Page 1 of 1

Do as I say, not as I do...and other foriegn policy fun

Posted: Wed May 19, 2004 1:03 pm
by Will Robinson
Checking Google News a minute ago I see these headlines:

Bush Urges Restraint From Israelis, Palestinians Amid Escalating Violence
President Bush is urging restraint on the part of both Israelis and Palestinians amid escalating violence in the Gaza Strip. The president said that he wants to get "clarification" on what occurred during an attack on Palestinian demonstrators by Israeli military forces.

Officials say American aircraft kill more than 40 at wedding party
BAGHDAD, Iraq - 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...


Pot meets Kettle, screams "black"!

Posted: Wed May 19, 2004 3:11 pm
by Lothar
The headlines don't seem to do justice to the stories...

Bush urges restraint. That's good -- restraint should be showed. But restraint doesn't mean "don't do anything" -- it means "don't go overboard."

Now, shooting up a wedding party (that didn't involve Osama) would be overboard. But, as your second headline says, "the US military said it could not confirm the report and was investigating..."

CNN reports a pentagon official saying "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."

I think this shows two things:
1) headlines don't always tell the whole story (heh!)
2) you should probably wait for confirmation when the first paragraph contains something such as "it could not confirm the report." Whether it's about a military attack, WMD, Kerry saying something dumb, Bush lying, or whatever... when the magic 8-ball says "ask again later" that's what you do.

Posted: Wed May 19, 2004 3:21 pm
by Will Robinson
I'll concede the facts behind the stories may prove my initial reaction to be premature but I'm carrying a hair trigger on this topic because our foriegn policy reeks of double standard when you look at how we expect Israel to suffer much more violence than we ever put up with.
We took out two countries and are actively kicking ass in numerous other arenas because of one attack.
Israel takes it on the chin daily and we talk about what they should give up to buy peace!

Note: I'm not in disagreement with our pre-emptive, hard assed tactics, I applaud the Bush Doctrine. I just wish we would allow Israel the same lattitude to pursue her security and get this ball rolling!

Posted: Wed May 19, 2004 3:38 pm
by Lothar
I totally agree... Israel should have the green light to take out Arafat, build their fence, nail insurgents, etc.

But, restraint should still be shown. Having the green light doesn't mean you should zoom through at 130 mph. Just like having the green light to take out Al Qaeda doesn't mean we should shoot up weddings at random, having the green light to take out Arafat doesn't mean they should take out large groups of civilians.

Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 12:56 am
by Ferno
ya know.. if the US was really upset at Isreal, they'd come down on them like a ton of bricks.

but they haven't. what does that suggest?

Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 10:54 am
by Zuruck
i guess the 40 dead has been verified. US officials are saying it was hostile fire, people say it's a wedding. we all know America bombed a village in Afgan. during a wedding because they thought the celebratory firing of a gun was attacking them. the only problem I have with the killing of these people is that it's obvious they shoudl have known a little bit better at what they were shooting at. Perhaps sending a little incursion force instead of carpet bombing the place. But it's always easier to cast blame after the fact...

Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 8:10 pm
by DCrazy
According to the military, ground troops called in for close-air support because they couldn't sutain the fire.

Posted: Fri May 21, 2004 6:34 am
by Zuruck
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120545,00.html

I linked to fox news...it's a more conservative site so I think you might believe it. Apparently, US soldiers showed up, but they stayed 2 miles away and directed the air strikes during the middle of the night. Find the site you got your info and link it kid.

Posted: Fri May 21, 2004 10:52 am
by Lothar
It's clear they're lying:

"survivors insisted no weapons were fired Wednesday, despite speculation by Iraqi officials that this drew a mistaken American attack."

It's not an Arab wedding if it doesn't involve gunfire.

Posted: Fri May 21, 2004 4:54 pm
by Tyranny
Several key points...
In the end, up to 45 people were killed in the attack Wednesday, mostly women and children from the Bou Fahad tribe.
Don't they say this EVERY time? It's a common tactic to make us seem like the brutal villians out there.
Sheik Dahan Haraj, the tribe's chief who was also at the wedding, said that if the Americans suspected terrorists, "why not seal off the area and make sure they were indeed foreign fighters?
:roll: You really need to ask this question? Like they're so niave to what kind of tactics terrorists use to kill people. Sealing off the area and coming into close quarters with people whom you believe to be terrorist insurgents runs the risk of having soldiers in range for explosives or other booby traps. Possibly setting up another strike from jihadikazes. Yeah, thats REAL smart...

With the tech we got going out there we don't need to. We can see exactly what they're doing from a safe distance and US forces don't make it a habit of storming weddings and killing innocent people. The insurgents are bringing their families into harms way to martyr them to paint us as the great satan as much as they can. Thats really sad.
Some of the men tried to approach the Americans but were driven back by gunshots, the survivors said. The troops took money and jewelry the dead women had brought for the party, survivors said.
mmm nope, this isn't standard proceedure while in the midst of a sweep and clean operation. Another lie. I like how they try to describe things that they would do because they don't know any better. US Military forces don't "loot and plunder". :roll:

Posted: Fri May 21, 2004 9:14 pm
by Cuda68-2
America is not responding to just one attack. They have been killing us off since the late 60's because we are friends with there enemy {Isreal} therefore we are also there enemy and a justified target in there eye's. Close to 25% of the world population wants America dead and gone by any means possable. They need to get the hint, and a clear hint at that, that America won't go out wimpering. If they are stupid enough to fire weapons randomly under the current situation so be it. I have no mercy or understanding left for these people. They can ask for tolarance after they learn to police themselves.

Posted: Sat May 22, 2004 2:02 pm
by Lothar
In response to the "wedding", CNN says the following:
CNN wrote:Dozens of people killed in a U.S. attack in the Iraqi desert Wednesday were attending a high-level meeting of foreign fighters, not a wedding, and photos shown to reporters in Baghdad support that belief, according to the senior coalition military spokesman.

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said six women were among the dead, but there is no evidence any children died in the raid early Wednesday near the Syrian border.

Coalition officials have said that as many as 40 people were killed in the attack.

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

An Iraqi man interviewed by The Associated Press as the bodies of women and children were unloaded from a truck for burial said they had gathered for a wedding celebration when they were attacked.

"There may have been some kind of celebration," Kimmitt said. "Bad people have celebrations too. Bad people have parties too."

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.
It's amazing how quickly people on one side will jump on preliminary reports and say "the US bombed a wedding!" while people on the other side will jump on preliminary reports and say "Saddam had WMD!" You'd think, after being made to look foolish as many times as we have, we'd quit jumping to conclusions and wait a bit for better intelligence...

Posted: Sat May 22, 2004 4:44 pm
by Tyranny
w3rd Lothar.

Posted: Sat May 22, 2004 5:12 pm
by Dedman
Tyranny wrote:US Military forces don't "loot and plunder". :roll:
They didn't force detainees to have sex with each other until a few months ago either.

My point is, don't automatically discount the surviviors story just because you think Americans couldn't do such a thing. View it with skepticism sure, but allow for the possibility that it may have happened.