Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   Iraqi Wedding Party Hit by U.S.; Over 20 Killed (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/56152-iraqi-wedding-party-hit-u-s-over-20-killed.html)

Mehoni 05-23-2004 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Latest reports say that it was definitly not a wedding, and that no children were killed. Indeed 40 people died, 6 women, all of whom were attending an insurgent gathering.
Look here:
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/...International/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...220750,00.html

Peetster 05-23-2004 03:34 AM

The British media make their US counterparts seem conservative by contrast. Sorry, I'm not buying the hype.

As long as we are engaging terrorists there, the terrorists are not engaging us here.

I see that as a good thing.

I'm now requesting that we drop the sarcastic baiting. It serves no good purpose. Yes, it's the famous "official thread warning".

Sparhawk 05-23-2004 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peetster
The British media make their US counterparts seem conservative by contrast. Sorry, I'm not buying the hype.

As long as we are engaging terrorists there, the terrorists are not engaging us here.

I see that as a good thing.

I'm now requesting that we drop the sarcastic baiting. It serves no good purpose. Yes, it's the famous "official thread warning".

How, exactly, does engaging terrorists over there mean they are unable to attack here? I have yet to hear a good answer to this question, maybe you have one.

maximusveritas 05-23-2004 02:38 PM

The AP has a new video of the wedding before the attacks and they were able to identify many of the people who appear in the later video:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ea/iraq_attack

The story still seems a little strange, so I think we should wait before jumping to conclusions either way.

qtpye4u84 05-23-2004 03:22 PM

Well, I just feel lucky and happy I'm an american living in the us right now.

smooth 05-23-2004 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
How, exactly, does engaging terrorists over there mean they are unable to attack here? I have yet to hear a good answer to this question, maybe you have one.
I've asked this question myself. I haven't yet received any answer, let alone a "good" one, but I'd like to hear one from anybody.

Dragonlich 05-24-2004 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
I've asked this question myself. I haven't yet received any answer, let alone a "good" one, but I'd like to hear one from anybody.
I'd say that even terrorist groups/supporters have finite financial and logistical resources. Without cash and the resulting weapons and such, there is less potential for a successful terror attack. If a terrorist leader then has to choose between an attack in the US (far away, dangerous area), or an attack in Iraq (familiar territory, more popular support), he or she is much more likely to attack in Iraq. But of course, that depends on the question if terrorists *have* to choose - I'd say they have to; even they can't attack everywhere at once.

Besides, Iraq is a Muslim country, invaded by infidels. It is much more important to defend Iraq (direct action) than to attack the home base of the invaders (indirect action). It takes a very good strategist to choose an indirect route to victory, because direct action has direct, tangible results, which will make it seem a more attractive approach.

==============

Back to the topic: could it be that both sides are partly right? I can believe that this might have been a wedding party, but that still leaves questions about a lot of strange stuff found there. according to some news reports, the US found equipment for forging documents, as well as a lot of weapons.

Perhaps there were insurgents there *and* there was a wedding - one does not rule out the other. Hell, suppose this "base" was in fact a home to an Iraqi family, who used it to support the insurgents (hiding them and their equipment). Then one day, one of the people there got married, and the US happened to attack at that moment. Given the nature of the conflict, and the sheer number of attacks on either side, such an event was bound to happen sooner or later.

The result: the US will claim they were attacking a rebel base; the "innocent civilians" (actually supporters of these rebels) will claim they were simply having a wedding party; the press ignores the possibility that both sides could be right, and jumps to conclusions.

Not Normal 05-24-2004 07:26 AM

My own current "crackpot theory" is that the US hit the camp based on a tip from an Iraqi informer who was actually motivated by tribal vendetta...a person who would be happy to see children from the other tribe die. He told the US "the insurgents are here" (he knew they'd be shooting into the air at a wedding)---actually it was just a rival tribe. The US should have done more homework on this character.

Now, to counter the "shit happens" point of view: Let's assume for now that both sides of the story are right.
If the US Army sees a gathering inside a wedding tent that may or may not have children inside, then they should use restraint until they know what they're looking at. Err on the side of caution when kids are involved-- we're supposed to be the civilized ones. Also, the last thing the military needs is for the public to worry that the Army is killing kids over there.

tecoyah 05-24-2004 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Latest reports say that it was definitly not a wedding, and that no children were killed. Indeed 40 people died, 6 women, all of whom were attending an insurgent gathering.

Sorry folks looks like America wasn't the bad guy in this case.

Perhaps it would be of benefit, if we wait to gather the actual information pertaining to a situation, before we claim a resolution to debate.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5045772/

This link has enough information to convince me of the validity of a wedding taking place. I do not claim this as fact, anymore than any other source, but I find it compelling if not likely.

As far as the "Bad Guy" statement goes. Both sides are the bad guy, and the good guy in this whole fucking fiasco we have created. That is why it is likely to drag on , and meet with little success for either side in the long run.

Superbelt 05-24-2004 09:46 AM

Babies

Wedding video and positive id of the MC

Other than that I feel bad for these people. We may think it's stupid, but it is their custom to celebrate events by firing guns into the air.

Having said that, the individuals who shot into the air in the middle of a war, and with helicopters flying overhead no less, are absolute morons. Maybe it's a good time for Iraqi clerics to demand a moratorium on celebratory fire until the fighting is over.

Dragonlich 05-24-2004 09:51 AM

I just thought of another scenario that seems plausible (to me):

The bad guys arranged a meeting at this location. To explain the large number of people there, and to provide a cover, they then arrange for a wedding to take place there, while they talk. The US, acting on (good/bad) intelligence attacks the meeting, killing some of the terrorists. But, because they had a good cover, the surviving bad guys produce "evidence" that this was simply an innocent wedding party. The poor men, women and children that were killed are seen all over the world, spreading anti-US feelings, especially in the Muslim world ("the evil Western zionist crusaders attacked innocent fellow Muslims").

See? We could go on and on making up scenarios explaining the whole situation, and some would even be realistic. The problem is that we will only learn about a very minute portion of the truth, and only that portion that "they" want us to hear. The "they" in this case can be both the US military, *and* the potential terrorists. The US isn't the only one that is capable of spreading dis-information - their opponents are just as good at that.

Superbelt 05-24-2004 10:38 AM

That was pretty good,
Except for the holes in your story.
There are dead babies. Even the hardest fanatical militant muslim group would balk at killing their own children.
And the video of the wedding goes from beginning to death. That's pretty excessively elaborate for a cover story.

Sparhawk 05-24-2004 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonlich
I'd say that even terrorist groups/supporters have finite financial and logistical resources. Without cash and the resulting weapons and such, there is less potential for a successful terror attack. If a terrorist leader then has to choose between an attack in the US (far away, dangerous area), or an attack in Iraq (familiar territory, more popular support), he or she is much more likely to attack in Iraq. But of course, that depends on the question if terrorists *have* to choose - I'd say they have to; even they can't attack everywhere at once.

Besides, Iraq is a Muslim country, invaded by infidels. It is much more important to defend Iraq (direct action) than to attack the home base of the invaders (indirect action). It takes a very good strategist to choose an indirect route to victory, because direct action has direct, tangible results, which will make it seem a more attractive approach.

That's probably the most well-thought out answer - but I'm not sure of the logic behind it. What I mean is, the original "casus belli" was US troops in Saudi Arabia, and while they were targetted there (Khobar Towers), the majority of terrorist attacks between the end of the first Gulf War and the second were not in Saudi Arabia, not even close. So I don't quite buy the "since it's easier to defend the home turf, we're going to ignore their home turf" argument.

And as long as our ports and borders continue to remain 99% porous, I'm going to continue to give this administration an "F" in homeland security.

yaddayaddayadda 05-24-2004 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
That was pretty good,
Except for the holes in your story.
There are dead babies. Even the hardest fanatical militant muslim group would balk at killing their own children.
And the video of the wedding goes from beginning to death. That's pretty excessively elaborate for a cover story.

Don't be so sure....

Quote:

Sunday, May 23, 2004
Official IDF Source Confirms: Have Photos of Palestinians Killing 2 Palestinian Children

Official IDF Source Confirms: Have Photos of Palestinians Killing 2
Palestinian Children
Aaron Lerner Date: 23 May 2004

An official IDF source confirmed Amir Orens' 21 May story this afternoon to
IMRA that two Palestinian children who died in the Rafah procession incident
were murdered by Palestinian gunmen and that the IDF photographed the
shooting.

The official IDF source explained that the pictures have not been released
to the media because information derived from the photographs would
compromise security in the field at this time.

The following is a repeat of the excerpts from Oren's original article:

Inside Track / Rafah is a nightmare

By Amir Oren Haaretz 21 May 2004
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/430200.html

Sparhawk 05-24-2004 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yaddayaddayadda
Don't be so sure....
That link talks about the Israel Palestine situation - I went 10 paragraphs before my endurance for it ended. What exactly does it have to do with the alleged Iraqi Wedding Party hit?

OFKU0 05-24-2004 07:27 PM

As of tonight the story seems to be on one hand that witnesses said no shots were fired at anytime in the air from the ground while the main U.S military spokeman said if there was a wedding, it was one of the bad guys who was getting hitched.

One side or maybe both are really fibbing about what really happened.

And for the above post, I would need to see the pictures of Palestinian's killing their babies to believe it, given the source is the IDF.

Dragonlich 05-25-2004 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
That was pretty good,
Except for the holes in your story.
There are dead babies. Even the hardest fanatical militant muslim group would balk at killing their own children.
And the video of the wedding goes from beginning to death. That's pretty excessively elaborate for a cover story.

Ah, but their *goal* wasn't to kill babies, their goal was to provide a cover, and what better cover than a wedding with lots of innocent civilians, be they adult or child? They didn't *expect* to be attacked, and they didn't mean to kill those children. I expect that (if my scenario is true) it was an unfortunate side-effect of the attack, which just happens to be great propaganda material; also, I doubt the terrorists would have brought their *own* children there...

Not to mention the fact that by and large, fanatical militant muslims have shown that they have no problem whatsoever with sending their children into harm's way, for the "greater good". Why else would Palestinian kids be throwing rocks (and worse) at well-armed Israeli soldiers; soldiers that are going to shoot at anything that moves, if we are to believe the Palestinian propaganda... One would imagine that their parents would want to protect them from the evil soldiers!

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
That's probably the most well-thought out answer - but I'm not sure of the logic behind it. What I mean is, the original "casus belli" was US troops in Saudi Arabia, and while they were targetted there (Khobar Towers), the majority of terrorist attacks between the end of the first Gulf War and the second were not in Saudi Arabia, not even close. So I don't quite buy the "since it's easier to defend the home turf, we're going to ignore their home turf" argument.

And as long as our ports and borders continue to remain 99% porous, I'm going to continue to give this administration an "F" in homeland security.

Most attacks were in unstable, ill-policed countries, where the chance of direct success is highest. Saudi-Arabia has a relatively stable government, and the US troops there had lots of protection, making them unattractive targets. Also, "home turf" to Muslims is not comparable to what you see as home turf; it's pretty much the entire Muslim world - that's why Muslims world-wide are angry about attacks on Muslims in one small area, *any* small area.

Flat 05-25-2004 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dostoevsky

Secondly, I can't find the words to convey to you how little I care about whether or not the Iraqi people care about Americans. As long as they stay in that festering little shithole country of theirs and don't send terrorist assholes into other nations and disrupt the lives of more civilized people, they can do and think whatever they like.

That is exactly what they were doing before the US invasion BTW.

That's all, proceed as normal.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:56 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360