U.S. fired on Iraqi wedding?

[kelel01 1]

Quote

Iraq: U.S. Fired on Wedding Party



E-mail This Article
Printable Version

Provided By: The Associated Press
Last Modified: 5/19/2004 2:49:02 PM


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does anyone believe this, or is this just more bullshit? I really don't know what to think anymore. I'm hoping it's not true, but I bet it is.

Kelly

[billvon 2,990]

>I'm hoping it's not true, but I bet it is.

I wish we could stop doing stuff like this.

[jkm2500 0]

It is probably true however look at the circumstances that this happened. Plus take the liberal spin into consideration. Imagine you are a helicoper pilot you are flying around in hostile territory on patrol. It is 3AM, and somone fires an AK-47, or severl someones fire AK-47s into the air.....your general direction. What do you do?

That right, shoot back.

It is tragic, but the rules and regulations have been laid out to help the people over there, and to distingiush between the friendlies and the hostiles. These peole were in violation of the curfew that was established, and were firing their weapons into the air(also not allowed).

When it comes at you from all different directions, you shoot back.

Get over it, if these people were following the rules in the first place we wouldn't be there. It isn't the US's fault.....not in the slightest.

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[billvon 2,990]

>Get over it, if these people were following the rules in the first place
>we wouldn't be there.

Killing civilians does not advance the cause of the US, and it is something we should avoid doing.

>It isn't the US's fault.....not in the slightest.

Perhaps we could blame the men, women and children who had the gall to go to a wedding.

[kelel01 1]

I didn't think about that . . . but right or wrong, it's still sad. I hope everyone's not going to react to this like, "Well, it was only Iraqis. It's not like they were American or anything." 45 people dead at what is supposed to be a celebration is a tragedy, plain and simple.

Kelly

[Darius11 12]

Oh yea it’s all there fault that we are there telling them when to go to bed and when to celebrate, and how. I mean they should change the way they do everything the whole world should be just like us or die. It is never our fault is it?

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[jkm2500 0]

To address your questions....

When I was there....we made sure to enforce the curfews, that way we did not have worry about the innocent ones getting hurt or killed. The only people out at 3 IN THE MORNING are the people that are going to do us harm anyway.

And for your information, if they would not have been firing their weapons into the air, they would not have been engaged by the helicopter.

Put yourself in their situation before judging their actions. If you get shot at every night, you shoot back. make sense? If not, let us put you out there in a hostile situation, you can win the war by giving hugs and love to those people who are trying to KILL YOU.

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[rhino 0]

2:30 am Bill.. They need to catch up with the times... Firing weapons in the air with attack helicopters flying around..

Dumb fucking move.... If it was a weading, what a horrible thing...

Jeff Foxworthy "If it's 2:30 am and you're firing ak47's in the air with apache gunships flying aroung, you must be a dead Iraqi."

[billvon 2,990]

> The only people out at 3 IN THE MORNING are the people that are
>going to do us harm anyway.

So those people at the wedding were going to leave there and kill a bunch of americans? Should we kill everyone at weddings that go past a certain time, to protect US lives?

>If you get shot at every night, you shoot back. make sense?

If a neighbor of yours shot into the air, and you killed him and everyone in his family, you would go to jail for a long time. Even if you live in a bad neighborhood.

>you can win the war by giving hugs and love to those people who are
>trying to KILL YOU.

People at a wedding are not trying to kill you.

[PhillyKev 0]

I can't fault the troops that did this, if you're in a war zone firing weapons at night into the air, you really should expect to get shot back at by whatever happens to be in the air.

I'm also willing to bet a few of them were killed by the bullets falling back to earth. People are idiots like that, I guess they think the bullets go into outer space or something. You hear about people getting killed that way in the US every year on New Years.

[rhino 0]

Quote

People at a wedding are not trying to kill you.

You may be right.. The helo pilot followed rules of engagement and was likely given the thumbs up by HQ before that missile was fired.

Insurgents are firing from mosques, maybe they have added weddings to the list.

[rehmwa 2]

Certainly everyone posting on this thread with an opinion one way or another should note their position on gun control. (I'm "For")

I do know that if I fired a gun at a wedding, a cop might just shoot me.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[falxori 0]

Quote

It isn't the US's fault.....not in the slightest

it is.
even if it a mistake (which it is), its their fault.
yes, its part of war and it happens, but it doesnt make it right.

we've had a similar incident today in israel when a tank fired a shell into a crowd which was a mixture of armed terrorists and innocent civilians.
is it part of the ongoing war? yes
was it intentional? no
but its still a serious error that should not happen.

O

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[jkm2500 0]

Bill,

Its obvious that you have never been put in a situation where you have to defend your own life. We are not in suburban america here where your neighbor might shoot a couple of rounds into the air. When Iraqi's shoot into the air it is not done by a 9mm pistol. It was more than likely several (read 10 or more) automatic weapons firing tracers into the night sky for several minutes at a time. Oh, and BTW can you tell the difference between a religious ceremony and a group of armed soldiers at 3AM from several hundred feet away, especially when both groups are carrying Ak-47s?

Show me how.....

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

> The only people out at 3 IN THE MORNING are the people that are
>going to do us harm anyway.

So those people at the wedding were going to leave there and kill a bunch of americans? Should we kill everyone at weddings that go past a certain time, to protect US lives?

>If you get shot at every night, you shoot back. make sense?

If a neighbor of yours shot into the air, and you killed him and everyone in his family, you would go to jail for a long time. Even if you live in a bad neighborhood.

>you can win the war by giving hugs and love to those people who are
>trying to KILL YOU.

People at a wedding are not trying to kill you.

What you are saying doesn't really make sense. How are the troops supposed to distenguish between celebratory gun fire and enemy gun fire? In a warzone it is not a good idea to be shooting into the air just for fun. Any reasonable person would expect to be shot at in a War zone.

[billvon 2,990]

>Oh, and BTW can you tell the difference between a religious
> ceremony and a group of armed soldiers at 3AM from several
> hundred feet away, especially when both groups are carrying Ak
>-47s?

I can't, but then again, I can't fly an Apache either. If I could I'd make sure I could tell things like that apart before blowing them to bits.

If we keep doing things like this we will lose. Not because we don't have enough firepower to wipe out every civilian in Iraq, but because we will destroy what we were trying to save. And once the Iraqis come to realize that a US soldier will kill you for being at a wedding (in self defense of course!) Iraq will become our next Vietnam.

[juanesky 0]

I Believe he just invented a super duper apliance that electronically detects the civilians and the good old people with the thingy in their heads (read terrorists).

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[bch7773 0]

has anybody considered that terrorists might have planned it this way?
think about it, the terrorists hear about a wedding that night, they go into a house near the wedding, and when the wedding people start shooting into the air, the terrorists open up on the helocopter.
the helo pilot returns fire on where he thinks the shots are coming from, and the terrorists win since they got us to commit this atrocity.

MB 3528, RB 1182

[billvon 2,990]

>How are the troops supposed to distenguish between celebratory
>gun fire and enemy gun fire?

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

[jkm2500 0]

Bill,

It is easy for you to make that call as an arm chair quaterback. But lets be completely honest in our observation, you have no idea what you would do placed in that situation, until you have been in that situation.

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[jkm2500 0]

Quote

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

The way that we know who is who on the battlefield is through marking that can be read through NVGs or through IR goggles. So unless the wedding participants want to wear IR vests it will be pretty hard to distiguish them.

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

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

They seemed to be pretty good at Bombing Canadian troops in Afghanistan, tho...

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

>Oh, and BTW can you tell the difference between a religious
> ceremony and a group of armed soldiers at 3AM from several
> hundred feet away, especially when both groups are carrying Ak
>-47s?

I can't, but then again, I can't fly an Apache either. If I could I'd make sure I could tell things like that apart before blowing them to bits.

If we keep doing things like this we will lose. Not because we don't have enough firepower to wipe out every civilian in Iraq, but because we will destroy what we were trying to save. And once the Iraqis come to realize that a US soldier will kill you for being at a wedding (in self defense of course!) Iraq will become our next Vietnam.

US soldiers are not killing anyone for just being at a wedding. Now put a gun in that persons hand and have him fire into the air with no regard to his own safety and the safety of those around him, now that is a different story all together. Get a group of people shooting into the air and I can see how a helicoptor on patrol could see that as enemy gun fire and take action against them.

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

>How are the troops supposed to distenguish between celebratory
>gun fire and enemy gun fire?

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

An integrated command and control structure probably has something to do with it.

[kiltboy 0]

I need to find the report on that incident (I had read it before) but I've since lost it.
Seemed as though the pilots were on speed and just forgot about SOPs for the situation. The flight leader lost command of his wingman and a few other screw ups contributed.

A-10s and warriors & scimitar AFVs seem to have a recurring problem.

David