Don’t look now but there appears to be a kanicbird tugging at your leg.
I’m sure they’ll quietly let this incident trail off the public mind, and then offer a retraction. Seems to be their MO for the ones that don’t totally blow up on them.
…please note that the only people to say that there was celebratory gunfire were the initial Iraqi spokesman-who were only speculating. Later eye witness reports say that there was NO celebratory gunfire-and that the attack happened while everybody was asleep. This has been cited in all of the articles since about the second page. So why do people keep bring it up?
Perhaps because you’re wrong? Try reading the cited article in post #314, juuuuuust up this very page a bit…
I don’t think your cite supports your claim. It doesn’t say that gunfire is seen on the video, only that gunfire is a traditional part of wedding cermonies. All of the eyewitnesses have said there was no celebratory gunfire and it isn’t on the video. Banquet Bear is right. The initial reports about celebratory gunfire were only speculative statements made by non-witnesses.
And there seems to be no question at all that the attack took place hours after the celebration while the victims were asleep. Any feeble attemp by the military to explain the attack as defensive falls by the wayside in light of that.
I haven’t seen the video, but as I read it, that’s exactly what the cite says – the film shows a celebration, including festively decorated bridal trucks and traditional gunfire.
I am not saying that the attack happened as an immediate response – it’s entirely possible the military did indeed go back hours later, I don’t know. The bottom line is, either this was a band of insurgents who plotted a very elaborate cover-up in the event they ever got caught, or something went horribly, horribly wrong. I’m as skeptical as anyone here about believing a fucking thing the military says, but I also don’t believe for one nanosecond that our guys would go into a village without any provocation (or a reasonable belief that there was provocation) and just randomly murder a bunch of civilians. Sorry, not buying it.
Commit vulgar and abusive acts within a prison setting? Yes, I’d’ve believed that without a shred of photographic evidence because that kind of thing has been going on in prisons for centuries and I don’t believe Americans are any more “above” that kind of treatment of prisoners than any other nationality of people. But outright murder? No. I believe guns were fired. When? How many? What kind? Under what circumstances? All of that is what’s under dispute. What I want to know is why the military saw it as agressive action and retalliated with such force.
Not to mention that the quote about gunfire in one of the original articles is not from people who were simply speculating, it was from people who were there burying the dead…
Said revelers fired guns. Not speculated revelers fired guns.
Then, the doctor who was treating the victims said that ground troops had come to the village to investigate the gunfire, then came back later and shot the place up.
No, he wasn’t there, but where would he get the idea that the U.S. had come earlier, investigated, left and then come back later, if someone hadn’t told him that’s what happened? Nobody makes up speculation like that – it’s too specific. He didn’t say “maybe there was traditional celebratory gunfire and the U.S. fired back,” he said, “there was gunfire, it was investigated, they left and then they shot the village up later.”
The story keeps changing on both sides.
Either way, it’s a fucking mess.
It doesn’t say that the Iraqis interviewed were witnesses and all the witnesses who were interviewed say ther wasn’t any gunfire.
Not one description I’ve read of the video (and I’ve been combing through all of them) says that there is any gunfire on the video. You’re reading it wrong. Don’t you think that would be a highlight of any description if celebratory gunfire was on the tape?
There wasn’t any gunfire on the video. The military has already been caught lying simply by denying that there was a wedding party or that children were killed.
I think they got some bad intelligence and thought they were really shooting up a safe house. The fact that they didn’t attack until five hours after the party was over pretty much puts the lie to any bullshit story about “anti-aircraft” story. I think it was just a major fuckup and now they’re trying to lie their way out of it.
I’m sick of the fucking victim blaming.
Aren’t there a few US and UK troops accused and convicted of homicide?
I seen cites which say gunfire and I’ve seen some say no gunfire.
If you don’t like murder how about the other more feasible possibility. Heavy handed gung-ho tactics that lead to the deaths. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time that the US army is accused of this. Now they are just lying to cover up the fuck up.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1223267,00.html
Yes, they’re accused of homicide in the prison scandal, where their torture tactics ended up killing people instead of “breaking” them. But Diogenes would like us to believe that we just stormed into a village in order to shoot mothers and babies. I do not believe this. I think our military thought they were either firing back on insurgents, had bad intelligence that this was a terrorist camp, or it was a terrorist camp and this is a big coverup (which I’m also not really buying, but it’s not entirely out of the realm of possibility, so I’m including it as an option). We’ve certainly shot up other terrorist camps in the desert, so it would not be an implausible explanation that that’s what these guys thought they were doing and got it wrong, plain and simple. That doesn’t mean guns weren’t fired by the villagers, since they’re denying it now. I’m not buying the denials and I do believe the story linked above states that the video shows celebratory gunfire. But like I said, I haven’t seen it, so I could be wrong. But if Banquet Bear wants to know why people keep bringing it up, it’s because it’s still being mentioned in recent media accounts and because it’s still a plausible scenario. That’s all.
Shayna, I think you should reconsider the words you use because you don’t seem to notice the following:
Iraqis are in their own land.
Iraqis have every right to kill every invader of their land.
You naming them TERRORISTS is turning things completely upside down.
Salaam. A
Aldebaran, I think you’re too quick to jump to offense. I am not calling Iraqis terrorists. I am saying that the U.S. military may have had “intelligence” that told them this was a terrorist camp. Terrorist camps have been bombed and shot up by our military in this fashion in the past. Therefore, if that’s what they thought they were doing, I can understand how this could have happened that way. That does not mean I condone it. That does not mean that I don’t recognize the Iraqis right to sovereignty. That does not mean that I don’t realize we’ve invaded their nation and they can bloody well shoot us if they want to. I know I’ve said all this before and I was pretty sure that you got that I agreed with you on all those points. Is there anything else I can clear up for you, because I don’t want there to be any misunderstandings – I know how much this situation upsets you.
I think that Aldebaran is also saying that even if they were shooting at soldiers they are still not terrorists as they are in their own contry fighting invaders.
Forgive me if I’ve taken you up from Aldebaran
Doh!
Forgive me if I’ve taken you up wrong Aldebaran
What do you mean their land? When Saddam was in power it was his land. A land called Iraq. The people had no say in what was done with any of it. The Coalition kicked him out, not the Iraqis. Now the Coalition is giving the people who live in the land of Iraq a chance to call it ‘their’ land. And if they want to shoot at the people who gave them that chance then they are not terrorists, but fools. The sooner the shooting stops, the sooner the Coalition leaves.
“The sooner you quit crying the sooner I’ll stop spanking you!”
Look who drank the Kool-Aid.
The US had no fucking right to invade Iraq. period. Our occupation is illegal, immoral and unwanted. The Iraqis owe us no fucking gratitude nor are they obliged to accomodate our illegal presence in THEIR country.
And if some of the people in that village actually were foreign fighters & not Iraqis? If they came to Iraq to add to the mess?
IMHO, the “foreign fighters”, if any, were probably holed up in a barn on the edge of town. The chopper pilot didn’t see them, but did see the wedding party.
Holy Flashback, Batman! (Maybe that’s my problem 
)
And I would agree. Iraqis fighting for their land are not terrorists. But that doesn’t mean that the U.S. might not have had “intelligence” that said that that village was terrorist camp, NOT AN IRAQI VILLAGE of average Iraqi citizens. Real, live terrorists. They do exist, you know. Like these guys, who had a terrorist training camp in Salman Pak. Or these guys, whose abandoned camp was found outside Baghdad. And so on. They’d be an entirely different subset of people from Iraqis fighting the occupation. How come I’m not making sense to anyone but me? 