Iraqi Wedding Party Hit by U.S.; Over 20 Killed
 

DUBAI (Reuters) - Al Arabiya television said more than 20 people were killed Wednesday when a wedding party in Iraq (news - web sites) was hit by a U.S. military bombardment.

The Dubai-based network's Baghdad correspondent said the party was being held at a village near the Iraqi-Syrian border. It did not give any more details

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._us_bombing_dc

FFS, aren't we in enough trouble over there?

Yeah, not to echo onetime2 if I can help it, but I'd wait for confirmation of that story.

Ok then, I'll echo you. :D Confirmation would be nice.

I'm sure it was an accident and all.

Officials say American aircraft kill more than 40 at wedding party


SCHEHEREZADE FARAMARZI, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, May 19, 2004


(05-19) 10:41 PDT BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) --

A U.S. helicopter fired on a wedding party early Wednesday in western Iraq, killing more than 40 people, Iraqi officials said. The U.S. military said it could not confirm the report and was investigating.

Lt. Col Ziyad al-Jbouri, deputy police chief of the city of Ramadi, said between 42 and 45 people died in the attack, which took place about 2:45 a.m. in a remote desert area near the border with Syria and Jordan. He said those killed included 15 children and 10 women.

Dr. Salah al-Ani, who works at a hospital in Ramadi, put the death toll at 45.

Associated Press Television News obtained videotape showing a truck containing bodies of those allegedly killed.

About a dozen bodies, one without a head, could be clearly seen. but it appeared that bodies were piled on top of each other and a clear count was not possible.

The Dubai-based Al-Arabiya television reported that more than 20 people were killed and 10 injured in the attack.

Iraqis interviewed on the videotape said partygoers had fired into the air in a traditional wedding celebration. American troops have sometimes mistaken celebratory gunfire for hostile fire.

"I cannot comment on this because we have not received any reports from our units that this has happened nor that any were involved in such a tragedy," Lt. Col. Dan Williams, a U.S. military spokesman, wrote in an e-mail in response to a question from The Associated Press.

"We take all these requests seriously and we have forwarded this inquiry to the Joint Operations Center for further review and any other information that may be available," Williams said.

The video footage showed mourners with shovels digging graves. A group of men crouched and wept around one coffin.

Al-Ani said people at the wedding fired weapons in the air, and that American troops came to investigate and left. However, al-Ani said, helicopters attacked the area at about 3 a.m. Two houses were destroyed, he said.

"This was a wedding and the (U.S.) planes came and attacked the people at a house. Is this the democracy and freedom that (President) Bush has brought us?" said a man on the videotape, Dahham Harraj. "There was no reason."

Another man shown on the tape, who refused to give his name, said the victims were at a wedding party "and the U.S. military planes came... and started killing everyone in the house."

In July 2002, Afghan officials said 48 civilians at a wedding party were killed and 117 wounded by a U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan's Uruzgan province. An investigative report released by the U.S. Central Command said the airstrike was justified because American planes had come under fire.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...309EDT0611.DTL

Unfortunately, it appears we have crashed another wedding party. I haven't seen the US yet accept responsibility for this incident, but more inof is coming out that seems to make it most likely.

This is what happens in war.

The longer our troops are mired in the situation the more often things like this happen.

The cost of war should never be underestimated or hidden from the public. If the cause is truly just, then we will accept the price. If the cost is hidden from us, it indicates that the cause is not truly just or worthy of that cost.

Sadly, mistakes happen in war. To be honest, after seeing that Nick Berg tape, I don't really give a shit what happens to any of them. Yes, I realize they may have been innocent.

Woopsie! This is not a very effective way to win the hearts and minds of the iraqi people.

Dostoevsky, you do realize that the people who killed berg might not have even been iraqi, right? In any case, hearing about the us killing wedding goers, some iraqis might make the same ideological choice as you and decide not to gice a shit about what happens to any americans. I say, good for you, atleast you can say that you now empathise with the perspectives of some of those you would label our enemies.

Let's not get too hasty yet --

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

-- Alvin

Some of them were children. Yikes.

how can the administration deny any mistake if women and children were killed?

a wedding party? again?

I will withhold judgement and saying anything either way. If the DoD is accurate in rgr's quote then weapons will turn up and prove them right. Just as if no weapons are found it will prove the wedding party right.

I find it funny in a time of war that someone would have a wedding with 40+ near the Syria border when they know that area is watched and any mass of people would draw attention. It could very easily be a setup to get more world sympathy and hatred towards the US.

However, in war perhaps celebrating happy events can alleviate the stress awhile and be good.

I do not believe in the torture we gave out. That said, in war we have the duty to protect our soldiers in anyway possible from being harmed.

Let's assume the worst of the reports are true and them double them. 80 dead, and in fact a happy wedding....

I have one small thing to say:

Stop fucking shooting your AK's in the air when war planes are dusting over head you fucking morons.

People who have massive weaponry, fear for their lives on a daily basis, and have permission to defend themselves from incoming fire will BLOW YOU AWAY....without hesitation, and without a second thought for any customs or traditions you have.

-bear

My personal feeling are not sympathetic with the Iraqi people. If they started shooting guns off at a wedding while under occupation then they are worthy of a Darwin Award. Truthfully, I am sick of the violence and don't really want to hear about another child dying.

My real concerns are for the future. This love/hate relationship is not going to end overnight. Our occupation is not making the world any safer. I smell a huge war with bitter feelings and I don't like it.

They aren't following the Geneva Convention. They hide among women and children, and some of those women and children are also armed. If it was insurgents disguised as a wedding party, then we have to be mroe careful. If there were insurgents hiding among the party trying to take shots at us and become martyrs, I think I can guess who's getting the seven virgins in the afterlife, and it isn't the armed ones.

I have to second that idea. Funny thing about military pilots, if you shoot at them, they will usually shoot back if able. I understand it may be a custom, but what did they do before automatic weapons? Try fireworks. Or rice. But do not fire in the direction of aircaft carring thousands of pounds of high explosives if you do not what them to shoot back.

I am trying real hard to see the other side of the coin, but at anything over 150 knots, a wedding party out in the middle of the desert probably looks like any other camp.

Yes, I do realize that. The radical, fundamentalist, hate filled attitude is still the same. Nationality doesn't really matter.

First of all, I guarantee that some detail pertaining to the situation here is not being reported accurately. There has to be some understandable reason that group of people was fired upon.

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.

I'm so sick of the Islamic fundamentalist radicals, terrorists, American bashing foreigners, and even worse, Americans who don't take pride in being Americans that I'm past thinking or caring about their feelings and viewpoints. That's why I stated above that I really don't give a shit about what happens to any of them anymore. The statement applies uniformly to all the previously mentioned groups. I'm at wits end and I'm all out of caring.

I find it interesting that you would put islamic fundamentalist radicals/terrorist into the same category as american bashing foreigners and pridelacking americans. One group wants to kill you and the other two simply disagree with you. Let's make a deal: I won't confuse pride with blind faith if you try to see the difference between the healthy expression of differing viewpoints and outright blind hatred for america.

I suppose it would help if the wedding party stopped shooting weapons into the air in joyful celebration. It is a war zone.

Well, quite a few have already voiced my exact thoughts. Shooting into the air is stupid even if you're not in a war zone. Doing it during a war is stupendously ignorant. (If in fact this is what happened.)

Yup......that would suck.

Well depends, if the guns were AK's and 9mm's I seriously doubt they would shoot down a plane or even threaten one.

However if they were shooting off anti-aircraft missiles then.....

That said any Iraqi firing close to the Syria border should know that that will peak our attention, and we will react. My gut instinct is it is a setup to play on the world's emotions and further show the US in a bad light.

Whether people want to face it or not this is Vietnam all over again. Our men and women over there are not facing a traditional army they are facing women and children who have guns, and even supposed "friends" who don't want us there and would turn on us the second someone else took power. But worst of all, like VietNam, we lack any true plan to get out peacefully.

I hate this 'serves em right' attitude, that seems to be subtexting alot of posts here. If these people were innocents then its a tradgedy regardless.

Must have been a gay wedding. You know how Bush is about that.

Almost,

I for one am, not in anyway saying "serves them right" . What I am saying is that it could either have been a setup, to make us look bad (which they have done in the past) or very stupid to be shooting guns in an area they know is heavily watched by us.

We cannot condemn every action our military makes in times of war or we will lose our men, because they will be unable to defend themselves.

I am not for the war, I think it is so companies like Halliburton can make a fortune, however, I cannot sit by and watch our men and women be handcuffed by not being allowed to protect themselves for fear of "bad press". Torture in a prison is one thing, taking out people who are armed and dangerous are another.

this is a really unfortunate incident---while i do not accept the spin being put on it by the military, i can nonetheless see how it would be possible that a wedding celebration that involved shooting guns in a war zone could be misunderstood with tragic consequences.

however, in general i agree with pan in that this does not operate on the same register as the torture business.

it does seem that the irrational character of this war reproduces itself at every level.

I'm sorry, I don't go along with the idea that they deserved to die for being stupid. 40 people, including children, deserved to get blown up? That's something Saddam would do. Try to have a little human compassion.

Agreed. Just reading this thread shows incredible ignorance by some.

And people are outraged themselves when they see Arabs celebrating U.S deaths? How ironic. How fucking ignorant.

For those so ignorant, the next time an American is hanging from a bridge, just think, there will be people just like some of you saying things like ,.." fuck em, kill em all."

It doesn't take much intellect to aspire to become the lowest common denominator.

Posted Sunday May 16th:

LINK

I don't see anyone "celebrating their deaths". I see people saying that there's a pretty damned good chance of tragedy if you shoot off weapons in a freaking war zone. Tragic yes. Avoidable hell yes. The fault of the US? No. (Again, if this is in fact what happened.)

For those likening this to Americans hanging from a bridge, they're not even remotely similar. Were those Americans shooting guns out the windows of their vehicles? No. Was it even remotely an accident? Fuck no.

No they don't deserve to die but sometimes they do its what happens when a war is going on. I believe the best way to stop junk like this from happening is to go finish the war take out all the militant even the ones hiding in religious places. I mean they are killing our boys over there.

*edit, fixed your tags.*

This world is going to shit, one day we will all pay for this.

I am not willing to make the US Army go to those extremes in order to win the conflict. We can't do dishonorable stuff like that...we are civilized. The burden is on us, as the only superpower in the world, to show mercy.

Bad....Very Bad.

The villages in that area are used as pipelines for smuggling weapons and fighters in from Syria. It is entirely possible that a wedding could be occuring concurently with foreign fighters moving through the village...

My condolences to the families of the innocent dead.

Not a misleading headline at all, is it?

I guess "Military reacts to small-arms fire at 2:45 AM near Syrian border" just doesn't push papers.

I swear to God, we're going to lose this war because of the media and the democrats politicizing the whole thing for an election-year power grab. It's disgusting, and to treat our troops this way, while they're still in harm's way, is downright reckless.

The media needs a swift boot in the ass, and the democrats need to remember that "Our differences end at the nation's borders."

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.

Quiet you! America is ALWAYS the bad guy when Bush is in charge! Blame America first!

BUSH ATE MY BABIES

/sarcasm

Take away the Bush ate my babies and I would agree with that.

Yep, if we lose this war, it will be because of the democrats and the media.:rolleyes:

It won't have anything to do with the republicans at all, even though a republican president started it and a republican administration has repeatedly shown itself to have a completely innaccurate image of reality when it comes to anything middle east. I think somebody else needs to remember who got us in to this mess in the first place.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

That's all, proceed as normal.