It's not clear to me that Tillman was "executed". OTOH, questions abound:
1) Who killed Pat Tillman? 2) Why was Pat Tillman killed? 3) Who covered up the Truth? 4) What did the president know and when did he know it? 5) Why does he resort - yet again - to executive privilege?
If the Bushopranos have nothing to hide, why do they hide everything?
6:20 PM, July 28, 2007
Anonymous said...
Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan will always fascinate Americans, but probably most clearly for a reason they won't understand because accepting it, like acknowledging that we're going to die, pops the balloon of simplistic pleasantries we use to disguise life itself. For all the reams of rhetoric and frenetic reporting about his demise, there is one word that will pop that balloon and the media is afraid to use it.
Fragging.
Those who write are aware of a need to watch for any term that becomes repeated too much, as if insistently by a child in denial. Peacekeepers. Humanitarian mission. Terrorism. And now, "friendly fire." Pat Tillman's death was originally in combat, but now (sleight of hand), we're told it was "friendly fire."
http://www.corrupt.org/articles/sacrifice/
I'm sad that people aren't bold enough to see this. He wanted to fight, his platoon wanted to lag, and so they killed him in the same way they killed American officers in Vietnam: the listless mass turns its weapons on those few who see meaning in the fight (even if I don't agree with that decision, at least they wanted to get something done in a world of dodgers, slackers, losers, burnouts, fence-sitters, bean-counters, liars, lagabouts, gold brickers, donut engulfers, couch potatoes, whiners, parasites and hipsters).
There's a lot of evidence coming to light that NFL player-turned soldier Pat Tillman's friendly fire death was not an accident: (AP)SAN FRANCISCO U.S. 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 professional football player's death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.
"The medical evidence did not match up 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 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.See TPM Muckraker and kestrel9000's diary on DailyKos for more information and analysis.
I don't know enough ballistics to say with any, but 10 yards seems awfully close. And we do know that the military lied repeatedly about the circumstances of his death. The Tillman death cover-up and the Jessica Lynch-as-Rambo fabrication are two of the most despicable examples of "human interest" war propaganda our government has foisted on us.
posted by Zachary Drake at 11:01 PM on Jul 27, 2007
"Was Pat Tillman fragged?"
2 Comments -
It's not clear to me that Tillman was "executed". OTOH, questions abound:
1) Who killed Pat Tillman?
2) Why was Pat Tillman killed?
3) Who covered up the Truth?
4) What did the president know and when did he know it?
5) Why does he resort - yet again - to executive privilege?
If the Bushopranos have nothing to hide, why do they hide everything?
6:20 PM, July 28, 2007
Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan will always fascinate Americans, but probably most clearly for a reason they won't understand because accepting it, like acknowledging that we're going to die, pops the balloon of simplistic pleasantries we use to disguise life itself. For all the reams of rhetoric and frenetic reporting about his demise, there is one word that will pop that balloon and the media is afraid to use it.
Fragging.
Those who write are aware of a need to watch for any term that becomes repeated too much, as if insistently by a child in denial. Peacekeepers. Humanitarian mission. Terrorism. And now, "friendly fire." Pat Tillman's death was originally in combat, but now (sleight of hand), we're told it was "friendly fire."
http://www.corrupt.org/articles/sacrifice/
I'm sad that people aren't bold enough to see this. He wanted to fight, his platoon wanted to lag, and so they killed him in the same way they killed American officers in Vietnam: the listless mass turns its weapons on those few who see meaning in the fight (even if I don't agree with that decision, at least they wanted to get something done in a world of dodgers, slackers, losers, burnouts, fence-sitters, bean-counters, liars, lagabouts, gold brickers, donut engulfers, couch potatoes, whiners, parasites and hipsters).
7:27 AM, August 02, 2007