Pat Tillman Murdered Because He Was About To Become Anti-War Hero? | KXNet.com North Dakota News |
|||||||||||
|
Home |
Voices
|
Blogs
|
SayAnything Pat Tillman Murdered Because He Was About To Become Anti-War Hero?Disclaimer: This article is a blog post and does not represent the views
or opinions of Reiten Television, KXNet.com, its staff and associates and is wholly owned by
the user who posted this content.
Jul 27 2007 12:00AM
http://sayanythingblog.com/index.php That’s what Democrat Wesley Clark thinks (his interview starts at about 1:13 in):
He essentially says that if Tillman was killed deliberately the orders “came from the top” and manages to invoke the idea of a Rovian plot along the way. That Clark, as a former high-ranking member of our armed forces, is even entertaining such fantasies is a disgrace
This conspiracy mongering comes at the same time of news that the Pentagon will be ending the careers of seven military officers for mishandling the investigation into Tillman’s death, and the news that military doctors who examined Tillman’s corpse were suspicious about the proximity of the bullet holes in his body. They were close together, indicating that Tillman was shot from close range
This is undoubtedly the genesis of a story about the government murdering one of it’s own soldiers that will last us for at least a couple of decades. Much like the idea that 9/11 was a plot to foment war in the middle east and JFK was murdered by the CIA
But personally, I subscribe to Occam’s Razor. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. In the case of Tillman, he was killed by his own troops. At the time the war in Iraq was relatively new, and the military didn’t want the public getting disillusioned with a sad story about a celebrity like Tillman who signed up to fight for his country only to be killed tragically by his own troops. So they covered it up and try to claim he was killed by enemy fire. They also subsequently squashed any attempt at a criminal investigation for fear that it would generate sensational headlines and further undermine the war effort (which it would have) Bad move, not just because they got caught but also because it’s not good to lie to the public. And especially not to the family of a fallen soldier. But now the left - always eager to seize on the smallest bit of innuendo in their drive to undermine the war effort, the military and the Bush administration - is blowing this up into a conspiracy to murder Tillman who was allegedly going to become an anti-war hero (what basis there is for this, or how he’d do that from the middle of a battlefield in Afghanistan, I have no idea).
Because that’s what is convenient for their political agenda
In reality, Tillman’s story is that of a tragic accident. He signed up for the military, and then was killed on the battlefield by an accident before he could fulfill his destiny. Sad, but hardly the fodder for murder plots involving Karl Rove
Disclaimer: This article is a blog post and does not represent the views or opinions of Reiten Television, KXNet.com, its staff and associates and is wholly owned by the user who posted this content.
More Blogs |
![]() ![]()
|
||||||||||
At no time did he suggest that Tillman was deliberately killed by the military.
Watch the video (and actually listen to it).
Scenario 2: US hero realises that he is fighting for a corrupt government and that he is in fact part of no noble cause to say the least, starts getting educated, says the Iraq war is 'so f-ing illegal man', wants out, plans to meet up with Noam Chomsky on his return - bad for govt. Very bad for the status quo.
He had to go. And you don't need to be Chomsky to figure that out who killed him, or why.
How are you presuming to refute leading evidence suggested by military doctors on inspection of Tillman's body? I wonder how you come to such firm assumptions, spun from you're clearly fanciful frame of mind, which are contrary to the evidence of experienced professionals?
An excerpt on Occam's Razor:
"Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.
This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.
Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity in scientific theories."
NOTE: Occam's razor is a useful tool in the analysis and clarification of SCIENTIFIC THEORY. We are all aware that in the human world of complex interaction, that political and emotional reality has little common relation to the stricture of scientific theory.
Your pedantic dismissal of this important issue is highly inappropriate.
I am embarrassed for you. Please assume a non-editorial position as soon as possible, as you are likely more suited to spinning bottles than political news stories...
Yours in earnest,
Allen Rees
Confronted with an administration that is known, now, to lie and cover up, it becomes important for you to BE a newsman, and to avoid your own rush to judgement.
The cover-up was "ordered from the top," Mr. Dense.
Do you folks read what you put on your website before you post it?
Do you folks know how stupid your station looks, posting such a piece of worthless, useless lies like this?
I dare you to post my comment.
It have would have been more surprising if this guy had been allowed to live.
-
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? You think it's just "bad move"? Are you SO twisted by your political bias that you can't see how serious a crime this is?
(1) It's WRONG, morally, legally and ethically...
(2) It's a FELONY, obstruction of justice, covering up a suspicious death.
(3) The coverup people DON'T KNOW if it's an accident or not, because they DIDN'T REALLY INVESTIGATE IT PROPERLY.
(4) It may be ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT if it was in fact, murder.
If my brother killed somebody, and I destroyed all the evidence, I would be ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT if it turned out to be murder. Even if I argued that I really thought he was innocent when I destroyed the evidence.
People should be getting PRISON TERMS for this kind of coverup.
John in Phoenix
They couldn't have withstood the scrutiny he would have brought to our war criminal leaders and their illegal invasion of Iraq in the months leading up to the Iraq war so they decided to "fight him over there so they wouldn't have to fight him over here."
They're traitors every last one and they need to be dealt with thusly.
They were all outspoken advocates of radical change in our society - and they all 'conveniently' died at the height of their influence.
Your editorial conveniently omitted a few inconvenient facts:
That Tillman's diary, which he guarded closely and confided to frequently, was mysteriously destroyed.
His uniform was also destroyed.
He was a known opponent of the Iraq invasion who had arranged a meeting with Noam Chomsky upon his return to the US. It's reasonable to infer that the football star poster boy was considering going public with his objections to the Iraq invasion.
The pattern of wounds to Tillman's head constitute a "shot group", three closely spaced shots. For this pattern to appear Tillman's head would have had to have been held steady for shots two and three. There is no way an M-16 on automatic, from 100 meters away, could have produced such a pattern.
Back to your razor, then. How does your fantasy account for these facts?
It is known that his unit was already taking friendly fire long before he was killed... obviously there was already a case of mistaken identity going on. So one group of soldiers is firing on what they believe to be Afghan rebels. One of the "rebels" heads appears from behind cover, and takes a 3 round burst to the forehead, fired by a trained, expert marksman... It's a completely reasonable scenario.
The burning of his uniform and journal definitely seems fishy, but jumping to conclusions is how this so called "illegal" war got started in the first place. Kind of hypocritical if you ask me.
Wrong. Lies and deceit is how this illegal war got started. And there is nothing new about governments lying to get into wars - the exception with Iraq is that pretty much most of the world saw through the (pretty dang obvious) lies and took to the streets in unprecedented numbers before this one even got started. No conclusions being jumped to here by anyone other than those that were innocent enough to believe the lies.
As for your 'reasonable scenario' - yes, how perfectly reasonable that the US army's star boy is killed just as he was becoming very outspoken and dangerous. And by friendly fire too! Very reasonable indeed. What are the chances of that happening by accident?
And Rumsfeld 'doesn't remember' when he found out that his most high profile army boy was not in fact killed by enemy fire - it's all a bit vague for Don Rumsfeld - that's very 'reasonable' too isn't it?
There are just so many 'reasonable' things going on in this story, goodness only knows why people aren't buying it!
In the words of the great, late Bill Hicks: “Go back to bed, America, your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed America, your government is in control."