U.S. fired on Iraqi wedding?

[billvon 3,090]

>My question...Whats your point?

Just answering pajarito, who didn't believe it was really a wedding because of foreign passports, money, satellite phones etc.

>It sounds to me that they did it right!!

If they killed a bunch of terrorists, I agree. If they killed a bunch of innocent people at a wedding, they fucked up. (And no, you can not spin the latter into the former after the fact.)

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Funny how a lot of right-wingers are so eager to keep their guns and so eager to disarm everyone else.

Hmmm. Diane Feinstein is a right-winger? I had no idea...

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

If they killed a bunch of innocent people at a wedding, they fucked up.

Fucked up? No way.

Bill, how can you suggest that? Soldiers in a war zone taking fire returned fire. How on earth can you say that they fucked up?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[kallend 2,118]

Quote

Quote

Funny how a lot of right-wingers are so eager to keep their guns and so eager to disarm everyone else.

Hmmm. Diane Feinstein is a right-winger? I had no idea...

Logical fallacy for reasons that are apparent to (almost) anyone.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mpsniper98 0]

we could blame them for not having the common sense to not fire weapons into the air at a time when doing so could get you killed.

NBFT

[Kennedy 0]

You're still assuming this was an innocent wedding party caught in the middle, rather than a group of militants who fired on approaching US forces. I see no reason to assume one over the other, and find that if I were forced to choose, I would go with militants over wedding.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Faber 0]

you know.. i never understanded why Arabs use guns at wedings,and i dont understand why you want to use your bullets like that under war conditions.

I dont know what happened but if soldiers are shot at, cant blame them to answer by firing back.

If you wear/use a weappon you must deal whith whith the concecuences

Garwin(please note this post which proves im not all against USA)

Stay safe
Stefan Faber

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Just answering pajarito, who didn't believe it was really a wedding because of foreign passports, money, satellite phones etc.

It could have very well been a wedding party. My point is that they use civilians as shields and, if they’re killed, as propaganda against us. The evidence indicates that more was going on there besides just a wedding party whether it was actual or just staged. There’s nothing new here. How do expect our guys to fight a war when the Iraqis/insurgents/terrorists are obviously firing from behind or in the midst of women and children? Do you really expect for our guys not to fight back if they’re being attacked by the enemy from say a mosque even if there might be civilians inside worshiping? If civilians were killed, the blood is on their hands, not ours. If our guys are shot at, they will shoot back and will be fully justified in doing so. This is the reality of war.

[Michele 1]

Did Joe and Jane, newly married, come out and say "you ruined our special day?" (yes, I'm being facetious, but still, an interesting question to me...)

Also, regarding the amount of money, while it may not be a lot to us, how much does it consitute in a translated percentage of annual salary for them?

And while I agree that saying "fuck them" is pretty dumb, the concept that if I am in a war zone, and I take an automatic weapon and fire it into the air (or even a revolver, those are dangerous too....), I think that not expecting to take fire is pretty dumb, too...

And yes, Dianne Feinstein is all for taking guns away from the populace, while she remains armed. And frankly, I find her far more dangerous than my neighbor with a gun.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[JackC 0]

Quote

I'm sorry but even if you're British and you're shooting at me, I'm going to shoot back. That automatically makes you the enemy unless you make it very clear otherwise.

We know.

http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6240658%255E1702,00.html

[kallend 2,118]

Quote

You're still assuming this was an innocent wedding party caught in the middle, rather than a group of militants who fired on approaching US forces. I see no reason to assume one over the other, and find that if I were forced to choose, I would go with militants over wedding.

Who is going to force you to choose?

How about just keeping quiet until the facts emerge.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Tonto 1]

Being shot at a wedding sucks...

Quote

Same way they manage to not shoot british troops, I suppose. By knowing who they are shooting at.

Umm.. In Gulf War part 1, the Brits lost more men to the US than they did to the Iraqi's.

The US always hits what they shoot at. Sometimes they just shoot at the wrong thing. Sometimes too often when compared to other contingents worldwide.

In Gulf War part 2, they put the US and UK in different sectors, so the freindly fire would be more friendly.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[kallend 2,118]

Quote

Being shot at a wedding sucks...

Quote

Same way they manage to not shoot british troops, I suppose. By knowing who they are shooting at.

Umm.. In Gulf War part 1, the Brits lost more men to the US than they did to the Iraqi's.

The US always hits what they shoot at. Sometimes they just shoot at the wrong thing. Sometimes too often when compared to other contingents worldwide.

In Gulf War part 2, they put the US and UK in different sectors, so the freindly fire would be more friendly.

t

More, but not completely:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2877349.stm

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm sorry but even if you're British and you're shooting at me, I'm going to shoot back. That automatically makes you the enemy unless you make it very clear otherwise.

We know.

http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6240658%255E1702,00.html

Nice article which takes my comment completely out of context, but friendly fire accidents happen on any side. Identification is crucial. What I'm talking about is if you are taking fire and identity cannot be determined. Especially in the case of the Iraqis. How do you think they were to distinguish? 3:00am local time and taking direct fire from a house? Nice try at a slam, though.

[Skyrad 0]

I saw the fotage of that attack and I saw no armed men in the crowd and no one wearing anything over their faces even. It was a BBC report and the man on the ground also said he saw no gunmen and no threat or reason why the attack should have happened.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I saw the fotage of that attack and I saw no armed men in the crowd and no one wearing anything over their faces even. It was a BBC report and the man on the ground also said he saw no gunmen and no threat or reason why the attack should have happened.

Shit......I guess that settles it then if the Iraqi/insurgent/terrorist (or whatever he was) on the ground says so and the "BBC" agrees. I guess there wasn't gunfire if you didn't see it on TV. If there wasn't anyone armed in the crowd, how could there have even been the "celebratory gun fire" that everybody claims? If that's what it was. Also, does their official uniform require that they have something covering their faces?

[Skyrad 0]

The event I was refering to if you follow the links took place in Palastine yesterday. To my knowledge there wasn't an Iraqi there but I supose its possible.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[pajarito 0]

Quote

The event I was refering to if you follow the links took place in Palastine yesterday. To my knowledge there wasn't an Iraqi there but I supose its possible.

My apologies. I thought we were talking about "U.S. fired on Iraqi Wedding." Maybe we should start a new thread concerning the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

[kiltboy 0]

Turns out the IFF transponder failed and the battery then identified it as an incoming threat.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/norfolk/3714251.stm

I believe this time round that US troops (small forward air control type groups) were deployed with the UK forces to assist with air strikes and this helped reduce the number of friendly fire incidents.

Some still happend unfortunately.

David

[falxori 0]

Quote

It was a BBC report and the man on the ground also said he saw no gunmen and no threat or reason why the attack should have happened.

it shouldn't have.
it was a sad mistake and there is no excuse for such errors.
there were armed people there and as always they were using innocent civilians as cover but they were not the target in this case.
as i said, it was a sad mistake and i can not justify it.

one other thing you should note regarding the numbers you mentioned.
at first, the palestinian version was a masacare of 25 people using gunships and tanks.
the actual figures (as reported by the red cross) were 6 dead (and one tank shell poorly aimed).
they have a history of inventing things to gain media support (remember the "massacare of jennin which turned out to be about 20-30 melitia men?)

O

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[Skyrad 0]

I remember Sabra and Shateela.

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/faq/Sabra.asp

Israel is a perpetrator of State terrorism and founded on terrorism.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[falxori 0]

this article is trying to compare this to 9/11 ?!?
hmmm ok...

Quote

In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon and killed between 2000 and 3500 innocent civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps

lets start with the BASIC fact that this is wrong...
there was not even a single israeli soldier in these camps.
what happened there was that a christian militant group (that was supported by israel too), used the mess there to "settle the acount" with the muslims.

what Ariel sharon was accused of is not the massacare itself, but not forseeing that based on the hate existing between the chrisitan and the muslim factions, such a thing could happen.

Quote

At time of writing (late January 2002) these issues are finally coming before a court in Belgium

one last thing, this case was thrown out of the court in belgium.
the charges were made based on a belgique law that allows them to put anything on trial there...
later it was changed.
too bad, maybe they should start with some of the "nice" things belgium has done in places like Kongo

Quote

Israel is a perpetrator of State terrorism and founded on terrorism

whatever...

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[Skyrad 0]

Yea yea heard you the first time

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Israel is a perpetrator of State terrorism and founded on terrorism

whatever...

[falxori 0]

Quote

Israel was founded on terrorism.

Israel was founded based on a U.N resolution from november 27th 1947.
a resolution that was to divide the land to two states.
a resolution that was accepted by the israeli part but was refused by the arab parts.
the arabs started the war in 1948, and they've lost.
some chose to flee and some chose to stay, and those are the 20% of israeli citizens who are arabs.

if you attack me and end up in the hospital, you can only blame yourself.

and as for your "terror groups" , yes there were armed groups that had two goals, to protect and to attack back when needed.
some of them also wanted to remove the british control over this land (talk about occupation...)

you can call them terror groups although they didnt target civilians.
the difference is that they knew when to stop and take a new road. the palestinans, headed by Arafat, didn't.

anyway, believe what you want, i hope you'll never have to face the dillema we're facing...

O

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."