Wedding Party Massacre? Doubtful.....

In article ,
"Tamas Feher" wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3741223.stm

Several hours worth of home video tape showing the wedding has been
recovered.
+
Half-hour news video, showing the dead, including children and the very
guy who filmed the home video above.

Well, the video shown on the BBC shows *a* party or wedding. It could
have been shot at any time over the last year or more, as far as that
goes.

BBC is the remorse of the world!

They're certainly a reason for remorse in the UK. The BBC used to be
pretty good, until they let their new coverage quality slide so much.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Tamas Feher" wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3741223.stm

Several hours worth of home video tape showing the wedding has been
recovered.
+
Half-hour news video, showing the dead, including children and the very
guy who filmed the home video above.

Well, the video shown on the BBC shows *a* party or wedding. It could
have been shot at any time over the last year or more, as far as that
goes.

BBC is the remorse of the world!

They're certainly a reason for remorse in the UK. The BBC used to be
pretty good, until they let their new coverage quality slide so much.

Although I actually agree with your sentiment here, from experience of both,
I think the BBC still kicks the ass off any US news coverage. Fewer vested
interests, less need to toe the party line.

John

In article ,
"John Mullen" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...

They're certainly a reason for remorse in the UK. The BBC used to be
pretty good, until they let their new coverage quality slide so much.

Although I actually agree with your sentiment here, from experience of both,
I think the BBC still kicks the ass off any US news coverage. Fewer vested
interests, less need to toe the party line.

One telling problem with the Beeb right now is their lack of coverage on
the Oil for Food scandal. *Very* little coverage, and what's there
isn't exactly hard hitting.

Note also that when they mention Hamas (or other Mideast terror groups)
in an article, they don't call them terrorists. They call them
militants or something less direct. When the word terrorist *is* used
in a BBC story, it's usually inserted in "scare quotes."

So Hamas isn't a bunch of terrorists. It's a militant group, or a
so-called "terrorist" group.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

So Hamas isn't a bunch of terrorists. It's a militant group, or a
so-called "terrorist" group.

As long as Palestine and East Jerusalem is occupied, Hamas is free to
blow up whatever they want. Just like the WWII soviet partisans, Tito's
yugoslavian partisans, the french armed resistance or the anti-Quisling
norwegians did it. Trains, buses, automobiles, bridges and buildings,
anything israeli or Third Reich. It is their unalienable right to scare
the invaders off their occupied land. It is harder to do now, cause
palestinian do not receive any foreign supply comparable what Tito got
from the USA and USSR. They are practically fighting bare handed (AK-47
and homemade junk against heavy tanks).

But be sure, Allah is patient, and arabs have time on their hands, like
sand in the desert. Years are like seconds for the almighty. Some time
the sons of Allah will regain their land.

I think israelis should move to California and live there. They have
done so much harm and terror to the middle east in the last 55 years
(invasions, 200+ nuclear bombs, biological weapons of ethnically
selective mass destruction, ethnic cleansing, etc.) that you really
cannot expect arabs to live in peace with them ever. Damn it, jews they
still didn't pay the gov't of Lebanon for all the destruction they did
in those 22 years of occupation of the southern part of the country.

Regards, Tamas Feher.

In message , Chad Irby
writes
Well, the video shown on the BBC shows *a* party or wedding. It could
have been shot at any time over the last year or more, as far as that
goes.

I've seen the footage, but it's been heavily caveated - this "purports"
(the BBC's word, not mine) to be film of the wedding party before the
attack, and footage of the aftermath, but firm evidence is lacking to
date.

The original source for both the footage and some of the claims is
Associated Press TV News.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Chad Irby wrote in message om...
In article ,
"Tamas Feher" wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3741223.stm

Several hours worth of home video tape showing the wedding has been
recovered.
+
Half-hour news video, showing the dead, including children and the very
guy who filmed the home video above.

Well, the video shown on the BBC shows *a* party or wedding. It could
have been shot at any time over the last year or more, as far as that
goes.

BBC is the remorse of the world!

They're certainly a reason for remorse in the UK. The BBC used to be
pretty good, until they let their new coverage quality slide so much.


http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5239376

You certainly have to admire the 9 members of the band who died after
the video was shot and the tenth who lived to verify their presence.
That's sacrifice. Literally.

"Basem Ishab Mohamed, the drummer, identified the organist as Mohaned,
brother of a noted Baghdad wedding singer Hussein al-Ali, who also
performed at the wedding. Both were killed when U.S. aircraft struck
in the early hours of Wednesday, he said. " from the cite above

Sure, Tamas, several hours of "video of a wedding party" must be real hard
to come by. Pictures/video of dead women and children must be rare indeed.

Does anything- anything at all- tie any of this to the events in question?

Anything?

Steve Swartz


"Tamas Feher" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3741223.stm

Several hours worth of home video tape showing the wedding has been
recovered.
+
Half-hour news video, showing the dead, including children and the very
guy who filmed the home video above.

BBC is the remorse of the world!

"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...
Sure, Tamas, several hours of "video of a wedding party" must be real hard
to come by. Pictures/video of dead women and children must be rare
indeed.

Does anything- anything at all- tie any of this to the events in question?

Anything?

For that matter, perhaps the whole war is being faked in Hollywood. Maybe
none of it is real. Could you prove to me that it was?

Your post marks you as very naive. Maybe you are very young. A hint: wars
are not won or lost by the provability of facts. You may be thinking of
court cases?

This incident, whether it really happened or not, has caused terrible (maybe
fatal?) damage to the continued US occupation of Iraq. FWIW I believe it
really was a wedding.

John

PS Do you think all the torture pics and video were also maybe faked? How
about the moon landings...

John:

1) Leave your bogus ad hominem attacks for someone else; I don't buy them
("very young, indeed!"). The naive person is the one who believes that by
casting dubious a[psersions on the character or nature of the person
presenting hte argument, they have somehow "scored points" in the argument
itself.

2) I never stated- I never implied- that lies/propaganda have no power.
Go ahead and argue against that straw man if you like; once again, it also
(see ad hominem above) says more about you as a person than the nature of
your- or my- argument.

3) Add the straw man about "the whole war is faked" to the existing
bonfire, will you?

4) And nice go of adding a couple of other gratuitous (and irrelevant, and
reflective to your position) ad-hominem slanders and strawmen at the end as
well. You missed the obvious tin foil hat and trilateral commission ones
though.

O.K., so the crux of your argument is thus:

"I believe the wedding story is true, therefore you must be a big doody
head."

O.K., if I guess that's all you can come up with we can move on . . .

(note: I'm the guy who posted the analogy to the Jenin mythology and how
the power of "Arab Truth" is stronger than the power of "Western Truth"
mainly because while our truth is based on reason and evidence, arab truth
is based on faith and culture. Truths based on reason and evidence are
harder to demonstrate than truths basedc on "it sounds right to me and fits
my assumptions and preferences." That's why it's irrelevant- to you-
whether or not the "evidence" of the "wedding massacre" are in any way
"true" or "false" in a western sense. The pictures are purely authentic- no
fakery required- in that they represent what they represent- it's just that
what they represent have nothing whatsoever to do with what the providers
are *claiming* tehy represent. Nice chatting with you anyways.)

Steve Swartz





"John Mullen" wrote in message
. net...
"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...
Sure, Tamas, several hours of "video of a wedding party" must be real
hard
to come by. Pictures/video of dead women and children must be rare
indeed.

Does anything- anything at all- tie any of this to the events in
question?

Anything?

For that matter, perhaps the whole war is being faked in Hollywood. Maybe
none of it is real. Could you prove to me that it was?

Your post marks you as very naive. Maybe you are very young. A hint: wars
are not won or lost by the provability of facts. You may be thinking of
court cases?

This incident, whether it really happened or not, has caused terrible
(maybe
fatal?) damage to the continued US occupation of Iraq. FWIW I believe it
really was a wedding.

John

PS Do you think all the torture pics and video were also maybe faked? How
about the moon landings...

"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...
John:

1) Leave your bogus ad hominem attacks for someone else; I don't buy them
("very young, indeed!"). The naive person is the one who believes that by
casting dubious a[psersions on the character or nature of the person
presenting hte argument, they have somehow "scored points" in the argument
itself.

2) I never stated- I never implied- that lies/propaganda have no power.
Go ahead and argue against that straw man if you like; once again, it also
(see ad hominem above) says more about you as a person than the nature of
your- or my- argument.

3) Add the straw man about "the whole war is faked" to the existing
bonfire, will you?

4) And nice go of adding a couple of other gratuitous (and irrelevant, and
reflective to your position) ad-hominem slanders and strawmen at the end
as
well. You missed the obvious tin foil hat and trilateral commission ones
though.

O.K., so the crux of your argument is thus:

"I believe the wedding story is true, therefore you must be a big doody
head."

O.K., if I guess that's all you can come up with we can move on . . .

(note: I'm the guy who posted the analogy to the Jenin mythology and how
the power of "Arab Truth" is stronger than the power of "Western Truth"
mainly because while our truth is based on reason and evidence, arab truth
is based on faith and culture. Truths based on reason and evidence are
harder to demonstrate than truths basedc on "it sounds right to me and
fits
my assumptions and preferences." That's why it's irrelevant- to you-
whether or not the "evidence" of the "wedding massacre" are in any way
"true" or "false" in a western sense. The pictures are purely authentic-
no
fakery required- in that they represent what they represent- it's just
that
what they represent have nothing whatsoever to do with what the providers
are *claiming* tehy represent. Nice chatting with you anyways.)

(snip)

"John Mullen" wrote in message
. net...
"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...
Sure, Tamas, several hours of "video of a wedding party" must be real
hard
to come by. Pictures/video of dead women and children must be rare
indeed.

Does anything- anything at all- tie any of this to the events in
question?

Anything?

For that matter, perhaps the whole war is being faked in Hollywood.
Maybe
none of it is real. Could you prove to me that it was?

Your post marks you as very naive. Maybe you are very young. A hint:
wars
are not won or lost by the provability of facts. You may be thinking of
court cases?

This incident, whether it really happened or not, has caused terrible
(maybe
fatal?) damage to the continued US occupation of Iraq. FWIW I believe it
really was a wedding.

John

PS Do you think all the torture pics and video were also maybe faked?
How
about the moon landings...

Aw!

Sorry if I hurt your feelings!

You may not be as naive as I thought, as it seems you do sort-of understand
the point I was making. I don't buy the 'Arab truth' vs 'Western truth'
dichotomy though. Truth is truth. But in war, perception is reality.

Why are you so sure the wedding photos were faked? They look real enough to
me. Do you have inside information, or is it just your preconceived ideas
that guide you here?

Top-posting is a crime against Usenet!

Nice chatting to you too!

John