1
   

40 Iraqis Killed At Wedding!

 
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 02:06 pm
This is an AP account from the link provided by JimmyK above.

Associated Press
Wednesday May 19, 2004

Lt Col Ziyad al-Jbouri, deputy police chief of Ramad, west of Baghdad, said between 42 and 45 people were killed in the attack, which took place in the early hours in a remote desert area near the border with Syria and Jordan. He said the dead included 15 children and 10 women.

Dr Ani said people at the wedding were firing weapons in the air, and that American troops came to investigate and then left. But, later on, helicopters attacked the area. US troops took the bodies and those injured in a truck to Rutba hospital, he added.

AP Television obtained videotape showing a truck containing the bodies of people who were allegedly killed in the incident. Most of the bodies were wrapped in blankets and other cloths, but the footage showed at least eight uncovered, bloody bodies, several of them children. One of the children was headless.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 02:09 pm
It certainly was a tragedy, but I question the wisdom of people shooting guns in the air during a war.

link


Quote:
The area, a desolate region populated only by shepherds, is popular with smugglers, including weapons smugglers, and the U.S. military suspects militants use it as a route to slip in from Syria to fight the Americans. It is under constant surveillance by American forces.
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 02:15 pm
Phoenix32890 wrote:
It certainly was a tragedy, but I question the wisdom of people shooting guns in the air during a war.


That is like shooting someone and saying: Why were you in my way? Are you completely idiot?
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 02:16 pm
I don't get why they would have investigated, left, and then come back to shoot the place up, like it says in that link, Phoenix. Something's screwy with this story.
0 Replies
 
JimmyK
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 02:18 pm
The US is now saying it was NOT a wedding. It was a planned attack on a "safehouse."
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 02:19 pm
Aaah, now the pieces are starting to come together.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 02:19 pm
Rick d'Israeli wrote:
Phoenix32890 wrote:
It certainly was a tragedy, but I question the wisdom of people shooting guns in the air during a war.


That is like shooting someone and saying: Why were you in my way? Are you completely idiot?


Rick, did you even read Phoenix's post?
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 02:20 pm
kickycan- Problem is, unless we were there personally, there is no way to REALLY know. I am sure that more information will come out later.

I stand by my remark though, that if your country is at war, you don't shoot into the air. That is just LOOKING for trouble!
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 02:27 pm
Damn groom was running away again...
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 02:30 pm
kickycan wrote:
Rick d'Israeli wrote:
Phoenix32890 wrote:
It certainly was a tragedy, but I question the wisdom of people shooting guns in the air during a war.


That is like shooting someone and saying: Why were you in my way? Are you completely idiot?


Rick, did you even read Phoenix's post?


Yes, I did. My point is: the US has full responsibility here. It is common that this shooting happens at Arab weddings. The fact that US planes bombed the place, shows to me that the US military did not properly investigate what was going on.

Quote:
Al-Ani, the doctor, said people at the wedding fired weapons in the air, and that American troops came to investigate and left. However, al-Ani said, helicopters later arrived and attacked the area. Two houses were destroyed, he said.


My point is: why should people stop this tradition on weddings when 1) it's not their task to help the US and their allies in their war, 2) it is even known to the US military that this shooting occurs on weddings? The military should be more careful here, not the people who want to celebrate a wedding without having to concern about all these things.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 02:35 pm
Quote:
Yes, I did. My point is: the US has full responsibility here. It is common that this shooting happens at Arab weddings. The fact that US planes bombed the place, shows to me that the US military did not properly investigate what was going on.


And how was the US to know that it truly WAS a wedding, and not a cover for some manner of hostility? Should the soldiers have gone into the area, knocked on a door and said, "Err....we heard some gunfire. Please explain why you were firing????


Puhleeze!!!!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 02:35 pm
Pentagon says it attacked fighters -- not wedding


BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Pentagon officials Wednesday denied alleged eyewitness reports of a U.S. attack on a wedding party in a remote area of western Iraq that killed innocent civilians.

"Our report is that this was not a wedding party, that these were anti-coalition forces that fired first, and that U.S. troops returned fire, destroying several vehicles, and killing a number of them," a Pentagon spokesman said.

He was responding to a video distributed by The Associated Press showing Iraqi witnesses who said that at least 20 people were killed and five others critically wounded early Wednesday when planes fired on a wedding celebration.

A man on the video said all homes in the village near the Syrian border were destroyed in the attack at about 3 a.m. local time Wednesday.

The video showed at least a dozen bodies, including small children, wrapped in blankets for burial as they were unloaded from a truck.

Men with picks and shovels were digging a series of graves in the video.

A senior military coalition official said as many as 40 people were killed in the attack, but said it was his belief that the attack was against a foreign fighters' safe house.

A coalition official said in a written statement that coalition forces conducted a military operation "against a suspected foreign fighter's safe house in the open desert, 85 km southwest of Husaybah, and 25 km from the Syrian border.

"During the operation, coalition forces came under hostile fire and close air support was provided.

"Coalition forces on the ground recovered numerous weapons, 2 million Iraqi and Syrian dinar, foreign passports and a satcom radio," the statement said.

Asked if the incident was the same one described on videotape, he said, "Yes, it is the same incident."

He added, "We had actionable intelligence to go after a foreign fighters' safe house. It is not our belief that there was a wedding party in the open desert."
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 02:41 pm
Phoenix32890 wrote:
And how was the US to know that it truly WAS a wedding, and not a cover for some manner of hostility? Should the soldiers have gone into the area, knocked on a door and said, "Err....we heard some gunfire. Please explain why you were firing????


Quote:
Al-Ani, the doctor, said people at the wedding fired weapons in the air, and that American troops came to investigate and left. However, al-Ani said, helicopters later arrived and attacked the area. Two houses were destroyed, he said.


This was in your link. And further more: you don't have to "knock on someone's door" to know what is going on. The US military is just being too paranoid in my opinion. And then someone will probably say "better being too paranoid than being killed" and I will say "not if this will mean the killing of innocent civilians."
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 02:44 pm
I think you are being unrealistic about what war is, Rick. But I could be wrong.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 02:44 pm
Quote:
"Our report is that this was not a wedding party, that these were anti-coalition forces that fired first, and that U.S. troops returned fire, destroying several vehicles, and killing a number of them," a Pentagon spokesman said.


This was from McGentrix's article. Obviously, there is still some confusion as to what actually happened. For me, I am going to wait until there is more information.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 03:04 pm
Phoenix32890 wrote:
kickycan- Problem is, unless we were there personally, there is no way to REALLY know. I am sure that more information will come out later.

I stand by my remark though, that if your country is at war, you don't shoot into the air. That is just LOOKING for trouble!


These people aren't at war, a war was shoved onto them.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 03:11 pm
Rick, while i respect your posts, this is one time when the limb you're crawling out on aint gonna support you.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 03:14 pm
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Quote:
Yes, I did. My point is: the US has full responsibility here. It is common that this shooting happens at Arab weddings. The fact that US planes bombed the place, shows to me that the US military did not properly investigate what was going on.


And how was the US to know that it truly WAS a wedding, and not a cover for some manner of hostility? Should the soldiers have gone into the area, knocked on a door and said, "Err....we heard some gunfire. Please explain why you were firing????


Puhleeze!!!!


This is the epitome of a straw man argument. It's makes a ridiculous characterization of the opponent's argument to dismiss the more valid one.

Nobody ever said anything along the lines of your cartoon scene Phoenix. The notion that the US should exert caution is not a call for the US to be cartoonishly idiotic, merely discriminating. Trying to equate the two notions is just a fallacious way of dismissing someone's appeal to caution by equating it with a cartoonish characterization.

-------------------

That being said, if this was an accident it was an accident. Accidents are, indeed, caused by a lack of caution and caution is a good thing but accidents will happen.

Incidentally, the use of the guns firing in the air line is really misleading. In Afghanistan US pilots even bombed Canadian allies after seeing their small arms fire.

The responsible parties were the trigger happy pilots bombing without authorization, and not the misfortunate folks on the ground.

If this was an accident, blaming it on small arms fire on the ground is not much of an excuse at all. Dropping bombs isn't something that's done any time small arms fire is seen. There are checks and balances that have to break down for an accidental bombing to occur.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 03:25 pm
Would it not be just as foolish to assume that any shooting in the air was from a wedding? Especially in an area where coalition troops had been taking fire?
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 03:25 pm
If we can believe McG's article, it seems there are two conflicting stories now. If CNN's report is true, then it seems that these guys were attacking a military target, a safehouse, and in the process, children and innocent people were killed.

I'm not sure whether the fighter whose safehouse it was should be blamed for putting innocents in harm's way, or if the U.S. should be blamed for attacking anyway.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/20/2025 at 02:54:22