american helicopter kills dozen in wedding party

[Gunslinger]

I'm not at all denying that this story is true but it seems like its full of ALOT of wholes.  It talks about soldiers comeing and leaving....than people breaking leggs and dieing than people sleeping than bombs falling (irc thaught it was a gunship that hit the area) than more poeple dieing...than more soldiers.  Sounds to me like the wedding was over but I dont get a clear picture from this article.  Either its very poorly written or its pretty inaccurat.

[Siaf__csf]

Originally posted by Toad:

Believe me, I wasn't suprised at who didn't participate.

For such a smart man you should realise everyone aren't watching this board like hawks and can actually miss a thread or two.

I found out about NB only recently when I stumbled to the beheading video through a third party.

Even though I'd seen a few such beheadings committed to russian soldiers and a jewish reporter (this was not the first such video), it still shocked me. In my mind the terrorists couldn't find a better way to create antiterrorism than the video they displayed.

Then again, without the gulf2 NB would still be playing football with his friends and eating fries at mcdonalds. The amount of terrorists and terrorism has exploded after the conflict which is a directly opposite result to what you went there for.

It's something most of us anti-war guys predicted and warned you about. I truly wished I would've been wrong on that one.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
For such a smart man you should realise everyone aren't watching this board like hawks and can actually miss a thread or two.

I found out about NB only recently when I stumbled to the beheading video through a third party.

Even though I'd seen a few such beheadings committed to russian soldiers and a jewish reporter (this was not the first such video), it still shocked me. In my mind the terrorists couldn't find a better way to create antiterrorism than the video they displayed.

Then again, without the gulf2 NB would still be playing football with his friends and eating fries at mcdonalds. The amount of terrorists and terrorism has exploded after the conflict which is a directly opposite result to what you went there for.

It's something most of us anti-war guys predicted and warned you about. I truly wished I would've been wrong on that one.

I personally think though that its better to fight them on their home field than in the streets of New York and DC.  It just sucks that innocent Iraqis are caught up in the cross fire.

[Siaf__csf]

Yes I understand that Gunslinger but the question really here is:

Was iraq the home field before gulf2? For sure it became one afterwards.

The problem with terrorism is that there is no home field. They can reside anywhere, any time and can be anyone.

I know this personally as a friends friend (whom I personally didn't know though) was caught in the november terrorist busts in Greece.

She was a middle aged, relatively wealthy mother of 3.

Nobody could ever even believe she was somehow involved. The grim fact is, the home field is more than often your own backyard.

[StabbyTheIcePic]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
I personally think though that its better to fight them on their home field than in the streets of New York and DC.  It just sucks that innocent Iraqis are caught up in the cross fire.

Us being over there does not make it any more less likely for terrorists to strike us here. They have no home field.

[T1loady]

To Whom It May Concern:

Just a real quick one here, When I was in Iraq and Afghanistan, and someone, well anyone was firing a weapon at me or my aircraft (even if it was celebration fire), they got a call for fire, and fire for effect. They know we are in the area, and they should know better.  Please don’t Monday morning quarter back our troops. Anyone who wants to make a difference in our Rules of Engagement, please feel free to go to OCS and become an officer or run for congress.  I know we work for “The People” but give me a break.  Please don’t comment on something you know nothing about.

[Red Tail 444]

Originally posted by GScholz
Incidentally "twat" is an acronym for The War Against Terror. *lol*

I don't care who said it, that's a good one....

[Gixer]

Some of you are so fast to tow the line on what ever the Pentagon or Bush admin say that I wonder if you actually think for yourselves for a second on other possiblities of events that may show that the party was mistakenly bombed with no provication at all.

Prisoner abuse and events like this is what makes the US so popular in the Arab world and so mistrusted no matter how much "good" work they try to portray is being accomplished in Iraq.


Wedding video weakens US attack claims
RAMADI (Iraq) - The United States faced another setback in Iraq after a videotape obtained by AP appeared to confirm that a wedding party was attacked by US planes, killing up to 45 people.

The US military has insisted that its target on Wednesday was a suspected safehouse for foreign fighters.

Advertisement
 
'There was no evidence of a wedding, no decorations, no musical instruments... no large quantities of food,' US military spokesman Brigadier-General Mark Kimmitt said on Saturday.

'There may have been some kind of celebration. Bad people have celebrations, too.'

But a video that AP Television News shot a day after the attack, which took place in Mogr el-Deeb village about 8km from the Syrian border, showed fragments of musical instruments, pots and pans scattered around the bombed-out tent. There was also brightly coloured bedding used for celebrations.

The wedding tape which AP obtained showed a dozen white trucks speeding through the desert escorting the bridal car - decorated with colourful ribbons.

An AP reporter and a photographer, who interviewed more than a dozen survivors, were able to identify many of them on the wedding party video.

One of the survivors, Bassem, said: 'There are no fighters. These are lies. There's no resistance. Even the bride and groom died.'

Yesterday, the US military insisted it had hit a legitimate target. -- AP, AFP, Reuters

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Yes I understand that Gunslinger but the question really here is:

Was iraq the home field before gulf2? For sure it became one afterwards.

The problem with terrorism is that there is no home field. They can reside anywhere, any time and can be anyone.

I know this personally as a friends friend (whom I personally didn't know though) was caught in the november terrorist busts in Greece.

She was a middle aged, relatively wealthy mother of 3.

Nobody could ever even believe she was somehow involved. The grim fact is, the home field is more than often your own backyard.

Very true....I'm not naieve (sp) enough to think that I wont be seeing mushroom clouds over a few US cities in the next few years.  I dont think that's a bush or kerry think, I think its bound to happen.  But think of all the anti American muslims that flooded into Iraq to kill our soldiers....equally good/bad we could have killed the next osama bin laden....or created him.  I still however, think Iraq is worth it.  If I had to say somthing critical about GWB i'd say this.  I only wish we would have caught OBL before Iraq.  But I'm not Naieve (sp) enough to think terrorism would have stopped after that.

[Toad]

Some few may have missed the Berg threads but they were long and they stayed near the top for days.

Many of you "anti-war guys" fit John Stuart Mills description to a "T".

No one likes war; OTOH it's pretty axiomatic that change follows war. For such a smart man you should realise that.

The true test of this conflict, in the end, will be what happens in the Middle Eastern countries with respect to personal freedoms and the progress of democracy over the next 10-20 years.

We're always exhorted to "take the Chinese view", take the "long view".

No one knows how large or small the change may be. This could be a watershed event in the history of the Middle East/Arab world.

THIS may actually be the event that brings the Arab world out of the past and into the modern world. THAT would probably be the death-knell for Arabic terrorists.

[Toad]

And some of you are so fast to tow the line on what ever the CNN or MSNBC that I wonder if you actually think for yourselves for a second on other possiblities of events that may show that the target was a terrorist staging area and bombed for exactly the right reasons.

Again, it's too early to tell. Has anyone yet been able to show when the "wedding photos" were taken?

[Toad]

That's right.

So which goal do you want to work towards?

[NUKE]

Originally posted by GScholz
Peace and democracy. I'm afraid this war will bring neither.

What is bad about the war in Iraq? Before, you said you were not against the war, only the reasons given for going to war. ( which is a contradiction a lot like to use as if making a point)

You honestly think that Iraq  would have been better off if we had left Saddam alone? I believe Saddam is responsible for over a million deaths in the Iran Iraq war. He killed an additional 300,000- 500,000 of his own people. He tortured, terrorized and maimed his own people as a matter of policy.

Now you say they will never be free? How do you know? You seem to sure be negative about their prospects  for freedom in light of the best chance they will ever have to be free.

[txmx]

Originally posted by GScholz
Oh yes I'm quite pessimistic about this war. Do you think it is going well?

The question is not whether Hussein was an oppressive dictator or not, but rather who or what will replace him. In a country where two thirds of the population is Shiite Muslim that have been oppressed by the Bathist Sunnis for decades ... sure democracy will work. Welcome to the Islamic Republic of Iraq ... or better yet the Islamic Republic of Persia.

So the solution would be to kill all the muslims?

[Otto]

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/24/230126.shtml