, it seems that I’m not the only one with differing anecdotal evidence from yours.

This thread has mostly been buried by idiotic analogies propagated by Wee Bairn, making it very difficult to even know what’s going on at this point.

So to get to the crux of it, you’re an idiot, Wee Bairn. You’re a walking contradiction. You’re of a mind that Bush/Gonzalez/the entire government are a pack of liars, and we should expect that. So, the only proper response to that situation, in your mind, is to ignore it and never fight for the truth?

That’s bullshit, not only is it bullshit, it’s un-American, un-democratic, and unreasonable. If people don’t try to get to the truth, the truth will never get out there. We’d never know that Nixon was abusing government power, and we’d never know that Ronnie was diverting money (illegally) to the Contras. Does getting to the truth change the administration? Usually, no. Historically if Presidential administrations get caught in a scandal, they get embarrassed but certainly the administration itself won’t admit wrongdoing and won’t take a fall. What does happen, is said administration loses face publicly, and will eventually suffer at the ballot box.

Do you think the Bush administration being caught in scandal after scandal has not hurt the GOP and Bush’s political capital? Did you notice we have a Democrat Congress and a Democrat Senate right now? If it wasn’t for investigative journalists out there, fighting to reveal the truth, demanding the truth, and ever working towards it, Bush could very well have not suffered any scandals and be the most popular President ever.

As Americans, or even citizens of any democratic country, we have a right and more than that a responsibility to demand the truth from our government. This does not just apply to investigative journalists like Bob Woodward, but to all of us, all the citizens of the country.

It should also be highlighted how misinformed you are on the Tillman incident. Pat Tillman’s death was not (primarily) the result of some 20 year old being scared shitless and accidentally shooting at someone. It was the result of an order, coming from a higher ranking officer who was over 100 miles away from the unit overriding the judgment of the commanding officer on the ground. The commanding officer of Tillman’s company did not want to split his men up, he said it would be dangerous and did not feel it was necessary. HIS CO, a man way removed from the field of battle, overruled his judgment and forced the group to split up. This is what set up the friendly fire incident.

The fact that this was covered up is not only dishonest, it’s bad for the Army. As a former Army officer I can say right now, the Army needs to be open, public, and honest about tactical blunders of this magnitude. By hiding it, it hurts the Army’s ability to learn from past mistakes, which is a bigger and ultimately more important thing than the life of one soldier. Military forces that cannot learn from past mistakes, because those mistakes are covered up, are military forces doomed to stagnation and failure.

That’s one of the big reasons we need to know who was responsible for this cover up. Not just because the cover up hurt the Tillman family, that’s unfortunate and the Tillman’s do have a right to the truth, but because the coverup was perpetrated by an officer with a high level of responsibility both to his country and to the Army. That man (or men)'s cover up hurt the Army, and an officer who does something like that needs to be brought to task and punished, there’s no room for people who are going to hurt the Army within the Army.

Just because getting to the truth may not result in direct punishment for an individual, certainly does not mean getting to the truth is without merit. The truth has value intrinsically, and a military more so than others needs to be able to disseminate the truth. This is the kind of stuff that needs to be taught in the classrooms at West Point, that you don’t order a commander on the ground to split his men up if he says not to, the commander on the ground is the man most suited to know what is best for his men when it comes to decisions like that.

aliquot, I respect your post and will spare you an analogy. I guess where our opinion on the subject differs is that you say that distinction between “he was a hero” and “he died a heroic death” is a big deal. To me, it is utter minutia, splitting hairs, mountain out of a mole hill thing.

And if his brother wants to camp out in DC for the rest of his life waiting for answers, I could care less, I was just offering my opinion, no more no less.

I also don’t think all the training in the world will prepare somebody for the combat you see in Iraq/Afghanistan, and you will never ever ever eliminate that sort of thing,- it happens way too often to be the result of poor training.

I think we all saw that it was, in fact, Bwian.

Oh, and the OP eats stupid food for breakfast.