Wedding party massacre in Iraq (merged)

[segovius]

A US helicopter has opened fire on a wedding party in a remote area of Iraq according to reports in The Guardian Newspaper (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1220440,00.html).

42 - 45 people were killed - including 15 children and 10 women.


Dr Salah al-Ani, who works at a hospital in Ramad, put the death toll at 45. The US military said it had no reports of such an incident.

Dr Ani said people at the wedding were firing weapons in the air, and that American troops came to investigate and then left. But, later on, helicopters attacked the area. US troops took the bodies and those injured in a truck to Rutba hospital, he added.

AP Television obtained videotape showing a truck containing the bodies of people who were allegedly killed in the incident. Most of the bodies were wrapped in blankets and other cloths, but the footage showed at least eight uncovered, bloody bodies, several of them children. One of the children was headless.

Iraqis interviewed on the videotape said partygoers were firing in the air in traditional wedding celebration.

One man on the tape, who refused to give his name, insisted that the victims were attending a wedding party "and the US military planes came ... and started killing everyone in the house".

Another good day for democracy in Palestine and Iraq :no:

[rageous]

I think I'll wait for a bit more info before declaring it a massacre. That's an awful lot of people still up partying at 3am if you ask me. Not unheard of, but...

[pfflam]

I don't know who to trust: the video images of dead women and children and 'witnesses' that say that American planes repeatedly shot an entire wedding party, or, the American military which says that they succeeded in getting armed insurgents.

It has become increasngly difficult to trust anything that the military says these days, after all it was the very day that an official denied any abuse under oath that the pictures of abuse surfaced . . . and the figures including the dead-in-prison . . . besides the apparent distortion of facts and information that preceeded this whole war

But then again, maybe these people were armed insurgents . . . or rather sergents (as they are from Iraq and are not goin 'in' anywhere they aren't allready in)

One thing that strikes me is a suspicion that wedding parties in that part of the world are often accompanied by gun-fire . . . . am I right about that?

article HERE (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40848-2004May19.html)

[pfflam]

please merge me with previouse thread!

[edit by BuonRotto]

Done.

[mattjohndrow]

goddammit, this sucks, children? jesus christ guys, get it together, seriously, children? AHH, that sucks!

[sammi jo]

The Pentagon of course is denying it, predictably. We don't do that kind of stuff, do we now? :rolleyes:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/19/iraq.main/index.html

The deaths of a bunch of Iraqi kids could seen as something like "well, they were probably going to grow up to become terrorists anyway, so may as well kill them in order to save them".

Just trying to imagine what goes on in the minds of the Centcom general, although its very, very hard to .

[mattjohndrow]

just remember, if the opposite of "pro" is "con", what's the opposite of "progress"???
;)

[Rick1138]

I love this quote:

In Washington, the chief of U.S. forces in the Middle East told a Senate panel Wednesday there was no pattern of prisoner abuse by American troops.


How can anyone believe anything the government says after reading nonsense such as this?

[segovius]

Originally posted by pfflam
One thing that strikes me is a suspicion that wedding parties in that part of the world are often accompanied by gun-fire . . . . am I right about that?

Wedding parties are very often accompanied by gunfire and the US know this. It is a tradition dating back to I don't know when.

I 've lived in various places in the ME and reports of deaths at weddings are extremely common (monthly) - people continually fire into the air at certain points and sometimes the bullets kill people on the return trip. I remember one terrible case in Jordan 10 years ago where the bride died.

And it's not so much 3am partying rageous it's the norm for weddings outside cities to last for several days to a week.

[Whisper]

Originally posted by Rick1138
How can anyone believe anything the government says after reading nonsense such as this? So you're say there is a pattern to the abuse? Good, that makes it easier to stop. If there was no pattern, we'd have to enforce our laws 24/7, but since the abuse is occurring in a pattern, we only have to enforce the law on Mondays and Wednesdays from 3PM-5PM (or whatever the pattern happens to be).

[Artman @_@]

Well, the "awe" is gone (if there ever was any)...it just one "shock" after the other...

That's it for me. I don't care anymore. They can all keep killing each other until there is nothing and no one left to fight for.

It won't matter who gets into office in November...the hate has been instilled for many, many years to come.

Gomer's Army and X-treme Muslims...Sharon's Goon Squad and the Palestinian Boom Squad...Hope they all bomb and shoot each other straight to Hell.

This all's gotten to be redundantly stupid and sickening.

As for the administrators, leaders and generals involved in this whole fiasco...

MISSION FAILED.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40174000/jpg/_40174203_graner_ap_203body.jpg

Awesome job dude...

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40174000/jpg/_40174233_abuse_ap_203body.jpg

You too babe...

Keep up the good work... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3731081.stm)

:mad:

/rantovergoingtobednowanddreambettershit

[segovius]

Originally posted by Artman @_@
Gomer's Army and X-treme Muslims...Sharon's Goon Squad and the Palestinian Boom Squad...Hope they all bomb and shoot each other straight to Hell.

You forgot wedding guests, prisoners held without rights, children and protestors on that list....

yeah - hope they really *** each other up :no:

[7E7]

Originally posted by pfflam
I don't know who to trust: the video images of dead women and children and 'witnesses' that say that American planes repeatedly shot an entire wedding party, or, the American military which says that they succeeded in getting armed insurgents.

It has become increasngly difficult to trust anything that the military says these days, after all it was the very day that an official denied any abuse under oath that the pictures of abuse surfaced . . . and the figures including the dead-in-prison . . . besides the apparent distortion of facts and information that preceeded this whole war

But then again, maybe these people were armed insurgents . . . or rather sergents (as they are from Iraq and are not goin 'in' anywhere they aren't allready in)

One thing that strikes me is a suspicion that wedding parties in that part of the world are often accompanied by gun-fire . . . . am I right about that?

article HERE (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40848-2004May19.html)

It still amazes me that none of you guys believe that outsiders have come into Iraq to stir up trouble. And these people have managed to kill a large number of Iraqis in the process as well. That is a fact and it is not disputed by anybody except by the far left who have consistently opposed and will oppose this war no matter what the facts may be.

Why don't we wait and see if this story is actually true? The fact is the U.S. military has not covered up the prison abuse story - they are investigating it and people are being held accountable. I am not going to say this incident did not happen but whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? There are a lot of people on this forum that are awfully quick to judge others before the facts are in and I think that is wrong. The U.S. military has come across an artillery shell containing sarin and they also have found mustard gas as well. These are without question WMD - which all these people here say did not exist. Now that they are found all I hear is "it is just one shell." How do we know that? There are tons of these weapons that have never been accounted for in Iraq's weapons declarations and I think it is wrong for all of you to claim they don't exist and this somehow is the only one. If this thing had been used properly it could have killed over a thousand people. Do you not think this is serious enough to warrant a second look at the whole WMD question? Are you all absolutely sure that the weapons were not sent to Syria just before the war started? Would you bet your life on it? Iraq is a big country and I think people are naive to think that everything was supposed to be just ducky barely one year into this thing. Nobody ever said it was going to be easy. Mistakes have been made and I think people have owned up to them and adjustments are being made as time goes on. Not everything in life is about instant gratification. If we stay the course there is a every chance our efforts will be rewarded.

[Harald]

Originally posted by 7E7
If this thing had been used properly it could have killed over a thousand people.

No, you are wrong. Wrong. Incorrect. Mistaken.

It is a pre-1991 shell. Already crap sarin has degraded to the point where it is now next to useless.

The US Army and UN think it was a forgotten / lost shell, possibly scavenged from an arms dump (and do you think that that arms dump has not been inspected?).

This shell wasn't killing anyone unless they drank the damn stuff.

Worth going to war over?

[segovius]

Originally posted by 7E7
It still amazes me that none of you guys believe that outsiders have come into Iraq to stir up trouble. And these people have managed to kill a large number of Iraqis in the process as well. That is a fact and it is not disputed by anybody except by the far left who have consistently opposed and will oppose this war no matter what the facts may be.

They haven't come to 'stir up trouble' - they have been able to come because the situation is fubar.

Of course 'terrorists' when chased out of Saudi, Turkey, Pakistan and Afghanistan would want to go somewhere. The fact that they are actually ABLE to go to Iraq is yet more stunning evidence of the incompetence of the US in dealing with the situation and the total bs nature of the so-called WOT.

And they have an agenda. You may not like or support it but the rationale that it is to 'cause trouble' is inane, reductionist, Bush-esque and at best, an example of proto-adult pre-rational modalities of thought that are appropriate perhaps to the school playground but have no place on the world political stage despite being all Bush can bring to the table.

You are right that some will oppose the war whatever though. I am one of them. There is no word for what Bush's ideology is yet, just as there was no word for Fascism or Communism before they manifested themselves, but I'm not waiting for Armageddon to hear the wingers say 'maybe we made a mistake somewhere' (except they wouldn't even then but you get the picture).

Why don't we wait and see if this story is actually true? The fact is the U.S. military has not covered up the prison abuse story - they are investigating it and people are being held accountable.

Because a whistle got blown on the play. No other reason.

I am not going to say this incident did not happen but whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Bush repealed it for non-Americans. Let's talk about that first or we'll just accept it as universally applicable.

These are without question WMD - which all these people here say did not exist.

No-one said they did not exist. They were undeniably present during the Iran/Iraq war for example.

The issue was about whether SH had an ongoing program and/or stocklpiles of WMD, whether if this was not the case an invasion was justified and why the US and UK lied about situation in the run-up to war.

The solitary shell has no bearing on these issues. If it did Bush himself would be donning the flight suit and scheduling a few appearances. When (if) it's ever for real it'll be a slightly bigger deal than a discussion on AO. Trust me on that.

Are you all absolutely sure that the weapons were not sent to Syria just before the war started? Would you bet your life on it? Iraq is a big country and I think people are naive to think that everything was supposed to be just ducky barely one year into this thing. Nobody ever said it was going to be easy. Mistakes have been made and I think people have owned up to them and adjustments are being made as time goes on. Not everything in life is about instant gratification. If we stay the course there is a every chance our efforts will be rewarded.

Betting one's life for something Bush claims is silly. Ask the troops in Iraq. So, no I wouldn't.

Re Syria though: Syria is next on the list - always has been. You'd be seeing tortured Syrians and dead Syrian children already as well as Iraqis if Bush hadn't ***ed up Iraq so badly. They need a pretext and I guess WMD kills a few birds with one stone. I wouldn't be surprised in a way if they go in before the election if they think they're absolutely going to lose. More likely March when they win. And Bush will win.

If you know about Arab politics in the region though answer me a few questions:

After the Ba'ath schism between Saddam's faction and Asad's (broadly speaking) - was there any political rapprochemnet between the two parties who always hated each other for reasons I'm sure you are aware of ?

If not then who exactly would be responsible for sending and accepting the weapons ?

Did SH send them ? Surely only he could.

But then who did he send them to ? The Syrian government ? That is tricky - the two are enemies.

The 'terrorists' ? Well, SH was imprisoning and torturing the same people the US are - so I guess that's not too likely really.

And of course Syria have there own WOT - the Hama massacre killed 10,000 people in a crackdown on Islamists - the same ones that are on US terrorists lists and the US are killing in Afghanistan and Iraq now.

Doesn't add up really - but that won't stop another war. Won't stop more deaths of people just like you and me who only want to live their lives.

No offence, but you need to get informed - they're playing you like a violin.

[New]

Sickening, just sickening...

Now officialy condemned by the Red Cross. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1112555.htm)

[costique]

Originally posted by segovius
Of course 'terrorists' when chased out of Saudi, Turkey, Pakistan and Afghanistan would want to go somewhere. The fact that they are actually ABLE to go to Iraq is yet more stunning evidence of the incompetence of the US in dealing with the situation and the total bs nature of the so-called WOT.Yes. The self-same thing happened in Chechnya not too long ago to be forgotten.
The issue was about whether SH had an ongoing program and/or stocklpiles of WMD, whether if this was not the case an invasion was justified and why the US and UK lied about situation in the run-up to war.Precisely.
but that won't stop another war. Won't stop more deaths of people just like you and me who only want to live their lives.War without casualties and innocent victims exists only in the crippled minds of military theorists. Like it or not, those who intentionally kill other people are not humans any more; they just don't have the right to call themselves humans. Point. War is the worst thing ever conceived. No exceptions.

Everybody knows where terrorists come from, but many deny it. Who are those ready to blow themselves up only to kill somebody else? What does 'shakhid' mean? The word means a martyr who offered the life for the sake of the sacred purposes defined by Islamic law. Why sacred? Revenge. What revenge? Now we get to the point many of us ignore.

Put yourself on the other side: poverty, hunger, dictatorship, ignorance and whatever else considered negative are all around. They are in such abundance that you just have nothing to lose except your miserable life, if the latter's still the right term. You are living in hell. The only way out is to die because there's a chance to get to paradise. But what do you see? There are other countries so rich that people there spend fortunes on crack and prostitutes, on drinks and auctions, on Oscars and space ships, on war and holidays. And they think it's not enough. They send armies one by one to your country, bomb your cities, imprison your authorities and <gasp> even rape your neighbours.

These are the actual reasons of their hatred towards our so-called civilized world. Rather sooner than later this loathing extends to all people living better (Communist terrorism) or to all people living in the offending part of the world (Islamic terrorism). And you cannot fight revenge-driven terrorism with military actions. As you cannot fight envy with playing a miser.

If war is the course, there is no way out simply because there is no end to it except when we all are dead.

[anand]

This mess just seems to be getting worse and worse. What can we do? How can we get out of it? Vietnam seems to have worked itself out, will Iraq?

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by anand
Vietnam seems to have worked itself outTell that to this kid...

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/040204/040203_agentOrange_hmed_10a.hmedium.jpg

(story here (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4161101))

[anand]

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Tell that to this kid...

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/040204/040203_agentOrange_hmed_10a.hmedium.jpg

(story here (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4161101))

Well, on a personal level, there will always be horror. Heck, tell the kid that had his entire family killed and his arms and legs blown off in IRAQ that he is better off now that Saddam is gone.

My question remains, and I don't know the answer, what the heck do we do?

ps. Politically, Vietnam worked itself out, no?

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by anand
My question remains, and I don't know the answer, what the heck do we do? I don't know either...I hope someone does.

ps. Politically, Vietnam worked itself out, no? Well, the political relationship between the US and Vietnam is much better now than could have been anticipated at the time, but it's been a while since the war. I guess most things in the political realm work out - one way or another - in the end. Minimizing the human cost is the difficult part.

[anand]

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
I don't know either...I hope someone does.

Well, the political relationship between the US and Vietnam is much better now than could have been anticipated at the time, but it's been a while since the war. I guess most things in the political realm work out - one way or another - in the end. Minimizing the human cost is the difficult part.

All politics aside, I wish to God that G.W.B would have known. I really, really do.

[bunge]

Originally posted by anand
Heck, tell the kid that had his entire family killed and his arms and legs blown off in IRAQ that he is better off now that Saddam is gone.

Why tell him that? The important thing is that his country is better off now, not any individual.

[anand]

Originally posted by bunge
Why tell him that? The important thing is that his country is better off now, not any individual.

That's a hard concept to make to a 7 year old boy. Heck, soon most adults in Iraq won't even believe it.

[msantti]

Got a 1 way ticket to Iraq for the 1st person who wants it.

Surely there are some that want to leave the bad bad US of A.

[bunge]

Originally posted by msantti
Got a 1 way ticket to Iraq for the 1st person who wants it.

Surely there are some that want to leave the bad bad US of A.

You're sending the wrong people. Why don't those that are so happy we're there go? Those that love the freedom we've given to Iraq so much they can't live without it?

Believing in "Love it or leave it" is a sign that you don't even know what the US of A really is. Go enjoy Iraq.

[segovius]

Originally posted by bunge
You're sending the wrong people. Why don't those that are so happy we're there go? Those that love the freedom we've given to Iraq so much they can't live without it?

Believing in "Love it or leave it" is a sign that you don't even know what the US of A really is. Go enjoy Iraq.

yes, it's a ludicrous argument when used by wingers and one that undermines any small iota of logic their position might have held:

1) The right's argument is that Iraq is a success or getting there (it surely isn't that is an ignominious failure ?? That's for us commies)

2) Therefore it should be a pleasure and a privilege to go.

3) Except that this argument is based on the premise that it is so bad you wouldn't want to go - fubar in fact.

So basically 'facts' are altered depending on the target or the point that needs to be made.

Iraq is bad - Iraq is a success - WMD can get here in 45 minutes - Zaqarwi is a badman - no, no, no it's Saddam......

Newspeak.

[msantti]

Believing in "Love it or leave it" is a sign that you don't even know what the US of A really is. Go enjoy Iraq

I have fought for this country.

How dare you question my patriotism.

[bunge]

Originally posted by msantti
I have fought for this country.

How dare you question my patriotism.

:lol:

So have all those men and women beating people up in prison, or (allegedly) blowing up wedding parties. Take your hubris elsewhere, it rots the core of the US of A.

Let's make one thing clear. No single job, task or accomplishment makes one person a greater authority over anyone else on freedom, patriotism or love of the United States of America. If you believe you're superior because you did in fact fight for this country then you are in fact inferior.

[ericg]

Originally posted by msantti
I have fought for this country.

How dare you question my patriotism.


Fighting is one thing dying another... maybe it's time for the ultimate sacrifice

That would be the Ueber patriotic thing to do.. ne pas???

;)

[segovius]

t 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.

"The bombing started at 3am," she said yesterday from her bed in the emergency ward at Ramadi general hospital, 60 miles west of Baghdad. "We went out of the house and the American soldiers started to shoot us. They were shooting low on the ground and targeting us one by one," she said.

She ran with her youngest child in her arms and her two young boys, Ali and Hamza, close behind. As she crossed the fields a shell exploded close to her, fracturing her legs and knocking her to the ground.

She lay there and a second round hit her on the right arm. By then her two boys lay dead. "I left them because they were dead," she said. One, she saw, had been decapitated by a shell.

"I fell into the mud and an American soldier came and kicked me. I pretended to be dead so he wouldn't kill me. My youngest child was alive next to me."

As Mrs Shihab spoke she gestured with hands still daubed red-brown with the henna the women had used to decorate themselves for the wedding. Alongside her in the ward yesterday were three badly injured girls from the Rakat family: Khalood Mohammed, aged just a year and struggling for breath, Moaza Rakat, 12, and Iqbal Rakat, 15, whose right foot doctors had already amputated.

-----------------

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."

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

[staphbaby]

Originally posted by segovius
Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1221658,00.html)

Is it just me, or do incidents like this remind you a bit of the My Lai massacre in the Vietnam war (obviously not on the same scale though)?

Mind you, the American army has a history of bombing wedding parties — they did this in Afghanistan too (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2079565.stm)

edit: hmm… apparently it's even occurred to Powell (http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=31119)

[pfflam]

Also quite telling in that interview with Powell is his statement that Iraq was a concern from teh beginning of the administration:Powell said it was both. "We could have chosen not to go to war, but the president took a hard look at this situation from the beginning of the administration," he said.

"The president was concerned about Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the weapons of mass destruction that we believed were there -- and not only the weapons being there but the intention to have and use such weapons and the infrastructure that developed such weapons."--none of which existed!!! [my insert] I had just heard an author who wrote a book blaming the Clinton admin for everything with terrorism and he emphatically said that Iraq was not a major concern before 911 . . . . (and he also just happens to be good friends with Anne Coulter :no: )

Anyway, this is the way that strategic thinkers disempower a criticism, leak it out slowly and innocouolsy untill people think it was always common knowledge that Bush was obseessed with Iraq even before 911 then turn the liability into an asset.

[7E7]

Originally posted by segovius
They haven't come to 'stir up trouble' - they have been able to come because the situation is fubar.

Of course 'terrorists' when chased out of Saudi, Turkey, Pakistan and Afghanistan would want to go somewhere. The fact that they are actually ABLE to go to Iraq is yet more stunning evidence of the incompetence of the US in dealing with the situation and the total bs nature of the so-called WOT.

And they have an agenda. You may not like or support it but the rationale that it is to 'cause trouble' is inane, reductionist, Bush-esque and at best, an example of proto-adult pre-rational modalities of thought that are appropriate perhaps to the school playground but have no place on the world political stage despite being all Bush can bring to the table.

You are right that some will oppose the war whatever though. I am one of them. There is no word for what Bush's ideology is yet, just as there was no word for Fascism or Communism before they manifested themselves, but I'm not waiting for Armageddon to hear the wingers say 'maybe we made a mistake somewhere' (except they wouldn't even then but you get the picture).



Because a whistle got blown on the play. No other reason.



Bush repealed it for non-Americans. Let's talk about that first or we'll just accept it as universally applicable.



No-one said they did not exist. They were undeniably present during the Iran/Iraq war for example.

The issue was about whether SH had an ongoing program and/or stocklpiles of WMD, whether if this was not the case an invasion was justified and why the US and UK lied about situation in the run-up to war.

The solitary shell has no bearing on these issues. If it did Bush himself would be donning the flight suit and scheduling a few appearances. When (if) it's ever for real it'll be a slightly bigger deal than a discussion on AO. Trust me on that.



Betting one's life for something Bush claims is silly. Ask the troops in Iraq. So, no I wouldn't.

Re Syria though: Syria is next on the list - always has been. You'd be seeing tortured Syrians and dead Syrian children already as well as Iraqis if Bush hadn't ***ed up Iraq so badly. They need a pretext and I guess WMD kills a few birds with one stone. I wouldn't be surprised in a way if they go in before the election if they think they're absolutely going to lose. More likely March when they win. And Bush will win.

If you know about Arab politics in the region though answer me a few questions:

After the Ba'ath schism between Saddam's faction and Asad's (broadly speaking) - was there any political rapprochemnet between the two parties who always hated each other for reasons I'm sure you are aware of ?

If not then who exactly would be responsible for sending and accepting the weapons ?

Did SH send them ? Surely only he could.

But then who did he send them to ? The Syrian government ? That is tricky - the two are enemies.

The 'terrorists' ? Well, SH was imprisoning and torturing the same people the US are - so I guess that's not too likely really.

And of course Syria have there own WOT - the Hama massacre killed 10,000 people in a crackdown on Islamists - the same ones that are on US terrorists lists and the US are killing in Afghanistan and Iraq now.

Doesn't add up really - but that won't stop another war. Won't stop more deaths of people just like you and me who only want to live their lives.

No offence, but you need to get informed - they're playing you like a violin.

What a bunch of crap! You dismiss out of hand a very credible theory that the weapons were sent to Syria on the premise that Saddam Hussein did not get along with Assad. Then why did Iraq fly scores of combat aircraft to Iran before and during the first Gulf War? I seem to recall a small war between those two countries that lasted the better part of TEN YEARS that killed hundreds of thousands of people on both sides. One would have thought that there would have been a fair degree of bad blood between those two nations and that would not have seemed to have been a likely course of action. The truth is a lot of people have made assumptions about Saddam Hussein and quite often they have been wrong. His lack of predicatbility made him the most disruptive influence in the entire region. It is good that he is gone for precisely that reason.

Your lack of knowledge on this issue is laughable. It is you that needs to get informed about the Middle East and the issues at hand - not me. I lived in that region and I know the politics in that part of the world. Getting informed is not about drinking the Kool-Aid from the liberal trough.

The war on terror has wiped out scores of Al Qaeda terrorists and their leadership and it has made their planning of future operations very difficult. For that we are safer and any notion to the contrary flies in the face of the facts. AQ has turned their attention to Iraq in an effort to break our influence in the region because they are well aware that if we are successful it will be the beginning of the end for them as a credible organization among hard-line Islamists. It is failing and it will fail despite the difficulties we are facing their at the moment. The President never said this would be easy and any notion to the contrary only is coming from people who weren't paying attention. This is a long term operation and success will be judged years from now. We are little more than one year into this deal and it is far too complex to think that it would be wrapped up in such a short period of time. Bush has said along the WOT would last far beyond his tenure and success will be measured many years from now. All this hysteria about Bush and his alleged disregard for human rights is bunk. FDR locked up over 100,000 Japanese-AMERICANS just because they looked like the people we were fighting. I don't see that kind of abuse of power happening today.

If the media actually covered the whole story about what is going on in Iraq more people would realize that the situation is not as dire as they are trying to make it out to be. They are the ones who have the agenda - the truth be damned as long as they can get John Kerry into the White House.

[bunge]

Originally posted by 7E7
The war on terror has wiped out scores of Al Qaeda terrorists and their leadership and it has made their planning of future operations very difficult. For that we are safer and any notion to the contrary flies in the face of the facts. AQ has turned their attention to Iraq in an effort to break our influence in the region because they are well aware that if we are successful it will be the beginning of the end for them as a credible organization among hard-line Islamists. It is failing and it will fail despite the difficulties we are facing their at the moment. The President never said this would be easy and any notion to the contrary only is coming from people who weren't paying attention. This is a long term operation and success will be judged years from now. We are little more than one year into this deal and it is far too complex to think that it would be wrapped up in such a short period of time. Bush has said along the WOT would last far beyond his tenure and success will be measured many years from now. All this hysteria about Bush and his alleged disregard for human rights is bunk. FDR locked up over 100,000 Japanese-AMERICANS just because they looked like the people we were fighting. I don't see that kind of abuse of power happening today.

I haven't had this much of a laugh out of an AO post since the last time Scott posted!

You're rambling off topic. There's nothing in this post that is relevant to the thread topic. Even if we've defeated 'AQ', we still can't bomb wedding parties.

[pierr_alex]

Based on their passed experiences (Algeria - where Chirac fought by the way), the French told you (well, they told GWB & Buddies) not to go there (in Iraq). They said that it would become a ("the" so-called) "Quagmire" and that (that is the worst part of the story) it would give birth to the guys who will eventually crash another plane (or worst ???) on the WTC future replacement (or anything else sooner or later). Why not in Paris by the way ??? Western culture is the enemy it seems...

With this in hands, GWB decided (against the whole world opinion opposition - That means NO support from anywhere) to invade Iraq, with the false pretext of the possible presence of WMD. Immediately after the country (suddenly opened) became a new playground for extremists of all tendencies.

A few tortured persons after, dead wedded couples, the US are now in a real tactical and political QUAGMIRE. Sad but true.

So what do we do now...? My opinion is that the battle (you know... hearts and minds) is lost since day... 3. It IS lost. FOREVER !!! (And this implies the demise of GWB - I'm sorry for his supporters if there are any). We now have to think about how to leave this country without leaving it in the hands of extremists — the Real enemies...

Lets now talk about the possible strategies for an intelligent escape...

[7E7]

Originally posted by bunge
I haven't had this much of a laugh out of an AO post since the last time Scott posted!

You're rambling off topic. There's nothing in this post that is relevant to the thread topic. Even if we've defeated 'AQ', we still can't bomb wedding parties.

I think what exactly was bombed has not been factually determined as of yet. Were you there?

[segovius]

Originally posted by 7E7
I think what exactly was bombed has not been factually determined as of yet. Were you there?

Have you circumnavigated the globe ever ?

Been to the moon ?

'Factually determined' = excused, justified, fed in appropriate form to the sheep so they can regurgitate later and then filed in locked drawer whilst next atrocity is planned/executed.

[bunge]

Originally posted by 7E7
I think what exactly was bombed has not been factually determined as of yet. Were you there?

This thread is based on the premise that the US of A bombed a wedding party. That's the fantasy we all have to believe when we're posting in this thread until someone can post conclusive evidence to the contrary. When that happens we all say 'great' and heave a collective sigh. Until then, that is the basis for our discussion here.

And no matter what, it's never legitimate to attack individuals with tank fire.

[pfflam]

Video shows Carnage (http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/05/21/desert_bombing/index.html)
from the article:agments of musical instruments, tufts of women's hair, and a large blood stain are among the scenes "There were a number of woman, a handful of women, I think the number was four to six, caught up in the engagement. They may have died from some of the fire that came from the aircraft," Kimmitt said.

But an Associated Press reporter in the Ramadi area, at least 275 miles east of Mogr el-Deeb, was able to identify at least 10 of the bodies as those of children.

At the Bou Fahad cemetery outside Ramadi, where the tribe is based, each of the 28 fresh graves contain one to three corpses, mostly of mothers and their young children.

Relatives said they include those of 2-year-old Kholood and 1-year-old Anoud, daughters of Amal Rikad, who was killed; of 2-year-old Raad and 1-year-old Ra'ed -- whose headless body was found near his house -- sons of Fatima Madhi, who was killed; of Saad, 10, Faisal, 7, Anoud, 6, Fasila, 5, Kholood, 4, and Inad, 3 -- children of Mohammed and Morifa Rikad, who were killed. termine if those victims were already accounted for by relatives.

Bou Fahad tribesmen denied there were foreign fighters among their community. They consider the desolate border area part of their territory and follow their goats, sheep and cattle there to graze. In the springtime they leave spacious homes in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, and roam the desert.

Smuggling livestock into Syria is also part of a herdsman's life, although no one in the tribe acknowledged that.

Weddings are often marked in Iraq with celebratory gunfire, but survivors insisted no weapons were fired Wednesday -- despite speculation by Iraqi officials that this drew a mistaken American attack.

The first bomb hit the huge goat-hair tent -- where male guests were said to be sleeping -- at about 2:45 a.m. Wednesday. The barrage didn't stop until sunrise, witnesses said. Women and children were in an adjacent one-story house and the men went to their nearby homes, they said.

After the first missile, Hamdan Khalaf ran in panic and hid in a grassy area.
"In the morning, we went back to the hill and saw people torn apart, attacked by the plane," Khalaf, who was not wounded, told APTN Thursday.

"We pulled them out of here," another man told APTN, standing on a pile of stones as he picked up a stained green cloth that looked like part of a young man's shirt. A severed arm lay in the rubble. "We took them to hospital -- straight to the fridge," the unidentified man said.

An angry voice in the background of the tape denounced President Bush. "This is his terrorism," the voice said.

The body of what survivors said was the wedding's cameraman was pulled out of the debris Thursday.

The footage also showed women in colorful clothes sifting through the wreckage and carrying away blankets and other goods. Pieces of rockets and bullet casings were strewn across the sandy plain, as were pots and pans and a satellite dish. Partly charred pickup trucks and a water tanker stood in the desert.

The attack left few survivors. About a dozen wounded were taken to the town of Qaem, about 140 miles northwest of Ramadi and 130 miles north of Mogr el-Deeb.

Witnesses, interviewed Thursday by AP in Ramadi, said revelers at the wedding party began worrying when they heard aircraft overhead at about 9 p.m. Tuesday. Then came military vehicles, which stopped about two miles away from the village and switched off their headlights. The planes were still overhead at 11 p.m, so the hosts told the band to stop playing and everyone went to bed.

About four hours later, airstrikes began and continued until dawn when two helicopters landed and about 40 soldiers searched the house where the women had stayed and a second, vacant house. Soon after, the two houses were blown up. Some witnesses said the houses were attacked by helicopters; others said Americans detonated them with explosives.

Kimmitt confirmed that the operation was an air and ground assault. "Those people on the ground identified no children as part of that location that were killed," he said, adding that they reported only adult deaths.

He also referred to the APTN video and separate APTN footage from Wednesday in Ramadi that showed a headless body of a child and other bodies of children.

"What we saw in those APTN videos were substantially inconsistent with the reports we received from the unit that conducted the operation," Kimmit said. "We're now trying to figure out why there's an inconsistency.

"We're keeping an open mind as to exactly what happened on the ground. That's why we're continuing to try to gather all the facts; that's why we're not ruling out anything based on information coming forward," he added. Kimmit is relying on "reports from the field" by soldiers who may very well have killed a whole bunch of innocent people . . I would almost expect them to cover up their horrible gaff before they get on with living with such a horrible tragedy for the rest of their lives.

[bunge]

Originally posted by pfflam
Kimmit is relying on "reports from the field" by soldiers who may very well have killed a whole bunch of innocent people . . I would almost expect them to cover up their horrible gaff before they get on with living with such a horrible tragedy for the rest of their lives.

That's seriously fucked up. Someone screwed up really badly and should probably pay dearly for their mistake. How could an attack last 3 hours if there's no return fire?

[7E7]

Originally posted by pfflam
Video shows Carnage (http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/05/21/desert_bombing/index.html)
from the article: Kimmit is relying on "reports from the field" by soldiers who may very well have killed a whole bunch of innocent people . . I would almost expect them to cover up their horrible gaff before they get on with living with such a horrible tragedy for the rest of their lives.

I guess the thing I find a bit frustrating is how in depth these reports are when there are accusations that our forces made a mistake. But when our people are murdered and dragged through the streets relatively little is said. I watch the news and all I get is "two U.S. soldiers were killed today in a roadside bomb attack. But back to our top story. Newly released photos show yet more shocking images of U.S. prison guards humiliating Iraqi detainees at Abu Gharib prison outside Baghdad. Have you ever seen anything more disturbing and shocking?"

Sometimes I am left with the impression that we somehow deserve what we are getting when our guys are killed. The deaths of our people who are serving our nation are not seen ny the media as being as valuable as others who have suffered.

[staphbaby]

Originally posted by 7E7
Sometimes I am left with the impression that we somehow deserve what we are getting when our guys are killed. The deaths of our people who are serving our nation are not seen ny the media as being as valuable as others who have suffered.

You don't think that's because soldiers make an informed choice to join the armed forces and act out the foreign policy of their nation (good or bad) at the risk of their lives, whereas civilians get stomped through circumstances beyond their control (and in this case, arising from a pretty serious violation of International Law combined with apparently rather irresponsible rules of engagement)?

Seriously, I think there's a real distinction to be drawn between torturing and killing those who cannot protect themselves (e.g. prisoners), and killing innocents (e.g. civilians) and killing heavily armed voluntarily-enlisted soldiers in a combat situation.

edit: oh yeah, and because civilian casualties invariably hugely outweigh casualties of combatants.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by 7E7
I guess the thing I find a bit frustrating is how in depth these reports are when there are accusations that our forces made a mistake. But when our people are murdered and dragged through the streets relatively little is said. I watch the news and all I get is "two U.S. soldiers were killed today in a roadside bomb attack. But back to our top story. Newly released photos show yet more shocking images of U.S. prison guards humiliating Iraqi detainees at Abu Gharib prison outside Baghdad. Have you ever seen anything more disturbing and shocking?"

Sometimes I am left with the impression that we somehow deserve what we are getting when our guys are killed. The deaths of our people who are serving our nation are not seen ny the media as being as valuable as others who have suffered. Your clever little attempt at reversal hinges on one thing: it assumes that we aren't outraged and completely angered everytime another US soldier is killed!!!!

I am! . . . every time! and saddened and horrified.

In fact, I have to wonder about your lack of real outrage? The lack of real questioning as to why we are sending our brave young men and women into utter chaos and insecurity. Why we were told one thing when another, as of yet un-mentioned reason is the real motivation for invading a relatively stable, albiet tyranical, country.

And as far as the abuse: we are Americans, we are supposed to have standards that the rest of the world can look towards . . . at least that is the fiction so often told to us . . . where are your standards? . . . because they seem to be wollowing in the gutter!

[staphbaby]

Originally posted by pfflam
Your clever little attempt at reversal hinges on one thing: it assumes that [B]we aren't outraged and completely angered everytime another US soldier is killed!!!!

Oh yeah: you can add this to my post above.

Did I mention that I think the whole thing is completely pointless?

[7E7]

Originally posted by pfflam
Your clever little attempt at reversal hinges on one thing: it assumes that we aren't outraged and completely angered everytime another US soldier is killed!!!!

I am! . . . every time! and saddened and horrified.

In fact, I have to wonder about your lack of real outrage? The lack of real questioning as to why we are sending our brave young men and women into utter chaos and insecurity. Why we were told one thing when another, as of yet un-mentioned reason is the real motivation for invading a relatively stable, albiet tyranical, country.

And as far as the abuse: we are Americans, we are supposed to have standards that the rest of the world can look towards . . . at least that is the fiction so often told to us . . . where are your standards? . . . because they seem to be wollowing in the gutter!

I am not outraged because I support this mission. If you asked the soldiers over there if they did as well I suspect you would find that a vast majority of them do despite the fact that a number of their colleagues have been lost in the fight. My heart bleeds for every one of them - so don't question me about that for a minute. Iraq was not in reality a stable country when everyone lived in fear and hundreds of thousands of people were carted off to be tortured and murdered at the whim of a madman. These people's families never heard from them again. So quit minimizing what it must have been like to live over there when you haven't the faintest idea of how it must be to live in fear everyday with no ability to speak out about such abuses. You say "tyranical country" as if it is no big deal. It is a VERY big deal if you have to live under the thumb of people like Saddam Hussein. It is sanctimoniously smug jerks like you that insure that people like this still exist in the world today. It is time we cleaned house and changed all that. If you think that is not worth the effort than I feel sorry for you. People like you who always blame America first for all the world's ills make me sick to my stomach. They also serve to make the task much harder because your misguided dissent gives strength to our enemies. They take comments like yours to heart because they feel we don't have the stomach to finish the job.

I am the one who has standards - I oppose tyranical regimes and I support a President who has chooses to do something about it. I freely admit that mistakes have been made but they pale in comparison to what a huge error it would have been if we did nothing about it. For those who say that we had Saddam contained in his little box haven't the faintest idea what they are talking about. I also submit that they would have been the first people to complain that we did nothing about Saddam if we had at some point became victims of his special brand of terror.

And where is your outrage about the UN oil-for-food bribery scandal? The same people you champion as thoughtful and ethical leaders were in actuality lining their pockets at the expense of the Iraqi people who basically were having food ripped from their mouths out of nothing more than sheer greed. I guess we now know the real reason why countries like Germany and France refused to support our efforts. And I love how liberals know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iraq had no WMD and when we find a sarin-laced artillery shell it is dismissed as being the only one in existance and that there is no possibility that a larger stockpile exists. Why don't we find out for sure before you come to the conclusion that they really don't exist? Iraq is a big country and there is no way that we could have searched every possible hiding place for these things. I have to say there is still reasonable doubt and we cannot say conclusively that Iraq is WMD free.

There are a lot more things going on in this war and I think you ought to try to understand the complete picture rather than choosing only the things that support your erroneous assertions.

[staphbaby]

Originally posted by 7E7


snippage



OK: here's some quick things we probably all agree on:

(1) none of us like murderous dictatorships;
(2) all other things being equal, régime change in Iraq looked like a good idea.

What we don't agree on:

(1) Flagrant and needless violations of human rights and the Geneva Conventions by the liberating powers;
(2) The method by which régime change was to be achieved, which might broadly be broken down into (a) who? and (b) in what circumstances? This is inherently both a legal and a practical question, because perception of motive and justification has a crucial role to play in this in terms of outcome. The problem with the way the US went into Iraq was that it was prima facie illegal, and thus raises a number of pretty troubling questions like (1) why should anyone obey international law if the US won't; (2) why did the US suddenly decide that it was so important to invade this country, despite the whimsical nature of the justification, and the lack of any importantly changed circumstances? Moreover, they went in for an essentially unilateral solution, strengthening the perception of the US as a maverick state.

I'm not saying that the US invaded Iraq for oil; it may well be that Bush is simply a madman, in the same vein as Kissinger wanted to portray Nixon. Or perhaps he had genuinely altruistic motives. We won't know for 40 years until the cabinet files are released.

BUT having done things in what can only be described as a totally shonk way, the US' enemies can now say with some plausibility "My golly gosh, that bastard US really has it in for us Muslims, the UN didn't agree to this action, the justifications they said they had are clearly preposterous, and by the way, look at those civilian casualties!" Every incident like this shocking error, and every incident of abuse will only strengthen this perception — a perception which would have been much less likely to arise if the US hadn't gone for aggressive unilateralism. One can only say that the US has really shot itself and the international community in the foot. Well done.

At any rate the US needs to avoid allegations of abuse and unnecessary civilian casualties because it just makes their position worse in terms of the perception of the Arab world, and because human rights are just inherently important, and it makes a mockery of the ipso post facto justification for the invasion not to pay attention to them. It seems pretty clear that there's something seriously amiss with how these issues are being monitored in Iraq, and that's a really really serious strategic error, one which the US will come to gravely regret.

Obviously, whichever way the international community went, people were going to die in Iraq. It's really a question of damage minimisation. I remain to be convinced that the US' strategy will achieve that.

Btw: to all you Brits out there, I'm not forgetting Blair's lamentable lapdog stance with respect to Iraq (or Howard's for that matter); its just that he clearly isn't setting policy. Happily, it looks like it will cost him his political career. Fingers crossed, anyway.

[New]

Originally posted by 7E7
I am not outraged because I support this mission. If you asked the soldiers over there if they did as well I suspect you would find that a vast majority of them do despite the fact that a number of their colleagues have been lost in the fight. My heart bleeds for every one of them - so don't question me about that for a minute. Iraq was not in reality a stable country when everyone lived in fear and hundreds of thousands of people were carted off to be tortured and murdered at the whim of a madman. These people's families never heard from them again. So quit minimizing what it must have been like to live over there when you haven't the faintest idea of how it must be to live in fear everyday with no ability to speak out about such abuses. You say "tyranical country" as if it is no big deal. It is a VERY big deal if you have to live under the thumb of people like Saddam Hussein. It is sanctimoniously smug jerks like you that insure that people like this still exist in the world today. It is time we cleaned house and changed all that. If you think that is not worth the effort than I feel sorry for you. People like you who always blame America first for all the world's ills make me sick to my stomach. They also serve to make the task much harder because your misguided dissent gives strength to our enemies. They take comments like yours to heart because they feel we don't have the stomach to finish the job.

I am the one who has standards - I oppose tyranical regimes and I support a President who has chooses to do something about it. I freely admit that mistakes have been made but they pale in comparison to what a huge error it would have been if we did nothing about it. For those who say that we had Saddam contained in his little box haven't the faintest idea what they are talking about. I also submit that they would have been the first people to complain that we did nothing about Saddam if we had at some point became victims of his special brand of terror.

And where is your outrage about the UN oil-for-food bribery scandal? The same people you champion as thoughtful and ethical leaders were in actuality lining their pockets at the expense of the Iraqi people who basically were having food ripped from their mouths out of nothing more than sheer greed. I guess we now know the real reason why countries like Germany and France refused to support our efforts. And I love how liberals know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iraq had no WMD and when we find a sarin-laced artillery shell it is dismissed as being the only one in existance and that there is no possibility that a larger stockpile exists. Why don't we find out for sure before you come to the conclusion that they really don't exist? Iraq is a big country and there is no way that we could have searched every possible hiding place for these things. I have to say there is still reasonable doubt and we cannot say conclusively that Iraq is WMD free.

There are a lot more things going on in this war and I think you ought to try to understand the complete picture rather than choosing only the things that support your erroneous assertions.

Your ignorance is killing me...

MANY of these Tyrannies Have been allies of the US for a long time (like Saudi Arabia). In the worst canses the US has been a very active part in installing these governments (like with Saddam, who had CIA ties).

Just THIS term the US has allied itself with A WHOLE LIST of new dictatorships (Like Usbekiztan, Tajikistan, Pakistan and so on). WHILE decreasing aid to good democratic allies (like sweden and several others).

This was never about Iraq being WMOD-free, it was about the SERIOUS (uh-hu!) and IMMINENT threat they supposedly caused. Why can't you admit that this was BS from the start?

Complete picture my arse. The picture that is quite clear for the rest of the world, is that this war was based on false premisses, and that the US have fucked up so seriously that it has lost toalt face. All post 911 sympathy that was there is gone.

[sammi jo]

Two stories from two places, both telling a wildly differeing version of events. In the Pentagon corner, we have a "safe house hosting a high level meeting for foreign fighters". In the Iraq corner, this was a "wedding party".

AP has just got a 3 hour video of the event in question:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040524/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_attack&cid=540&ncid=716

This was an act of terrorism and mass murder. Yet again. And the Pentagon, true to form, is lying, yet again. Assholes.

:mad:

[pfflam]

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40188000/jpg/_40188127_carb203ap.jpg
it is obviouse that the Surgents are getting more devious by the day: see their new brilliant camoflage techniques

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by bunge
:lol:

So have all those men and women beating people up in prison, or (allegedly) blowing up wedding parties. Take your hubris elsewhere, it rots the core of the US of A.

Let's make one thing clear. No single job, task or accomplishment makes one person a greater authority over anyone else on freedom, patriotism or love of the United States of America. If you believe you're superior because you did in fact fight for this country then you are in fact inferior. I hope you apply that to John Kerry and in fact the arguments that seem to favor him for that very reason.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by pfflam
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40188000/jpg/_40188127_carb203ap.jpg
it is obviouse that the Surgents that a getting more devious by the day: see their new brilliant camoflage techniques These ARE the same people that were using ambulances to transport weapons and churches as bases, that we are talking about, no?

You act as if it is totally out of the question that these kind of people could possibly conduct business among innocent people.

I'm not buying.

[NaplesX]

Ok, so let's say I go along with these assertions that the pentagon/military just massacred a wedding party, can any of you conspiracy theorists explain to me why?

Why would killing totally innocent people help the cause especially in the media frenzy that is going on as we speak?

What was the motivation?

Was this also planned in Texas long before the 2000 election?

[tonton]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Ok, so let's say I go along with these assertions that the pentagon/military just massacred a wedding party, can any of you conspiracy theorists explain to me why?
Because to the warlovers, all Iraqis are the enemy, regardless of guilt or innocence, perhaps, therefore people can say things like: "I am not outraged [that innocent civilians were killed] because I support this mission [so we can save the lives of innocent Iraqis who were suffering under the regime of SH]." Without a hint of conscience or any trace recognition of irony.

Why would killing totally innocent people help the cause especially in the media frenzy that is going on as we speak?
It shouldn't it should harm the "cause". But in order to prevent it from harming the "cause" our government lies. Lies again. And then it lies again.

What was the motivation?
War. Reckless war. Guiltless war. Self-righteous war. And indifference to Iraqi deaths, as if they were not people at all.
Was this also planned in Texas long before the 2000 election?
Nope, I'm sure it was never given a second thought.

[rageous]

Given the fact that the global press is on the US like white on rice trying to dig up any and all transgressions by the US military because of the incidents at Abu Ghraib, the fact that this story is virtually a non-story leads me to believe it probably wasn't an indiscriminate mowing down of innocent citizens.

Future disclosures may certainly prove the accounts to be true, but right now I'm rather skeptical.

[Harald]

Originally posted by rageous
Given the fact that the global press is on the US like white on rice trying to dig up any and all transgressions by the US military because of the incidents at Abu Ghraib, the fact that this story is virtually a non-story leads me to believe it probably wasn't an indiscriminate mowing down of innocent citizens.

Future disclosures may certainly prove the accounts to be true, but right now I'm rather skeptical.

The global press is reporting what it sees. There is no global conspiracy againts the US army, which is paranoia. You need to understand that it is the US media that is out of step. You may say this is because the entire rest of the world is biased against the US. The rest of the world thinks the US is out of order, 'coalition' be damned.

You second point: the AP video is the lead story on the BBC and elsewhere. It's still a massive story.

I have no trouble in believing the army has blown up a wedding party.

Again.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by NaplesX
These ARE the same people that were using ambulances to transport weapons and churches as bases, that we are talking about, no?

You act as if it is totally out of the question that these kind of people could possibly conduct business among innocent people.

I'm not buying.

How awfully unchivalrous of them. US pilots avoid retaliation by dropping their bomb loads from 40,000 feet. The thousands of Iraqi civilians murdered by George Bush and his terrorist thugs deserve to die huh?

[tonton]

"There was no evidence of a wedding: no decorations, no musical instruments found, no large quantities of food or leftover servings one would expect from a wedding celebration," Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, the chief US military spokesman in Iraq, said on Saturday.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40188000/jpg/_40188127_carb203ap.jpg
...no evidence of a wedding: no decorations...
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40188000/jpg/_40188127_carb203ap.jpg
...no evidence of a wedding...
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40188000/jpg/_40188127_carb203ap.jpg
...no evidence of a wedding...
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40188000/jpg/_40188127_carb203ap.jpg
...no evidence of a wedding...
...no evidence of a wedding...
...no evidence of a wedding...
...no evidence...
...no evidence...
...no evidence...
Is this not evidence?
I guess it depends on what the definition of the word "is" is.

[Smircle]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Ok, so let's say I go along with these assertions that the pentagon/military just massacred a wedding party, can any of you conspiracy theorists explain to me why?

For a somewhat comparable story which has been thorougly investigated:
"The USS Vincennes shootdown of Iran Air Flight 655 on July 3, 1988 which resulted in the deaths of over 290 innocent passengers, and the U.S. Navy's attempted cover-up"
Link (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/vince.html)

To sum it up: trigger-happy idiot is overzealous and relies too much on technical intellingence. His superiors, instead of admitting the fuck-up, try to cover up the mess.

The end result:
In the end, of course, Will Rogers will not get an admiral's two-inch gold stripe. He instructed navy captains in San Diego for two years before retiring honorably in August 1991. The men of the Vincennes were all awarded combat-action ribbons. Commander Lustig, the air-warfare coordinator, even won the navy's Commendation Medal for "heroic achievement," his "ability to maintain his poise and confidence under fire," enabled him to "quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure." Given the target he was firing at, the commendation seems rather surreal. But so was the atmosphere in the Vincennes CIC that July morning, and the attempt, in months and years that followed, to cover up what happened there.
Oh, and 290 Iranians dead - but who cares?

But, yeah, it sure is a conspiracy theory and the video in question has been rendered with Photoshop :rolleyes:
Of course done by the international liberal press to tarnish the image of an altruist US of A...

[pfflam]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Ok, so let's say I go along with these assertions that the pentagon/military just massacred a wedding party, can any of you conspiracy theorists explain to me why?

Why would killing totally innocent people help the cause especially in the media frenzy that is going on as we speak?

What was the motivation?

Was this also planned in Texas long before the 2000 election? Why?

Because it was a mistake!

This is a territory where surgents are actually coming in and deserve the term 'INsurgent' and they thought that this was a bunch of them.

A mistake, just like the A-10 which killed how many American soldiers outside of El Nasariya? These things happen, but to cover it up now, in a time when the US seems to be doing nothing right, might seem politically important . . .

Unfortuantely, only the people who 'want to believe' are buying Kimmit's story . . .

after all there is a THREE HOUR VIDEO which seems to tell a very different story . . . and many witnesses (which may or may not be trustworthy, granted)

[Harald]

... and the people that shot the video are with AP not Iraqi trouble-makers, and there's 3rd-party sources who went to the site and saw pieces of destroyed musical instruments, and parts of women's scalps, and colourful decoration.

The video, incidentally, features footage of the musician before and after wearing the same clothes.

[Gilsch]

Ok, ...just for the sake of discussion. What if indeed the dead were ..say...Al Qaeda militants, foreign fighters, etc? Maybe the military could IDENTIFY them from the videos or from the hospital, or from the buried?? That shouldn't be too difficult right? Right?

[Harald]

USA Today:

"We had a ground force element that went through the objective. It did not identify any children killed," (Kimmitt) said Monday.

However, an AP reporter obtained names of at least 10 children who relatives said had died. Bodies of five of them were filmed by APTN when the survivors took them to Ramadi for burial Wednesday. Iraqi officials said at least 13 children were killed. Mourners say the bride and groom were killed.

Four days after the attack, the memories of the survivors remain painful — as are their injuries.

Haleema Shihab, 32, one of the three wives of Rikad Nayef, said that as the first bombs fell, she grabbed her 7-month-old son, Yousef, and clutching the hands of her 5-year-old son, Hamza, started running. Her 15-year-old son, Ali, sprinted alongside her. They managed to run for several yards when she fell — her leg fractured.

"Hamza was yelling, 'mommy,'" Shihab, recalled. "Ali said he was hurt and that he was bleeding. That's the last time I heard him." Then another shell fell and injured Shihab's left arm.

"Hamza fell from my hand and was gone. Only Yousef stayed in my arms. Ali had been hit and was killed. I couldn't go back," she said from her hospital bed in Ramadi.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by Gilsch
Ok, ...just for the sake of discussion. What if indeed the dead were ..say...Al Qaeda militants, foreign fighters, etc? Maybe the military could IDENTIFY them from the videos or from the hospital, or from the buried?? That shouldn't be too difficult right? Right? Maybe they were under cover as a wedding party . . . it would be a good mode of getting around . . . . :\

[pfflam]

http://www.masnet.org/cms_article_files/article_1234/pic1.jpg
Could be a disguise . . . a little surgery . . .no. a lot of surgery and that little boy could be a small man?!?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by pfflam
Why?

Because it was a mistake!

This is a territory where surgents are actually coming in and deserve the term 'INsurgent' and they thought that this was a bunch of them.

A mistake, just like the A-10 which killed how many American soldiers outside of El Nasariya? These things happen, but to cover it up now, in a time when the US seems to be doing nothing right, might seem politically important . . .

Unfortuantely, only the people who 'want to believe' are buying Kimmit's story . . .

after all there is a THREE HOUR VIDEO which seems to tell a very different story . . . and many witnesses (which may or may not be trustworthy, granted) Why would they not just say so?

Could it be that they (the military) are telling the truth?

Could it be that they (the military) are investigating the incident, and are reluctant to accept responsibility until the whole story is known?

Could it be that they (the insurgents and those loyal to them) are lying about this whole thing to further tarnish the US?

Could it be that they (the insurgents and those loyal to them) somehow provided information to the military to facilitate this massacre to tarnish the US?

A lot of you seem to only want to accept only one possibility on this and many other issues in Iraq, when there are clearly many possibilities. I would hope that the eagle eye of scrutiny look at all parties.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Why would they not just say so?

Could it be that they (the military) are telling the truth?

Could it be that they (the military) are investigating the incident, and are reluctant to accept responsibility until the whole story is known?

Could it be that they (the insurgents and those loyal to them) are lying about this whole thing to further tarnish the US?

Could it be that they (the insurgents and those loyal to them) somehow provided information to the military to facilitate this massacre to tarnish the US?

A lot of you seem to only want to accept only one possibility on this and many other issues in Iraq, when there are clearly many possibilities. I would hope that the eagle eye of scrutiny look at all parties. All of those are possible, though the latter seems a bit far-fetched.

But it would seem that the 'could it be's are leaning a little stronger on the Could it be that they blew up a buncha people and those responsible reported success rather than face being penalized

here is a report which shows video footage of the musician: BBC REPORT (http://news.bbc.co.uk/#) --just go to the middle-right side of page where it says 'VIDEO CHOICE'

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by pfflam
All of those are possible, though the latter seems a bit far-fetched.

But it would seem that the 'could it be's are leaning a little stronger on the Could it be that they blew up a buncha people and those responsible reported success rather than face being penalized

here is a report which shows video footage of the musician: BBC REPORT (http://news.bbc.co.uk/#) --just go to the middle-right side of page where it says 'VIDEO CHOICE' You're joking right? The video could have been taken at any time and at any place. It also does not prove anything.

Maybe I am wrong, or don't know enough about this, but is this all everyone is going on?

[pfflam]

Originally posted by NaplesX
You're joking right? The video could have been taken at any time and at any place. It also does not prove anything.

Maybe I am wrong, or don't know enough about this, but is this all everyone is going on? The incriminating detail in the video is mostly the way in which the ceremony takes place and the small detail of the main musician, a Baghdad Wedding musician who is in the video and then is shown dead, killed by US troops.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by NaplesX
You're joking right? The video could have been taken at any time and at any place. It also does not prove anything.

Maybe I am wrong, or don't know enough about this, but is this all everyone is going on? BTW . . . what do you mean by 'you're joking'?

I thought I gave quite a bit of credence to your 'could it be's . . . and didn't make any absolute assertions . . . I think that perhaps you didn't read what I said . . . .how else would I have been 'joking'?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by pfflam
The incriminating detail in the video is mostly the way in which the ceremony takes place and the small detail of the main musician, a Baghdad Wedding musician who is in the video and then is shown dead, killed by US troops. Once again, I am not sure that means anything. Are we all to believe that a musician might not be a rebel fighter?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by pfflam
BTW . . . what do you mean by 'you're joking'?

I thought I gave quite a bit of credence to your 'could it be's . . . and didn't make any absolute assertions . . . I think that perhaps you didn't read what I said . . . .how else would I have been 'joking'? Not necessarily you, but a reaction to the video.

[Smircle]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Once again, I am not sure that means anything. Are we all to believe that a musician might not be a rebel fighter?

The POTUS might be a 6 foot space lizard, who knows? Maybe the Twin towers were a secret command center of some neofascist clan trying to destroy the earth?

What's your point? Sidetracking, sowing uncertainty, trying to derail threads again? I have missed your "we don't know for sure" in the beheading of that american guy. How did you know it wasn't the Mossad or the CIA that did this?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Smircle
The POTUS might be a 6 foot space lizard, who knows? Maybe the Twin towers were a secret command center of some neofascist clan trying to destroy the earth?

What's your point? Sidetracking, sowing uncertainty, trying to derail threads again? I have missed your "we don't know for sure" in the beheading of that american guy. How did you know it wasn't the Mossad or the CIA that did this? You make my point quite nicely.

Some here seem all too willing to blame GWB and the US before knowing all the facts.

[kneelbeforezod]

And some here seem all too willing to defend the faults of the Bush administration despite all the facts.

By the way, blaming Bush / the Bush admin is not the same as blaming the US. I certainly don't know anyone who admits voting for him.

[bunge]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Some here seem all too willing to blame GWB and the US before knowing all the facts.

That's certainly a red herring. There's never a way of knowing all the facts.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
And some here seem all too willing to defend the faults of the Bush administration despite all the facts. Exactly. It goes both ways. Except for the Bush "fans"(as you can see in this thread), the same logic doesn't apply. By the way, blaming Bush / the Bush admin is not the same as blaming the US. Nope. But it's that "with us or against us" mentality again. Some actually seriously adhere to it. I certainly don't know anyone who admits voting for him. :embarrass Well, in my defence I was not into politics at all back then. I thought I was voting for his dad? :D

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by bunge
That's certainly a red herring. There's never a way of knowing all the facts. That seems like an excuse to me.

Instant, spring loaded judgments seem to be in fashion here at least by my observations.

[bunge]

Originally posted by NaplesX
That seems like an excuse to me.

No, your responses are generally lame excuses.

"We can't prove it was a wedding party so that means there's nothing wrong with the situation."

Currently, all the evidence points to a wedding but you refuse to even acknowledge that. IF it was a wedding, what should be done to rememdy the situation? How far should we go to punish who is responsible? IF it was a wedding and we massacred dozens of innocent civilians, how responsible is George Bush?

Instead of answering these questions, you ignore the possibility. That's a lame excuse from you.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by bunge
No, your responses are generally lame excuses.

"We can't prove it was a wedding party so that means there's nothing wrong with the situation."

Currently, all the evidence points to a wedding but you refuse to even acknowledge that. IF it was a wedding, what should be done to rememdy the situation? How far should we go to punish who is responsible? IF it was a wedding and we massacred dozens of innocent civilians, how responsible is George Bush?

Instead of answering these questions, you ignore the possibility. That's a lame excuse from you. I know this your style of argument, but I would like you to show me where I discounted that it may just be a wedding party.

Please.

[tonton]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I know this your style of argument, but I would like you to show me where I discounted that it may just be a wedding party.

Please.

Well, if it wasn't a real wedding party, then I still don't believe in what was done. It should never have gotten to the level that so many people hate the US that we need to be so afraid all the time. And our actions are making this kind of thing worse every single day. Where we may have had one group bent on destroying us with the motivation to do so before 9/11, we must have hundreds now. The situation now is definitely worse, and it's not because of our (initial) actions in Afghanistan, it's because of the misguided, illegal action against Iraq and our constant lies.

At this point, the president and his faction have lied so many times (or if he's not really "lying" he certainly got everything wrong so many times) that even when we have independent journalists saying they have footage of children's bodies from the massacre, we're still not surprised that the military declares without hesitation that there were no children. It's pretty clear that there were children. If they're lying about that then it's very likely that they're lying about the whole affair. We can no longer trust them.

They lied about the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction (or simply got it wrong).
They lied about the nuclear weapons program (and ignored "inconvenient" information that discounted their "proof").
They fabricated the Iraqi celebration in the streets of Baghdad to make it look like the Iraqis were overjoyed with our presence.
They lied about prisoner abuse.
They lied about having held Nick Berg in custody.
They lied about the dead children.
There was a video shot by independent journalists supporting the claims that there was a wedding party, with identifiable dead present in the video.

At this point the US MILITARY, THE CIA and THE WHITE HOUSE HAVE LOST ALL CREDIBILITY and I am sickened by it. Disgusted. We as the most advanced government on Earth are to be held to a higher standard than others, yet we have still learned a way to wallow in the swamp of corruption and dishonesty.

And you still want to take their word for it, over the evidence of videos and independent testimony? Your faith is admirable, but your analytical intelligence leaves much to be desired.

[pfflam]

They also lied about not diverting funds from Afghanistan before 911 was brought up to Congress's attention
They lied about Clarke's character and capabilities while defaming him
They are still lying about not knowing who committed high-treason and outed Valerie Plame
Bush lied about caring about the Steel industry and used tariffs at his convinience (he either lied with the tarrifs or, by using the tariffs, he lies as being truly Conservative)
and then this evening, once again implying that Iraq and Hussain were directly linked to 911

Let's not forget all of the instances of passing the buck: from the 'number crunchers' that got the economic program wrong (not Bush) to the WMD information that was wrong (but not Bush) to grunts that are getting court martialled (but not Rummy) . . . and there are many more instances of both lies and passing the buck . .. too many . . .

its like the Death From a Thousand Cuts, except each cut is critical

[7E7]

Originally posted by New
Your ignorance is killing me...

MANY of these Tyrannies Have been allies of the US for a long time (like Saudi Arabia). In the worst canses the US has been a very active part in installing these governments (like with Saddam, who had CIA ties).

Just THIS term the US has allied itself with A WHOLE LIST of new dictatorships (Like Usbekiztan, Tajikistan, Pakistan and so on). WHILE decreasing aid to good democratic allies (like sweden and several others).

This was never about Iraq being WMOD-free, it was about the SERIOUS (uh-hu!) and IMMINENT threat they supposedly caused. Why can't you admit that this was BS from the start?

Complete picture my arse. The picture that is quite clear for the rest of the world, is that this war was based on false premisses, and that the US have fucked up so seriously that it has lost toalt face. All post 911 sympathy that was there is gone.

Saddam Hussein had CIA ties? Care to provide proof as it just sounds like yet another fictional ranting from a liberal who believes if he repeats a story enough times it somehow becomes grounded in fact. You make it sound like he was installed as part of a puppet regime program sponsored by the United States. Now that is truly laughable and above all ignorant. Did Saddam receive some support during the Iran-Iraq War? He probably received some assistance (as we were hardly supporters of Khomeini's regime in Iran) but the vast majority of Iraq's military hardware came from the former Soviet Union, France as well as some long range artillery pieces from South Africa. And nothing I have ever read shows that the CIA was behind the Saudi royal family's ascent into power. You really need to check out some non-fiction books for a change...

If you claim the whole threat was BS then why did so many people in our government make the same claims? If you read the quotes from the vast majority of members of Congress on BOTH sides of the aisle you will find that the President's views mirrored those of most of our elected officials. Now the standard liberal line is to say that Bush duped all these people into believeing it yet these same people deride Bush as being decidedly ignorant and incompetent. You can't have it both ways - he cannot be so clever as to be able to dupe those of superior intellect AND be this imbecile you all make him out to be. It just doesn't wash. Bill Clinton said Saddam Hussein was a threat to our national security and John Kerry said it as well. Some of these people now are backtracking on this because they feel they can make political hay in being anti-war at the President's expense but to me their new stance only shows how indecisive they can be as leaders. You simply cannot give your vote for the war and then take an opposite position a few months later. A president does not have that luxury and what it does show is a lack of committment to a position and a strong inability to make important decisions.

And this post 9/11 sympathy you bemoan the loss of was already beginning to dry up when the first boots hit the ground in Afghanistan. It was very nearly gone before the war in Iraq even started - hence the lack of support we received on our policy towards Iraq. So spare me your revisionist history of the world because you obvioulsy haven't been paying attention for the last few years. Sympathy from countries like France only lasts when we are the victim with the bloody nose because deep down I think they enjoyed watching us suffer. As soon as we fight back to avenge our losses the sympathy recedes.

I also was not aware that Sweden needed our aid. Being of Scandinavian ancestry I firmly believe that all those European nations can take care of themselves just fine without U.S. taxpayer assistance. Their high tax rates certainly should be able to cover their own expenditures quite nicely.

[pfflam]

http://www.glengreen.com/images/wv_news/2003/jul/arming_now.gif Well, maybe not the CIA . . . at least not as overtly as some other people.


And yeah . . I am a firm believer that Bush is not an idiot . . . merely a deluded man who is very clever at allowing himself to be used by people who are too smart to see the faults in their own beliefs. . . . if that makes any sense.

Sure Saddam was a 'threat' so is the leader of Ukraine . . . why don't we invade?

[tonton]

Originally posted by 7E7
Saddam Hussein had CIA ties? Care to provide proof as it just sounds like yet another fictional ranting from a liberal who believes if he repeats a story enough times it somehow becomes grounded in fact.

Without getting ito your entire post...

first link (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r)

Just a clip:

The CIA/Defense Intelligence Agency relation with Saddam intensified after the start of the Iran-Iraq war in September of 1980. During the war, the CIA regularly sent a team to Saddam to deliver battlefield intelligence obtained from Saudi AWACS surveillance aircraft to aid the effectiveness of Iraq's armed forces, according to a former DIA official, part of a U.S. interagency intelligence group.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by 7E7
Saddam Hussein had CIA ties? Care to provide proof as it just sounds like yet another fictional ranting from a liberal who believes if he repeats a story enough times it somehow becomes grounded in fact. You make it sound like he was installed as part of a puppet regime program sponsored by the United States. Now that is truly laughable and above all ignorant. Did Saddam receive some support during the Iran-Iraq War? He probably received some assistance (as we were hardly supporters of Khomeini's regime in Iran) but the vast majority of Iraq's military hardware came from the former Soviet Union, France as well as some long range artillery pieces from South Africa. And nothing I have ever read shows that the CIA was behind the Saudi royal family's ascent into power. You really need to check out some non-fiction books for a change...

If you claim the whole threat was BS then why did so many people in our government make the same claims? If you read the quotes from the vast majority of members of Congress on BOTH sides of the aisle you will find that the President's views mirrored those of most of our elected officials. Now the standard liberal line is to say that Bush duped all these people into believeing it yet these same people deride Bush as being decidedly ignorant and incompetent. You can't have it both ways - he cannot be so clever as to be able to dupe those of superior intellect AND be this imbecile you all make him out to be. It just doesn't wash. Bill Clinton said Saddam Hussein was a threat to our national security and John Kerry said it as well. Some of these people now are backtracking on this because they feel they can make political hay in being anti-war at the President's expense but to me their new stance only shows how indecisive they can be as leaders. You simply cannot give your vote for the war and then take an opposite position a few months later. A president does not have that luxury and what it does show is a lack of committment to a position and a strong inability to make important decisions.

And this post 9/11 sympathy you bemoan the loss of was already beginning to dry up when the first boots hit the ground in Afghanistan. It was very nearly gone before the war in Iraq even started - hence the lack of support we received on our policy towards Iraq. So spare me your revisionist history of the world because you obvioulsy haven't been paying attention for the last few years. Sympathy from countries like France only lasts when we are the victim with the bloody nose because deep down I think they enjoyed watching us suffer. As soon as we fight back to avenge our losses the sympathy recedes.

I also was not aware that Sweden needed our aid. Being of Scandinavian ancestry I firmly believe that all those European nations can take care of themselves just fine without U.S. taxpayer assistance. Their high tax rates certainly should be able to cover their own expenditures quite nicely. You have touched on a subject that I was going to start a new thread on:

Namely, the ability of a supposed nimrod like GWB's ability to "fool" the whole world into going to war, and what this fact says about leaders in this country.

Some questions need to be asked about those leaders that are now waffling. I don't think that any of those questions have good answers.

[7E7]

Originally posted by pfflam
They also lied about not diverting funds from Afghanistan before 911 was brought up to Congress's attention
They lied about Clarke's character and capabilities while defaming him
They are still lying about not knowing who committed high-treason and outed Valerie Plame
Bush lied about caring about the Steel industry and used tariffs at his convinience (he either lied with the tarrifs or, by using the tariffs, he lies as being truly Conservative)
and then this evening, once again implying that Iraq and Hussain were directly linked to 911

Let's not forget all of the instances of passing the buck: from the 'number crunchers' that got the economic program wrong (not Bush) to the WMD information that was wrong (but not Bush) to grunts that are getting court martialled (but not Rummy) . . . and there are many more instances of both lies and passing the buck . .. too many . . .

its like the Death From a Thousand Cuts, except each cut is critical

Valerie Plame outed herself to her now husband Joseph Wilson on their third or fourth date! If she is really this important undercover operative for the CIA does that not display shockingly bad judgment for someone in her position? That kind of imformation to me would not be something I would reveal to someone I was merely dating - particularly not that early in the relationship. You certainly are making an accusation here as if you know who did it. Let us know who did and provide links to back it up - and motherjones.com does not qualify as a corroborating source...

As far as your accusation that Rumsfeld knew about and approved of the abuse at Abu Gharib prison please provide us the proof - links please. It is funny how no liberal I know is pointing the finger at General Janice Karpinski - the commander in charge of the prison in question. Is accusing a female not politically correct enough for you guys? By your theory the abuse goes from a few PFCs and sergeants straight up to Donald Rumsfeld's office with no stops in between. If it was this big cover up then why was the military investigating this incident little more than a month after it happened - and long before the story broke? And if there was this structure of systematic torture and abuse created by Rumsfeld would you want people like Charles Graner and Lynndie England who have some serious maturity issues in charge of implementing that policy? Your ignorance and gullibility is frightening.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by 7E7
Valerie Plame outed herself to her now husband Joseph Wilson on their third or fourth date! If she is really this important undercover operative for the CIA does that not display shockingly bad judgment for someone in her position? HAHAHAHA . . . I knnow you weren't there . . . . let me guess, oh yeah Rush Limbaugh . . . he musta been there

[pfflam]

someone new something . . . else why the 2000 PAGES OF MISSING DOCUMENTS RELATED TO ABU GHRAIB? (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-05-23-prison-report_x.htm)

add to this, a comrade of yours saying "Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said, "I'm confident there will be more courts-martial, and it's just not going to be privates and sergeants."

[7E7]

Originally posted by tonton
Without getting ito your entire post...

first link (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r)

Just a clip:

As I said in my previous post, the U.S. did give Saddam Hussein some assistance during the Iran-Iraq War - I never denied that. They provided some intelligence information about Iran which we had very poor relations with at the time and continue to have problems with to this day. Also, this support came before much of Saddam Hussein's brutality came to light - and well before the incidents where Saddam used poison gas on the Iraqi Kurds. And it was well before his invasion of Kuwait. It is just another example of the enemy of my enemy is my friend philosophy. That is a policy that we have gotten caught up in on numerous occasions throughout our history as a nation and it is not a new phenomena in global politics. We did not however provide Iraq with a cache of high-tech weapons to fight Iran with. Some of our "allies" like France did far more to take advantage of their relationship with Saddam Hussein in this area. And France also provided them with a nuclear reactor which the Israelis bombed and destroyed shortly before it was to be completed. And their stance prior to the war shows the lengths they were willing to go to protect that cozy relationship as the UN oil-for-food scandal so handily illustrates.

[7E7]

Originally posted by pfflam
HAHAHAHA . . . I knnow you weren't there . . . . let me guess, oh yeah Rush Limbaugh . . . he musta been there

This little revelation was made by Wilson himself in an article in Vanity Fair magazine. No, it actually was not Rush Limbaugh. I guess you must have missed that one. You might want to check out the facts next time before rushing to judgment about my sources...

[pfflam]

Originally posted by 7E7
This little revelation was made by Wilson himself in an article in Vanity Fair magazine. No, it actually was not Rush Limbaugh. I guess you must have missed that one. You might want to check out the facts next time before rushing to judgment about my sources... :wow:

yeah . . . that's dumb of her . . .

but that doesn't really matter, it still doesn't negate the crime of Treason . . . or worse the obvious maliciousness of the INTENTIONAL act behind the outing:
. . . nevermind, the idea of 'Character' only seems to matter when its an ex-insider that needs to be smeared, smeared in order to cover another in a long line of their liabilities . . one would never question the kind of Character it takes to maliciously out a CIA undercover agent :rolleyes:


. . . but Bush Senior sure used to think that that crime was teh sort that deserved the highest of punishments . . . what happened between now and then?!?!?

[rageous]

And as everyone knows, her being named as an undercover agent was the root cause of the wedding party (or not) killings.

Wait, no it wasn't...

[Harald]

Originally posted by 7E7
I firmly believe that all those European nations can take care of themselves just fine without U.S. taxpayer assistance. Their high tax rates certainly should be able to cover their own expenditures quite nicely.

(off topic)

Yep, true that. They keep our infant mortality rate, adult health, life expectancy, public services and social cohesion better then yours.

In this recent study (http://http://www.scandinavica.com/culture/society/UNreport.htm) (but any others will tell you the same) I think you'll find that Norway has the best standard of living of any country in the world.

kthx

(back to the sophistic justification of endangering the lives of individuals for partisan gain and documented atrocities conducted by us on women and children)

[New]

Originally posted by 7E7
Saddam Hussein had CIA ties? Care to provide proof as it just sounds like yet another fictional ranting from a liberal who believes if he repeats a story enough times it somehow becomes grounded in fact. You make it sound like he was installed as part of a puppet regime program sponsored by the United States. Now that is truly laughable and above all ignorant.
Hehe, it's not ignorant just because you don't know your history. The Baath Party came to power through a coup in 1963 against the anti-american regime of general Kassem. This coup said to have been aided by the CIA. At least the CIA provided list of communists and other "enemies" resulting in the execution of some 5000 people.

UPI story (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r)
NYT story (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/morris.htm)

After this the US and the Bhaat party had very close ties. Saddam was always central in the baath party, and took over power in 1979. He surprised the USA with the 1990 invation of Kuwait. And that ended the Baathparty's friendship with washington.


Did Saddam receive some support during the Iran-Iraq War? He probably received some assistance (as we were hardly supporters of Khomeini's regime in Iran) but the vast majority of Iraq's military hardware came from the former Soviet Union, France as well as some long range artillery pieces from South Africa. And nothing I have ever read shows that the CIA was behind the Saudi royal family's ascent into power. You really need to check out some non-fiction books for a change...
I never said CIA were involved in the Saud familiy's rise to power. I said they are (have been for 60 years) a close ally of the US. While being a nasty totalitarian dictatorship.


If you claim the whole threat was BS then why did so many people in our government make the same claims? If you read the quotes from the vast majority of members of Congress on BOTH sides of the aisle you will find that the President's views mirrored those of most of our elected officials. Now the standard liberal line is to say that Bush duped all these people into believeing it yet these same people deride Bush as being decidedly ignorant and incompetent. You can't have it both ways - he cannot be so clever as to be able to dupe those of superior intellect AND be this imbecile you all make him out to be. It just doesn't wash. Bill Clinton said Saddam Hussein was a threat to our national security and John Kerry said it as well. Some of these people now are backtracking on this because they feel they can make political hay in being anti-war at the President's expense but to me their new stance only shows how indecisive they can be as leaders. You simply cannot give your vote for the war and then take an opposite position a few months later. A president does not have that luxury and what it does show is a lack of committment to a position and a strong inability to make important decisions. blah blah blah, they wanted the war all the time and they got it. The reasons presented (and then changed from day to day) were then and are still BS.

And this post 9/11 sympathy you bemoan the loss of was already beginning to dry up when the first boots hit the ground in Afghanistan. It was very nearly gone before the war in Iraq even started - hence the lack of support we received on our policy towards Iraq. So spare me your revisionist history of the world because you obvioulsy haven't been paying attention for the last few years. Sympathy from countries like France only lasts when we are the victim with the bloody nose because deep down I think they enjoyed watching us suffer. As soon as we fight back to avenge our losses the sympathy recedes. Everybody was aboard the Afghanistan war. It is a nato operation. There are a lot of nato soldiers there still and while the US is reducing its presens other nations are not. So stop your whining.

[rageous]

Originally posted by New
The Baath Party came to power through a coupe in 1963 ...

Was that a manual or automatic coupe? I personally prefer a manual transmission on my vehicles.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by rageous
Was that a manual or automatic coupe? I personally prefer a manual transmission on my vehicles. What ever it was it was swift and powerful . . . it left bodies in its wake!

[New]

Originally posted by rageous
Was that a manual or automatic coupe? I personally prefer a manual transmission on my vehicles.

There, spelling english..er... french is for pussies...

[Smircle]

Originally posted by 7E7

Sympathy from countries like France only lasts when we are the victim with the bloody nose because deep down I think they enjoyed watching us suffer. As soon as we fight back to avenge our losses the sympathy recedes.

Boy, you got a serious inferiority complex if you believe Europeans deep down hate the US.

The sympathy with the US went down the drain the exact moment Bush disregarded any concerns from the closest allies, the blood-thirsty media ridiculed Euro leaders as "weasels" and the foreign minister was so obviously lying in front of the UN you could watch his nose grow longer by the minute.

Sympathy in Europe is high for countries that act rational and low for those who act upon some fundamentalist agenda.

[7E7]

Originally posted by Smircle
Boy, you got a serious inferiority complex if you believe Europeans deep down hate the US.

The sympathy with the US went down the drain the exact moment Bush disregarded any concerns from the closest allies, the blood-thirsty media ridiculed Euro leaders as "weasels" and the foreign minister was so obviously lying in front of the UN you could watch his nose grow longer by the minute.

Sympathy in Europe is high for countries that act rational and low for those who act upon some fundamentalist agenda.

Blah, blah, blah... I call it as I see it. A lot of people in this country who opposed the Iraq mission did support the Afghanistan incursion to take out Al Qaeda and the Taliban. As soon as we went into Afghanistan the sympathy began drying up. What were we supposed to do? We tried lobbing a few cruise missiles into tents in the middle of nowhere. That already was proven to have been a miserable failure. It was time to take the next step.

[NaplesX]

The Afghanistan war was a revenge war, pure and simple. That seems to be OK with most everyone, because they asked for it.

The Iraq war on the other hand is more of a strategic war, covering many angles, and yes, one is control of oil. I don't see that as a bad thing, We have already seen what these MI rednecks want to use all that wealth for and it isn't to help their own people or the US.

The results of this war have the distinct potential to be good for this country and the world, if the whiners would let it happen. I fear more for the people of Iraq loosing the hope of freedom, at the hands of pea-brained pinhead politicians (and their supporters) that can only see their political futures as the roadmap for the future, then I do for the US. We can recover from this war.

[New]

Originally posted by NaplesX
The Iraq war on the other hand is more of a strategic war, covering many angles, and yes, one is control of oil. I don't see that as a bad thing, We have already seen what these MI rednecks want to use all that wealth for and it isn't to help their own people or the US.

I think I'm gonna come over and take your mac. I've seen what you use it for, and I've come to the conclusion that it is mine to take for the common good of everybody. Besides I can always use another mac.

[Harald]

Originally posted by NaplesX

The results of this war have the distinct potential to be good for this country and the world, if the whiners would let it happen.

OK. I'm a whiner. I'm a whiner because I don't see why 10,000 innocent fucking civilians should die so some fat-faced prick can drive his SUV. One of the reasons for the war is oil, right?, and that's fine by you, right?

I'm a whiner because I don't see how a potentially great people have the right to arse about a country causing shit for the rest of the planet, because there's no-one leading the country with the slightest sense of history, creating a new generation of people that want to kill ME. Thanks a fucking million.

I'm a whiner because I'd rather go to my grave knowing that I spoke out when the most powerful nation on earth totally lost the fucking plot.

I'm going to reclaim the word, like African Americans reclaimed the N-word, and homosexuals reclaimed 'gay' and now 'queer.' I'm not going to be an appeaser for the sick ambitions of your government. Fuck that.

I'm a straight-up, out the closet, very angry and increasingly worried WHINER.

And proud.

[bunge]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I know this your style of argument, but I would like you to show me where I discounted that it may just be a wedding party.

Please.

I didn't say you discount that it may be a wedding party. You just refuse to consider the possibility until you have absolute proof. So instead, consider it.

What's your answer? More smoke and mirrors? Will you continue to ignore the possibility?

[tonton]

You see, to that NaziX, it doesn't matter if it's just a wedding party. They're just "MI rednecks" and they all deserve to die anyway. Even if it was a wedding party, he still supports the action... er... murder. Their lives mean nothing because they are Arabs

Read this entire thread and tell me that's not his message..

[New]

I'd like to apply for a WHINER-badge to.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by New
I think I'm gonna come over and take your mac. I've seen what you use it for, and I've come to the conclusion that it is mine to take for the common good of everybody. Besides I