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?

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.

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

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

No sir. The tank operators would be at fault. And if the operators were found to cover it up, they most certainly would stand trial. Unless you are saying the tank tried to cover it up?

Then you admit it was covered up and justify it with why?

Who cares why?

Please explain to me why the operators would not be at fault and then explain how why would matter at all. A cover up is a cover up. Please explain the good reason for that to happen.

I never called these tank operators muderers and you know that.

What is reading about friendly fire going to teach me about coverups?

This is about covering up what happend. Why do you insist that part is irrelevant?

[edit on 21-11-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

---

---

more, proof that US military is a bunch of liars and is full of propaganda and hot air.

who knows i suspect that this could be a CIA/Blackwater black ops operation

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

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

Originally posted by jerico65

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

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

A tank crushed them. Is that not what the article says?

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

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 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.

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 jerico65

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

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.

However the tank killed them. Yes, my point is WHY it was covered up. I asked you twice to give me one good reason to cover this up. I have answered to you for no good reason, why can you not answer my simple question.

Originally posted by jerico65

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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.

---

---

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.

There is a lot in what you say, you obviously know what you are talking about.

As I sit here typing away I can always say that the truth should always be told, but that is easy for me to say, I have never experienced combat.

On whether friendly fire deaths should be disclosed, there is an argument for both sides. The only thing that I would say from my admittedly comfortable seat is that first, if these things don't come out then I presume the lessons would be lost, and second, that they should have a clear policy either way. Disclose nothing or disclose everything, because this middle of the night shredding stuff makes everyone look bad.

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

Covering it up is what makes it wrong no matter what some people think. I have asked for a good reason to cover this up and none has been put forth. As you said, how will the lesson be learned. And how will we differentiate between field fratricide and this anymore? They will be able to shoot all the Pat Tilmans that they like and it will be standard to shred the docs? Scary thought that.

Originally posted by jerico65

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.

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

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.

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.

Like I said. Soldiers were killed by other soldiers and those soldiers then lied about it. Sick.

Why that was off topic the first time eludes me. Is it off topic again?

CUE STANDARD MOD SPEECH

Hi People,

Can we please hold off on the personal attacks, the censor circumvention and general snarky comments to eachother.

Come on guys...debate the post, not the poster...you all know how it goes.


Cheers.