UMASS student calls Tillman "Rambo"
 

Well I just found this on www.ehowa.com and it _was_ on the UMASS website (www.umass.com) but due to the high traffic they had to take it down.

LINKY

Full Text

Now, I agree that everyone is entitled to their right to free speech, but this is just amazingly ignorant. As of right now I am still trying to figure out what I want to say about this matter, so I wont post my full opinion at this time, but I would like others to post theirs, as I will also post mine later.

The first thing I thought when I read this was, "fuck you, you stupid fucking child with a degree in AFRICAN-AMERICAN MUSIC, you fucking retard. Now that was my first thought, as I calm down I'm able to think more about my response. So please, expect a more in depth, and more rational response in a little while, possibly after I go rub one out to calm down. :crazy:


Another thing I'd like to add at the end of this is something I found on UMASS's website from the President of the school.

President of UMASS response

Full Text

Opinions, comments, responses, all are welcome. :thumbsup:

While I can see the point he is trying to make about how soldiers and war are still glorified in order to mask up the horrors of war, and how he really hates it in this circumstance because he opposes the wars that the US is involved in... I think everything he says is completely cheapened by the fact that he is making character judgements about someone he doesn't know.

He's assuming Tillman was "probably" some hyper-patriotic Rambo-wannabe. While this may or may not be true, I doubt this guy has any real clue to fact of this one way or another. All this guy manages to do is make himself sound like someone who has some jealousy or inferiority issues and feels the need to lash out at someone who he feels is undeservedly popular.

Perhaps if he had just limited his message to the fact that he doesn't like the glorification of the military in the media and used this as a case-example without blowing off so much steam directed at unfounded personal attacks, he would have had something left over to discuss.

Perhaps he could have said: "Sacrifice? Yes. Hero? No. Unneccesary? Yes." But instead he comes off as a jerk.

my opinion is that little bastard needs to go back to Puerto Rico. fucking little shit eating up the freedoms secured for him by men and women like Tillman.

Puerto Ricans are US citizens, and are entitled to the same constitutional rights as US citizens in the 50 states. And I think the character judgment of Tillman made by the author is probably close to the truth.

Your community is full of pussies.

Next issue.

(Hey, I'm getting good at this politics thing, huh?)

I disagree with Gonzalez. I sincerely doubt Tillman's reasons were in any way influenced by Rambo or Clint Eastwood; more likely they were influenced by an ingrained desire to serve his country. His death is a tragedy, and he should be honored in the same way that all persons who serve their country should be honored.

Though I do not stand behind our President, I utterly stand behind our troops. If Gonzalez wishes to be angry, he should focus his anger on politicians. Dishonoring a dead soldier who died in service to his country is neither appropriate nor intelligent. Gonzalez should have focused his anger at politicians turning Tillman's death into a tool; not attacked the dead man for doing what he felt was right.

Well, I'm glad to see we also have someone who knew the man. :rolleyes:

I think it's sick, personally. The foundation of the argument is that the author doesn't approve of the wars the U.S. has become involved in. And to drive the point home, he then focuses on a single individual - who, in my opinion, actually did a heroic thing in trading money for love of country, whether justified or not - and proceeds to tarnish the man's character as well as the actions he took.

If he wanted to make a stand against the war, he could have done it in a different way; you know, one perhaps a little less belicose and downright pernicious, as well as startlingly ignorant. Just my thought.

And I really like this (it honestly would make me stand and cheer to hear a president say this):

I never said he wasn't American, he can still take his pendejo ass back to his fucking barrio.

I must say that I completely agree with DelayedReaction on this one.

I don't think it's appropriate to try to dishonor someone who died in service to something he felt was right. If Tillman was honestly one of those rambo, war-junkie types I don't think we'll ever know. I certainly don't think the person who wrote this article will ever know.

Unfortunately ignorance is playing a large role here in that the person who wrote the article didn't actually know him, and I don't know if anyone here knew/knows either of these people.

While I have read the article and strongly disagree with the point it makes, I propose this question:
What does it say about our society that Pat Tillman is on the news, being hailed as a hero, being awarded posthumous medals, etc, while the other American and Coalition deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are simply reported as numbers?

I don't know what news you watch or papers you read, but their names come out when the time is right, and their families have been notified
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4653397/
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4688047/
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4685696/

They are honoring him because of what he gave up to serve his country.

I am pretty biased on this issue, my father is in Kuwait right now serving in the army and my brother is in the air force training to be a fighter pilot; so as you may have figured out, im a patriot for my country 100%.

If this was a family member of mine that was being defamed as such or disrepected, I'd have to throw a beatin' to the commentator, but I do, in this case, respect the righters freedom of speech. One thing I would like to know is this: Does Mr. Gonzales realize that he is aloud to write that paper because of soldiers like Pat Tillman and the sacrifices that they made for us?


Stay tuned for more : :lol:

First of all, I don't think comparing Tillman to rambo was at all fair. Tillman probably signed up to go fight in Afghanistan because he felt a strong patriotic conviction. For anyone to have a strong conviction and act on it, furthermore in lieu of copious amounts of money, is a rare thing indeed these days. However, people need to realize that the author of the article was venting his frustration at our government's shameful exploitation of the 911 tragedy to pursue an aggressive foreign policy in the Middle-East.

I just figure that the guy who wrote the article has no concept of patriotism or self-sacrifice. In other words, a total and complete asshole. But then, what do you expect from a college student? It's not like they've got a clue.

I think the article is Horse Padoo and should be ignored utterly, also poorly constructed and doesn't convey it's point as well as it could. Pat Tillman gets a thumbs up in my book for going from an awsome job to go fight in a war and potentially get killed, and he has died, so he now is in the catagory of fell heros with a thumbs up next to their name as far as I'm concerned.

Anyone else think its funny that he is qualified to make these comments because of his degree in "African-American Music" ?

There are idiots everywhere. Interesting that he criticizes the society that glorifies patriotism and serving the country yet it's this same society that glorifies college students' exploring the limits of expressing themselves. Irony is everywhere as well. I will chalk this up to a youthful penchant of not quite understanding that words can be quite impactful and the feelings of others should sometimes outweigh the need to express oneself.

i wonder how much this guy is getting picked on at his school? whatever it is, its all deserved imo.

Certainly it's deserved. But I bet he doesn't really understand why he's being attacked like he is.

I think his message has a point. The delivery of that message is what's lacking. It's the delivery that everybody seems so upset with.

I remember over the weekend he died, I saw mention of it on the internet and thinking "Well, isn't that sad."

Over the course of the next few days, however, I begged for the news channels to find something else to cover. Maybe it was a slow news day, maybe it was an easy story, but every news channel was guilty of milking the situation of this guy's death for all it was worth. They had former coaches, former teammates, people who knew him, people who knew the family, and a whole slew of others who might have come in contact with Mr. Tillman over the years. The media blitz was phenomenal.

I certainly don't mean to make light of it as there is a certain heroic element to sacrificing personal gain to serve your country thousands of miles away in anonymity, but I didn't see this kind of coverage for any of the other soldiers. I didn't see any of the friends and families of Cpl. Jason Dunham, Sgt. Elmer Krause, Pfc. Shawn Edwards and Sgt. Dimitar Dimitrov all of which died or whose remains were discovered with 24 hours of Mr. Tillman's death. Was Mr. Tillman's sacrifice so much greater than the others that died to warrant the blitz of media coverage?

Regardless of what your personal feelings are for Mr. Gonzalez, the article, I think, has some merit. Why the glorification of Mr. Tillman? He was a man who chose to serve the same as hundreds of thousands of others. He was a man who sacrificed the sames as hundreds of thousands of others. By all personal accounts he was a fellow who wouldn't have approved of all the attention he's getting, yet here we are. Is it because he sacrificed money? glory? fame?

By all means, please explain it to me as I guess my education is woefully lacking.

The man was a celebrity so that is definitly playing into why he is getting so much face time. Bottom line is the man died en route to his platoon who was suppressed by an ambush, he was the only casulity, and he definitly deserved his medals (purple heart and the silver star).

i seem to notice the media just picks there story for the week, like one week it will be about some rapist, the next week its some stock market fraud, then its on to the next story they can sensationalize. like when the nut job "the sniper" was shooting people last summer or whenever that was. I always thought the headlines should have been "lunatic shooting rampage continues.." except dateline, 20/20, nightline, abcnews..etc all have to have it "terror on streets SNIPER FIRING DEADLY SHOTS AT KIDS...." whatever sells I guess. makes me sick to my stomach.

All of the people over there are heros, no question. They've offered up their own necks to back the word of the USA. Fine so far, yes?

What's exceptional, at least to me, about this athelete's story is that he had it made. He would have been rich and safe, with everything any of us want, and far from war. He gave it up, just like the others. So in a sense, he sacrificed more.

Otherwise, sure, it was a slow news day. :) Really, a situation like this where you have a person who is famous, at least in some circles (I'd never heard of him), who gets killed trying to save his mates, is always a big story. They did the same kinds of things in previous wars when well known people were involved. It's not like this is a new thing.

All I have to add is that this quote reminded me of the scene in Braveheart where the two lords are arguing with Wallace and he asks them, "And the peasant fighting on the battlefield, does he risk any less?" or something to that effect.

I'm not saying I disagree with denim, in fact I agree, it's just something to point out.

A normal every-day person is risking his life and his family, true, which he doesn't have to do. This guy risked all of that and a very easy life.

What in the blue fuck was this jackass thinking?

Does anyone else think that the initial article was probably just a troll??

His "point", it's so mindblowingly idiotic, but at the same time it's very carefully constructed and worded. And LONG. So it doesn't look like it was some half-thought-out rant from some random dumbshit.

Or maybe it was...

But I can't imagine that it's anything else but an attempt to piss off people who don't realize that he's just trying to evoke as many responses as possible ;)


EDIT: plus it's just unnecessarily RUDE. classic sign of a troll.

^^^^ he knows that's what will get people to notice him ;)

Absolutely. Lay it on me....:)



So....his sacrifice was considered greater because he gave up money?? He had a family and a plethora of friends. Why not celebrate that? The media, however, instead of focusing on the man, chose rather to celebritize the fact that he turned down a lucrative contract. All subsequent questioning seemed to focus around the money. (i.e. "Why do you think he turned down the contract? "Why did he not take the money? Why did Pat turn down millions of dollars...etc.) This was the opportunity for the media to bring a light on the real sacrifice soldiers make. Using a relatively famous face to highlight the hundreds of thousands of other soldiers who give up family and friends. Instead they made a fluff story with little substance and repeated it ad nauseum.

No, it's not a new thing. Everyone knows the stories, in the past, however, the news coverage of such events hardly compares to today's news coverage. Like I said above, this was an opportunity to show the "good American," who gave up his fledgling family to serve his country without praise and fanfare to the whole world. Instead it came off as a story about an American who's greatest accomplishment was forbearing money.

Certainly. Why is that hard for you to understand?


Because everyone who goes over there has that. This guy gave up MILLIONS, not hundreds.

this guy seems to know his rombo movies.

That's the only real response I have. He had so much, and gave it up to defend us. I don't entirely agree with the war, but I support our troops.

Tillman, you will not be forgotten.

I understand the point he is trying to make, showing he sacrificed money to join the war is disturbing to me. I think they should report on everysoldier who dies in combat and it is shamefull of the news to turn their backs on the other 100 or so soldiers that died last month in fighting to highlight the story of a single young man. I can't speak for Tillman but I assume he wanted to do what he felt was right for his country and I hope he understood the risks involved but every soldier who dies in combat in my eyes has sacrificed equally and deserves our admiration for what they accomplished for all of us. To call Tillman a hero is to disrespect those who died along side with him.

So you're saying that Tillman was not a hero? His giving up money makes him less of a hero than the rest, somehow? Explain.

I don't know. Why is it greater that he gave up money rather than friends and family? I would think, in the grand scheme of things, that family is family and that money is just....well, money. He gave up an obscene amount of cash and his beloved friends and family. I would think there would be no question as to which was the greater sacrifice.


This devalues the life of every other Tom, Dick and Harry over there fighting. twotimesadingo's point about the peasant's sacrifice really seems applicable here. Tillman's choice to give up the life of "ease" makes his sacrifice greater than the regular folk? Tillman dying deserves a greater honorific than the regular soldier?

No, it doesn't. From what I read of Mr. Tillman, he wouldn't have thought so either. What makes his story, at least it should of made his story, was the fact that he joined knowing war was on the horizon. He didn't join to pad his record, he didn't join to serve his weekend, he joined the Army Rangers when the inevitable war loomed on the horizon. This is what should be celebrated not the fact that he gave up a paycheck, but the paycheck seems to impress us the most....

It's not an either-or thing. There should be a "just" between "than" and "friends". Then I'll agree.


I'm not going to argue with that. It's just that this particular guy was someone more people had heard of than the rest, who are only known to each of their families, and that makes for a story lots of people would want to read. Having a story lots of people want to read sells newspapers. Newspapers like to sell themselves for some reason. ;) Again, it comes down to money.

I think I was wrong with what I said originally. It wasn't about money in that sense but rather because people would want to read about this particular guy. I'd never heard of him, myself.

People like to read about nasty shit, so that's what's in newspapers. Good news doesn't seem to sell as well.


Yep.

Ignorance is a deadly disease..

I did know him. Indirectly. He went to Leland High School which is about 4 miles from where I went to school. I heard of him because the local paper, San Jose Mercury, ran many articles back in the day when he turned his contract down to play in the NFL. I was in awe at this guy, even back then. I had so much respect for what he did. The article seems to be a way for Mr. Gonzales to gain attention. He is an attention whore. He decided to pull at the hearts of Americans because he knew this article would attract the attention it has. The guy is a fucking moron of you ask me. No reason to have written such a baseless, character damaging article as he has.

I'll make this simple.
:confused:
I support free speech.
I served 13 years and did iraq the first time.

I ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT TO SHOVE MY SIZE 12 BOOT CLEAN UP Mr. Gonzalez's ASSHOLE!
IF HE COMES TO CRYSTAL RIVER FLORIDA, I WILL!

God bless the kids that fight for our freedom even when
our politicians blonder