US Helicopter Fires On Iraqi Wedding

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-05-21 09:05pm

MKSheppard wrote: Tell that to the people on the front line who are being shot at by
the enemy.

And you can tell that to people who live there and have had their home blown up by our bombs and thier famailes killed by our weapons.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-05-21 09:05pm

It isn't an insurgency if the majority of fighters are actually foreign hajjs who go into Iraq to fight the GREAT SATAN, yknow....it's actually a guerilla war.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2004-05-21 09:21pm

Then your military should try finding some guerillas to bomb.

Oh, no, they're led by fuckwits, and apologised for by fuckwits. Sorry, forgot that...

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-05-21 09:33pm

MKSheppard wrote:It isn't an insurgency if the majority of fighters are actually foreign hajjs who go into Iraq to fight the GREAT SATAN, yknow....it's actually a guerilla war.

Do you have any proof of that? Regardless of whether it's an insurgency or a guerilla war, the ROE's need to be altered to prevent civilian casualties. You cannot claim to be bringing "freedom and democracy" to a country and at the same time massacring their civilians.

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2004-05-21 09:45pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:
Fuck up moron. We've beaten the army, we've overthrown the government and we've got our own people in charge, we've won the war portion already. We whipped the ass of the former regieme. You dont grasp that this is not a war anymore, this is an insurgency, in which our troops are acting as the forces of the government (of our choosing) in this nation, which means they have the responsibility to protect the people of this land, from the insurgents and from being blown up from lack of care on the part of our troops.

And Vietnam was just a "Police Action", right? Let's not mince words, a war is a war, even if there aren't tanks shooting at each other.

As for the rest of the quote, I agree with you. It is indeed our job to protect and serve the people as the occupying force. Does this mean we have to do it by putting civilian lives over our soldiers? No. Not just no, but Hell no. Our job is to, for better or worse, "Pacify" the country. What do you think the average Iraq wants, first and foremost, Self-rule or security? What good is self-rule if you you can't say what you feel with out some Islamist capping you or your family? I won't condone a Helo pilot making a mistake like this (if indeed it turns out to be), but I can't bring myself to condemn for acting as he was trained to, and following standing orders.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-05-21 09:46pm

MKSheppard wrote:It isn't an insurgency if the majority of fighters are actually foreign hajjs who go into Iraq to fight the GREAT SATAN, yknow....it's actually a guerilla war.

Do foreign guerrillas typically bring along their wives, children and wedding singers?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-05-21 09:48pm

What is your evidence that all of the fighters are bringing along their families?

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-05-21 09:49pm

Howedar wrote:What is your evidence that all of the fighters are bringing along their families?

The point is more the dead wives, children and wedding singers that there are lying around from say...oh, I dont know...a US helicopter attack?

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-05-21 09:54pm

Howedar wrote:What is your evidence that all of the fighters are bringing along their families?

I have none nor was I suggesting that they do, I was implying that the large number of dead women and children at this “suspected safe house” put some doubt on shep’s foreign fighters theory.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-05-22 10:13am

10 dead children

Kimmit the Frog lied or was mistaken.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-05-22 11:13am

Lonestar wrote:During conflicts;

their civilians < our soldiers

Hey Amnesia-Man, this particular conflict is being justified by the claim that we're helping those same civilians, remember?

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-05-22 12:37pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Lonestar wrote:During conflicts;

their civilians < our soldiers
Hey Amnesia-Man, this particular conflict is being justified by the claim that we're helping those same civilians, remember?

I think also, that a lot of the problems there can be seen neatly in that little statement...the "Them and US" attitude.

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2004-05-22 03:09pm

Darth Wong wrote: Hey Amnesia-Man, this particular conflict is being justified by the claim that we're helping those same civilians, remember?

As has been pointed out many, many times, the justification for this war was Saddam's WMD. I still maintain that we could have made a better international case if we were heavy on "The son of a bitch has it coming" argumnet, but that wasn't the route TPtB took.

That said, I've already said in this thread that it is our job to provide security and the reconstruction of Iraq. It's not just our job, we're morally obligated to do so in a successful manner. But if the order came down to have our troops begin practices that would inrease the danger to them dramatically for civilian sensibilities, then yes, that would be bull shit. We're already at the point where every soldier in Iraq is more inclined to shoot first and ask questions later. The reason why we're at this point is because the insurgency created it.

I can't condone firing into a wedding (if indeed it was), but I can't bring myself to condemn the pilots either. This isn't like the case of some NAG F-16 pilot flying a thousand feet up and ignoring the "hey, the Canadians are exercising in the area" heads up. This is a case of a helicopter flying low, supposebly getting shot out from what the USA now says was a Terrorist safehouse.

Well, maybe it was. Even if it was just a wedding where the idiots fired small arms into the air at 0300 local, I still can't bring myself to condem those helo pilots for making the decision. Sorry.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-05-22 03:29pm

Lonestar wrote: As has been pointed out many, many times, the justification for this war was Saddam's WMD. I still maintain that we could have made a better international case if we were heavy on "The son of a bitch has it coming" argumnet, but that wasn't the route TPtB took.

That may be so, but it seems that bringing "freedom and deomcracy" to Iraq is the excuse of the month.

Lonestar wrote:That said, I've already said in this thread that it is our job to provide security and the reconstruction of Iraq. It's not just our job, we're morally obligated to do so in a successful manner. But if the order came down to have our troops begin practices that would inrease the danger to them dramatically for civilian sensibilities, then yes, that would be bull shit. We're already at the point where every soldier in Iraq is more inclined to shoot first and ask questions later. The reason why we're at this point is because the insurgency created it.

In order to win the Iraqi's "hearts and minds" the USA has to start putting the saftey of Iraq's civilians ahead of it's troops. This "shoot first and ask questions later" is breeding hatred and resentment. You'll notice that the British have not had these kinds of incidents, that may be because of a stricter set of ROE's. The insurgency is partialy to blame for this mentality, but part of it is because the USA values the lives of the civilians it is protecting less than it's own soldiers.

Lonestar wrote:I can't condone firing into a wedding (if indeed it was), but I can't bring myself to condemn the pilots either. This isn't like the case of some NAG F-16 pilot flying a thousand feet up and ignoring the "hey, the Canadians are exercising in the area" heads up. This is a case of a helicopter flying low, supposebly getting shot out from what the USA now says was a Terrorist safehouse.

If they fired on the wedding because of shots being fired in the air and not at them than the pilots should be drummed out of the service. Not properly identifing your target is inexcusable. And how many terrorist safehouses have women and children at them. Seems to me that it was an actual wedding, just like the Iraqi's said it was.

Lonestar wrote:Well, maybe it was. Even if it was just a wedding where the idiots fired small arms into the air at 0300 local, I still can't bring myself to condem those helo pilots for making the decision. Sorry.

Well that's your opinion, and your entitled to it. Just don't forget that those pilots killed 10 children because they couldn't be bothered to id their target.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-05-22 03:55pm

Lonestar wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: Hey Amnesia-Man, this particular conflict is being justified by the claim that we're helping those same civilians, remember?
As has been pointed out many, many times, the justification for this war was Saddam's WMD. I still maintain that we could have made a better international case if we were heavy on "The son of a bitch has it coming" argumnet, but that wasn't the route TPtB took.

The spreading freedom and democracy bit was always mentioned as one of the reasons to go to war its just that now WMD is proven to be bollocks its all they have left.
How exactly do you translate "The son of a bitch has it coming" into international law anyway?

That said, I've already said in this thread that it is our job to provide security and the reconstruction of Iraq. It's not just our job, we're morally obligated to do so in a successful manner.

Are we not also morally obligated not to kill lots of innocent civilians unnecessarily?

But if the order came down to have our troops begin practices that would inrease the danger to them dramatically for civilian sensibilities, then yes, that would be bull shit.

Why need any change increase the risk to our troops “dramatically” what if it increased the risk slightly? What about the incitement factor of all these civilian deaths doesn’t that in the long term increase the risks to our troops?

We're already at the point where every soldier in Iraq is more inclined to shoot first and ask questions later.

Are you seriously suggesting there was a point when US troops didn’t shoot first and ask questions later?

The reason why we're at this point is because the insurgency created it.

Didn’t our piss poor handling of the occupation create the insurgency?

I would argue that the large scale insurgency is caused by a number of factors:
Since the invasion of Kuwait amongst other things the US & UK have:
1. bombed the shit out of Iraq
2. invaded and half conquered Iraq killing thousands of Iraqi troops in the process
3. incited a rebellion against Saddam & then failed to back it up leading to thousands of deaths amongst groups previously sympathetic to the west
4. enforced sanctions upon Iraq leading to great suffering amongst its population and hundreds of thousands of deaths
5. bombed the shit out of Iraq again
6. invaded iraq again
7. occupied the oil fields and infrastructure but let everything else be looted
8. repeatedly shot first and asked questions later if at all – several times at the allied trained Iraqi security services
9. reintroduced censorship, internment, torture… basically most of the things we were supposedly there to stop
10. taken and released photos of Iraqis being tortured in Sadams old prison

Basically over the years we did an incredible number of things (I’m not saying if they were justified or not merely that they won’t have endeared us to the locals) to the Iraqis to make them dislike and distrust us, since the start of operation freedom or whatever it was called we have done a whole bunch more. After everything we’ve done to these people we have to earn their trust we can’t just demand it.

Well, maybe it was. Even if it was just a wedding where the idiots fired small arms into the air at 0300 local, I still can't bring myself to condem those helo pilots for making the decision. Sorry.

It’s their country they didn’t invite us in, it is for us to get used to their customs no matter how dumb they may be and that includes shooting in the air to celebrate, which they have been doing for decades. If westerns are anything to go by I believe Americans (cowboys) used to do a very similar thing.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2004-05-22 04:20pm

Vympel wrote:10 dead children

Kimmit the Frog lied or was mistaken.

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

He said that video showing dead children killed was actually recorded in Ramadi, far from the attack scene.

Or someone else lied....which IMO is far more likely.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-05-22 06:40pm

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

Kimmitt said that troops did not find anything -- such as a wedding tent, gifts, musical instruments, decorations or leftover food -- that would indicate that a wedding had been held.

Most of the men there were of military age, and there were no elders present to indicate a family event, he said.

What was found, he said, indicated the building was used as a waypoint for foreign fighters crossing into Iraq from Syria to battle the coalition.

"The building seemed to be somewhat of a dormitory," Kimmitt said. "You had over 300 sets of bedding gear in it. You had a tremendous number of pre-packaged clothing -- apparently about a hundred sets of pre-packaged clothing; (It is) expected that when foreign fighters come in from other countries, they come to this location, they change their clothes into typical Iraqi clothing sets."

At Saturday's briefing for reporters in Baghdad, Kimmitt showed photos of what he said were binoculars designed for adjusting artillery fire, battery packs suitable for improvised explosive devices, several terrorist training manuals, medical gear, fake ID cards and ID card-making machines, passports and telephone numbers to other countries, including Afghanistan and Sudan.

None of the men killed in the raid carried ID cards or wallets, he said. "We feel that that was an indicator that this was a high risk meeting of high level anti-coalition forces. There was a tremendous number of incriminating pocket litter, a lot of telephone numbers to foreign countries, Afghanistan, Sudan and a number of others."

Kimmitt said while the location was purported to be a sheep ranch, there was no evidence of ranching activities and no livestock.

He said that the coalition would continue to have an open mind about what might have happened, and he conceded there were some inconsistencies still to be worked out.

"The more that we look at intelligence, more we dig in, more we are persuaded no wedding," Kimmitt said.

"We had significant, multiple sources of intelligence" before ordering the raid, he said.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-05-22 07:02pm

I was just about to link that article. Kinda suspicious wedding, if you ask me.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-05-22 07:06pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:I was just about to link that article. Kinda suspicious wedding, if you ask me.

The media is showing a remarkable lack of objectivity here. What ever
the fuck happened to FACT CHECKING? Checking to make sure that
footage of dead children actually came from a reputable source, instead
of being hocked together from stock footage shot during Major Combat
Operations a year ago?

Oh that's right. Checking your facts would require time and effort, and
WE CANT HAVE THAT. We must scoop the competition, and fuck the story!

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-05-22 07:11pm

Don't you know, Shep? Americans destroying a terrorist outpost isn't nearly as attention-grabbing as bloodthirsty soldiers blowing up a happy-peacefull-joyjoy wedding.

Wait and see if there's an appology. But don't hold your breath.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-05-22 07:30pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:Wait and see if there's an appology. But don't hold your breath.

An apology from who exactly? Who is supposed to apologise to you whenever a few members of the multitude of amorphous groups individuals opposed to the occupation do something to upset you?

When a government does something wrong it’s usually fairly clear who’s responsible and who should apologise and resign. This simply isn’t the case from those opposing the “war on terror” do you really expect the whole of the arab/Islamic world or antiwar movement to bow down in apology to you every time the fatalities aren’t caused by our side or you suspect that the other side is spreading misinformation?

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-05-22 07:34pm

Plekhanov wrote:
When a government does something wrong it’s usually fairly clear who’s responsible and who should apologise and resign. This simply isn’t the case from those opposing the “war on terror” do you really expect the whole of the arab/Islamic world or antiwar movement to bow down in apology to you every time the fatalities aren’t caused by our side or you suspect that the other side is spreading misinformation?

How about from ten national media outlets including CNN, NBC, BBC, and Sky that ran with the story but are burying the retractions now that its not an atrocity? We'll start with them.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-05-22 07:41pm

MKSheppard wrote: The media is showing a remarkable lack of objectivity here. What ever
the fuck happened to FACT CHECKING? Checking to make sure that
footage of dead children actually came from a reputable source, instead
of being hocked together from stock footage shot during Major Combat
Operations a year ago?

Oh that's right. Checking your facts would require time and effort, and
WE CANT HAVE THAT. We must scoop the competition, and fuck the story!

Shep, do you have any idea how fucking hard it is to check stories like this in a war zone, in a restricted area? The US military only NOW has troops checking the site out for a reason--the area in which this occurred is REALLY inhospitable, and there are real problems with getting people out there.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-05-22 07:52pm

Master of Ossus wrote: Shep, do you have any idea how fucking hard it is to check stories like this in a war zone, in a restricted area? The US military only NOW has troops checking the site out for a reason--the area in which this occurred is REALLY inhospitable, and there are real problems with getting people out there.

Then why are they running this shit as FACT, Instead of splashing "DISCLAIMER" all over it?

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-05-22 08:30pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote: Shep, do you have any idea how fucking hard it is to check stories like this in a war zone, in a restricted area? The US military only NOW has troops checking the site out for a reason--the area in which this occurred is REALLY inhospitable, and there are real problems with getting people out there.
Then why are they running this shit as FACT, Instead of splashing "DISCLAIMER" all over it?

I think you’ll find that most news stories that can’t be verified are run past lawyers and consequently covered in disclaimers such as “a source said” & “reliable reports suggest” it’s just that you are so used to hearing them you hardly register them anymore.