US Helicopter Fires On Iraqi Wedding

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-05-19 03:34pm

CBC wrote:BAGHDAD - Iraqi officials claim more than 40 people, including children, were killed when a U.S. helicopter fired on a wedding party in western Iraq early Wednesday morning.

The U.S. military said it could not confirm the attack and was investigating the incident.

"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 spokesperson, wrote in an e-mail in response to a question from the Associated Press.

Iraqi witnesses said some of the wedding guests were firing into the air in traditional celebratory gunfire.

The attack took place in al-Qaim in the Anbar province, a desert area near the border with Syria and Jordan, a local official said.

Lt.-Col. Ziyad al-Jbouri, deputy police chief of the city of Ramadi, said between 42 and 45 people died in the attack, including 15 children and 10 women.

A hospital official in the area said 45 people were killed.

Al-Arabiya TV said more than 40 people were killed.

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.

U.S. military defended the action, saying American planes had come under fire.

It hasn't been confirmed by the USA yet, but if it's not BS than the US has some explaining to do. Of course firing into the air at a wedding doesn't exactly indicate much common sense.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-05-19 03:37pm

How the fuck are they going to explain this one? What the fuck were US troops doing firing artillery near civilian targets? Even if they have a good explanation, its not going to mean shit to the Iraqis. And why should it? If the US military was responsible for something like this in the United States, can you imagine what the public outcry would be?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-05-19 03:38pm

Get some fucking party poppers, for the love of Allah.

The batshit insane celebratory technique of shooting the nearest automatic weapon at hand into the air in a fucking occupied country no less is beyond retarded.

Sure, the US was probably in the wrong here if this is true, but fuck me, do the occupants of the Middle-east have to insist on being that stupid?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-05-19 03:39pm

EDIT: Excuse me, not firing artillery, but a helicopter firing heavy weapons into a crowd.

Now, I'm no military weapons expert, but could someone tell me how a hellicopter could possibly mistake a weding of 40 civilians for a military target? Is there any concievable way this could have been an error in instrumentation?

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2004-05-19 03:39pm

Well if it turns out true, then it sucks complete donkey balls, but those bedouin need to learn that shooting into the air is not a good tactic in areas with military vehicles in operation.

How traditional could it be anyway? How long have arabs had guns?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-05-19 03:43pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Get some fucking party poppers, for the love of Allah.

The batshit insane celebratory technique of shooting the nearest automatic weapon at hand into the air in a fucking occupied country no less is beyond retarded.

Sure, the US was probably in the wrong here if this is true, but fuck me, do the occupants of the Middle-east have to insist on being that stupid?

Come on, how stupid do you have to be to not know the difference between wedding gunfire and hostile targets trying to fire upon you? Granted, if they have violated any laws for using weapons they should have been arrested, but that doesn't mean they need to be fired upon by a fucking helicopter.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-05-19 03:43pm

Isn't shooting guns into the air at a wedding EXACTLY how a wedding in Afghanistan got blown up? Someone should warn people.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-05-19 03:44pm

The Kernel wrote:EDIT: Excuse me, not firing artillery, but a helicopter firing heavy weapons into a crowd.

Now, I'm no military weapons expert, but could someone tell me how a hellicopter could possibly mistake a weding of 40 civilians for a military target? Is there any concievable way this could have been an error in instrumentation?

They probably saw weapons being fired in a crowd of people and did what the Americans are very fond of doing. Shooting first and asking questions later. It could be that they thought they were under fire. Thats what those two retards did when they bombed the Canadians in Afghanistan, they thought they were under fire, even though they were above the range of small arms fire. And indeed of most light AAA.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-05-19 03:47pm

The Kernel wrote:EDIT: Excuse me, not firing artillery, but a helicopter firing heavy weapons into a crowd.

Now, I'm no military weapons expert, but could someone tell me how a hellicopter could possibly mistake a weding of 40 civilians for a military target? Is there any concievable way this could have been an error in instrumentation?

If you're in the air, and a large group of people are shooting into the air, in a country where you don't know where the next atack is coming from no less, can you explain to me how you're supposed to refrain from defending yourself?
Are you supposed to wait until you actually get shot to determine that the people shooting guns are shooting at you?
In a country with unpredictable insurgent attacks coming everyday, are you supposed to be able calmly catalogue every person in a group that's firing weapons in the air and say they somehow differ from insurgent X?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-05-19 03:49pm

The Kernel wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:Get some fucking party poppers, for the love of Allah.

The batshit insane celebratory technique of shooting the nearest automatic weapon at hand into the air in a fucking occupied country no less is beyond retarded.

Sure, the US was probably in the wrong here if this is true, but fuck me, do the occupants of the Middle-east have to insist on being that stupid?
Come on, how stupid do you have to be to not know the difference between wedding gunfire and hostile targets trying to fire upon you? Granted, if they have violated any laws for using weapons they should have been arrested, but that doesn't mean they need to be fired upon by a fucking helicopter.

I didn't exactly congratulate the idiot that fired on the US side either. It's obvious that from this article, the Arabs need to learn that guns are for killing and the US needs to be a little less trigger-happy.

I notice it's always weddings when this happens for some reason.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-05-19 03:50pm

If its true then it's a tragedy.

If they did shoot into the air though, I can't blame the pilots too much given the situation out there.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-05-19 03:51pm

Frank Hipper wrote:If you're in the air, and a large group of people are shooting into the air, in a country where you don't know where the next atack is coming from no less, can you explain to me how you're supposed to refrain from defending yourself?
Are you supposed to wait until you actually get shot to determine that the people shooting guns are shooting at you?
In a country with unpredictable insurgent attacks coming everyday, are you supposed to be able calmly catalogue every person in a group that's firing weapons in the air and say they somehow differ from insurgent X?

Alright, let me put this another way. Do you really think that the women and children were the ones firing the guns? If not, then you are looking at a situation where some men were shooting guns in the air in an open space, and the hellicopter pilot decided to blanket the entire area and kill dozens of non-combatants. Is this okay in your book, even if some of the people WERE hostiles?

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-05-19 04:26pm

The Kernel wrote:Alright, let me put this another way. Do you really think that the women and children were the ones firing the guns? If not, then you are looking at a situation where some men were shooting guns in the air in an open space, and the hellicopter pilot decided to blanket the entire area and kill dozens of non-combatants. Is this okay in your book, even if some of the people WERE hostiles?

Okay? We have no business being there in the first place, but that's a different subject entirely.
Okay? "Collateral Damage", that charming euphemism, is a fact, no matter how disgusting it seems to our sensibilities. Assuming the pilot thought he was under fire, why is it expected that he take that fire at the risk of his own life and his crew's? At no time, in no war, have combatants been epected to die because of doubts to civillian status.
My High School US history teacher told us how in Normandy, during WWII, he was instructed to target civilians on the battlefield FIRST, simply because you did not know if they were spies/collaberators, or not.

How would you avoid hitting women and children in a group firing guns in the air, anyway?
Trust me, I'm not saying this is in any way a good thing, it's just understandable.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-05-19 05:02pm

Cpl Kendall wrote: They probably saw weapons being fired in a crowd of people and did what the Americans are very fond of doing. Shooting first and asking questions later. It could be that they thought they were under fire. Thats what those two retards did when they bombed the Canadians in Afghanistan, they thought they were under fire, even though they were above the range of small arms fire. And indeed of most light AAA.

Being in a helicopter, they were most likely flying at very low altitude and fairly near the incident. In a helo you CAN get shitcanned by small arms fire if you get unlucky.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-05-19 05:33pm

Recently posted on the CNN website:

CNN wrote:
BAGHDAD, 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.

From later in the same story:

CNN wrote: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.

A wedding celebration at 3 am?

Korvan · Post by **Korvan** » 2004-05-19 05:48pm

Frank Hipper wrote:
The Kernel wrote:EDIT: Excuse me, not firing artillery, but a helicopter firing heavy weapons into a crowd.

Now, I'm no military weapons expert, but could someone tell me how a hellicopter could possibly mistake a weding of 40 civilians for a military target? Is there any concievable way this could have been an error in instrumentation?
If you're in the air, and a large group of people are shooting into the air, in a country where you don't know where the next atack is coming from no less, can you explain to me how you're supposed to refrain from defending yourself?
Are you supposed to wait until you actually get shot to determine that the people shooting guns are shooting at you?
In a country with unpredictable insurgent attacks coming everyday, are you supposed to be able calmly catalogue every person in a group that's firing weapons in the air and say they somehow differ from insurgent X?

You can always withdraw until you have better intel on the situation. If the pilot in Afganistan had withdrawn instead of immediately attacking, we'd have four more canadian soldiers with us today.

It's quite clear that the americans value the lives of their soldiers over the lives of innocent non-combatants and even the lives of their allies, so much that the possibility of wiping out a civilian wedding is preferable to taking the risk of find out for sure what you are firing at.

Though, it is looking like the existance of the wedding is now in doubt. But you'd never convince the average Iraqi of that.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-05-19 06:01pm

jegs2 wrote:A wedding celebration at 3 am?

What you never had a party which went on past 3?

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-05-19 06:07pm

Plekhanov wrote:
jegs2 wrote:A wedding celebration at 3 am?
What you never had a party which went on past 3?

Never one where booze is religiously prohibited.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-05-19 06:16pm

Frank Hipper wrote: Okay? "Collateral Damage", that charming euphemism, is a fact, no matter how disgusting it seems to our sensibilities. Assuming the pilot thought he was under fire, why is it expected that he take that fire at the risk of his own life and his crew's? At no time, in no war, have combatants been epected to die because of doubts to civillian status.

My High School US history teacher told us how in Normandy, during WWII, he was instructed to target civilians on the battlefield FIRST, simply because you did not know if they were spies/collaberators, or not.

How would you avoid hitting women and children in a group firing guns in the air, anyway?
Trust me, I'm not saying this is in any way a good thing, it's just understandable.

First off I would expect that the instruction to shoot civilians 1st didn’t apply once the US were occupying Europe, if so it’s not a particularly useful example is it, also when you consider the nature and cause of the war you’d expect the ROE to have more leeway.

This is understandable people, of course make mistakes but the ROE you are suggesting would mean they make a heck of a lot more, creating more “collateral damage” and fuelling the rebellion.

According to you as soon as any of the coalition troops perceive a threat they should shoot first and ask questions later? I would suggest maybe withdrawing if at all possible until more information on the situation is available and then either going in and engaging with the enemy or if the threat turns out to be a wedding party leaving well alone.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-05-19 07:02pm

UPDATE:

CNN wrote:BAGHDAD, 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.

Does anyone really believe them?

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-05-19 07:33pm

Frank Hipper wrote:
Plekhanov wrote:
jegs2 wrote:A wedding celebration at 3 am?
What you never had a party which went on past 3?
Never one where booze is religiously prohibited.

How many non drinking parties do you go to? I've got a few muslim mates, who don't drink and I regularly see them out clubbing.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-05-19 08:12pm

Does anyone else remeber the wedding party in Afghanistan that suffered the same fate?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-05-19 08:36pm

fgalkin wrote:Does anyone else remeber the wedding party in Afghanistan that suffered the same fate?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Yes, I remember. Similar circumstances. I wonder if the USA compensated the victims.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-05-19 09:52pm

Plekhanov wrote:
Frank Hipper wrote:
Plekhanov wrote: What you never had a party which went on past 3?
Never one where booze is religiously prohibited.
How many non drinking parties do you go to? I've got a few muslim mates, who don't drink and I regularly see them out clubbing.

Been to a couple, none lasted past midnight or one, and most were over before dark.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-05-19 10:02pm

At 3 AM, wouldn't it be rather hard to make the determination that it was a group of civilians rather than a group of combatants?

Also, okay, I can see a party going that late... but with children?