New friendly fire coverup: Army shreds files on dead soldiers

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
Get a dictionary and look up the word killer and the word murderer. Did they or did they not kill someone?

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
Was it or was it not covered up?

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
Now show me the error or PLEASE GET back on topic.

Originally posted by jerico65


The tankers were responsible for a friendly fire incident. Unless it was found to be gross negligence, they wouldn't be considered a "killer" or "murderer". They would not be put on trial.



Well, now, Gus, the big question is WHY they would be covering it up? As I said before, friendly fire happens in every war; you learn from the mistake and make sure it doesn't happen that way. Covering it up only makes it worse.



The only "error" is your constent screaming of the words, "killer" and "murderer" about the tank crew. It's neither.

Maybe reading up on some friendly fire incidents in the past might help you see the whys and hows. Somehow, after two pages of posts, what I'm writing sure isn't getting thru to you.

Originally posted by jerico65
reply to post by angel of lightangelo

---

I give up. Trying to explain this to you is like trying to teach a chicken a card trick.

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
I think it sucks that the real reason these men died was covered up.

Originally posted by jerico65


And what do you believe is the "real reason" why these men were killed?

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
A tank crushed them. Is that not what the article says?

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
I would like to sincerely appologize to the OP. I have tried with most of my posts to either remain on topic or get back on topic. Jericho seems to think the topic is me. I appologize for my inability to just ignore him. Perhaps he could start his own thread or use the U2U function to carry out personal battles.

Originally posted by jerico65


Actually, no.

They were killed by a round fired from the tank.

And as you said, the real reason for this whole article and thread is WHY this is being covered up.

Originally posted by jerico65


Geez, now I'm picking on you??? Get a grip.

You post something to this thread (or any thread) and someone debates you (or agrees with you) about it. That's the whole idea of a forum; for the exchanging of ideas and debating things.

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
No, you are obsessing on me. You started with "Im tryin dude" to get the thread back on topic. What have you done on topic since then? What have you done but attack me.

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
They were killed by a round fired from a tank and it was covered up. Cowardly, killers lying about how fellow soldiers died.

I rest my case.

Originally posted by dooper
Often enough, when the man is dead, he's dead. Why would some ***hole want to go tell his family that their brave son died in an accident? It's so much better that he died facing and fighting the enemy. No one really deep down wants to hear that their son/father/brother/uncle died as a result of an accident. Because that makes no sense. No justification. No sacrifice.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Disclose nothing or disclose everything, because this middle of the night shredding stuff makes everyone look bad.

Originally posted by jerico65


Yeah, right. Get over yourself. It ain't all about you.



Now this is some meat and potatoes. "Cowardly killers lying about how fellow soldiers died." Dude, WHO are you addressing this to? The tankers, or the guys writing the report???? You need to be more specific!

Since no one here has read the report, who knows what the tankers said!! They could have lied, but I bet they probably said they fired on what they thought were insurgents in a building.

And as Dooper said, the Army doesn't like to tell families that their sons/fathers, etc, were killed in an accident. They'd rather say they were killed fighting the enemy.