GU: 'US soldiers started to shoot us, one by one' (Wedding massacre)

[grytpype]

You will not believe this. It's official, we are finished as "leader of the free world." We don't have that fucking job anymore.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1221658,00.html

'US soldiers started to shoot us, one by one'

Survivors describe wedding massacre as generals refuse to apologise

Rory McCarthy in Ramadi
Friday May 21, 2004
The Guardian

The wedding feast was finished and the women had just led the young bride and groom away to their marriage tent for the night when Haleema Shihab heard the first sounds of the fighter jets screeching through the sky above.

It was 10.30pm in the remote village of Mukaradeeb by the Syrian border and the guests hurried back to their homes as the party ended. As sister-in-law of the groom, Mrs Shihab, 30, was to sleep with her husband and children in the house of the wedding party, the Rakat family villa. She was one of the few in the house who survived the night.

...


Major General James Mattis, commander of the 1st Marine Division, was scathing of those who suggested a wedding party had been hit. "How many people go to the middle of the desert ... to hold a wedding 80 miles (130km) from the nearest civilisation? These were more than two dozen military-age males. Let's not be naive."

When reporters asked him about footage on Arabic television of a child's body being lowered into a grave, he replied: "I have not seen the pictures but bad things happen in wars. I don't have to apologise for the conduct of my men."

[mike_c]

1. pig bastards....

eom

[jdj]

2. I don't understand why it is so hard for people to

believe this thing happened.

But the cable clones are spinning it as a he said/she said thing.

[jobycom]

12. They always deny! Every wedding party, every civilian jetliner

Every can that approaches a checkpoint!

It's quite simple. The bloodthirsty murderers who still back these Nazi criminals will grasp at any defense. So the military says "It wasn't a wedding party it was a military camp," or "That civilian airliner was off course and descending towards our ships," and then weeks later they admit "Ooops, it was a wedding party," or "Ooops, that plane was in a regular flight pattern and was ascending and all of our ships knew it was a commercial airliner and warned the captain who shot it down not to shoot but he shot anyway."

Anyone remember Reagan in Iran? Remember our commercial jetliner takedown? Remember the young Iranian man on the rescue boat holding the dead infant by the foot and shaking her lifeless body at CNN's live camera? That's the image Bush is trying to prevent, and so he lies.

What should we do to war criminals? I will never fly or salute a flag or stand for the national anthem until Bush is in chains and on trial, because until then, America is dead.

[saigon68]

3. WAR CRIMINALS

The kind of troops who do this are BUMS, BULLIES and PSYCHOPATHS. There are a lot more of them than we Imagine in IRAQ

OK TROOP APOLOGISTS---- THERE IT IS ---------LETS HAVE A GO-----

[jobycom]

4. Um, general, what age do you think men marry at?

Could it be military age? And would you hold a wedding in the middle of town knowing how often your enemy's troops have attacked wedding parties?

If that piece of shit had any decency we'd read about his suicide in the morning.

It's time to grab the pitchforks and meet in DC.

[Sirveri]

5. A few points

First off, it's the guardian... But the most pressing one is, what would be the motive? Which is the principal reason I treat this story with suspicion. Why kill a bunch of Iraqi's at a wedding party, how does it somehow benefit us?

[loathesomeshrub]

7. Its not intentional, just criminally negligent. Just like the killing of

Canadian troops by American soldiers a couple of years ago. Negligent, and refusing to take responsibility, just like the entire war fiasco.

[UpInArms]

8. q: why did the chicken start the war?

a. because it could.

[LittleApple81]

9. Remember when an American fighter plane cut the cable of

a ski gondola in Italy killing a bunch of skiers and did not admit any guilt? They gave all kinds of excuses... the only thing they did not do was blame the skiers.

[struggle4progress]

46. Or in the 1980's when US shot down an Iran passenger plane?

A regular scheduled flight on the usual route. The wingnut excuses were endless.

[qanda]

10. Perhaps, just perhaps, they made a mistake

And instead of owning up to it, it's far easier to turn the entire wedding party into a bunch of terrorists. And of course we shouldn't mourn for the little ones because we all know that they were just gonna grow up to be just like the rest of them A-Rabs. /sarcasm

[grytpype]

14. What, do you think they are making this all up?

Are they making all this up, because "it's the guardian?" The specific names, the details, the obituaries referred to, the eyewitnesses and the mutilated and the bereaved specifically identified, they just made all that shit up? Is that what you are saying?

/Joe Pesci

But seriously, is that what you are saying?

[Sirveri]

24. nonono

The others have given good reasons why they would cover this up. I just have 'issues' with things that the guardian puts out. This comming from someone who reads Al-Jazerra! I'm just trying to understand a motive for this. A stupid F up makes sense though. Either way, I'm not there and I'd rather believe that we didn't do this on purpose or even at all. So I guess I'm somewhat biased.

[UpInArms]

29. I have heard that the state of denial is

a lovely place to live.

tra la la tra la la

[Just Me]

30. It's okay, "Sirveri",...you're on a very well-informed board,...

,...that questions "everything".

Hang on. Be prepared to do ALOT of reading. Engage. You'll be fine.

:bounce:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

41. What's your problem with the "Guardian"?

[Sirveri]

48. slight

I prefer to use sources related to the Iraq thing from Europe that are not British. A large ammount of the British media has polarised in one direction or the other because they're actually in the fray. It's a bit easier to step back and be objective when you don't have personal stakes in the region. It probably also doesn't help that it is the same name as a pretty shitty newspaper in SF.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

52. So, it's easier for you to just claim guilt by association...

...since the Guardian has the "same name as a pretty shitty newspaper in SF"? That's pretty weak, IMHO.

And what sources are you using in Europe that you believe to be objective in terms of how they report the news?

[Sirveri]

53. hmpf

I note that you didn't address the more valid points I actually made and instead decided to call out my admission of personal bias. Is it a pretty weak reason, yes, I put it out there in the interest of full disclosure.

My primary source is generally Deutsche Welle, but they don't update very often so I've recently had to rely on other sources.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

59. What "valid" points did you actually make in your post?....

Let's take a look at what you stated:

"I prefer to use sources related to the Iraq thing from Europe that are not British. A large ammount of the British media has polarised in one direction or the other because they're actually in the fray."

****Did I not address this "point" by asking you what media you were reading other than the British media?

"It's a bit easier to step back and be objective when you don't have personal stakes in the region."

****I tried to ignore this remark in your earlier post. It smacks of a real lack of understanding of how geographically close Europe is to the Middle East, and a serious lack of knowledge concerning the strong economic ties between the two regions. Are you seriously claiming that the other countries in Europe don't have a personal stake in the what happens in the Middle East? Why do you think most of those countries stayed out of the conflict in the first place? Why do you think France, Germany and Russia asked the U. S. not to go to war with Iraq? Because they knew the conflict could not be contained in the Middle East, that's why. Why do you think some of the European countries bought by the NeoCon Junta have decided to order their troops home?

"It probably also doesn't help that it is the same name as a pretty shitty newspaper in SF."

****I've already responded to this rather telling comment. Not worth rehashing.

[Sirveri]

60. Let me clarify

When I said personal stakes, I was refering to actually having troops in the region getting their blood spilt. Everyone who uses oil has economic ties to the region, so in that sense it's somewhat silly to mention.

In any event, I didn't think you addressed my point with British polarization either. Perhaps I was expecting more depth rather than a query for a response.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

66. Actually, I've been prepared to expect little or no depth from your...

...comments to date. I haven't been disappointed, although I must say that you seem to have struggled just to reach that standard.

IMHO, there is no polarization among the British. The British people know a skunk when the smell one, and that skunk is Tony Blair. The British media has been all over the growing dislike of Blair, Junior, and the U. S., so what "polarization" do you think you're seeing?

Whether or not the countries of Europe have troops in Afghanistan or Iraq or not does not affect in any way the strong personal stake each of those countries has in the Middle East. Once again, you've ably demonstrated your lack of understanding of the two regions.

[Sirveri]

69. Sure then

Troops in Afghanistan are differant than troops in Iraq. And to be brutally honest, neither of us has demonstrated any understanding of the regions, since neither of us has actually backed up any of our material. In any event it's all irrelevant in the long run, whatever the truth is will come out, and then we'll all sit and take it because that's what we all do.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

75. Ah, yes....the old "neither one of us knows what we're talking about"...

...ploy. That's usually used by the individual that wants to get out of a discussion when they find themselves in the deep end of a pool and sinking rapidly. Nice try, but no cigar.

Here's the deal, friend...I've been here for a fair amount of time, and I don't have to prove myself to anyone here, much less to some unknown poster that drops in to stir the pot.

Quite frankly, you have close to zero time on this board, and you've made statements that have been solidly refuted. If you want to establish any kind of credibility on DU you'll to start linking some sources to back up your comments.

[Sirveri]

77. yawn

I've been here for a fair amount of time, and I don't have to prove myself to anyone here, much less to some unknown poster that drops in to stir the pot.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

Try again.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sirveri]

84. Well...

If they were so easy to find why didn't you simply cut and paste them into your replies then? The burden to supply supporting information isn't on your debate opponent.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VolcanoJen]

70. Well, the British are our last real allies in this misguided travesty...

... so who's media should we turn to now, in your opinion?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

124. "...pretty shitty newspaper in SF"????

As a San Franciscan, I would say you just outed yourself -- The San Francisco Bay Guardian is one of the BEST newspapers in the Bay Area, as any SF liberal/Dem/progressive will tell you.

And as for the Guradian UK -- I have many, many articles from that newspaper referenced on my anti-Bush site. I have found them to be VERY on top of many of the biggest US/Bush stories over the past few years.

[atreides1]

92. Just Like

The Iraqi detainees weren't abused on purpose either. So far the US military has not admitted to making any mistakes when they fuck up.

I guess you could say that they're following the example of their chicken shit leader.

With the Canadians it was "we were being fired upon", it was the same crap with the Afghan wedding, and the US even claimed that AAA
was used. Funny when they got to the site there were no AAA guns and no expended casings from AAA guns.

And now they made a mistake and launched an attack at the wrong target, but won't admit it. See just like Bush, he hasn't done anything wrong either, just ask him.

And now this SS Marine officer is trying to put the blame on the Iraqis, and then slams what is normal for these people to do.

This marine officer is a butcher, and I hope he sees the faces of all of his victims up until the day his rotten carcass is buried in the ground.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

114. Yeah, his fucking profile is a huge joke.

"I'm really quite liberal!"

That's not even CLEVER. It's just obvious.

Sad.

[bobbieinok]

141. problems with the Guardian as a source??? you must live in FAUX land

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rog]

Please explain.

"First off, it's the guardian.."

Please explain clearly exactly what you mean by that. Please go into detail ... I really want to know.

.r.

[RapidCreek]

109. Well you know...they ain't fair and balanced like FOX.

Not only that them guys is feriners. Everyone knows feriners are jelouse of our freedoms and hate us cause we are gods chosen people. Gee wiz I can't believe you dinint no that. Not only that Rush Limbaugh said so...so it must be true.

RC

[rumguy]

20. trigger-happy criminal negligence

[jobycom]

21. A few answers

First, the Guardian is usually proven right. Second, are you asking about the motive of the attack, or the coverup? There is no motive on the attack, it's just that Bush and the leaders of this bloody invasion don't care about the lives of any non-American. To them a dead Iraqi child is just a piece of trash for the landfill. Need prood, read the general's comments. Listen to Tommy Franks, Collin Powell, and Donald Rumsfield, who have all said we don't bother to count their dead.

So the issue isn't the motive of the attack. The issue is the cover-up. They've done this time and time again. Reagan lied about the Iranian airliner we shot down. Bush Daddy lied about the bunker he ordered struck. W has lied about several wedding parties, each time claiming they were military camps, then weeks later admitting they were wedding parties, but that it was so long ago we needed to move on.

Face it, your president is a liar, a murderer, a butcher, a babykiller, a traitor, and a war criminal. THAT's why he does this. And the troops just defend themselves, because they have no leadership from the top. Ask them, they will tell you that.

[Sirveri]

Chill, I hate Bush

Uhhh... I'm pretty liberal, so calling him 'my president' is kinda silly. And insulting. The point is, why would the military purposefully strike a wedding? It doesn't really make any sense to me. The only really plausible excuse given before now has been, stupid idiotic negligence. Which I agree with.

[jobycom]

31. No one is saying they purposely hit the wedding, we are saying

that it is another sign of the complete lack of respect for life these scum have. Another proof that the invasion was morally and strategically wrong, that we are slaughtering the people Bush claimed he was trying to "liberate."

And they are lying about it. They knew before the dust had cleared, maybe before the final shots had been fired, that it was a wedding party. They know now. They are lying. And that is almost as despicable as us being their in the first place. Rather than give the victims the respect they deserve of an honest answer, our brass is blaming them. As always with Republican vermin, blame the victim.

[Sirveri]

47. OK well

Right now the brass is basically saying that its not a wedding, and varied other people are saying that it was a wedding. Who do I believe? I dunno I wasn't there.

But lets ask another question, why would soldiers on the ground who can clearly see that it is a wedding open fire? That really doesn't make much sense to me because it serves no purpose. Unless before they got there the bombs did all the work? So are these guys just killing because it's fun? Are the pentagon brass telling the truth? Or if this was a wedding, was this ordered from above? Was it a cover up after they found what the bombs had hit? People don't do something without reason unless they're sociopaths or pyschotics.

I'm presently leaning towards them bombing this thing, finding out later about it, and then 'cleaning' up the mess. Then there's another option of this strike being used to curry favor with a local tribal leader or whatnot. But that's not to say that I'm going to blindly accept either side and jump on the bandwagon just because it suits my world view. The one thing that I do know with 100% certainty is that someone is lying.

[jobycom]

49. Given our government's record, it's an easy call as to who is lying

Can you honestly think of a single example under Reagan, Bush or Bush where someone claimed we had bombed civilians and we claimed it was a military target, where we weren't the ones lying? I can't.

As for why ground troops would fire on the wedding, keep in mind it was 2am. Our military raids at 2 am for the same reason George Washington used to-- because everyone is asleep. Our troops rush in under the cover of air support and shoot anything that tries to escape. People are just waking up, they hear gunshots, they rush out, sometimes grabbing their weapons as they do, and they get shot. Our soldiers don't know the difference between Iraqi dress garb and Iraqi common garb. They aren't shooting people in tuxedos and evening gowns.

Did you read the SacBee interview with the former Marine who described how they routinely slaughtered civilians? People pulled up to checkpoints in cars, someone would suspect something, and rather than ask questions, they would "light them up," as he called it. A few of those cases have made the news, but it is a routine occurence.

[Sirveri]

55. Easy call or judgement call?

Uhhh... OK well now you're blowing holes in your own story, what are people doing at a wedding at 2AM? And furthermore wouldn't the marines be able to tell that it was a party and that people weren't asleep?

[othermeans]

61. Link to information about traditional Arab wedding

Hi just wanted to tell you that traditional Arab weddings are different than ours. I'm sorry you're being bagged on but you have to be prepared with some answers. People here take all civilian casualties here very seriously (as they should). Especially in a war such as this one.

Here is a link that describes an Arab wedding.

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/arab_culture_and_identity/30303

[Media_Lies_Daily]

63. Would you like to buy a clue?...

The wedding party was already over...the attack by U. S. forces was made as the 40+ people lay sleeping. That, by the way, is the preferred method used by the military these days unless they find themselves in a pitched battle like Fallujah.

After the air strike, the troops ran in and finished the job, killing 42 people as stated in the following quote:

"In a telephone interview, an Iraqi Health Ministry official said a hospital in Qaim, the town closest to the site, reported that 42 people were killed -- 17 men, 11 women and 14 children. The Associated Press quoted several men as saying their wives were killed with their children in their arms."

<http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4787971.html>

Are you now going to claim that the Health Ministry official is also lying, along with the hospital staff in Qaim? It's all a big conspiracy to make the U. S. look bad?

Oh, by the way, from the same article appearing in the May 21 Washington Post and carried by the StarTribune.com (linked below) it appears that an investigation is under way to determine the actual truth of the situation.

"BAGHDAD -- U.S. military officers said Thursday that they would open an investigation into a ground and air assault in western Iraq that has produced sharply conflicting accounts of whether the approximately 40 people killed were mostly foreign insurgents or included civilians celebrating a wedding."

<http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4787971.html>

And are you going to try to deny that in every single one of these situations since the war began in Afghanistan the military has been proven wrong and has had to eventually admit that they lied?

[Sirveri]

67. Almost done

Look, I'm not saying that it didn't happen. I'm just trying to say that it would be more intellectually honest to at least postulate and consider the possibility that for once the military are not lying to us. Instead I see what I see at all politically aligned websites, everyone immediately jumps onto whatever news supports their world view and then proceeds to voraciously attack and dismember any oppossing thoughts and views. They don't really work to explain why they believe that the other view is wrong or lying or whatever.

So basically my first post was a attempt to stimulate interesting debate and get people to state reasons why they believed that the oppossing view was wrong. And hopefully to get them to at least admit that there was a possibility that they were wrong, but that they had good reasons and supporting evidence to back up their beliefs and opinions on the subject.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

71. No, you ARE done. You really don't get it do you?....

The military command, to include Rummy and the rest of the NeoCons have consistently lied about every single issue that has been brought before the public. They've lied about the attacks they've made on civilians, they've lied about the number of U. S. dead and wounded, they've lied about the real reasons that they dragged the U. S. into a war they were warned repeatedly not to start, and they've lied about the torture taking place in the prisons and other camps for "detainees".

Based on the above track record, why should we believe anything they tell us? You can pretend to be "intellectually honest" as long as you want, and you can also complain about politically aligned websites and they way each deals with information, but you can't change the fact that the military and the members of the NeoCon Junta have lied to us daily and continue to lie every chance they get.

Yes, there's a possibility that the military is not lying this time. The smart money says that's a REALLY, REALLY bad bet.

[jobycom]

76. Oh, why don't you be honest

We have been citing evidence. You have been speculating. We are quoting the witnesses, giving you explanations of what Iraqi weddings look like, explaining military procedure on nighttime raids, telling you about the bodies of children that have been photographed and videotaped. The preponderance of the evidence (that's like, you know, facts) proves that this was a wedding, and that the US lit it up, as they have admitted to doing in other circumstances. So the evidence is that we shot up a wedding. The pictures demonstrate that we shot up a wedding. Military strategy demonstrates that civilians get killed all the time in Iraq, that our troops are ordered to not worry about civilian casualties. The preponderance of recent history proves that America ALWAYS lies in these situations, and has ALWAYS been proven to be lying.

We are citing evidence, you are weakly trying to postulate, based on what you want to be true. Who's being intellectually honest?

Know what? I want your version of America to be true, so badly that I ache. I want with all my heart and soul to believe we are good, that we are just, that we are the heroes and champions of justice and right and freedom and everything, to believe again that we are still the nation we were in 2000. But I've seen too many dead children to believe it. I've heard too many lies. Unlike you, I don't continue to give the benefit of the doubt to the people who have been lying all along to me. That's denial. Denial is the opposite of liberty, and democracy, and truth and justice. It's bad for your soul. I base what I know on what I know to be true, not on what I wish with all my heart were true. That's the painful part of being a grown-up.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

83. You may call it "forcing dialogue" while most of us view...

...your debate tactics as a complete waste of time.

If you're not going to be a straight-shooter on DU, you might as well find somewhere else to spend your time.

[Sirveri]

88. So clarify my interpretations

What you appear to basically be saying is that unless I say Ra-Ra go dems and just play the part of a yes man, there is no point to me being here? Well then why would anyone even bother to post here, other than to enjoy a session of mental masturbation inside a closed room. Without oppossing points of view and challenges to opinions people do not have the foundation with which to base their opinions. It is not until you consider all sides of an issue that you can truly say you've made an informed decision. If I can provide a service by getting people to question their beliefs and consider other points of view so that they may more adequately understand their own beliefs. Then I consider that to be a great benefit. Which is why I play Devil's Advocate, I am not attempting to convert anyone, especially on this issue with the perponderance of evidence, I'm merely trying to get people to solidly consider their stance on the issues.

[jobycom]

91. This isn't "he said, she said"

They have evidence it was a wedding. We have none that it was something else. A denial by a criminal that the evidence isn't real (though he hasn't even looked at it, he claims) is not a refutation of the evidence, any more than your constantly repeating that they should have the benefit of the doubt refutes anything

When you see someone holding a smoking gun over a body, you give that person a degree of presumed innocence. You listen to their story, see if it can fit with the evidence. But if they simply say "I'm not here, this isn't a gun, and it's not been fired," you don't accept that. There is evidence to the contrary.

This was a wedding. All evidence proves that. If you have something that refutes the evidence, lay it out. So far the only thing you've tried was the "Why are they having a wedding at 2am?" card. Well, that was explained irrefutably by several posters, who presented evidence of what Iraqi weddings were like. That's evidence to refute your argument.

You haven't presented any evidence yet. You haven't presented a logical conclusion based on evidence, or even based on a previous irrefutable logical proposition. Constanty trying to say "Nobody knows anything" when you are presented evidence to the contrary is not logic, it's not an argument, and it's not proof of anything. It's denial, maybe. That's all.

Anyway, goodnight. I'm sure you've not learned anything, and might even think you are right. Who can tell?

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

This stuff about "I like to play Devil's Advocate" is just cover for a

disruptor. Debate is tolerated on this board, but for you to basically come out and say, in this post and on your profile, that you "tend to" play Devil's Advocate and that you "provide a service" by "forcing dialogue" is just a lame attempt to provide cover for being a disruptor. This is a board for Democrats, and while there is a lot of disagreement on topics, there won't be much of a tolerance for someone who comes out and basically announces that they will tend to have a "non-Democratic" "Devil's Advocate" take on most subjects. We call those people disruptors.

BTW if you don't like the news article source, I'm sure you can continue to read the Washington Times, NewsMax, Worldnet Daily and "Talon News" and be happy with the spin there. That IS where you get most of your news, isn't it?

[Sirveri]

96. sigh

I do not lean to the right on anything other than gun control. However I AM Hawkish.

Besides I already cited at least one news source, Deutsche Welle. I also like China News Agency, Pravda, Al-Jazerra, and Times of India.

Should I bother to mention CNN and C-SPAN, or should I just assume those.

[RapidCreek]

111. You do eh?

Were those 42 Iraqi's innocent until proven guilty? How about this little girl and those lying in a pile behind her and the man who is holding her....Were they innocent until proven guilty?



You havn't argued against anything. You speak in circles further invalidating your already invalid points. You aren't playing Devils Advocate...you are playing the Devils Fool.

RC

[ngGale]

100. This administrations PATTERN OF BEHAVIOUR...n/t

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Randers]

73. I think it's possible that the US military purposely hit the wedding

I sure wouldn't rule it out. As sick as it is.

Early reports I heard, someone was saying the soldiers went and checked it out and came back later and attacked.


It sucks having psychopathic military leaders.

[jobycom]

82. Remember the "Hussein" bunker in Gulf War I?

We hit a bunker and killed 200+ civilians who were hiding in it to avoid our bombs. When asked, we ate first denied we had hit a bunker. When the pictures emerged, we admitted we hit it, but that we were told it was Hussein's bunker, and that only Hussein and his staff were in it.

Much later, Bush's crew finally admits that they knew it was full of hundreds of innocent civilians, but that they had heard that Hussein MIGHT be in it, so they blew it up just in case. The Iraqi families that were slaughtered were "unfortunate," but it was a price Bush was willing to pay. Of course, he wasn't the one who paid it.

Heck, think about this invasion. We started it by dropping a bomb in the suburbs, on a restaurant, because we thought Hussein MIGHT be there. We've blown up mosques, houses, and, if I'm not mistaken, a hospital, because they MIGHT have a military target inside.

These animals have no morals. They may very well have knowingly bombed a wedding if they thought it would get them something. Maybe they were doing a favor for a rival of the groom, maybe they thought they had a tip about a Syrian spy. Who knows? Nothing is beyond them, and they've proven that.

But until I hear evidence otherwise, I'll assume it was an accident. Not that that makes me feel much better about our leaders.

[Randers]

87. Seems to me

one of our military's objectives is to enrage the Iraqis and Arabs in general. (I'm not sure what the motive is for this, but that is how I see it, nonetheless).

The wedding massacre would fit that pattern.

[minkyboodle]

94. we've been here before

and it pains me to say it. The Pentagon seems to following their standard routine for replying to this....

[Media_Lies_Daily]

51. Hey, you asked the question, pal. If you don't like the answers you...

...got in return and felt insulted, that's not our problem, that's YOUR problem.

And why has the U. S. military at various times attacked other wedding parties in both Afghanistan and Iraq? Why did they also first deny what they had done to those people as well? Why did they eventually have to admit that they had killed a bunch of innocent people?

Why have they shot up buses and cars containing entire families because they failed to stop quickly enough or didn't understand English? Why did our snipers in Fallujah shoot women and children as they were trying to get out of harm's way?

Why did they choose to drop thousands of tons of bombs on the major Iraqi population centers knowing that we would be killing and maiming tens of thousnads of Iraqis, mostly innocent women, children and the elderly?

Why did our military choose to torture the detainees at Gitmo, and then use those same techniques on detainees in Iraq? Why did our military choose to transport certain detainees to foreign countries like Egypt where torture is not illegal? Why were some of the detainees women and children, and how much, and what, did they have to endure before before they were released to return to their home countries?

Why did the NeoCon Junta start this war in the FIRST DAMN PLACE WHEN THERE WERE ABSOLUTELY NO FRIGGIN' WMDs, AND ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION TO OSAMA BIN LADEN AND AL QAEDA???? WHY???? WHY DID OUR ILLEGAL NEOCON JUNTA DO THIS TERRIBLE THING???? WHAT WAS THEIR "MOTIVE"????

Here's a tip for you...do some reading.

[Sirveri]

65. Why did the NeoCon Junta start this war?

Why did the NeoCon Junta start this war in the FIRST DAMN PLACE WHEN THERE WERE ABSOLUTELY NO FRIGGIN' WMDs, AND ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION TO OSAMA BIN LADEN AND AL QAEDA???? WHY???? WHY DID OUR ILLEGAL NEOCON JUNTA DO THIS TERRIBLE THING???? WHAT WAS THEIR "MOTIVE"????

Why? Simple really. There are several reasons. They wanted to satisfy the goals of PNAC and establish a permanent military prescence in the region. They listened to Mathew Simmons and believe that Saudi Oil reserves are peaking and are now rushing to secure additional stock to boost US supply. They wanted to get revenge for Bush Sr. They wanted to pump a large ammount of money into the commercial sector by giving out contracts to our large military industrial complex. They wanted to establish a telecommunications hub that was capable of competing with the newly launched German Satelite NileSat, in addition to competing with the emerging Arab News agencies. They wanted to sandwich Iran and threaten it militarily. They wanted to have a easy route of attack into the Caucuses for the oil stocks there. Actually, lets talk even more about oil, Iraq is not only the second largest oil reserve known, but it's also next to every single oil bearing country in the region. With the exception of Oman, who have already peaked. There WERE training camps for terrorists there, however they sprang up because our no-fly zones denied Saddam the ability to effectivly control those regions. I also believe that these camps were designed to strike at Israel not the US. I have not done any research into their stocks of lime, hematite (or other iron bearing ore), and coal; but those might have also been contributing reasons. Lets see, oh yes it also showed the world that we would not tolerate people going off the dollar standard (Iraq had purchased 1 Billion in Euro's). And finally it gives us the ability to strategically threaten the growth of China by being able to crimp who they purchase oil resources from. Oh and I almost forgot that the religious right would really love to see the apocalypse come around, and is doing everything they can to cause it.

That's all I can remember off the top of my head, if you want more reasons I'll gladly send you some.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

68. Just as I thought...there weren't any good reasons. You've thrown...

...a lot of crap in the air hoping some would stick to the ceiling, but alas for you and your dwindling credibility on this board, none did.

And just where were these "training camps for terrorists" located in Iraq? Did you know that Osama and Saddam didn't get along because Osama considered Iraq to be a secular nation as opposed to one based on Islamic fundamentalism? Did you know that Saddam wouldn't have tolerated Al Qaeda or any other armed organization not under his direct control? Based on your answers so far this evening, I'm sure that you didn't have a clue about those little details either.

[Sirveri]

72. Excuse me

but you didn't ask for GOOD reasons, you asked for reasons. If you don't LIKE those reasons that's not my problem. There was one in Northern Iraq near Mosul that was terrorising the local Kurds. I believe there was another in the south, but at the moment I am away from my sources and don't feel like googling them. Of course in your research I'm sure you would have seen the reports.

And you're right, Saddam would not have tolerated AQ in Iraq, that is until we took away his ability to project air power in his own country with the no fly zones. At which point he really didn't have much of a choice in the matter. The sanctions didn't help him to project conventional military ground forces either.

I would talk about weather the reasons for war in Iraq were good ones or not, but I fear that I would take the thread to far off topic as it would stray into my beliefs on the purpose of morality in government and other political theory and praxis.

[shanti]

89. damn

that was a great rant, dude!

[exploited]

58. Large gatherings of people are a threat

... to authoritarian governments. History has show us that.

Threats need to be quashed, escecially in war time, in a war zone. If it's miles from anywhere, and everyone of them gets killed, then it's a job well done. Several dozen fewer 'military age male' Iraqui's to worry about.

Threat neutralized.

[kimchi]

128. And those children won't grow up to be "terrorists" either!

"Killing two birds with one stone" I think they call that.

By the way, welcome to DU.

[0007]

119. Our Hero!

[Tinoire]

131. Stupid, idiotic negligence ?

:wtf:

Like the "stupid, idiotic negligence" that took place at Abu-Ghaibr and at that Top Secret Baghdad prison run by Delta Forces?!

Pathetic.

What pathetic and revolting apologetics.

Bush is going to fry. As a liberal (per your profile) I'm sure you'll be rejoicing.

[Rex]

22. Do you really believe that this war is about benefiting us?

How bout when "we" slaughtered that wedding party in Afghanistan? There is no argument that it happened, so what was the benefit in that instant? How bout this --- a C130 flew over an area, called it in, and then opened fire. There was no hum-int, nor did anyone look up local customs, just "we found a group of people, permission to fire".

[daleo]

33. A memorable quote from Spock applies

Madness has no purpose, but it can have a goal.

Iraq-nam has descended into military madness, although personally I don't think it was ever was anything else. There is no more purpose to the venture, or at least none that can be publicly admitted - the WMD argument is gone, the save people from cruel Saddam argument is gone, the rape rooms and torture chambers arguments are gone. But just because purpose has been stripped away doesn't mean generals can't have goals - body counts, terrifying the local population, getting promotions, just staying alive. Thus, events like this occur, that seem little better than killing for the sake of killing.

[AussieInCA]

35. lets see, the military has a one liner (suspected terrorists) and...

here is a full detailed story about the wedding, the people, the villages, the timeing...man I guess those dumb Iraqi villagers should get into fiction writing, they seem to be able to make up detailed stories so quick and get it published.



Dude, take off the rose colored glasses and shake off the delusion. If you hadn't checked...the current administration and it's press releases and justification have zero credibility in the world and only are believed by the kool aid drinking die hards.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

40. And why do YOU suspect the "Guardian" of lying?...

We don't expect the truth AT ALL from ANY of the U. S. captive mainstream press, that's exactly why we try to find the truth somewhere in the FOREIGN press!!

And what the Hell "motive" does there have to be for an American military unit to kill 40+ Iraqis? What "motive" have they needed since the beginning of Gulf War I???

And when you ask "how does it benefit us", to which "us" are you referring?

[AussieInCA]

42. and where is the great US press investigative reporterson this?

oh yeah..they are all scared shitless sitting in the castle with king bremmer, reporting political press releases and propoganda.

[Doctor Smith]

44. Shoot first, ask questions later.

Disproportionate use of force.

It's a war crime.

[AussieInCA]

45. Red cross already condemned this for disprportionate use of force

called it "Human Rights Violation" but hey that is our business as usual now with our get out of war crimes card Bushco opted out of.

[ze_dscherman]

98. Got any problems with the Guardian?

Sure it's "librul" media, but it is a well respected newspaper. Got ANY proof that it spreads fals stories? Please cite any!

As well, this is NOT the first time U.S. (or other) soldiers killed innocent civilians.

[dudeness]

102. The Guardian is highly reputable news source..

with some of the worlds best journalists..also your belief that any military action has to be of benefit to anyone is fraught with danger and ignores the history of warfare and tactics to pacify the civilain population..for other examples of such blatant murder one only has look to the recent past in afghanistan to see a similar occurence..believe it or not these atrocities happen on a regular basis

[RapidCreek]

106. Why kill 15 thousand innocent Iraqi's?

Why torture Iraqi's in a prison. Why imprison Iraqi's 90% of whom are innocent of any crime? Why? Because those commiting these acts are stupid, violent, irresponsible, trigger happy morons! Is that clear enough?

RC

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JSJ]

115. It's viewed by military planners...

... as a way to demoralize as well as terrorize a population it wishes to dominate. It follows, then, that killing children would have an even greater negative impact. It's then likely that standing orders are to kill as many of Iraq's and Afhanistan's people as possible.

[kimchi]

127. Sirveri, could you explain your sig line please?

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean.

[UpInArms]

6. may heaven help us all :(

"My solution is change the channel," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said earlier this week, after being asked about TV images of dead Iraqi civilians.

"The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women and children are not legitimate news sources, that is propaganda, and that is lies."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0415/p01s02-woiq.html

[loathesomeshrub]

15. Of course. That solves everything. What we don't see doesn't hurt

us. Lets stick our head in the sand. That man has no soul, just like the rest of the Repugnant ones.

[grytpype]

11. What's the goddamned difference right now...

What's the goddamned difference right now between the US Armed Forces and the Wehrmacht? That we try a little harder to avoid civilian casualties?

[jobycom]

23. I can't think of one.

I guess we kill Muslims instead of Jews? The rest is the same.

[Politicub]

50. I'm trying to understand the difference, too

The way some of those on the right speak of Iraqis being less than human is despicable. I would imagine 30% of the people in this country would support outright genocide of Iraqis.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

54. I'm not sure our people are trying to avoid killing anything at all...

...it's complete and utter madness, IMHO.

[ze_dscherman]

110. To be true,

my ancestors did it on a much larger scale ... As well, the U.S. has not (yet?) reached the stage of taking hostage and publicly shooting them as revenge against guerilla activities. BTW, the French Resistance fighters were called "terrorists" by the Wehrmacht.

[Th1onein]

13. I think I might leave America soon........

[brucefan]

103. Take me with you. eom

[milkyway]

16. They hate us for our freedom (and also because we take over their country,

steal their resources, and slaughter their children).

[rumguy]

17. winning the hearts and minds

"'I saw something that nobody ever saw in this world,' said Mr Nawaf. 'There were children's bodies cut into pieces, women cut into pieces, men cut into pieces.'"

This story has the ring of truth to it. I hope that more dig into what happened.

They even killed one of the most popular singers in Western Iraq.

It's a disaster. It's a tragedy. This whole war is pathetic.

[Just Me]

28. Pathetic, tragic,...a disaster,...

,...and no amount of denial can cut through those realities.

I am hated,...because I am an American,...whose government is completely out of control and in the wrong hands.

I can't change that channel, Kimmit!!!

And,...well,...I'll not emote.

[riverwalker]

18. Major General James Mattis has lied before

he seems to have a history of lying.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2986.htm

[Tellurian]

19. Yes, I saw Gen. Kimmitt in full denial mode on the evening news!

He stood there and bare faced LIED to the camera and said"There was NO wedding." "We had troops of the ground for a considerable length of time." "There was no wedding."

[LiberalFighter]

26. Major Gen Mattis must be guilty

It happened in a remote village of Mukaradeeb

He states "How many people go to the middle of the desert ... to hold a wedding 80 miles (130km) from the nearest civilisation?"

If it happened in the village that is their home then they did not go to the middle of the desert. And that village is civlization.

What is his definition of civilization? What is his definition of the middle of the desert?

[zbird]

36. This is just so unbearably horrible.

1. It is the family's villa where the wedding took place, not the middle of nowhere (as LiberalFighter has noted).
2. The "foreign passports". Let's see, the village is on the Syrian border. Do you think maybe there are relatives or friends living across the border in Syria, and therefore would have Syrian passports?
3. The amount of money is being reported as $2,000,000 dinar (works out to be 800 British pounds or less than $1,500 US (an estimate on my part, too lazy to check the exchange rate). Perhaps wedding presents for the two couples?
4. Weapons. Remote village. These people more than likely had some sort of weapons. I would be astonished if there were no weapons found at all.
5. The "two dozen" military age males. This was reportedly a celebration of the union of two powerful families/clans. Wouldn't you expect to have a large turnout of friends and family members of this age group?

A wedding party certainly seems reasonable/plausible.

[daleo]

27. Evil or just horribly ignorant of local conditions and culture?

"Major General James Mattis, commander of the 1st Marine Division, was scathing of those who suggested a wedding party had been hit. "How many people go to the middle of the desert ... to hold a wedding 80 miles (130km) from the nearest civilization? These were more than two dozen military-age males. Let's not be naive.""

Let's see - I myself was married on a homestead in Northern Ontario, in the middle of nowhere. Last summer I attended a wedding on a farm in southwestern Saskatchewan in the middle of nowhere. Some years ago, I attended a wedding in northern Alberta, in the middle of nowhere. What looks like empty desert, or empty prairie, or tractless forest to a foreigner is often home to tens of thousands of people. This kind of ignorance is one good argument against invading other countries.

On edit - just for the record, I vote for evil and ignorant. Ignorant, because they didn't know the difference between a wedding and "a foreign fighter camp", and evil because they didn't care anyway.

[democrank]

32. I am sickened beyond words.

It`s time for us to rise up and demand accountability. We have allowed this to go way beyond reason.

[qanda]

34. This entire article, from the eyewitness accounts

To the lame excuses and explanations given by America is just terribly sad. :cry: :cry: :cry:

[mumon]

37. "I don't have to apologise..."

Nope, but maybe the war crimes court will be somewhat more lenient if you do, dummy.

[AussieInCA]

39. no need to apologize = no accountability (just like the abuse scandal)

more of the same..attrocious. It looks like the only way anyone will be held accountable is if it is blasted all over the world press and world opinion is the moral autority (as it seems our internal system from this is in a shambles)

[OKNancy]

38. Eleven women and 14 children killed

yup..terrorists. I am sad for the young men too.

[dansolo]

43. Where did the intelligence come from?

The wedding was near the Syrian border, and Bush is looking to implicate Syria as harboring terrorists. I wonder if someone fed them a story that it was a terrorist camp in order to take out a local rival, just like what happened in Afghanastan. The warlords in Afghanastan figured out pretty quickly that all they had to do was shout "Taliban" and point out their rivals, and the US forces would take them out.

[TrueStory]

118. From Chalabi.

and the Info has been passed to US troops without any checking.

things happened.

and now Chalabi is the scapegoat.
US forces raid Chalabi's home and offices, and he gets no more money.

of course nobody in US intelligence or military has any fault.

[acmavm]

56. Good grief, why question the mentality of why this would happen and

whether or not 'our' troops would do this? When I read this story this morning all I could think of was this famous quote:"The chick got in the way."

[Tight_rope]

57. Bush's' ignorance, arrogance and incompetence has trickled down!

"I have not seen the pictures but bad things happen in wars." This is just as bad as the chimp saying "We are going to hunt them down and smoke them out."


monkey SAY monkey DO!

[leftofthedial]

62. "zey ver partisans"

"zey ver harassink our troops"

let's not be naive.

[PotatoBoy]

74. Wait a minute here... change of facts?

Weren't we told originally that the Iraqis were partying at 3am, shooting into the air, and then a helicopter came and fired upon them?

Now we're hearing a TOTALLY different story, that they were all indoors, and came outside to see what the racket was (at 3am), and soldiers on foot were shooting??

How are we to know what to believe?

EDIT: Oh..and the news article doesn't mention the soldiers that according to other news went on foot to see what the noise was, and then left. What's going on?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

78. Don't know who to believe? Here's a clue...

When has the military command structure including the NeoCon Junta, told us the truth on any issue involving Afghanistan, Iraq, or the so-called "War on Terror"??

Take your time...I know it's an awfully difficult question.

[PotatoBoy]

79. How do you know for sure what's truth or not?

And furthermore, how can you be sure this article isn't fabricated by leftists in order to make BushCo look bad? I lean left, but I'm sure both sides play dirty and make up stories about each other.

Just some food for thought. Everyone accepted this article so easily--why?? What happened to questioning things? The facts are so very dissimilar from previous reports, that it has me suspicious.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

85. You didn't answer my question, did you?....

"Fabricated by leftists"???? LOL. Incredible.

[PotatoBoy]

123. I answered your question..

"When has the military command structure including the NeoCon Junta, told us the truth on any issue involving Afghanistan, Iraq, or the so-called "War on Terror"??"

Answer: how do you know if it was lies or truth? Can you prove that everything they've told us was all lies? And if it's not all lies, then out of how many statements do you think were lies? 90% of them? 70%?

[minkyboodle]

90. those tricky leftists

always fabricating things eh??? ignorance is bliss

[not systems]

105. The stack of dead children shown on the nightly news...

is a good place to start.

How do I know I'm not just replying to a war crime apologist.

I don't.

[ze_dscherman]

112. Fabricated by leftists?

You sure know the standing of The Guardian? The Guardian is not The Mirror - is not a tabloid, but a very reputable source. A British newspaper that employs people still worthy to be called journalists. They would be very cautious to print a fabricated story.

Why is this article accepted so easily? Because it obviously is based on interviews with a victimm, checked against other testimonials. It gives names, a detailed story and whole lot of background. This is something that can be researched. It is not some shady "unnamed senior official" or "a source close to" or some hearsay reported. Also, facts that are dissimilar (but not very) from previous reports are a very good clue that someone has gotten closer to first hand sources.

Of course, this all could be fabricated. But then I also could be dreaming and this god-damned war is just a nightmare.

[PotatoBoy]

121. I expected these kinds of responses

I knew people would respond to my post with stuff like "gimme a break!" What, the left can't make stuff up to make the right look bad? Why not? The right wings do it to us.

It just seemed really fishy to me how the facts seem to have changed, and the Guardian had VERY detailed accounts of everything.. people's names, interviews, some famous Iraqi singer was killed. How the hell did they find all this out?? Were they at the scene right away? Who were the reporters? Why did the US let them onto the "crime scene"?

And another question: what makes the Guardian reliable/reputable? What makes any news source reputable? Have people truly verified several of the Guardian's stories to be fact? What makes you think this story is 100% true? Or 90% true?

I'm on your side, guys, but don't forget to question the news, even if it's in your favor. Don't just accept what's fed to you, just because you find it agreeable.

I'm still disturbed by the conflicting reports. Some news reports say missiles struck. The Guardian says soldiers were on foot and shooting. What's the f_ing truth??

[The White Rose]

133. OK, gimme a break!

First, the reason The Guardian had detailed accounts is because of a little-known thing in the U.S. called journalism. It's clear from the article that the reporter interviewed survivors at the hospital, away from the "crime scene" as you put it. By the way, the significant detail provided (names, relationships, henna'd hands etc) actually supports the veracity of the report. The best the Marines can come up with so far is that there were a couple of dozen men of military age in the village and that to suggest that these men were other than rebels is naive, i.e. pathetic, self-justifying bullsh*t.

Incidentally, the Marine General's statement is a dead giveaway...If there were only a few dozen males of military age at the site, and over forty people were killed, then the majority of people attacked in that village were women, children and the elderly, weren't they?

As to the reliability of "The Guardian", like any news-source they have made mistakes in the past. However, they, and their sister paper "The Observer", are the only major British newspapers I know of that are owned by non-profit organisations rather than profit motivated corporations with dubious political connections. In my book, like the B.B.C., that makes them a more reliable source than most.

You say you're disturbed by conflicting reports? I think you should read more carefully. The article specifies that the village was hit by air strikes AND ground troops. You want to know what disturbs me? The total lack of effort by U.S. forces to obtain accurate prior intelligence, the willingnes, even eagerness, to employ disproportioate force, and the callous disregard for civilian lives that this shows.

[Tinoire]

139. Us? That's the best one so far. n/t

[Sirveri]

95. I know

When Pat Tillman died!

Do I get a cookie!

[ngGale]

97. OMG If I have to hear one more rationalization by the...

right wing media, I'm going to scream. I heard the gun fire story at 3 a.m. Even that for me was too much because by now they should know in Iraq they fire guns at weddings. It's there culture.
We just flat need to get out of Iraq, NOW. But, Bush is building up more troops. How many more, they were on the Syrian border. The right will 'spin' it and blame it on liberal bias. Hope someone took pictures, again.

[fizzana]

99. I feel physically ill reading this

And seeing Kimmitt and others stand there and blithely claim that no children were killed and it wasn't a wedding makes me burn with rage.

I cannot even begin to imagine how Iraqis must feel.

[dudeness]

101. war criminals..

all of them..bush, blair and howard..

[TheLastMohican]

108. This guy is a true idiot

"Major General James Mattis, commander of the 1st Marine Division, was scathing of those who suggested a wedding party had been hit. "How many people go to the middle of the desert ... to hold a wedding 80 miles (130km) from the nearest civilisation? These were more than two dozen military-age males. Let's not be naive."

I've been to a wedding with 80 military age males and as many military-age females as well including the bride. Yeah, right, we would make a company-size detachment for the whatever army the idiot in charge of 1st Marine Division can name. I wonder if all the division commanders are so thick-headed?

[saigon68]

117. THICK HEADED??? YES THEY are slow brutish types

These generals are WAR CRIMINALS. Their troops can do most anything. If 30% of the general population thinks torture is OK then the troops many of whom are BUMS, BULLIES AND KILLING PSYCHOPATHS will act out their fantasies.


His statement that he APOLOGIZES FOR NOTHING
Shows this war criminal approves of his men killing Children

Wait until these guys do a Kent State in Amerika

ITS COMING SOON

[ze_dscherman]

116. Report by the BBC on funeral of the singer, additional testimonials

It describes funerals, gives testimonials, then quotes Kimmits denial.

Final conclusion:

"Whatever the truth of why the Americans hit Makr al-Deeb, it has been a public relations disaster.

The images of graves being dug in the desert and the shrouded bodies of dead children are being shown on television around the Arab world.

It is another setback to America's image that it can do without. "


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3733797.stm

[lumpy]

120. What the hell is this crap

that the wedding celebration was way out in the desert 80 miles from civilization someplace according to a military ass sitter by the name of Maj. General Mattis ? It was in a village by the name of Mukaradeeb.

[bleedingheart]

122. If they weren't part of the opposition before the Rakat and Sabah

clans will now probably be....

this is not winning the hearts and minds of people.

this is sickening.

[Plaid Adder]

125. OK, here's my theory: these people just hate weddings, period.

They for damn sure don't ever want *me* to have a wedding. You know they would be bombing Massachusetts right now if they thought they could get away with it. And this is not the first time that American troops have bombed a wedding:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,628666,00.html

That link is to an eerily similar story from the Afghanistan campaign, in which we bombed the crap out of a wedding being held in a remote area which was supposedly being used as a Taliban munitions dump. And then as now, nobody in the American military would admit that there was anything wrong with what they'd done; and then as now, the British press covered it and the American press didn't.

It is pretty sickening the first time you read about something like this. Now, I just feel tired. It's like they're saying, "How dare these people try to celebrate something while we're busting our asses night and day 'liberating' them?"

Yee ha,

The Plaid Adder

[narcjen]

126. It appears to me

these people were executed in their sleep.

[Ezlivin]

129. Military Enforcement of No Gay Weddings?

<humor>

Is this how Bush & Co. plan on attacking gay marriage?

</humor>

Honestly, this is just terribly horrible and sad. Haven't we now killed more than three times the number of innocents lost during 9/11?

[ElementaryPenguin]

130. What kind of fucking nation do we live in - that accepts this monstrous

CONDUCT?? The bigger problem may be that Bushler and the Bush Crime Administration are possibly more representative of today's America than the Clinton Administration! If true - I'm getting the fuck outta here!! (Just as I would have left Nazi Germany in the 30's!)

:puke:
:argh:
:mad:

[jpak]

132. US to Iraq: all little brown people living in the desert deserve to die

All Iraqi males of military age are terrorists and legitimate targets.

Shit happens - so what?

Don't bother my beautiful mind with your dead baby pictures.

Whoo-ra!

[PotatoBoy]

134. Spell it out for me..why would US troops do this?

Why would they kill innocents.. especially women and children?? What's the motive? They just hate the Iraqi people? What's going on?

[gratuitous]

135. Don't seek for an evil explanation

When mere incompetence will suffice to explain it.

From My Lai to El Mozote, Actéal Las Abejas to Kama Aido, military folks will bomb, shoot, and generally fuck up gatherings of the enemy or the other. When the atrocity comes to light, naturally everyone scurries for the corners bleating "It didn't happen" or "We didn't mean to". The prisons are full of guys who never did nothing. That's why I (and I would suggest you adopt the same rule) don't listen to canned rationalizations from perpetrators, particularly when it contradicts the evidence before my eyes.

The woman who lost her two children in the Guardian story also had two broken legs. Are you seriously putting forward the idea that she broke her own legs and killed her own children just to make the U.S. military look bad?

Because I'll tell you, if that really happened, we'd better clear out of Iraq tout de suite, because they're far more committed to saving their country that we could ever be to stealing it.

[PotatoBoy]

137. What, the soldiers were blind??

"Are you seriously putting forward the idea that she broke her own legs and killed her own children just to make the U.S. military look bad?"

Of course not. Where in my post do I suggest that?

I'm just baffled by the whole thing. A US soldier sees a child, and... shoots him/her? How is that incompetence? It doesn't take more than someone with a 5-yr old mentality to realize who's an adult and who's a child. I don't understand how our military could open fire on children. It's not incompetence. It's just pure f'ing evil.

[gratuitous]

138. No, but you keep asking for "proof"

And you have as much as said in other posts that the story of the attack on the wedding party could have been a fabrication. So I read the story, and the reporter talked about a woman whose kids were killed in the attack, and whose legs were broken when a bomb hit near her. I don't know why you didn't know that yourself, since the link to the article is still there. You've been making post after post on this thread -- haven't you read the article yet?

As for the soldiers being blind, the story says that the attacks happened in the middle of the night. You don't need to be blind not to see in the dark, or not to be able to distinguish that the figure moving around in the dark is a child rather than someone crouched over.

Why would they do it? I have no earthly idea; but then, I'm a pacifist, and believe that settling my differences with other people through violence is futile. But I sure have my ideas on why the military commanders would lie about it afterwards. Another thread has been started here in LBN, in which spokesmen for the military are now admitting that "a handful" of women (which means six) were killed at Mukaradeeb.

[PotatoBoy]

140. Soldiers ran around in total darkness?

Yes I've read the article, and I believe what it says. I'm not claiming it's fabricated at this point. Now I'm just wondering how our soldiers could shoot women and children.

I highly doubt the soldiers were running around in the darkness. I'm sure they had spotlights or night vision or something, to protect themselves. Maybe I'm wrong though... maybe there was no light except the moonlight, and soldiers shot women/children by accident. Doesn't make the situation any more justifiable, I know..but I'd rather think that the soldiers couldn't see, than know that a soldier knowingly shot kids. That's enough to make me ashamed of being associated with this country.

[gratuitous]

142. I shot right past ashamed about three weeks ago . . .

Anyway, the way I'm hearing it now is that the shooting of women and children was done from far away by jets or helicopters. I think this is the sort of situation Bill Maher was talking about when he got in so much trouble a couple of years ago. While killing someone is not an easy thing to do under any circumstance, pushing a button and having someone go "pop" half a mile away affords a certain psychic as well as physical distance from the act of killing.

[PotatoBoy]

143. As much as I hate to say it..

..i'm sure the missiles/bombs didn't target only women and children. There had to be some left for the foot soldiers.

Sad, sad shit..

[msmcghee]

146. Those night vision goggles make Arabs look . .

. . alike at night. They all wear robes and are just glowing images running around in the scope.

I suspect they were primed for a real shootout and thought they were doing a good job picking any survivors off in the dark before they could get organized to retaliate or escape.

It is sick and terrible what war brings. It's hard to imagine anyone in their right mind going to war when it was not necessary.

Perhaps, this war will turn everyone so much against the neocons and the RW that they'll disappear for many years and be afraid to show their faces. Although we in America will still bear the shame for many years because we allowed this to happen.

[AussieInCA]

136. incompetence or stereotyped 'hate' out of control..take your pick

either way it has been condemned as human rights violations. This just fuels the 'culture war' in the middle east. There are serious consequences for 'out of control' actions like this.

[ze_dscherman]

147. My ancestors killed many more women and children

... as you can guess by my nick. Only some were sadist killers, others just did not care. Still others obeyed orders, and some became to hate the enemy, because the enemy killed their friends and comrades. Things get even worse in a "partisan" environment when everybody could be the enemy. If you are an occupier, you are hated by the people. And then it takes little to hate them all, use overwhelming force, become trigger happy. Whatever you like. Yes, it also could be an "accident". You get some intelligence on "terrorists", you call in a gunship, people run out of the house, some of them armed (YES, Iraqis do legally own weapons), so you better shoot them first.

This may explain atrocities, but it won't absolve from guilt. Better stop denying that US soldiers did this.

[Frangible]

144. Very disturbing

There should be a full investigation into this.

[msmcghee]

145. Hey sirveri . .

. . good posts. People here get uppity about newbies - especially if they don't hate the right with enough fervor to believe everything bad that happens is their fault and we do no wrong.

But what you say is true. The truth will come out. And the more they lie now and refuse to admit their error and make any apology . . the more of a scandal it will be when the investigation is complete.

And the more the world will hate us. And the more every Muslim in the world will want to kill Americans any time, any place. And the less the press will trust them next time. And there will be a next time . . and a next time . . until we're gone from there.

When emotions are high it's good to be skeptical of all the stories. But it sure looks like the boys in Iraq stepped in it again - and with incredibly horrible results. But we'll know for sure pretty soon.

Hang in there.