Mehoni

Look here:
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/...International/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...220750,00.html

__________________
There seem to be countless rituals and cultural beliefs designed to alleviate their fear of a simple biological truth - all organisms eventually perish.

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".

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.

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

maximusveritas

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

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

__________________
The QTpie

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.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

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.

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

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

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

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.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Superbelt

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

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

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

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.

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

yaddayaddayadda

Don't be so sure....

Sparhawk

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?

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

OFKU0

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.

__________________
" In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

Dragonlich

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!

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

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

That's all, proceed as normal.

__________________
<advertise here>