Gawain 0 #26 May 19, 2004 Quote>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. Hello....????....WAR ZONE... The coalition is using as much discretion as possible. The Iraqis too, must use discretion while their country is being rebuilt, while there are still hostilities going on. If we drop flyers admonishing Iraqis not to shoot their guns in the air, maybe that will help.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #27 May 19, 2004 QuoteCertainly 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. you mean you havent been to a wedding where the bride's family specifically asked everyone to check their weapons at the door? the shooting doesnt usually start until much later during the reception celebration ... to bad the southern culture cant just teach the arab culture to use a proper backstop instead of firing into the air... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #28 May 19, 2004 QuoteSeemed 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. Not sounding like "not our fault at all" to me in the slightest. Kelly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jkm2500 0 #29 May 19, 2004 does this sound like a wedding ceremony? http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/19/iraq.main/index.html QuoteBAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Pentagon officials Wednesday denied alleged eyewitness reports of a U.S. attack on a wedding party in a remote area of western Iraq that killed innocent civilians. "Our report is that this was not a wedding party, that these were anti-coalition forces that fired first, and that U.S. troops returned fire, destroying several vehicles, and killing a number of them," a Pentagon spokesman said. He was responding to a video distributed by The Associated Press showing Iraqi witnesses who said that at least 20 people were killed and five others critically wounded early Wednesday when planes fired on a wedding celebration. A man on the video said all homes in the village near the Syrian border were destroyed in the attack at about 3 a.m. local time Wednesday. The video showed at least a dozen bodies, including small children, wrapped in blankets for burial as they were unloaded from a truck. Men with picks and shovels were digging a series of graves in the video. A senior military coalition official said as many as 40 people were killed in the attack, but said it was his belief that the attack was against a foreign fighters' safehouse. A coalition official said in a written statement that coalition forces conducted a military operation "against a suspected foreign fighter's safehouse in the open desert, 85 km southwest of Husaybah, and 25 km from the Syrian border. "During the operation, coalition forces came under hostile fire and close air support was provided. "Coalition forces on the ground recovered numerous weapons, 2 million Iraqi and Syrian dinar, foreign passports and a satcom radio," the statement said. Asked if the incident was the same one described on videotape, he said, "Yes, it is the same incident." He added, "We had actionable intelligence to go after a foreign fighters' safehouse. It is not our belief that there was a wedding party in the open desert." The taped witnesses identified the village as al Qa'im, which maps show is on the Iraqi side of the Syrian border, along the Euphrates River. The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #30 May 19, 2004 That’s the whole point. We should not be there to begin with. So it is our fault. You can't just say oh fuck them it's there fault. Last time I checked we were there to help them have better lives, democracy and freedom. I love how we never do any thing wrong. You know why we never can say WE FUCKED UP. Because it hurts to say we killed innocent people god forbid our soldiers felt they made a mistake. We are Americans we never do any thing wrong. I would think when you see gun shots going straight in too the air and not at your direction you don’t just shoot back. Also many people dancing out side would be another sigh usually the people trying to kill you are hiding. There was also a mention of our soldiers checking out the location before we fired on them. I am so sick of this bias way we look at every thing we do. We kill innocent people and all we come up with is excuses. As for your suggestion as I should go there my self. I didn’t and I wouldn’t fight for a cause I didn’t believe in. I would not be in a war that I felt was wrong unless that war was brought to me. I feel bad for are soldiers who are stuck there but that doesn’t mean I am going to shut my eyes wave a flag and tie a yellow ribbon. I was born with a brain I am going to use it.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #31 May 19, 2004 QuoteShould we kill everyone at weddings that go past a certain time, to protect US lives? If someone with no posting record stated this, I would have to consider it an obvious troll because of its inflammatory nature. It also shows a total disregard for the facts. Yes, blowing up wedding participants is a tragedy. The safeguards against this are built into the rules of engagement. 1. It's a war zone. People shooting guns are regarded as hostile. 2. It's 3am, after curfew. 3. They were shooting guns in a war zone. If they followed simple reason, they would not be violating a curfew and shooting guns off in a war zone. Simple common sense. The outcome is a tragedy. Are you saying that the participants have no responsibility in it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #32 May 19, 2004 QuoteIt 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. It's the Iraqis' country and the US is NOT there by invitation. How you have the gall to say it's the wedding guests' fault I cannot begin to understand.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #33 May 19, 2004 QuoteBill, 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 fault may not belong to the individual that fired the missile, but is IS the US's fault for being there in the first place.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #34 May 19, 2004 QuoteQuote>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. Hello....????....WAR ZONE... . So the fault belongs to those that started the war. US.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #35 May 19, 2004 >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. I agree. But if I (for example) tortured and killed Iraqi prisoners, and then said at my court-martial "Hey, you have no idea what it's like! You were never in that situation" that wouldn't really fly as an excuse. If it's wrong to kill people who attend Iraqi weddings we have to find a way to make sure it doesn't happen. If it's not wrong, then no problems. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #36 May 19, 2004 >The outcome is a tragedy. Are you saying that the participants have >no responsibility in it? Not at all. They bear some of the responsibility. With power comes greater responsibility, though, and right now we have all the power. That means we have to be more responsible so that tragedies do not occur very often. Was this an isolated incident, an incident that we will learn from and move on? Great, problem solved. Is it indicative of a new policy? Then that's a problem. Counter question for you - do you think all the people killed by Saddam Hussein had absolutely no responsibility for their own deaths? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jkm2500 0 #37 May 19, 2004 QuoteIf it's wrong to kill people who attend Iraqi weddings we have to find a way to make sure it doesn't happen. If it's not wrong, then no problems. I don't think that they were attending a wedding. IF they were and it was a massacre, then it is tragic and we need to change the way we do things(I will concede to that). However, if they were not attending a wedding, they were there for the sole purpose of killing americans. That is justified isn't it?The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #38 May 19, 2004 Typically people don't bring their children to a 3 a.m. attack on US forces . . . or if they did, that'd be stupid as shit. So I really think this was a wedding . . . Kelly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #39 May 19, 2004 QuoteTypically people don't bring their children to a 3 a.m. attack on US forces . . . or if they did, that'd be stupid as shit. So I really think this was a wedding . . . Kelly There are plenty of accounts where women and children have been used as human shields.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #40 May 19, 2004 My take on the "human shield" phenomenon, fucked up as it is, is that it would be in daylight as a deterrent to keep US soldiers from firing at all, not wanting to injure or kill the innocent person in the way. Another human being does not make the best "shield". So at night, that wouldn't make much sense. But my take on that could be completely wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #41 May 19, 2004 I don't know what the rules of engagement are in such circumstances, but I do not believe we were 100% barred from returning fire in such instances. I could be wrong as I'm not a soldier.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #42 May 19, 2004 Uh uh uh... we are there by "invitation" as your logic showed in the other thread. And it IS a tragedy if it were an innocent wedding party that was blown to bits. It is also mind-numbing that anyone would be having a wedding in the wee hours of the morning, firing weapons into the air, when they are pretty much guaranteed to have coalition aircraft nearby. Either way you look at it, I'm sure al-jazeera can find witnesses to each and every death in Iraq that will SWEAR that the Americans did it. So I'll be as skeptical of that as you are the American statements.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #43 May 19, 2004 Quote...partygoers had fired into the air in a traditional wedding celebration... I wonder what the AP would say about a wedding in the US that involved celebratory firearm discharge? Is it really the Iraqi custom to hold weddings at 3am? Maybe because of the heat in the desert they do things at night?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #44 May 19, 2004 >However, if they were not attending a wedding, they were there for >the sole purpose of killing americans. That is justified isn't it? Not everyone in Iraq wants to kill americans. However, if that was their purpose, then it was definitely justified. The original article didn't suggest that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #45 May 19, 2004 >However, if they were not attending a wedding, they were there for >the sole purpose of killing americans. That is justified isn't it? Not everyone in Iraq wants to kill americans. However, if that was their purpose, then it was definitely justified. The original article didn't suggest that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #46 May 19, 2004 It even says in the article that NOTHING is confirmed. Has anyone heard confirmation that the US fired on a wedding party? Until then, all this is speculation. What's the point? They could have in fact been firing on our aircraft. We don't have all the facts. I would't put it past them to use a "wedding party" as cover for an offensive. They've proved that they'll use their own mosques as staging areas for their attacks. I could see a "wedding party" as being excellent cover for them since everyone knows that part of their celebration typically includes firing weapons into the air. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jkm2500 0 #47 May 19, 2004 WHat amazes me is that people see this as something that is normal. Do we in the US allow our children to stay up until 3 in the morning while firing off machine guns into the air to celebrate a wedding? I don't think so. Children in Iraq are just like children in every other part of the world, they sleep at night. IF and its a big IF, this was a wedding, then this was a tradgedy. However the US serviceman were well within the limit of the ROE by shooting. Right or wrong it happened.The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #48 May 19, 2004 QuoteIt even says in the article that NOTHING is confirmed. Has anyone heard confirmation that the US fired on a wedding party? Until then, all this is speculation. What's the point? They could have in fact been firing on our aircraft. We don't have all the facts. I would't put it past them to use a "wedding party" as cover for an offensive. They've proved that they'll use their own mosques as staging areas for their attacks. I could see a "wedding party" as being excellent cover for them since everyone knows that part of their celebration typically includes firing weapons into the air. How about we all quit speculating until we find out whether it was a wedding or a terrorist camp.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #49 May 19, 2004 QuoteDo we in the US allow our children to stay up until 3 in the morning while firing off machine guns into the air to celebrate a wedding? Generally, no. But I know pretty much jack about Iraqi customs. For all I know, that's normal behavior over there. I mean, in a place where daytime temps climb over 110, it might actually make sense to do our "normal" daytime things at night. Anyone know for sure?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #50 May 19, 2004 117 wounded. 48 dead. Hmmm...wonder how many anti-american terrorists this will create? 20 years from now will will most likely face a new OBL-type due to events like this....no matter how much good we may do over there, events like this will forever overshadow this war._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
