"The coalition troops came under hostile fire and "close air support was provided," the statement said.
The U.S. troops recovered weapons, Iraqi and Syrian currency, some passports and some satellite communications gear, it said.
Hmmm...curioser and curioser
Foxfyre wrote: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?
To assume small arms fire into the air as the reason would, indeed, be silly. The US military claims it was AA, which makes a heck of a lot more sense.
It is happening now, it has happened before, and as long as the United States has a presence in Iraq, it will happen again. I have no right to judge this individual event, as I am not one of the few who was there or who was told the truth about what happened.
Americans will be told of similiar events, though the stage and the setting will vary across the middle east and perhaps even into Europe. Except each time it will be as a story afresh, strange, frightening, and seemingly unexpected.
How old are y'all?
Ozzie and Harriet ain't real!
Leave it to Beaver?
Father Knows Best?
Hey! NEWSFLASH! ALL POLITICIANS ARE LIARS!
They are YOUR GRANDKIDS! You have to wise up and leave them something besides the bullshit partisan crap y'all feel is worth defending. Keep going there and your babies will suffer.
Not cool.
Hey JimmyK
Are you one of the Deaniacs who are looking for a new home and playmates now that Dean has fizzzzzzzllled????
Hey Perception
Are you one of those Rush Limbaugh wannabees who has a roomful of Limbaugh transcripts and a big lifesize poster of Sean Hannity tacked up on the ceiling above your bed?
perception wrote:Hey JimmyK
Are you one of the Deaniacs who are looking for a new home and playmates now that Dean has fizzzzzzzllled????
No I am not. Y'all have a problem with what I said deal with what I said. Don't fling a 5th grade comment and think you have done anything.
The United Sates current governemnt, and most past governemnts as well, care less about the current populations grandchildren, then about being elected. If people support partisian bull, don't blame the supporters, blame those they support.
Solon wrote:The United Sates current governemnt, and most past governemnts as well, care less about the current populations grandchildren, then about being elected. If people support partisian bull, don't blame the supporters, blame those they support.
Just checking but did you word that right?
Thanks
JimmyK wrote:How old are y'all?
Ozzie and Harriet ain't real!
Leave it to Beaver?
Father Knows Best?
Hey! NEWSFLASH! ALL POLITICIANS ARE LIARS!
They are YOUR GRANDKIDS! You have to wise up and leave them something besides the bullshit partisan crap y'all feel is worth defending. Keep going there and your babies will suffer.
Not cool.
I personally do not have any grandchildren who are politicians or liars. It might be because I don't actually have any children yet. I happen to be against partisan politics of any kind, but your statement that grandchildren should be left something, i.e. entitled to something seems a little partisan to me. You also suggest that partisanism will cause our babies to suffer. Hmm...that just seems strange to me. I'm with you in theory, but focus your position a bit.
The military claims that there is "no evidence of children's bodies." Medical doctors say that children were killed. This isn't a a controversial case without proof; either their are children's bodies or not. Where's the press? They must be clamouring to get evidence. Who's stopping them? The doctors or the military.
kickycan wrote:I think you are being unrealistic about what war is, Rick. But I could be wrong.
And I think people immediately think it is inevitable to make civilian casualties. Every dead civilian is one too much, and I think this could have been prevented. You may say I'm too unrealistic; I just think the US military acts too paranoid, and this is costing innocent lives.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:These people aren't at war, a war was shoved onto them.
I agree.
panzade wrote:Rick, while i respect your posts, this is one time when the limb you're crawling out on aint gonna support you.
That's why this is a forum - we are not supposed to agree on everything :wink: .
Rick d'Israeli wrote:kickycan wrote:I think you are being unrealistic about what war is, Rick. But I could be wrong.
And I think people immediately think it is inevitable to make civilian casualties. Every dead civilian is one too much, and I think this could have been prevented. You may say I'm too unrealistic; I just think the US military acts too paranoid, and this is costing innocent lives.
If you can name me one war where there wasn't civilian casualties, I will agree with you wholeheartedly.
In this case I blame the Americans; in the case of the bombings in Serbia by the NAVO, I blame the NAVO. Call me pacifist if you like.
cavfancier wrote:JimmyK wrote:How old are y'all?
Ozzie and Harriet ain't real!
Leave it to Beaver?
Father Knows Best?
Hey! NEWSFLASH! ALL POLITICIANS ARE LIARS!
They are YOUR GRANDKIDS! You have to wise up and leave them something besides the bullshit partisan crap y'all feel is worth defending. Keep going there and your babies will suffer.
Not cool.
I personally do not have any grandchildren who are politicians or liars. It might be because I don't actually have any children yet. I happen to be against partisan politics of any kind, but your statement that grandchildren should be left something, i.e. entitled to something seems a little partisan to me. You also suggest that partisanism will cause our babies to suffer. Hmm...that just seems strange to me. I'm with you in theory, but focus your position a bit.
LOL, well y'all have a spell checker here but I don't see a Vodka checker. I think I was lit when I wrote that.
No problem there JimmyK. You make a good point, but it needs structure. Nobody will hold it against you for trying again.
"That's why this is a forum - we are not supposed to agree on everything"
Rick , I think that was my point. Thanks for restating it.
cavfancier wrote:No problem there JimmyK. You make a good point, but it needs structure. Nobody will hold it against you for trying again.
Thanks for that. I am not sure of a response. I just read this and don't have much more to say I guess.
~~~>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1221658,00.html
Here is another article about the wedding, they say there was a video of the wedding.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040524/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_attack&cid=540&ncid=716
I think it was a accident, I can't think why they would intentionaly kill people at a wedding for the fun of it.
Nonetheless according to a young witness in the article, some of the soldiers got a kick out of it. I don't know if she can be believed, but does it not seem strange all the goings on over there? Sometimes I am beginning to see how some Germans felt when their country were doing things back in the hitler days.
McGentrix wrote:An unfortunate accident.
perception wrote:Oh really????? How many GIs have been killed while asleep in their tents or while eating or while standing in line to get a coke-----OR----while trying to keep the stupid bastards from killing themselves????????
Get real BB
Every quote you lot make, just further cofirms my opinion of you.
