BF_in_Indiana Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 Is your 30 line signature really necessary? 329307[/snapback] Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribo Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 Yes. 329309[/snapback] Some how I think someone else disagrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 Some how I think someone else disagrees. 329562[/snapback] I took it down on my own. It was getting to my eyes as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 You just keep waving that flag high and believing everything they tell you. 329273[/snapback] ......and you keep regurgitating what zach de rocha tells you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udonkey Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 queso con dorko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 It was standard procedure. They didn't think there would be any question that it was friendly fire that killed him. It's easy to look back and say they should have or shouldn't have done this or that. Contrary to popular belief, holes are holes. The bad guys bullets don't make holes any different than our bullets. (in clothing) The real evidence is within the body itself. 329172[/snapback] I don't buy the "holes are holes" thing. There have been incidents, especially in past conflicts that people where killed by their own people on purpose. I am NOT implying that this (Tillman) situation was one of them. It just needs to be investigated. Accountability has to be taken on EVERYTHING. They burn the clothes and body armor because it is a BioHazard... That I understand. There is a lot of room here to skirt accountability. And to think that the military doesn't know its outcomes, choices and legal options is just plain naive. To think they don't take advantage of those options is also naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 Sorry, that's way too simple an explanation for the other experts in this thread. Buncha garden variety Quincy's and CSI agents here. You know, it's funny. As a military person, when you report the details as you hear them, you are "jerking people around" or "changing your story." When you wait until all the facts are in or to investigate completely, you're "covering things up." Idiots. 329278[/snapback] I here what your are saying. Quite a PR problem?... Damn if you do, damn if you don't. Will the military ever get a good business model for handling the instant media? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 ......and you keep regurgitating what zach de rocha tells you 329855[/snapback] Zack is so far out of the limelight right now it's not even funny. I'm sorry to break it to you Pete, but my political views aren't formed by listening to Rage Against the Machine. I will say however that I believe in a good number of their causes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 I here what your are saying. Quite a PR problem?... Damn if you do, damn if you don't. Will the military ever get a good business model for handling the instant media? 329864[/snapback] I'm not sure it's possible to have a good model for handling today's media. The only consistancy is inconsistancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts