Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: an0n on May 19, 2004, 03:08:52 pm
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3730423.stm
-
so, we going to talk about it everytime the US screws up.
EDIT: Anon, that title is WAY.....!!! to glorious for you:p
-
:wtf: @ jdjtcagle
That'd take too long. I think we only cover the seriously big or dumb **** ups. Thinking arabs firing guns at a wedding is an attack falls into the latter category.
-
Nah, just every time they use excessively superior firepower to bring death from above to a bunch of innocent civillians.
Oh, wait...
-
well, ok...
They screwed up, now can we back on wtih our lifes :p
-
NO! We must debate this!
-
Thats the problems will celebrations over there (and elsewhere)...it usually involves autmatic gunfire. Here we pop open the beer and sit down...they fire into the air. I guess its the same thing.
Unfortunately, it makes people who are nervous and itchy on the trigger finger to take such an event and disproportionally respond.
I still say they should never have gotten involved there. But they are now and they really need to straighten up.
-
I know a lady here who got a bullet in the arm from a nearby Arab wedding while she was standing on her balcony.
-
A) They were firing up into the air
B) Reuters says nothing about it being a wedding
C) there have been reports of heavy weaponry being recovered from the location
D) The Choppers were in the arena hunting down an insurgent vehicle - so it's easy to understand that with A being the case they could have out of combat instinct returned fire
-
Yeah its a screw up, but I'll be honest. If I was up in the air and suddenly start seeing people open fire into the air, chances are that I'm gonna open up on them.
-
Why does that not surprise me. :confused:
-
Originally posted by Kazan
C) there have been reports of heavy weaponry being recovered from the location
It's Iraq. You can buy heavy weapons from a candy store.
And I'll remind you that some Americans own more firepower than the Swiss army.
So them whining about "We thought we were in danger" is no excuse.
-
Can't the bloody fools fire blank rounds if they want to celebrate? :p
Or wait until the heavily armed helicopters are a bit further away. :D
-
They're poor and they might need to kill American troops. Blanks are a waste of money.
-
I suppose I have to say that anyone who knows how delicate a Helicopter actually is would certainly shoot back first and ask questions later, I think the whole idea of firing guns unto the air is a bit silly anyway, especially when you are in the middle of a warzone, I'm all for freedom of expression, but let the guys with big guns and itchy fingers go home first ;)
However, that said, if it was a wedding, the it was a horrible and regrettable mistake. You can say that America shouldn't be there in the first place etc etc etc, and I might be inclined to agree, but the fact is they are there, but I don't think this is anything worse than a cock-up, on both sides, as tragic as it is :(
-
Wouldn't blanks cause the same thing? :doubt:
We have fireworks, they shoot to the air.
-
Yes, but many of us are not in countries filled with nervous helicopter pilots controlling several millions dollars with of Aerial Death ;)
Take out one Helicopter with a firework, and I'll be impressed, the downdraught from the rotors is far more powerful than the upthrust from the firework ;) It IS possible, but it would be far far more luck than judgement :)
Oh, and Ghostavo, I think Styxx was referring to Sandwiches friend who got shot by accident. Blanks would have made a difference in that particular incident ;)
-
Both have problems, you see, if a soldier sees an iraqi preparing "something" with what looks like blackpowder... things could get messy... and I would like to know how can they get blackpowder in times like these. Guns and ammo they could have gotten before the war, seing that it might had more "pratical"uses than just blackpowder. :D
-
LOL Very true! I think that's one of the reasons the British government has suddenly started slapping loads of regulations on Fireworks, they've suddenly remembered that the Gunpowder in fireworks is to celebrate Britains most famous Terrorist ;)
-
an0n: when i say heavy weapons i mean things like RPGs, etc
-
Compare these two stories. Seem similar to you?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/19/mideast/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/19/iraq.main/index.html
It's almost scary...
-
If you fire live rounds into the air in an area where there are unannounced attack helicopter patrols, you are going to get shot at, *particularly* in a war zone.
It's an accident, if they're telling the truth, and a preventable one. It's common sense not fire a gun unless it is on a target you intend to kill. Even then, you may want to think twice. Otherwise, firing a weapon with a live round could cause all sorts of problems.
-
yeah, about 20 bucks for one of those.
And this was just a screw up. More professional soldiers wouldn't have made that mistake, but thats what you get when you have trigger-happy 19 years old straight from Texas.
-
Originally posted by an0n
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3730423.stm
Accidents happen in every war. They happened in Vietnam, in Korea, in Gulf War I, in Kosovo, etc. Besides, My Lai makes anything that happened in Iraq look like an extremely minor error. THAT was a disgrace.
-
Originally posted by Corsair
Compare these two stories. Seem similar to you?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/19/mideast/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/19/iraq.main/index.html
It's almost scary...
thats cause you have guess who taking occupation tips from guess who, with guess who's expert "consultants" over in Iraq to train guess who's soldiers in how to deal with them towelheads.
-
You know, it's amazing, sometimes I can go for weeks without taking my passport with me wherever I go. Is it for identification purposes in Iraq or something?
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Accidents happen in every war. They happened in Vietnam, in Korea, in Gulf War I, in Kosovo, etc. Besides, My Lai makes anything that happened in Iraq look like an extremely minor error. THAT was a disgrace.
Collateral damage, right? Sort of like Nick Berg and the people in the WTC towers? If you want to make an omlete, gotta break a few eggs. Or in this case, if you want to make war.....
-
That's a tad more callous than I think he meant it, Rictor. I know I didn't. But if people (military *and* civilian) would use a little common sense, some of these idiotic 'incidents' could be avoided.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Collateral damage, right? Sort of like Nick Berg and the people in the WTC towers? If you want to make an omlete, gotta break a few eggs. Or in this case, if you want to make war.....
I want to choke you. THERE IS A ****ING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TAKING OUT A TARGET BELIEVED TO BE HOSTILE THAT TURNS OUT TO BE INNOCENT AND KNOWINGLY KILLING INNOCENTS TO INCITE FEAR AND TERROR! The deaths of Berg and the WTC victims were not collateral damage. To the terrorists, ANYONE who does not share their beliefs is fair game and must be converted or annihalated. The helicopter was firing in self-defense but simply made a tactical error in interpreting the celebratory gunfire as hostile gunfire.
-
The people in the WTC towers are only innocent by your definition.
They were military contractors, banks keeping 3rd world countries poor, international corporations raping piss-poor countries to increase their stock.....
-
Well, most of them weren't really An0n, they were ordinary people doing what everybody does, which is 'what you are told if you want to keep your job'. They may be guilty by association, but then, we really don't want to start walking that road,
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
I want to choke you. THERE IS A ****ING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TAKING OUT A TARGET BELIEVED TO BE HOSTILE THAT TURNS OUT TO BE INNOCENT AND KNOWINGLY KILLING INNOCENTS TO INCITE FEAR AND TERROR! The deaths of Berg and the WTC victims were not collateral damage. To the terrorists, ANYONE who does not share their beliefs is fair game and must be converted or annihalated. The helicopter was firing in self-defense but simply made a tactical error in interpreting the celebratory gunfire as hostile gunfire.
I know it was an accident, I said as much. But I do not agree with your verdict regarding the insurgents that "ANYONE who does not share their beliefs is fair game and must be converted or annihalated." Thats propaganda. Wherever there is oppression, a group forms to counter it. al Queda formed in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The various Islamic militant groups in Palestine formed in response to the Israeli occupation. I'm not saying their aims are pure and good, but it is a bit more complicated than "they are evil!!!!!!!!!!".
And differences between an intended killing and an accidental killing are marginal. You can be forgiven if you run someone over with your car....once. But not if you do it 10,000 times. More people have died as a result of "accidents" and "collateral damage" in Iraq than have died as the result of the intentional plan to kill civilians at the WTC.
You think that you can just keep saying "sorry, our bad, it was an accident" and that makes everything all better?
-
True, Flipside, most of them were probably innocent, but they accepted what they were working towards without even questioning it. A man without integrity is no man at all, and certainly no loss to mankind.
And then there's the few who weren't so innocent......
Their deaths are worth the lives of the innocents by anyones standards.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
"ANYONE who does not share their beliefs is fair game and must be converted or annihalated." Thats propaganda.
no that's part of the definition of a fundamentalist,
sorry better luck playing semantics next time
Wherever there is oppression, a group forms to counter it.
That doesn't justify terrorist actions
al Queda formed in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The various Islamic militant groups in Palestine formed in response to the Israeli occupation. I'm not saying their aims are pure and good, but it is a bit more complicated than "they are evil!!!!!!!!!!".
"they are evil" is a simplification of: "People who intentionally target civilians, knowing that they are civilians, is committing crimes against humanity"
Someone pointing a gun at you is not a civilian, someone firing a gun at you is not a civilian, someone rigging a bomb is not a civilian - those are combatants. Remember not all combatants are professional soldiers.
And differences between an intended killing and an accidental killing are marginal. You can be forgiven if you run someone over with your car....once. But not if you do it 10,000 times.
false analogy - say you have 10,000 targets, and you get 20 enemy combatants and 1 civilian per target destroyed - that's a pretty damn good ratio. Put things in perspective - know what they hell you're talking about.
Rictor you simply don't know anything about military tactics or doctrine. You really are one of the people who are like "OMG! SOMEONE WAS KILLED! STOP THE PLANET!"
More people have died as a result of "accidents" and "collateral damage" in Iraq than have died as the result of the intentional plan to kill civilians at the WTC.
however ignoring your implications the WTC was an intentional targetting of civilians in a non-combat zone. "Collateral damage" is civilians who get caught in the cross fire in a combat zone - it happens LIVE WITH IT, "Accidents" happen in a combat zone: intentions are misunderstood, etc the best way to minimize with is SHORTEN CONFLICT [short of avoiding war, but sometimes war is necessary].
As for today's "incident" - they fired guns into the air in a combat zone with combat aircraft overhead - they brought that fire down on them - plain and simple.
You think that you can just keep saying "sorry, our bad, it was an accident" and that makes everything all better?
You act like acidents are never going to happen - it's a LARGE combat zone with no clearly defined frontlines, people having stupid traditions like shooting guns into the air at parties - and terroristic tactics raising tensions.
If you cannot see that ANY country occupying iraq under these conditions is going to have incidents like this then you're a fool. IT HAPPENS, **** HAPPENS - you must live with it and move on. Accidents happen, all you can do is express regret for them
PS: Under military doctrine, and probably in a War Crimes tribunal, the pilots who fired were in the right due to the people firing weapons.
-
Originally posted by an0n
And I'll remind you that some Americans own more firepower than the Swiss army.
:wtf: ...how would you know ?
That's all T3h s3kr3t
-
Originally posted by Rictor
thats cause you have guess who taking occupation tips from guess who, with guess who's expert "consultants" over in Iraq to train guess who's soldiers in how to deal with them towelheads.
Still, it just goes to show that the Iraq situation is becoming more and more like the Israel-Palestine conflict every day...
-
Originally posted by Rictor Collateral damage, right? Sort of like Nick Berg and the people in the WTC towers? If you want to make an omlete, gotta break a few eggs. Or in this case, if you want to make war.....
stop.
-
Kazan: knowing full well that a war in Iraq would cost so and so many civilian lives, thats no longer an accident. In order to count something as an accident, you need to be unaware of the corcumstance which would lead to such an accident. But you know what if you are going to bomb a country for X number of days, Y number of people will die. You know that if you impose sanctions for X number of years, Y number of people will die.
Saying "sorry, **** happens" everytime is not enough. You need to stop doing what you were doing which lead to such an accident.
No, I don't care what you intended. Its plain as day that invading Iraq would, bombing it and occupying it would get a substainial number of people killed. You could even go so far as to predict the exact number, if you were a military expert on such matters.
As for peope screaming "OMG!!! SOMEONE DIES< STOP THE WORLD!!!", that seems strangely familiar. A certain nation, who shall not be named here, thought that the deaths of 3000 of its people was a world-changing events, right up there with WW2 and the Great Flood. Hey, guess what. 3000 people died in North Korea about a month ago. Is this a world crisis? Has this event changed the world forever? Will history be forever altered to remember this, the greatest of all tragedies? Nah.
You are very quick to write off civilian deaths as "just part of life". Unless, of course, we are talking about Americans. Then, its a collosal, history-altering event. How would you react if tommorow, 10,000 Americans were killed by a foreign power, lets say by Iran. How would you feel?
I don't care how the military chooses to avoid casualties. They can wage war with horses and water pistols for all I care, strategy is their job, not mine. If they are unable to avoid a staggering amount of civilian casualties, they can either change their tactics or not wage war at all. Civilians are sacred, they must not be harmed.
-
An0n, strangely enough, to a point, I agree, I couldn't sell guns to people, because if even one of those guns is used to kill someone, I would consider myself in part responsible. However, A large percentage of admin staff really don't get to hear about what the company is 'doing' they are too wrapped up in their own little world of 'The Office' to be concerned about bigger wheels. Once again, I can see how this could be interpreted as not-caring by those who are angry enough. However, they were guilty only of the 'crime' of growing up in a 'What difference can I make on my own?' society.
In a way we still use Gothic thinking, cathedrals were built to remind worshippers that 'God is big and you are small'. I see many of these skyscrapers in a similar light, 'The Company is big and you are small'. I suppose my problem is that you can kill the Director, you can kill the whole controlling board, but you just can't kill the corporation or it's ideals or motives, at least, not with bombs and guns. All you can kill with those are people :(
-
Originally posted by Flipside
An0n, strangely enough, to a point, I agree, I couldn't sell guns to people, because if even one of those guns is used to kill someone, I would consider myself in part responsible. However, A large percentage of admin staff really don't get to hear about what the company is 'doing' they are too wrapped up in their own little world of 'The Office' to be concerned about bigger wheels. Once again, I can see how this could be interpreted as not-caring by those who are angry enough. However, they were guilty only of the 'crime' of growing up in a 'What difference can I make on my own?' society.
Erm, you pay taxes correct?
Originally posted by Flipside
In a way we still use Gothic thinking, cathedrals were built to remind worshippers that 'God is big and you are small'. I see many of these skyscrapers in a similar light, 'The Company is big and you are small'. I suppose my problem is that you can kill the Director, you can kill the whole controlling board, but you just can't kill the corporation or it's ideals or motives, at least, not with bombs and guns. All you can kill with those are people :(
True dat, I never really thought about it that way. But you're right, thats exactly the impression that skyscrapers give off, and the parralels between religon a few hundred years ago and the corporate culture today are...astoundng.
Some day, 250 years from now, a kid will be asking his teacher "were people back then really so obsessed with corporate identity, that they used it to fill the gaps in their culture and in their existence which were meant for more meaningful things? Wow, thats wierd."
-
:wtf: I'm impressed Kazan, that is the clearest, most objective argument I've seen you make ever, I think... I couldn't agree more :nervous:
-
How would you feel?
I'm guessing they'd go bomb Iran. Wif bigger bombs than iraq. And kill lots of innocent civvys. Probably about 2x10000. Oh and our Prime Minister here would bend over and be butt raped by **** into helping out.
Maybe this is too easy to forsee. They're going to bomb Iran anyway.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
An0n, strangely enough, to a point, I agree, I couldn't sell guns to people, because if even one of those guns is used to kill someone, I would consider myself in part responsible. However, A large percentage of admin staff really don't get to hear about what the company is 'doing' they are too wrapped up in their own little world of 'The Office' to be concerned about bigger wheels. Once again, I can see how this could be interpreted as not-caring by those who are angry enough. However, they were guilty only of the 'crime' of growing up in a 'What difference can I make on my own?' society.
They hear. They hear just fine. But all they care about is their own little cubicle.
If we're only ever hoping to survive, that's fine. But if we're trying to build a civilization, people who think that way should be taken out and shot.
It may take a trillion drops to make an ocean, but it only took one bullet to start WW1.
-
LOL Yes Rictor I pay taxes, I admit to that, but they are deducted from my pay cheque before I ever see it. If I could, I would choose for none of my taxes to go to defence, and would prefer for it to go to Education and Healthcare, I think if people in Britain were given a choice, most of them would do this. That is why we are not given a choice :( Like everyone else in the world, we are just getting from one end of the week to the other without running up too much debt ;) Many Middle Eastern countries have funded Terrorism to a certain degree in the past, even if it's been hijackings etc, (and I try to bear in mind that not all acts of terrorism have ended in death). I couldn't rightly say that I hold the people of that country responsible for that either. People in just about every country in the world have little or no say whatsoever in their governments spending.
And I noticed that thing with skyscapers a while ago, and, my thinking is that, to a Social sect for whom money has semi-religious qualities, destroying the Twin Towers is not dissimilar from the desecration of a Shrine.
I think I read too much Asimov, I keep trying to find common denominators :nervous:
-
Yeah, I had that problem while I was taking AS-Level Math.
-
hey! towelhead is deragatory. We tend to prefer Camel Jockey or Sand Nigger.
and for sandwich's friend, well, anyone who insists on living in "Israel" deserves what they get.
Edit: no, there is no such thing as too much asimov, and yes, i am trying to instigate
-
Nah, the proper way to instigate is to take something that is universally taken as a fact and call it a load of ****.
When I do it it's usually because I do believe it's a load of crap but it works just as well if you're faking.
-
Originally posted by Turambar
hey! towelhead is deragatory. We tend to prefer Camel Jockey or Sand Nigger.
and for sandwich's friend, well, anyone who insists on living in "Israel" deserves what they get.
Edit: no, there is no such thing as too much asimov, and yes, i am trying to instigate
Oy vey. Brilliant statement, Turambar. Instigate away. It was a stupid comment.
-
You'de be better off anon if you were to pick something so universally accepted that there is little to no proof of any kind that it actually happened/ didn't happen. Something like "The Crusades never happened, its just propaganda" or "Its plainly obvious that China was the one who started the 30 years war."
-
or how about this "Just In: President Kennedy shot down by young Osama bin Laden"
I should write for the weekly news
-
Originally posted by Turambar
hey! towelhead is deragatory. We tend to prefer Camel Jockey or Sand Nigger.
and for sandwich's friend, well, anyone who insists on living in "Israel" deserves what they get.
Edit: no, there is no such thing as too much asimov, and yes, i am trying to instigate
What are you trying to instigate, exactly?
-
An emotional and irrational debate?
-
Wasn't that what we already had going?
-
Maybe they were celebrating by firing their guns into the air... at the patrol helicopters. ;)
-
If you value your life, you should NEVER fire ANY weapon anywhere NEAR an armed helicopter. Choppers are so frail that you can disable one by tossing a stone into the spinning rotor blades, so their pilots shoot first and ask questions later.
-
and therein lies the problem. You can win a war militarily, you can win a war politically, but you cannot do both at the same time.
Well, that is unless you manage to vaporize all of your opponents and anyone else who might care in the near or distant future...but I've yet to see that work. Someone always remembers.
You know, the more I think about this whole Iraq thing, the more I remember that scene in Disney's "Fantasia",'The Sorcerer's Apprentice'. The part where Mickey tries to kill the broom and it splits into two, four, eight, etc.
I keep wondering, where's the damned wizard already????
Like i said elsewhere, 'Freedom' is not having to care who's running the country and where the borders are.
-
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/9316830p-10241546c.html
especially for you Kazan.
http://www.chronogram.com/chronogram/roomforaview/index_2.html
-
Originally posted by Gank
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/9316830p-10241546c.html
especially for you Kazan.
http://www.chronogram.com/chronogram/roomforaview/index_2.html
If someone fires warning shots ordering you to stop, in the middle of a warzone, and you decide not to stop, you really should expect being shot at for real, you know.
:p
-
Sometimes I wonder if these people intentionally get themselves killed to make political hay for opponents of the war. What kind of idiot would stroll right past a soldier ordering him to stop?:doubt:
-
Except that countless times, the victims and nearby witnesses say that the warning shots were not heard, and that the checkpoint was not clearly visible.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
In a way we still use Gothic thinking, cathedrals were built to remind worshippers that 'God is big and you are small'. I see many of these skyscrapers in a similar light, 'The Company is big and you are small'. I suppose my problem is that you can kill the Director, you can kill the whole controlling board, but you just can't kill the corporation or it's ideals or motives, at least, not with bombs and guns. All you can kill with those are people :(
You need to kill it with ideals that people can relate too and actually mean something rather than the false ideals that these corporations represent. Hard to explain what I mean and I'll be ****ed if I know what those ideals actually are.
-
Originally posted by Styxx
If someone fires warning shots ordering you to stop, in the middle of a warzone, and you decide not to stop, you really should expect being shot at for real, you know.
:p
If you were in a car in a middle of a warzone and somebody started shooting at you would you stop to see what they want? Besides:
There was an incident with one of the cars. We shot an individual with his hands up. He got out of the car. He was badly shot. We lit him up. I don't know who started shooting first. One of the Marines came running over to where we were and said: "You all just shot a guy with his hands up." Man, I forgot about this.
Just in case anybody thinks this guy is a fake:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/special/war.nsf/0/C521416C97C3443586256CFA0029028F?OpenDocument
And when hes reffering to icbms I think he means icms, improvised conventional munitions as apposed to intercontinental ballistic missiles.
-
Yeah, I was wondering about that ICBM thing.
Anyway, I'll put in my 2 pence of checkpoint experience. When you have temporary or improvised checkpoints, like all the American ones in Iraq, or like the surprise checkpoints the IDF sets up for an hour or so in-between Palestinian villages, you have to be extra careful about visibility. You want the approaching vehicles to be able to see you easily, with plenty of time to stop, but not so easily or from so far away that they can just turn around 400 meters away and run.
As for the rules of engagement at checkpoints, I don't know what the Americans were told to do or not do. But they have much less experience than Israel at that kind of thing, so Israel's rules are more fine-tuned and "friendly", if you will.
The ONLY circumstances where I, as a soldier manning a checkpoint, would be allowed to open fire at a vehicle were either if the vehicle made or was making an obvious attempt to run a soldier over, or if shots were being fired at us from a vehicle. That's it.
If a vehicle ran through a checkpoint, we were told never to open fire, but to radio the incident in to forces further on, who would be able to intercept the vehicle and find out whether they guy was merely half-drunk and didn't see us signalling him to stop, or if it was a terrorist, or whatever.
Once a suspicious vehicle is stopped, and we want to thoroughly check the occupants, we keep a safe distance from the vehicle (10-15 meters or so), and have the people leave the vehicle. The men are told to pull up their shirts and jackets so we can confirm that they are not wearing an explosive belt, and the women are told to flatten their clothing against their body, so we can see any suspicious bulges.
Anyway, that's pretty much it for IDF checkpoint behavior in checking vehicles. American forces could stand to learn a thing or two from us - it's just a shame that we are so experienced. :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Gank
If you were in a car in a middle of a warzone and somebody started shooting at you would you stop to see what they want? Besides...
I wouldn't be in a car in the middle of a warzone. :p
-
[q]women are told to flatten their clothing against their body, so we can see any suspicious bulges.[/q]
*giggles inappropriately*
-
Originally posted by vyper
[q]women are told to flatten their clothing against their body, so we can see any suspicious bulges.[/q]
*giggles inappropriately*
I knew someone would jump on that one. I just knew it. :rolleyes:
-
IFD Soldier: ON YOUR KNEES! WE CAN SEE A BULGE! Mike, we've got another cross dresser, better call Sharon and let him know the peace treaty is off again.
Yes, I am being childish. I am also drowing in a sea of paperwork for my degree right now.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
You know, the more I think about this whole Iraq thing, the more I remember that scene in Disney's "Fantasia",'The Sorcerer's Apprentice'. The part where Mickey tries to kill the broom and it splits into two, four, eight, etc.
I keep wondering, where's the damned wizard already????
I'd say **** and friends. :D
-
So, when does an0n post a retraction since it looks like this wasn't an Iraqi wedding after all?
-
Que pas?
Can you linky to a piece that has some proof it wasn't? I've seen nothing like that yet, though I admit I just woke up and haven't checked the news yet.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
So, when does an0n post a retraction since it looks like this wasn't an Iraqi wedding after all?
I've been ignoring the thread in favour of the Rafah and UN ones, so I's not really gives a ****s if I wuz misinformed.
-
[color=66ff00]It was an impressive thread title if nothing else.
[/color]
-
He had a fair chance of being right so, let's let him away with it.
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1221658,00.html
Anons title was right on target.
-
yeah, I don't know where everyone is this from, that there was no wedding. What I have heard until now is that there is conflicting testomony, between what the Army says and what the witnesses say (and what is recorded on film+what evidence suggests).
One of Iraq's most famous wedding singers was present, with all his equipment. Now, something like that, if that doesn't scream wedding I don't know what does. Or maybe he's in cahoots with the ter'rists :nervous: :nervous:
-
Originally posted by Gank
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1221658,00.html
Anons title was right on target.
[color=66ff00]The thre edged sword scenario methinks.
Your side.
Their side.
The truth.
God bless you ambassador Kosh.
[/color]
-
Seeing how one side has video evidence, funerals and eyewitness accounts to back it up and the other side has nothing but its word which only a bigoted fool would accept at face value after the last year I think the truth is closer to the Iraqis here.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040523/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_attack_5
-
agreed. But videos can be doctored very easily these days... and concerning the US, I wouldn't trust Iraqi eye witnesses as far as I could throw them. But it does kind of seem oddly stacked in the favor of the Iraqis. Now if they could just learn some diplomacy (i.e. not cutting people's heads off and releasing the tape to the media), people might start actually vouching for them.
-
Originally posted by Reez
agreed. But videos can be doctored very easily these days... and concerning the US, I wouldn't trust Iraqi eye witnesses as far as I could throw them. But it does kind of seem oddly stacked in the favor of the Iraqis. Now if they could just learn some diplomacy (i.e. not cutting people's heads off and releasing the tape to the media), people might start actually vouching for them.
Just because a handful of people does something bad, doesn't mean that they represent all of their people.
If you go by that theory, then all americans like and support Bush, and support the war in Iraq.
-
well, polls show that at the time, most did. But thats beside the point.
the US has the tapes of the incident. All aerial vehicles would have a gun-cam, all the army needs to do to vindicate itself is release the tape. But obviously, it shows something damning, so they're not releasing ing.
-
Suddenly I realise why they want immunity from prosecution.
-
Why do you think they voted against that age-old bill that the UN tried to make, the War Tribunal one. The American Government would be the first on the chopping block.
-
Care to elaborate on which bill you mean?
-
international criminal court i'd say,
http://www.un.org/law/icc/
-
also, the UN is extending immunity to British soldiers after the "handover" so that the only way a British soldier can be tried for crimes would be if an Iraqi came to Britain and appealed to a British court.
Yay for justice!
Gank: I think what you mean in the Status of Forces agreement which the US has with every country in which it has troops. Essentially, it provides immunity from local law. A filthy piece of work, it is.
-
and what makes things like Abu-Ghraib so very real
-
Yay?!
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...id=540&ncid=716
.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3741223.stm
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/9727/iraqwedding3.jpgsmoke weed every day
Well, here we go again.
-
To be perfectly honest I don't think British soldiers "need" the immunity the same way the US troops do - mainly because we've taken a different approach and learned peace keeping lessons from Ireland.
-
Does the Iraqi video show ther actual attack by the US forces?
-
not as far as I know, but what it does show it some things which disprove the US claims. For example, the US claimed that there was no wedding going on, because there was no musical equipment, no food, decorations etc. But the video clearly shows bit of musical equpment. Not to mention the fact that one of Iraq's most popular wedding singers was killed in the attack. I wonder what he was doing there...
as I said, all the US needs to do to vindicate itself is release the tape. They have a tape of the attack, so doesn't it make sense that they would relewase it if it showed what they claim happened??
-
I don't know WHO to believe and as an American ex-soldier that is a sad thing to say. On one hand it could have been a real raid on a terrorist hold up and the Iraquis are faking it (or terrorists staged it). On the other this could be one of those Vietnam type screw-ups where some gung ho officer orders a village cleared cause he is a bigot. (the type of guy who would soon have my rifle pointed at the back of his head as I order him to stand down).
Sure I would have plenty of charges against me but at least I wouldn't be indicted for WAR CRIMES! I payed attention for the UCMJ and Geneva convention breifings when I was in the Army (88-91)...
-
Picked a hell of a time and place to have a wedding...
-
A nice day in the villiage where they lived, THE BASTARDS!!!
Youd think the amount of times this **** up was made in Afghn. they would have taught their pilots to NOT go in gun blazing and check first.
Bet it was Air National Guard.
-
Points finger at him, we shouldn't be out there ---->
(http://www.dismalvoid.com/fpics/bushchenney.jpg)
(http://www.dismalvoid.com/fpics/bush-ook.jpg)
-
ohh yeah, I remember those pics.
Some of the funniest stuff I ever saw, the resemblance is uncanny.
:D
-
Beavis and Butthead... hahahahaha! I used to love that show... when I was 7...
But seriously, after uncovering heavy weapons at the scene, recieving fire from the ground into the air, so on and so fourth, its kinda hard to believe that the US would just open fire on a wedding for the hell of it. Mistakes have been made in the military, but cmon, if it was a wedding would we be taking fire? Of course this post will spawn a million flame-posts, since it HAS happened in the past...
-
And you just believe the Army outright when they say whey were taking fire? I don't, and thats not really "evidence". What probably happened was that shots were fired during the wedding, and the pilot interpreted that as taking fire.
Another important fact is that shortly after the inital bombing, ground forces arrived to clean up what was left of the survivors. Now, you may dispute that as the reason they were there, but nevertheless it is a fact that they were on thr scene. A bomber does not just happen to be flying around at 3am and spots a wedding on which he fires, and ground forces just happen to be in the area. Joint air/ground operations take much planning. This was planned.
-
if it was a wedding, why would they be firing actual bullets... the more I think about it, the dumber it seems. Wouldn't they just fire blanks? What if they hit like a pidgeon and it crash landed into the cake?
And at 3am? Muslim women in 3rd world countries are famous for their virginity before marriage.... what the hell is the groom doing waiting so long?
-
Originally posted by Reez
if it was a wedding, why would they be firing actual bullets... the more I think about it, the dumber it seems. Wouldn't they just fire blanks? What if they hit like a pidgeon and it crash landed into the cake?
[/B]
Because it's what they've got. You see, in Iraq gun culture is even more prominant than in USA, for example - practically every male has a gun. It's both status symbol and - note - means of self-defence, especially since the goverment fell and situation became what it is now.
People there don't buy blanks. Why would they buy blanks - just because USA is there? Check out what happens in practically every Arab party or fest - they always shoot, and practically always they shoot live ammo. Because they can get into situation where they're needed to use their ammo, then why spend money on blanks?
And at 3am? Muslim women in 3rd world countries are famous for their virginity before marriage.... what the hell is the groom doing waiting so long?
Never been to weddings, haven't you? :p Groom and bride are supposed to leave and the guests are supposed to continue. I believe it's quite similar in Arab cultures. Karajorma might have more info about this stuff, given his knowledge in Islam generally and Arabs specifially (and remember, Iraq was and still is quite secular country).
-
Originally posted by Janos
Never been to weddings, haven't you? :p Groom and bride are supposed to leave and the guests are supposed to continue. I believe it's quite similar in Arab cultures. Karajorma might have more info about this stuff, given his knowledge in Islam generally and Arabs specifially (and remember, Iraq was and still is quite secular country). [/B]
Never actually been to a muslim wedding as all of my family on that side all live abroad. However I do remember that muslim weddings can easily be a three day affair so it's quite possible that this was still the first or second day.
-
According to reports, the bride and groom had gone off to a tent to do their stuff, while everyone else continued partying.
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040525/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=1473
Far more important than a wedding, to put it in perspective
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040521/wl_nm/iraq_bahrain_protest_dc&cid=574&ncid=1607
-
yeah, the second one is about a week old. its insane to support the occupation in an islamic country, so if the government wishes to maintain anything resembling popularity they need to take a clear anti-Dubya stance. but by far the most intersting story is chalabi getting arrested. the hawks are up in arms. no one reads my posts.
*goes off and sulks.*
-
Chalabi's been working for the Iranians since the Iran-Iraq war, US was so desperate to get an Iraqi who'd tell them what they wanted to here they overlooked the fact. Now that its clear the man has zero public credabiliy in Iraq they've decided he's more of a danger to them than a help, not really all that interesting as the man has very little influence on Iraq,
-
Originally posted by Janos
Because it's what they've got. You see, in Iraq gun culture is even more prominant than in USA, for example - practically every male has a gun. It's both status symbol and - note - means of self-defence, especially since the goverment fell and situation became what it is now.
People there don't buy blanks. Why would they buy blanks - just because USA is there? Check out what happens in practically every Arab party or fest - they always shoot, and practically always they shoot live ammo. Because they can get into situation where they're needed to use their ammo, then why spend money on blanks?
[/B]
I realize that, I'm a Muslim myself. But the argument that the USA is there and very neurotic would make me buy blanks. How many Iraqis have died so far? It seems to be the intelligent thing to do. And blanks are cheaper than actual bullets too, aren't they?
Never been to weddings, haven't you? :p Groom and bride are supposed to leave and the guests are supposed to continue. I believe it's quite similar in Arab cultures. Karajorma might have more info about this stuff, given his knowledge in Islam generally and Arabs specifially (and remember, Iraq was and still is quite secular country).
I have been to a wedding. the couple there didn't have any pre-marital sex either. they ended it at 11:30 SPECIFICALLY for that reason. Maybe they were just horny
-
Well, how demand for blanks do you think there is in Iraq?
-
Originally posted by Reez
I realize that, I'm a Muslim myself. But the argument that the USA is there and very neurotic would make me buy blanks. How many Iraqis have died so far? It seems to be the intelligent thing to do. And blanks are cheaper than actual bullets too, aren't they?
Firing blanks instead of actual bullets is absolutly ridiculous, no soldier is going to take the time to check if actual bullets are coming out of the end of the guns before he returns fire. All thats going to happen is Iraqis would get gunned down without a chance to fire back.
-
i see your point
-
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/05/mil-040524-rferl03.htm
Now the US admits there was a wedding, but bad people were getting married :rolleyes:
-
I like how Gen.Sanchez (I think it was him) used the words "bad guys". Yeah, really sophisticated understanding of world affairs there. And people wonder why the world thinks of the US the way it does.
-
stupid general kimmit... "bad people have celebrations too"... so do good people dickhead. If he wants bad people, he should bomb a Donald Trump Executive meeting.
-
Kimmitt, but even an idiot can see the press briefings are given for the US home audience.
-
well, unfortunatley for them, the whole world is watching. You may be able to fool the home audience with talk of "bad guys", "terrorists", "freedom loving nations" and so forth, but no one else buys it.
-
but the rest of the world doesn't vote. Only Americans do. That's all Bush needs to convince, and that's all their militaries have to convince. No one wants the US as an enemy, if they're sane. Notice how all the governments have been eerily quiet about everything that's going on.
-
Originally posted by Reez
but the rest of the world doesn't vote. Only Americans do. That's all Bush needs to convince, and that's all their militaries have to convince. No one wants the US as an enemy, if they're sane. Notice how all the governments have been eerily quiet about everything that's going on.
THAT'S when you should get worried.
-
oh yeah, France is really likely to send in the tanks and nuke Texas. But "the world" is being very quite. They don't have the huevos to say what they're all thinking, cause the other guy has a bigger gun.
I for one think that its absurd that 250 million Americans get to vote on foreign policy which influences some 6+ odd billion people. No taxation without representation, eh??
-
Originally posted by Rictor
oh yeah, France is really likely to send in the tanks and nuke Texas. But "the world" is being very quite. They don't have the huevos to say what they're all thinking, cause the other guy has a bigger gun.
No, no, no. That's not what I mean at all.
What I mean is, when governments stop talking it's because either
a. they don't care
b. they're thinking deeply
c. they're acting
As if current situations weren't rough enough, and to quote the most overquoted quote in history...
"I have a really bad feeling about this".
-
That's how every big power has been in their heydey. The Romans, the Muslims, and the British were all like that. They'll let you do your thing so long as you don't screw with them. Be happy we don't all have to pay American taxes on top of the ones our country give us.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I like how Gen.Sanchez (I think it was him) used the words "bad guys". Yeah, really sophisticated understanding of world affairs there. And people wonder why the world thinks of the US the way it does.
General 'Dirty' Sanchez, terror of rear areas everywhere.