LOGIC

Posted on October 29, 2010


To better understand this post, readers might want to familiarize themselves with the Article 32 hearing and the multiple stories Ilario Pantano has shared about what happened in Iraq on April 15, 2004.

When trying to determine if Ilario Pantano is an honest, level-headed person who is fit to lead, ask yourself one question:

1) If Pantano had the Iraqi detainees unhancuffed in order to search a car for weapons or bombs (which had already been searched twice by his own Marines),  then why didn’t he or anyone else search the car after he was “attacked” and shot the detainees 60 times in the back?

  • If Pantano was actually concerned about the safety of his men and himself, then the car would have been searched after he killed the detainees.  Otherwise, there could still be a danger to his men.  Instead, Pantano chose to put a sign over their lifeless bodies that read “No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy” and then left the scene.  The car was never searched again because Pantano knew the car was not a threat.
  • The only logical conclusion is that Pantano placed two detainees in the vehicle for another purpose, and instead of taking them back to his superiors for questioning (as was suggested by his interrogator), he used his M-16 to do the talking.  He basically confirms his motives when he was quoted saying:

I believed that by firing the number of rounds that I did, I was sending a message that we were no better friend, no worse enemy.”

The story Ilario Pantano presents, in his own words, is not one of self-defense.

Advertisements