I've heard a lot of conspiracy theories, and I can't seem to get fact from fiction. what's the real story? was it really friendly fire, or was it something else?
2007-07-29 13:43:09 · 10 answers · asked by goosemanrocks.com 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Copy and pasted from one of my previous answers:
People who haven't been there have no clue how F***ing CRAZY it can be. Tilman was shot at 10 meters? That is 30-40 feet. I was in engagements that were closer than that, and I have to say, I couldn't tell exactly who we were shooting at. War is incredlibly confusing, and I'm willing to bet that any other combat vets on this site will back me up on that.
Here is a tip for people who think Tilman was shot on purpose. Go out in the dark, with 2 friends, dress them differently, whatever. Now, run around, spin around a few times, get sweaty and just a little dizzy, set off firecrackers and maybe a couple of smoke bombs. Now, with your friends 30-40 feet away, you have 1 second to decide which one is which. Oh, and if you guess wrong, they get to beat the s*** out of you.
There was nothing sinister at all. An M16 on 3 round burst probably caught him in the head when he popped his head up from behind cover. You don't know if he, or the guy who shot him was out of position, confused, and scared. I'm telling you, it was a accident. The Army was stupid to try to cover up friendly fire, but that has been happening probably since the first Greek, in the heat of battle, accidently stabbed the guy next to him, and then blamed it on the enemy.
2007-07-29 14:16:38 · answer #1 · answered by joby10095 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
This conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo creeps into every incident that occurs anymore. I have yet to see even one that has panned out to be true. They have completely lost their credibility, and for the most part, are completely ignored .
PatTillman was killed by friendly fire. It's as sad and simple as that !
2007-07-29 13:52:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It was friendly fire -- which was pretty easy to prove both based on the ballistics, and the fact that his unit was nowhere near any enemy fire on that day.
Most reports I've seen show that the fire came from a dozen to two dozen yards away, which could mean anything from a weapon misfire to a prank gone wrong to something else.
The only facts so far unquestionably confirmed was that it was not enemy fire.
2007-07-29 13:47:22 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
He got three M16 bullets shot into the middle of his forehead at close range. Take a guess.
2007-07-29 13:58:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Accidental discharge hit him. It actually happens more than you think in combat zones. If you look at casualties of Iraq, you'll see numbers in there.
2007-07-29 16:54:56 · answer #5 · answered by DZ 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He's no better or worse than any of the 3000 plus who have perished, or the 10's of thousands who have been wounded. He deserves no more attention.
2007-07-29 13:49:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
if you call 3 shots to the forehead (from 10 yards away) "friendly fire"
2007-07-29 13:51:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
War.
2007-07-29 14:00:07 · answer #8 · answered by Thomas Paine 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Fratricide. It wasnt intentional, but they tried to cover it up.
2007-07-29 13:46:47 · answer #9 · answered by Justified 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
pat was fragged...
2007-07-29 13:46:50 · answer #10 · answered by nostradamus02012 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋