ClumsyMonkey.net

So, it's now punishable by death to fire a gun - or be anywhere near anyone firing a gun - during a celebration in Iraq?

Heres my take. If Iraqi's were smart they wouldnt fire guns into the air. It may be part of their culture and what not but as others have stated its a war and firing your gun isnt the brightest thing in the world. However by no means does that justify the slaughtering of 40 civillians. Just because shots were fired it doesnt mean a helicopter can unload on a group of people, especially civillians.

I don't think they should have to change a single THING about their culture. We're supposedly not there to "occupy" their country, yet look at all the shit that keeps happening.

Now today, over the wires, it's now being reported that our soldiers have been telling the inmates to curse Islam. CURSE their own freaking religion!?

Yeah telling inmates to curse Islam is simply stupidity. When it comes down to it, Iraqi's will fight for one thing and that is Islam. Very few fought for Saadam with real passion.. but what they will fight for is their religion and the US simply does not understand this.

That's what war does to people; it corrupts them. All these families are insulted that people are accusing their beloveds of abusing prisoners, but what else can you expect? They're trained that "THIS IS THE ENEMY", and then put in positions of absolute power, surrounded by death and destruction.

But, of course, Bush's writers will find a way to blame the Iraqis. I'm sure the American soldiers thought the prisoners were being hurt at them or something.

Axtech wrote:So, it's now punishable by death to fire a gun - or be anywhere near anyone firing a gun - during a celebration in Iraq?

if your going to be shooting a gun, or close to anyone who's shooting a gun, you need to take precautions because it may or may not be mistaken for hostile fire.

The point though, is that it's not acceptable for trained soldiers to "mistake" the fire and kill 40 innocent people - regardless of what they're doing. If the soldiers knew the culture, or did some investigating before killing, they would easily have figured out what was going on.

Exactly. You can say that the Iraqis shouldnt of fired their guns all you like, but in the end the US shouldnt of murdered 40 civilians.

Axtech wrote:The point though, is that it's not acceptable for trained soldiers to "mistake" the fire and kill 40 innocent people - regardless of what they're doing. If the soldiers knew the culture, or did some investigating before killing, they would easily have figured out what was going on.

hmmm, how pray tell would you know they were innocent? all a US soilder knows at the time is there is suppose to be a house here with bad people in it and shots have been fired up in the air. that must be it. how are they suppose to know those shots in the air are from a celebration not an attack? was there a big assed neon sign that said wedding here do not shoot? do you think they had intel telling them there was a wedding going on in the area? its easy to look back and say, damn we shouldn't have fired, but during the situation it's alot different then sitting at home going should have checked in and see what was going on before we fired.

The thing is, the shots fired were from a chopper, not a group of soldiers on the ground. Because of the choppers view point and tactical advantage, they could have afforded a few fly bys to see what was going on. If shots were continually fired when the chopper arrived, then fine, fire back, but if not then lay off. I could understand if a soldier on the ground fired without checking things out. They dont have the field of view that a helicopter does, or firepower so they really cant afford to check things out like a helicopter would.

Exactly. A chopper could easily have checked things out, surveyed the area. Besides, it's not like a few people on the ground with AKs (if that is in fact what they were firing) could take out a helicopter whizzing by. A few passes by would easily have determined that this was a wedding party, what with the big open tent, and band playing music (recently saw a report showing the wreckage. Big browny-white tent thing [it had no sides on it, just like a big canvas roof], and a set up of instuments outside it). Also, the ceremony would have been outside the tent, if they were firing into the air. So, if the chopper had called in with his find, that people were firing in the air, and happened to check it out, these people would still be alive. Chances are he reported back with "I'm under hostile fire!" feeling like he was an action star in some fucking summer movie. A rational mind could have easily avoided killing 40 people (many of which were children, by the way...).

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5045772/

Videotape shows revelers at celebration
Survivors of May 19 airstrike cast doubt on U.S. account


Kholood, a 2-year-old Iraqi girl, lies in a bed Sunday in the hospital in Ramadi, west of Baghdad, Iraq. Kholood was injured by shrapnel in her back when U.S. helicopters fired on a wedding party on May 19 in the desert near the border with Syria, killing more than 40 people. Kholood lost her parents, and four of her brothers and sisters during the attack.

The Associated Press
Updated: 9:49 p.m. ET May 23, 2004RAMADI, Iraq - The bride arrives in a white pickup truck and is quickly ushered into a house by a group of women. Outside, men recline on brightly colored silk pillows, relaxing on the carpeted floor of a large goat-hair tent as boys dance to tribal songs.

The videotape obtained Sunday by Associated Press Television News captures a wedding party that survivors say was later attacked by U.S. planes early Wednesday, killing up to 45 people. The dead included the cameraman, Yasser Shawkat Abdullah, hired to record the festivities, which ended Tuesday night before the planes struck.

The U.S. military says it is investigating the attack, which took place in the village of Mogr el-Deeb about five miles from the Syrian border, but that all evidence so far indicates the target was a safehouse for foreign fighters.

“There was no evidence of a wedding: no decorations, no musical instruments found, no large quantities of food or leftover servings one would expect from a wedding celebration,” Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said Saturday. “There may have been some kind of celebration. Bad people have celebrations, too.”

The artifacts of celebration
But video that APTN shot a day after the attack shows fragments of musical instruments, pots and pans and brightly colored beddings used for celebrations, scattered around the bombed out tent.

The wedding videotape shows a dozen white pickup trucks speeding through the desert escorting the bridal car — decorated with colorful ribbons. The bride wears a Western-style white bridal dress and veil. The camera captures her stepping out of the car but does not show a close-up.

An AP reporter and photographer, who interviewed more than a dozen survivors a day after the bombing, were able to identify many of them on the wedding party video — which runs for several hours.

APTN also traveled to Mogr el-Deeb, 250 miles west of Ramadi, the day after the attack to film what the survivors said was the wedding site. A devastated building and remnants of the tent, pots and pans could be seen, along with bits of what appeared to be the remnants of ordnance, one of which bore the marking “ATU-35,” similar to those on U.S. bombs.

A water tanker truck can be seen in both the video shot by APTN and the wedding tape obtained from a cousin of the groom.

The endless party
The singing and dancing seems to go on forever at the all-male tent set up in the garden of the host, Rikad Nayef, for the wedding of his son, Azhad, and the bride Rutbah Sabah. The men later move to the porch when darkness falls, apparently taking advantage of the cool night weather.

Children, mainly boys, sit on their fathers’ laps; men smoke an Arab water pipe, finger worry beads and chat with one another. It looks like a typical, gender-segregated tribal desert wedding.

As expected, women are out of sight — but according to survivors, they danced to the music of Hussein al-Ali, a popular Baghdad wedding singer hired for the festivities. Al-Ali was buried in Baghdad on Thursday.

The organist, before and after
Prominently displayed on the videotape was a stocky man with close-cropped hair playing an electric organ. Another tape, filmed a day later in Ramadi and obtained by APTN, showed the musician lying dead in a burial shroud — his face clearly visible and wearing the same tan shirt as he wore when he performed.

As the musicians played, young men milled about, most dressed in traditional white robes. Young men swayed in tribal dances to the monotonous tones of traditional Arabic music. Two children — a boy and a girl — held hands, dancing and smiling. Women are rarely filmed at such occasions, and they appear only in distant glimpses.

Kimmitt said U.S. troops who swept through the area found rifles, machine guns, foreign passports, bedding, syringes and other items that suggested the site was used by foreigners infiltrating from Syria.

The videotape showed no weapons, although they are common among rural Iraqis.

U.S. denies finding children
Kimmitt has denied finding evidence that any children died in the raid although a “handful of women” — perhaps four to six — were “caught up in the engagement.”

“They may have died from some of the fire that came from the aircraft,” he told reporters Friday.

However, an AP reporter obtained names of at least 10 children who relatives said had died. Bodies of five of them were filmed by APTN when the survivors took them to Ramadi for burial Wednesday. Iraqi officials said at least 13 children were killed.

Four days after the attack, the memories of the survivors remain painful — as are their injuries.

Haleema Shihab, 32, one of the three wives of Rikad Nayef, said that as the first bombs fell, she grabbed her seven-month old son, Yousef, and clutching the hands of her 5-year-old son, Hamza, started running. Her 15-year-old son, Ali, sprinted alongside her. They managed to run for several yards when she fell, her leg fractured.

“Hamza was yelling, ‘mommy,”’ Shihab, recalled. “Ali said he was hurt and that he was bleeding. That’s the last time I heard him.” Then another shell fell and injured Shihab’s left arm.

Laughing soldiers?
“Hamza fell from my hand and was gone. Only Yousef stayed in my arms. Ali had been hit and was killed. I couldn’t go back,” she said from her hospital bed in Ramadi. Her arm was in a cast.

She and her stepdaughter, Iqbal — who had caught up with her — hid in a bomb crater. “We were bleeding from 3 a.m. until sunrise,” Shihab said.

Soon American soldiers came. One of them kicked her to see if she was alive, she said.

“I pretended I was dead so he wouldn’t kill me,” said Shihab. She said the soldier was laughing. When Yousef cried, the soldier said: “’No, stop,” said Shihab.

Fourteen-year-old Moza, Shihab’s stepdaughter, lies on another bed of the hospital room. She was hurt in the leg and cries. Her relatives haven’t told her yet that her mother, Sumaya, is dead. “I fear she’s dead,” Moza said of her mother. “I’m worried about her.”

Moza was sleeping on one side of the porch next to her sisters Siham, Subha and Zohra while her mother slept on the other end. There were many others on the porch, her cousins, stepmothers and other female relatives.

Four sisters
When the first shell fell, Moza and her sisters, Subha, Fatima and Siham ran off together. Moza was holding Subha’s hand.

“I don’t know where Fatima and my mom were. Siham got hit. She died. I saw Zohra’s head gone. I lost consciousness,” said Moza, covering her mouth with the end of her headscarf.

Her sister Iqbal, lay in pain on the bed next to her. Her other sister, Subha, was on the upper floor of the hospital, in the same room with 2-year-Khoolood. Her small body was bandaged and a tube inserted in her side drained her liver.

Her ankle was bandaged. A red ribbon was tied to her curly hair. Only she and her older brother, Faisal, survived from their immediate family. Her parents and four sisters and brothers were all killed.

In all, 27 members of Rikad Nayef’s extended family died — most of them children and women, the family said.

Joe Cool wrote:The thing is, the shots fired were from a chopper, not a group of soldiers on the ground. Because of the choppers view point and tactical advantage, they could have afforded a few fly bys to see what was going on. If shots were continually fired when the chopper arrived, then fine, fire back, but if not then lay off. I could understand if a soldier on the ground fired without checking things out. They dont have the field of view that a helicopter does, or firepower so they really cant afford to check things out like a helicopter would.

under no circumstances should anyone wait around and see if you get shot at. that's just stupid. chances are if your going to wait around and see if they're going to fire on you, they might with something bigger then an AK.

Axtech wrote:Exactly. A chopper could easily have checked things out, surveyed the area. Besides, it's not like a few people on the ground with AKs (if that is in fact what they were firing) could take out a helicopter whizzing by. A few passes by would easily have determined that this was a wedding party, what with the big open tent, and band playing music (recently saw a report showing the wreckage. Big browny-white tent thing [it had no sides on it, just like a big canvas roof], and a set up of instuments outside it). Also, the ceremony would have been outside the tent, if they were firing into the air. So, if the chopper had called in with his find, that people were firing in the air, and happened to check it out, these people would still be alive. Chances are he reported back with "I'm under hostile fire!" feeling like he was an action star in some fucking summer movie. A rational mind could have easily avoided killing 40 people (many of which were children, by the way...).

and how would you know it's not possible for a single bullet to take down a chopper? it's not so much one man with a rifle shooting in the air as it is the whole party of men were doing so. it doesn't matter what kind of tent they had, or the fact that there could have been a band playing. if that were the case, i'm sure that fighters who have been known to hide in holy shrines and temples all over Iraq would more then likely hide behind a band also. it was already called in that shots were fired in the area. the chopper was there only to take out whoever it is that is firing.

I like you last remarks, do you really expect me to take that seriously? but let me change things for you, you know if those people weren't firing up in the air like godamn rednecks on new years eve they'd still be alive. a rational mind would have known that under military conflict it's wise not to shoot up in the air much less hold a gun.

Are you are seriously assuming every Iraqi killed somehow deserves it. Hiding behind a band? Yes i'm sure they hired a band as well as a wedding party just so they could blame the US for killing innocent civillians if their attack failed. Seriously it may be possible but its very unlikely. Secondly any soldier in war learns the skill of being able to determine where shots are comming from, where they are being fired and from what kind of weapon. Theres a huge difference between a shot being fired into the air, and a shot that goes wizzing towards you. A soldier doesnt have to wait to see if they are being shot at. They know if they are being shot at.

no i'm not. i'm saying that in the past fighters have hid or set up position in holy shrines and other places deemed off limits. and that if this is the case, fighters could in fact set up a mock wedding at a location where they are set up. do i think this is that type of situation...no. but as a soilder in the middle of a war you can't just say, oh, well those shots fired were not aimed at me. at the time i'm sure they didn't know there was a wedding going on, the report is there was a safeway house in the area and we need to get rid of it. and when you hear reports that shots were fired when a plane was in the area only makes you assume hey, that must be the place were looking for.

in a plane, shots that may be fired horizontally to the ground at a target sometimes look like they are comming vertically toward the plane. according to former pilots it is very hard to differentiate between the two. there's no denying that they did infact shoot up in the air, we have no idea just how close a round came to hitting a plane or if in fact it did hit the plane. in the town down the road, people shoot up in the air for new years all the time. this past new year, they hit the water tower of that town. they didn't intentionally target the tower, they hit it by mistake. it just goes to show you, how dangerous it is to fire rounds into the air and just how serious it should be taken.

*rolls eyes*

Arabs are in general a very loud people. They talk loudly, they gesture a lot, the music tends to be somewhat raucous, the women all wear really, really bright colours like shocking pink and orange under those hijabs, and at a wedding, there's fancy clothes and expensive jewellery everywhere. The men even switch the black rope things holding their headresses in place with ones that have gold and black threads woven together. Really, we're talking about an Iraqi, segregated version of the wedding scene in movies like Bend it Like Beckham and Monsoon Wedding.

Any shots fired, and at the most, there were probably like a dozen, came from either rifles, or handguns. It is *not* customary to use AK47s, or anything of the like. They just don't have fireworks like we do, which are *also* pretty dangerous. These people live in the middle of the desert. How were they to know that Americans just happened to be poking around the sky looking for random gunfire in the middle of nowhere that particular day? I have a feeling they didn't exactly look around for a chopper, wait for it to fly 20 ft above their heads, and then start shooting. In fact, they probably all ran for cover when they saw the planes, which constituted "suspicious" behaviour. After all, why would you run if you didn't have something to hide?

Besides, isn't it customary for American military to honour the deaths of soldiers with a 21-gun salute, or whatever it's called? Regardless, it involves people shooting up into the air, and it's a very proud tradition. If someone tried to take that away, or replace it with blowing bubbles, most, if not all, of the US would be furious.

The bottom line is, there's no excuse. These soldiers just simply DON'T know what they're doing, whether it's because they suck, or because they've taken too much speed to aim properly.

That's why they've hit other weddings, hospitals, schools, civilians right and left, and EVEN THEIR OWN PEOPLE. Sure, they have a really hard job, and no, the real world doesn't generally have targets labelled with a big red X. But a petroleum engineer has a similarly hard job looking for oil reserves, and if he screws up and tells the company to drill in the wrong place a couple of times, he's gone.

Everytime they use one of those missiles, it costs taxpayers a shitload. I don't know how much, but I'm guessing tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars. Imagine how much money could have been saved to put into the domestic economy if forces overseas weren't using three missiles to hit a target that eventually turned out to be a school. And then, since Americans are *also* paying to restructure Iraq, they have to build a new school, and then, deal with the insurgents who are PISSED about the school (and the flying chunks from it that took down the mosque across the street, where a hundred people were praying) and decide to go blow up a few convoys.

Then, during the search for the insurgents, a few civilians are killed because a group of boys/young men playing football in front of a house appear to be protecting it, and the local cleric draws a link between the incident and the way the Egyptians killed all the males of the tribe of Isreal because they wanted to EXTINGUISH THEIR PEOPLE AND WAY OF LIFE.

Isn't this war hard enough without making it worse? These people need to get their asses kicked when they screw up. Maybe then they'd be more careful.

modern psychokitty wrote:Any shots fired, and at the most, there were probably like a dozen, came from either rifles, or handguns. It is *not* customary to use AK47s, or anything of the like. They just don't have fireworks like we do, which are *also* pretty dangerous. These people live in the middle of the desert. How were they to know that Americans just happened to be poking around the sky looking for random gunfire in the middle of nowhere that particular day? I have a feeling they didn't exactly look around for a chopper, wait for it to fly 20 ft above their heads, and then start shooting. In fact, they probably all ran for cover when they saw the planes, which constituted "suspicious" behaviour. After all, why would you run if you didn't have something to hide?

rifles, hand guns, or automatics, your still putting a bullet in the air. you can't just pop off a few when there is a foriegn military force in the country. your putting that military in danger, and in turn your putting yourself in danger also. if you so choose to fight them that's fine, pick up a gun and fight them, but if you don't want to fight the military then stay away from the guns. I understand that music at a wedding can be loud, but i'm pretty sure you can hear a chopper comming or a plane flying by. you could even see the running lights under the plane or chopper.

Besides, isn't it customary for American military to honour the deaths of soldiers with a 21-gun salute, or whatever it's called? Regardless, it involves people shooting up into the air, and it's a very proud tradition. If someone tried to take that away, or replace it with blowing bubbles, most, if not all, of the US would be furious.

yes it is customary to give a fallen soilder a 21 gun salute when he/she is being buried. These days they use blanks. now if a foriegn military was in the country, taking over parts of the country, then that tradition would be temporarily discontinued for the sake of security. people would get upset i'm sure, but they should understand that it is for their own good, they can't be around a fired weapon much less hold one otherwise they will be considered combatants, reguardless if it is filled with blanks or live ammo.

The bottom line is, there's no excuse. These soldiers just simply DON'T know what they're doing, whether it's because they suck, or because they've taken too much speed to aim properly.

speed....i think there was some of that at this "wedding". traditions are funny. some of the older traditions are dated and go back centuries. as it is now, most people taking part in a "traditional ceremony" don't know what they're doing much less why they are doing it. so why do they fire in the air? and if it's for the sake of celebration when exactly did it start to become a tradition to do so? more importantly, do they know why it's a tradition to shoot your gun in the air?

That's why they've hit other weddings, hospitals, schools, civilians right and left, and EVEN THEIR OWN PEOPLE. Sure, they have a really hard job, and no, the real world doesn't generally have targets labelled with a big red X. But a petroleum engineer has a similarly hard job looking for oil reserves, and if he screws up and tells the company to drill in the wrong place a couple of times, he's gone.

this is the third wedding that has been fired upon since these conflicts began. you would think that for the sake of security they would temporarily hold off on keeping weapons a part of their celebration. it's been no secret that fighters against the U.S. have in the past hidden in schools and hospitals. my friend had to go to schools in Iraq and give the children supplies as a goodwill gesture. those kids, had guns too. who's to say that those children with guns in their school are fighting also. you see it as we've just blown up a school for no reason, i see it as what went wrong that the U.S had to get rid of that school. When is mike moore going to make a movie about the kids in Iraq taking guns to their school?

Everytime they use one of those missiles, it costs taxpayers a shitload. I don't know how much, but I'm guessing tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars. Imagine how much money could have been saved to put into the domestic economy if forces overseas weren't using three missiles to hit a target that eventually turned out to be a school. And then, since Americans are *also* paying to restructure Iraq, they have to build a new school, and then, deal with the insurgents who are PISSED about the school (and the flying chunks from it that took down the mosque across the street, where a hundred people were praying) and decide to go blow up a few convoys.

sometimes even a million bucks on some guided smart bombs. but think about this, imagine how much money would be lost when a chopper went down, because instead of firing back at people shooting in the air, he thought it was a wedding and got hit with an RPG or a stinger. since those thousand/million dollar missiles wern't fired, they're now a part of the wreckage, so you have millions of dollars in misiles that were lost, and an expensive chopper that tax payers have to pay off. there's nothing wrong with paying to restructure a country. i would rather have my taxes rise a little bit to pay for that then to leave them in ruins so that they can hate us even more. however, i think were going about restructure the wrong way. instead of contracting these projects to US companies, i think the US companies should be sending materials and the know how to rebuild Iraq. there are thousands of people without work in Iraq, hire them to repave the roads and build the hospitals, and the police stations. Let them take pride in the fact that Iraqis from all over the country came together and built their own future, that way they'll think twice about blowing up their own buildings built by their fellow Iraqis. new facilities create new jobs, jobs they already have the skills for.

Then, during the search for the insurgents, a few civilians are killed because a group of boys/young men playing football in front of a house appear to be protecting it, and the local cleric draws a link between the incident and the way the Egyptians killed all the males of the tribe of Isreal because they wanted to EXTINGUISH THEIR PEOPLE AND WAY OF LIFE.

Isn't this war hard enough without making it worse? These people need to get their asses kicked when they screw up. Maybe then they'd be more careful.

explain to me why insurgents feel the need to blend in with civilians. why would it be ok for them to have human shields? why would they want to be held up in a holy city in the holiest of all the mosques? if these insurgents are fighting for the very same people that they put in harms way, what's the point? if it's their claims that the US is trying to ruin their faith, then why do they hide in their holy mosques? they themselves want to make it worse for themselves.

In the end the problem is this. The US has soldiers trying to do a peace keepers job. Stick a soldier trained to kill in a hostile envirnment and telling them to keep the peace will never really work out. Apparently when these soldiers are trained they must follow every response to the drill sargent or higher officer with the lines "KILL,KILL,KILL." It doesnt even matter if the drill sargent is asking about the wife and kids. I can imagine the strain it would be to keep peace when you've been trained to do the opposite. However that doesnt make killing civillians right, nor does it justify it.