Celebrity mistaken for Taliban terrorist

November 10, 2006 5:46 PM

So you’re in a platoon with 30 or so guys. One of those guys is the NFL player who gave up a multi-million dollar contract to be a hero in Afghanistan. He’s all broad shouldered NFL muscle. You can’t mistake him for anyone else in the platoon, much less an Afghani. So how do you put three bullets in his forehead by mistake?
posted by Huplescat (64 comments total)

It's called the fog of war, you armchair quarterback.
posted by spork at 5:53 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

Previous Tillman posts on MeFi: un deux trois quatre.
posted by dw at 5:59 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

Just put it on Rumsfeld's bill.
posted by vhsiv at 6:01 PM on November 10, 2006

Well, despite the "fog of war" argument, the guys doing the shooting had eyesight problems and also failed to identify their target, a violation of their rules of engagement. What I wonder is, they knew they'd split the platoon. Did it not occur to them that it could be their own guys? Aren't Rangers extra-trained for these kinds of scenarios? Or is this really about micromanaging again from the bosses? Why would they be so involved in one platoon's actions? I read a fair amount of military history and this reminds of Vietnam stories of officers in helicopters, circling the battlefield and issuing orders.
posted by etaoin at 6:03 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

OK, that quatre link wasn't about him. Oops.

Just one of those days, I guess.
posted by dw at 6:03 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

cinco: Kevin Tillman's letter.
posted by taosbat at 6:06 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

So how do you put three bullets in his forehead by mistake?

Easily. Soldiers are tired. They're confused. They're constantly wondering if they're going to get shot or blown up. They're constantly getting into firefights where if they're not fast enough, they're dead. It's pretty easy to make mistakes under those conditions. Friendly fire happens, and it happens often. In the smoke, haze, and confusion, it's pretty easy to make a mistake and shoot the wrong guy.
posted by unreason at 6:07 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

So there was a huge sad mistake that happened and the real problem with it is that is wasn't revealed to the public. Do I have that right?

Let me sneak this in before this gets deleted.

No matter how much training you have, and Ranger/SF etc, get alot, it takes experience, real-life getting shot at and blown up, to be able to see through the "fog". I'm no hard-core combat guy but I've been shot at enough to know to slow shit down and not freak the fuck out. Maybe I'm talking out of my ass, but whatever.

Happy Veteran's Day!! (Tommorow)
posted by snsranch at 6:10 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

Like 3 bullets to the forehead are worse than just 1.
posted by smackfu at 6:10 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

An Afghani?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:16 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

Did the 'Fog of War' cause someone to shock Tillman's corpse with CPR paddles hours after his head was blown open?

I'm starting to wonder if this was some sort of vendetta against Tillman by a group of other men.
posted by squidfartz at 6:20 PM on November 10, 2006

It is what happens in war. No amount of training will cause this sort of thing not to happen in war. And it will continue until we start resolving our issues by other means, or until robots battle it out on the moon.

Too much editoralizing in the fpp.
posted by edgeways at 6:21 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

I don't understand: would you rather have it the other way? A taliban terrorist mistaken for celebrity?
posted by NewBornHippy at 6:22 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

Eatoin... if those guys had bad eyes how could they do a head shot? Rangers don’t have bad eyes. Something else happened. Why did they burn his clothes?
posted by Huplescat at 6:37 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

I disagree with characterizing Mr. Tillman as a celebrity; a celebrated athelete maybe, but not a celebrity.

The circumstances of his death are, to my mind, a tragic accident enabled by a chain of decisions and instructions that in no way had his best interests in mind. At least that's my take from the articles linked here and other places.

An actual crime in this event is the way it's been handled by the Army and the administration.
posted by MarvinTheCat at 6:38 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

That's what the Army reports have indicated--one had had laser surgery, two of the others reported other problems. That was part of the shooters' defense. That's one of the new elements of this most recent story. It's rather startling what these guys claimed. And yes, I don't get the burned clothes thing either, although somewhere along the line I recall something (not in this story) a report that uniforms, being bloody messes, often are.

I know friendly fire incidents happen. I also know that often there's a breakdown of communications, discipline, etc.

I wondered, too, if Tillman had pissed someone off. But I don't think the Tillman family will ever get a fully satisfactory answer as to what happened.
posted by etaoin at 6:43 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

Like 3 bullets to the forehead are worse than just 1.

If the weapon being fired was an M-16, AFAIK the maximum burst is 3 shots.

Huplescat: STFU if all you're going to do is ask stupid leading questions. Shit -- as in friendly fire incident -- happens in the heat of combat A LOT, and generally each 'blue-on-blue' fatality is a pretty sad story of happenstance, stupidity, and/or inattention.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 6:44 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

I'm starting to wonder if this was some sort of vendetta against Tillman by a group of other men.
posted by squidfartz at 6:20 PM PST

That has been one theory. Tillman was beginning to speak out, according to the theory.

Fog of war or not as an 'excuse'....why was the family told a different story? Why was the American public told the 'story of a hero' VS what happened?

I look forward to the people who want to explain 3 shots to the head as 'whoops' explaining why the story changed.
posted by rough ashlar at 7:03 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

Heywood: I've fired a few M-16s and usually, when firing in burst, I'm not gonna hit a forehead 3 times in a row regardless of range. (Well except VERY close range.) So what's the point?
posted by snsranch at 7:04 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

I'm working on a documentary about the Special Forces, and I have to say that, from what I've learned about their training, I have to agree with Huplescat. It sounds cliche but these types of guys don't make this kind of mistake.
posted by Nathanial Hörnblowér at 7:07 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

I think Pat Tillman was offed.

He was against the war in Iraq. I think he believed the mission in Afghanistan was all fucked up. He was speaking his mind. He was a celebrity, in as much as many young men - potential recruits - would give his words a lot of weight.

The brass couldn't afford that.

I have no doubt that the military elite will murder one of their own to protect a flawed agenda.
posted by rougy at 7:26 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

I have no doubt that the military elite will murder one of their own to protect a flawed agenda.

The military elite don't seem to have been shy about criticizing the agenda from civilian leadership lately.

I suppose it's possible there's one group that would do something like this, and not another, but confusion seems like a good possibility too.
posted by namespan at 7:41 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

Friendly-fire happens in all wars (just ask Stonewall Jackson). But the coverup here was what was unconscionable -- I mean, burning the guy's clothing? How bizarre is that?

The military wanted to capitalize on his celebrity, and when he died through friendly fire, they knew that the negative effects of this would be pretty strong. If they'd just come out and admitted that a huge, stupid mistake and been made, you probably wouln't have Pat Tillman's own brother now become something of an anti-war figure (with a lot more credibility in many ways than a Cindy Sheehan).

So no rougy, this was a fucked up accident, typical of what happens when you put a bunch of people together with high-powered weapons, even in the best of circumstances. And it's really sad. But the fact that the military seems to know that Afghanistan is going south and can't risk the PR loss about Tillman is really fucked.

And his family has every right to be pissed off, to demand answers, and to see justice done (although it can't now -- if I read this correctly, a number of the officers responsible for the cover-up have left the service and can't be touched now).
posted by bardic at 7:44 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

Three bullets is an M16 burst. (If you're going to shoot once, you shoot three times, to make sure.) At least one of the shooters, though, was the .50-caliber gunner on a Humvee, whose driver was the first Ranger to realize that they were shooting on their own men. A 50mm-gun does a hell of a lot of damage -- indeed, it has been argued that using them against personnel violates the laws of war. The bullets are twice as large (12.7mm) as M16 ammunition (5.56mm). In any case, the M2 is fully automatic and can fire until it runs out of ammo.

I'm working on a documentary about the Special Forcesn

Technically, Rangers aren't Special Forces. They're the raiding force of the Army. Green Berets, SEALs, Delta Force, etc. are special forces. But you knew that, right?

Nevertheless, they do say of the Rangers that you volunteer three times -- once for Army, once for Airborne, and once for Ranger. It's a lot more training than grunts get.

Look, I'm accepting as an armchair general of the fog of war. I'm accepting of friendly fire mistakes -- they happen, they're horrible. The kind of uneven terrain light-force fighting that Afghanistan entails is especially dangerous in that regard. There were some huge mistakes made on this operation and the soldiers involved will bear a heavy burden the rest of their lives for it.

The problem is and should be primarily what was done to cover up the incident, both at the platoon level and higher. You have inconsistent statements by the commanders and you have frankly bullshit stories told to the family by the Pentagon. It's incredible that it's taken this long for such critical details as a sniper's vision-correction surgery to come to light. Either the inspector general's office is way incompetent, or some key people are being deliberately deceptive. It's a stain.

I think Pat Tillman was offed. He was against the war in Iraq. I think he believed the mission in Afghanistan was all fucked up.

If that's the standard for murder, then there should be a lot more fratricide in both theaters. You have no idea how much real military complain about their mission (and often, much more apolitically than you'd imagine, too). Frags tend to happen when people are strongly disliked for more personal reasons, such as being a jackass or being firm with a jackass. I wouldn't be surprised if something like htat turns up eventually, but I haven't seen ay evidence of it in this story. It was gross, fatal, stupidity.

a number of the officers responsible for the cover-up have left the service and can't be touched now

Article 3 of the UCMJ says otherwise:
no person charged with having committed, while in a status in which he was subject to this chapter, an offense against this chapter, punishable by confinement for five years or more and for which the person cannot be tried in the courts of the United States or of a State, a Territory, or District of Columbia, may be relieved from amenability to trial by court-martial by reason of the termination of that status.
posted by dhartung at 7:55 PM on November 10, 2006 [2 favorites]

The article brings to light an awful lot of stupidity, overconfidence and bravado on the part of the Ranger commanders. And a lot of really bad decisions afterwards.

Pat Tillman was a pretty amazing guy from everything I've read about him. A man of uncommon convictions. I bet he pissed off as many people as he impressed. But I don't think he was executed. They generally go for double taps to the center mass, its much easier to hit than a little target like the head.

The coverup after the fact is absolutely shameful.
posted by fenriq at 7:56 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

2 in the chest, one in the head...unless you sight in with a .50 cal and just blow his head off.
posted by taosbat at 8:06 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

Also, their supply drops had been held up and they hadn't eaten--they had to buy a goat from a local.
posted by mecran01 at 8:16 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

It's to bad that he died, he seemed like a nice guy.

But don't go to war and then complain about getting shot, come on. Trying to punish his fellow solders accomplishes nothing.
posted by Paris Hilton at 8:17 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

But don't go to war and then complain about getting shot, come on.

I don't think Tillman is complaining much about anything right now.
posted by Stauf at 8:25 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

Trying to punish his fellow solders accomplishes nothing.

I agree, but the officers who tried to cover this up should be thrown in the brig.
posted by bardic at 8:37 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

I'm not gonna hit a forehead 3 times in a row regardless of range. (Well except VERY close range.)

Right. 3 shots to the forehead is "making sure" and can only be done at "VERY" close range anyway, regardless of the weapon.

My point is that the 'OMG 3 shots!' is quite possibly one burst, assuming the soldier had an M-16, though I have never shot such a weapon so I don't know the degree of the deflection of the muzzle during a single burst.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 8:43 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

Stanley Lorn Harriman, Chief Warrant Officer, United States Army. KIA March 2, 2002 — the first American casualty of Operation Anaconda. A regular guy with a wife and two kids, and a twin brother also in the military.

Friendly fire incidents in WWII. More in the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College's 1982 study, Amicide: the Problem of Friendly Fire in Modern War.
posted by cenoxo at 8:43 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

...3 shots to the forehead is "making sure" and can only be done at "VERY" close range anyway, regardless of the weapon...

Uphill with an M-16, or M-4, it would be quite a shot...with a .50, not so hard.
posted by taosbat at 9:02 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

The bullets are twice as large (12.7mm) as M16 ammunition (5.56mm). In any case, the M2 is fully automatic and can fire until it runs out of ammo.

You're severely underestimating the difference between the two: keeping in mind that longer barrels (such as on heavy machineguns like the M2) result in higher muzzle energy because force is imparted upon the projectile by the expanding gasses over the entire length of the barrel: the kinetic energy of .50BMG (12.7x99mm) fired from an M2 is an order of magnitude greater than that of .223 NATO (5.56x45mm). Specifically, the difference is 15,000-18,000 Joules muzzle energy for the M2 vs. 1,800 Joules muzzle energy for an M16.

The nature of the wounds imparted is completely different as well - .223 NATO is designed to yaw and then fracture into dozens of tiny fragments after penetrating 4 inches into the flesh of the target, resulting in wounds with a fairly low immediate lethality but requiring high levels of medical treatment due to organ damage and *massive* internal surface area of the wound (enhances amount of bleeding). This is specifically done for logistical reasons in order to burden the enemy with a high number of wounded all of whom consume far more resources than a corpse. .50BMG and the M2 are nearly a century old, dating back to the immediate post-WW1 era: a time when the intention was simply to kill your enemies. Any headshot - hell nearly any shot at all - with .50BMG such as Tillman's is almost guaranteed death because of the extreme severity of the resulting tissue/bone disruption that occurs on impact. It's about as close to the videogame staple of heads exploding as you're likely to see in real life.
posted by Ryvar at 10:43 PM on November 10, 2006 [2 favorites]

(Ammo statistics off the top of my head but confirmed via world.guns.ru. Information on terminal ballistics profiles and corresponding schools of 'wound theory' come from extensive reading of Dr. Martin Fackler's published work)
posted by Ryvar at 10:49 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

Remember His Name, the Sport Illustrated version of Pat Tillman's life and death. I would not have guessed that he once had a premonition of his fame and was an atheist bookworm who served time in jail for knocking out the wrong guy's teeth (costing his mother 40k in cash). A good read.
posted by Brian B. at 10:49 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

Having no clue except a knowledge of human behavior, I absolutely would not be surprised if this gung ho mofo was capped by his own unit. Having said that, and I am not saying I believe that, just that I wouldn't be surprised, can you also not understand why a cover up would take place, I can almost not blame the brass, what a fucking can of worms.
posted by sfts2 at 11:27 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

You see, when you go to war, fucked up shit happens. It happens to Mr. Tillman, and it happened to many others, and it will happen to still many others. No story here. In war, people die, and such death does not follow the norm coherant means.
posted by Kudos at 12:12 AM on November 11, 2006 [1 favorite]

"Ammo statistics off the top of my head but confirmed via world.guns.ru" -- Ryvar

Impressive recall. Brutal pun.
posted by j-dub at 12:21 AM on November 11, 2006 [2 favorites]

You all sound like you know what you're talking about, so I favorited each and every one of you.
posted by sourwookie at 12:37 AM on November 11, 2006 [1 favorite]

Do we have better authority for the three shots to the forehead than a passing journalist phrase in the AP report?
posted by A189Nut at 1:20 AM on November 11, 2006

You all sound like you know what you're talking about, so I favorited each and every one of you.

I was just about to MetaTalk you wondering what the fuck you were going on about. I hoped it was a bug.

Last year I saw this documentary on some guys who worked out a pretty much unbeatable blackjack system (card counting, actually. The were just really good at it.)

My point? (I guess...) If you're going to game a system, at least make some money off it or something.
posted by Cyrano at 1:51 AM on November 11, 2006

This is specifically done for logistical reasons in order to burden the enemy with a high number of wounded all of whom consume far more resources than a corpse.

I feel compelled to go on a tangent about the quote above and the utter stupidity of the guy who left a million dollar contract to fight an invasive pointless cultural war (yeah i know evil taliban, still there...lesser evil but mindfucking evangelicals, still here)

People bothering themselves with ways to better explode or damage other people are seriously sick as they help generate shit that could be used against themselves and has got no other use , but inflicting damage.

Don't give me the bullshit that they do that to defend themselves from big bear-like predators , at least the guys who developed atom bomb had the marginal excuse they also started controlled nuclear fission a.k.a. nuclear energy exploitment.

The sports guy could have used his celebrity statues to talk about the perils of war, the necessity of not starting etc etc I wish he lived, but now we are discussing about the controversy about his death, something so utterly irrelevant for him and us : he was killed by his own similarly foolish comrades, a cover up is probably going on because the mil don't like negative media attention.

If anything this story seems to put togheter the worst: delusion of heroism, celebrity status, cover up , war , freak accidents , experts in how to explode people.
posted by elpapacito at 3:23 AM on November 11, 2006

I believe the "wounded consume more resources" theory of ammo development was not part of the original appeal of lighter ammo. Soldiers could carry more rounds in a standard load, and the ability to generate more suppressing fire("everybody shoot in that direction to make those guys keep their heads down while we maneuver closer/away") was a desirable thing.

The impact behavior of the bullets was developed after the decision to go to lighter ammunition. In other words, the bullet guys were given the round and told to make it work, and decided that making a mess out of the shootee was sometimes more effective than turning them into a cloud of red mist.
posted by dglynn at 3:55 AM on November 11, 2006 [1 favorite]

It's a conspiracy by the NBA.
posted by acetonic at 7:08 AM on November 11, 2006 [1 favorite]

Huplescat: I'm assuming that was a rhetorical question. If not, I suggest you go play paintball a few dozen times and if you manage to make zero mistakes, ever, and no one around you does either, I'd love to know about it.

I'll elaborate only if anyone really asks -- it'd be a detailed explanation. Otherwise, see "fog of war" references.
posted by pax digita at 7:33 AM on November 11, 2006

Do we have better authority for the three shots to the forehead than a passing journalist phrase in the AP report?

It's consistent with the ESPN story (which, by the way, confirms that the original theory the .50 cal hit him was discarded -- his wounds were from standard rounds).
posted by dhartung at 7:35 AM on November 11, 2006

I think some people here are under the impression that Tillman and friends were actually wearing army uniforms during the incident.
posted by matty at 8:05 AM on November 11, 2006

I feel compelled to go on a tangent about the quote above and the utter stupidity of the guy who left a million dollar contract to fight an invasive pointless cultural war (yeah i know evil taliban, still there...lesser evil but mindfucking evangelicals, still here)

Preach on. Tillman made the ultimate stupid decision and paid the ultimate price. Of course I shouldn't be saying these things because apparently reality is too insulting to the troops.
posted by fusinski at 9:40 AM on November 11, 2006

elpapacito, his name is Pat Tillman, why do you feel compelled to refer to him as sports guy? He was much more than a jock. And, if you knew anything about the guy, he wasn't a do as I say kind of guy, he was a lead by example kind of guy. Talking about the war wouldn't have worked for him.

If you think he joined the Rangers to be a hero then you are merely demonstrating your deep misunderstanding of his motivations.

fusinski, are all members of the military similarly stupid or just the ones that had enough money to do something else? Reality isn't insulting to the troops laboring under incredibly shitty circumstances, you are.
posted by fenriq at 9:52 AM on November 11, 2006

I feel compelled to go on a tangent about the quote above and the utter stupidity of the guy who left a million dollar contract to fight an invasive pointless cultural war

I wish mefi had a [-] link for this above, but lemme just expose my fanboyness for Rumsfield's "RMA" ideas. Superman (the top 1% of the top 1%) Army Rangers who speak the local language, embedding themselves in the local culture, helping the local good guys secure their area from the local bad guys, with the ability to direct nearly infinite military power from airborne assets like UAVs and surely eventually low orbit --- that's just cool stuff.

The Marines in Vietnam tried a variant of this with the CAP program, sending a squad of guys to go out and actually live in the villages.

As for Tillman, put me down on the Hero side of the Hero/Idiot divide. While I have faith in the ultimate victory of the "soft power" of western civilization, when the other side's got badguys with AKs strolling around, a little counterinsurgency action is probably a good idea.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 11:16 AM on November 11, 2006

Tillman was, and could afford to be, an eccentric, the same personality type as wealthy adventurers and explorers in the past. It may seem strange to walk away from money as he did, but he probably saw it as a minor detail, perhaps replaceable on a different level with celebrity status. I don't know, but to people struggling to make ends meet and retire, it may seem like a terrible financial decision, misunderstanding a guy who wanted to be everything in life. Tillman's survival instincts were correct in that he survived the enemy, but not his own troops.
posted by Brian B. at 11:39 AM on November 11, 2006

I believe the "wounded consume more resources" theory of ammo development was not part of the original appeal of lighter ammo. Soldiers could carry more rounds in a standard load, and the ability to generate more suppressing fire("everybody shoot in that direction to make those guys keep their heads down while we maneuver closer/away") was a desirable thing.

This is a fun tangent for me, so I'll add a bit more:

There were several reasons for the transition from .308 (7.62x51mm) to .223 (5.56x45mm), and they all pretty much came together in the early years of Vietnam. There's some irony there because light ammunition with a tendency to fragment is the last thing you want to be firing into heavy bush cover (deflection + pre-impact deformation = superficial stellate wounds at best), but I digress . . .

1. The ammunition is lighter and more compact allowing far more of it to be carried. This H&K advertisement from the G11 project breaks it down handily.

2. Ammunition with a higher velocity has a flatter trajectory, which is useful for accuracy.

3. Lighter ammunition imparts less recoil permitting far more accurate burst/automatic fire. Momentum is mass * velocity, 5.56mm's momentum at the muzzle is usually in the area of 3.5 kg m/s, and 7.62mm's is 7.125 kg m/s

4. Lighter ammunition can be more easily accelerated to a higher velocity without significantly impacting recoil, which is extremely useful for penetrating ballistic vests. The determining factor for such penetration is the ratio between the cross-section of the bullet and the kinetic energy of the bullet. Velocity is so important because kinetic energy is 1/2 * mass * velocity². 5.56mm has a cross-section of 21.3mm² and a kinetic energy of 1800J. 7.62mm has a cross-section of 45.6mm² and a kinetic energy of 3000J. Ratios (lower is better) are 0.01183 and 0.0152, respectively - and bear in mind that 5.56mm is that much superior at half the recoil. This fact was actually *very* key in the initial adoption of 5.56mm, as it was assumed at the time that ballistic vests would become far more common than has actually been the case.

5. Lighter ammunition can be made to yaw (tumble) on impact far more easily due to lower mass/momentum, which is important for a couple of reasons. First there is the logistical benefit of wounding rather than killing as descibed above (not to mention the morality benefit), and secondly there is the KE factor. A bullet which fragments inside the target (due to a combination of yawing and a thin metal jacket) has far less chance of any mass overpenetrating and passing through the target. Thus fragmenting ensures that the full kinetic energy of the projectile is imparted on the target. While kinetic energy as a direct measure of lethality has been discredited in the past couple decades, it is still a significant factor in shock-trauma considerations.

So, yeah, there were a lot of reasons for the adoption of small-caliber, high-velocity ammunition. I honestly can't recall of the corresponding developments in wound theory presented in number five were post facto arguments, but I'm certain numbers one through four that I've just listed were considerations at the time of the decision.
posted by Ryvar at 1:28 PM on November 11, 2006 [1 favorite]

Technically, Rangers aren't Special Forces.

That's what I get for posting drunk. And skimming the article. I got snsranch's "Rangers/SF" in my head and thought it was an SF team. Yes, Rangers certainly don't get nearly as much training as the Special Forces.
posted by Nathanial Hörnblowér at 2:02 PM on November 11, 2006

Ryvar, don't forget that the 5.56mm is selectively being replaced by a larger caliber, because tumbling was unreliable at short or long ranges.
posted by Brian B. at 2:28 PM on November 11, 2006

Brian: a .mil friend turned me onto that about a year and a half, two years ago - unfortunately I've yet to find any good information about the terminal ballistics performance of the round. Still, the basic info I've read suggests this is probably a move in the right direction.
posted by Ryvar at 2:52 PM on November 11, 2006

fusinski, are all members of the military similarly stupid or just the ones that had enough money to do something else? Reality isn't insulting to the troops laboring under incredibly shitty circumstances, you are.

All who would choose to go fight in a war that is so obviously unnecessary are similarly stupid (personally I would say ignorant but tomato/tomahto), yes, imo. Would I be saying this if Pat Tillman chose to go assist in, say, the eradication of genocide in Sudan? Not on your (or Pat Tillman's) life.

I get that there are a ton of guys out there doing their jobs who have no choice and they are therefore exempt from such criticisms, but Pat Tillman wasn't one of those folks. He wanted a war, and he got one.
posted by fusinski at 3:00 PM on November 11, 2006

I think some people here are under the impression that Tillman and friends were actually wearing army uniforms during the incident.
posted by matty at 8:05 AM PST on November 11

I hadn't considered this. If it is a fact that they were wearing local civilian garb as camo then that explains alot, including the burned clothes. As I recall it did read as "clothes" and not uniform. Anyone have any evidence of this?
posted by snsranch at 5:33 PM on November 11, 2006

Heywood, thanks for explaining the forehead thing. I get it now.
posted by snsranch at 5:43 PM on November 11, 2006

Moron volunteers to be shot at. Gets shot at. Dies.
posted by signal at 8:15 PM on November 11, 2006

I don't get why anyone would shock his corpse with CPR paddles.
posted by tremolo1970 at 9:14 PM on November 11, 2006

Tillman was wearing a Ranger uniform.
posted by Brian B. at 10:13 PM on November 11, 2006

My point is that the 'OMG 3 shots!' is quite possibly one burst, assuming the soldier had an M-16, though I have never shot such a weapon so I don't know the degree of the deflection of the muzzle during a single burst.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 8:43 PM PST

You should have muzzle rise. In fact one of the only guns that has no muzzle rise is gun used by germans with caseless ammo and eelctronic ignition. At least that is what one web page claimed while I was looking for a larger than .243 round with electronic ignition. (Ended up with an etronx for my porcupine clearing operation)
posted by rough ashlar at 5:57 AM on November 12, 2006

All who would choose to go fight in a war that is so obviously unnecessary are similarly stupid (personally I would say ignorant but tomato/tomahto), yes, imo.

Not everyone has watched V for Vendetta and felt the need to distrust Government.

History is full of governments lying to citizens and having the lies cost lives and money. One just has to pointed in the correct direction and then choose to find such history to be 'true'.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:01 AM on November 12, 2006