Wedding Party Massacre? Doubtful.....

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in
:


"Scott MacEachern" wrote in message
om...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

Never heard of terrorists using such equipment, eh?

Right. Al-Qaeda: The Musical....

Looks like BG Kimmet has drawn very different conclusions from what
you have, Scott. And if you are going to quote the guy, at least do
so by paraphrasing his entire statement.

How about today, then, from the briefing transcript: "...But I would
tell you that, again, day after day after day, as we continue to get
more evidence in, as we continue to get more new evidence coming in,
it is pretty clear to us that what happened that night from the --
about after midnight until about 0400 -- that the activities that we
saw happening on the ground were somewhat inconsistent with a wedding
party. And it could well have been, as we have said before, that
there was some sort of celebration going on. ..."

You conveniently missed the PICTURE that showed the rocket launchers,
and rounds these "wedding party" folks were found with? Hell of a
wedding gift..."Oh, honey, look! It's that RPG-7 we were hoping to
get!"

And all of those *Sudanese* attendants..heck of along way to travel
for a wedding in those parts...


"...somewhat inconsistent with a wedding party...."

Yeah. There's a ringing statement of confidence.

How about his quote: "But at this point, we have seen really nothing
that causes us to be -- to change our minds."

Or: "We have found no evidence of any children being killed, by people
on the ground. We had a ground force element that went through the
objective. It did not identify any children killed. And so this,
again, is part of what needs to be determined by an unbiased
investigation. And that's exactly what we're taking forward." (This
has been your pet peeve, right? The alleged butchering of children?)

Or: "But the intelligence that we had, that got us there, what we
found on the ground and our post-strike analysis suggests that what we
had was a significant foreign-fighter waystation, smuggler waystation
in the middle of the desert that was bringing people into this country
for the sole purpose of attacking to kill the people of Iraq. We have
a responsibility to maintain a safe and secure environment. That is
our responsibility, that is our obligation, and we will carry that
out."

Again, a bit different from the version of Kimmet's words you keep
parroting.

Brooks


Scott




Face reality;you or anyone else here is not going to convince
Mr.MacEachern
of anything favorable to the US. His mind is made up regardless of any
facts to the contrary.

True, but letting him get away with his "rewriting" of Kimmet's quotes
through judicious snippage and inaccurate/incomplete paraphrasing does not
serve much purpose, either. Isn't he the transplanted Canuck? If so, one
wonders why, if he is so disgusted with his nation, as he makes clear at
every opportunity, he doesn't just pack up and head back home?

Brooks

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

On Mon, 24 May 2004 15:29:15 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

You conveniently missed the PICTURE that showed the rocket launchers,

There are no slides (that I can see, anyway) with the transcript at
http://www.dod.mil/transcripts/2004/...0524-0793.html. And oh, yes,
if there's an RPG it must involve insurgents. After all, who else in a
law-abiding country like Iraq would own an RPG?

And all of those *Sudanese* attendants..heck of along way to travel for a
wedding in those parts...

Why so? People travel all over the Middle East: Sudanese (and not
Muslims, but Nuer and Dinka from the south) were an important element
in the construction force in Yemen and Jordan for quite some time. Do
you actually think that, after the degree of smuggling tolerated by
all sides (even America, in Kurdistan) during Saddam's rule, movement
of peopel an dgoods has just stopped?

(This has been your pet peeve, right?
The alleged butchering of children?)

Quite a bit of it, yes. (They found no children being killed... except
of course for all of those people who say that children were killed.
But hell, they're only Iraqis, right?) But more generally than that
the idea that in occupied Iraq (or Afghanistan) the best procedure in
such a case is simply to bomb the hell out of the place and then ask
questions and stonewall later. Because what Kimmitt is making clear is
that he _doesn't know what that meeting was_. Here he is again, from
the section of the transcript that you quoted:

...our post-strike analysis suggests that what we had was a
significant foreign-fighter waystation, smuggler waystation in the middle of
the desert ...

and he's treating them as if they were the same thing. But as far as I
know being a smuggler in Iraq is not supposed to automatically bring a
sentence of Death From On High. Still less attending a wedding.

Scott

On Mon, 24 May 2004 04:30:21 GMT, Paul Elliot
wrote:

Just why are we giving ANY creedence to criticism from an "alleged"
FRENCH person?

Who, me? I'm Canadian, and I've worked in different parts of Africa --
but mostly in the area I mentioned -- through the last 20 years.

Scott

On Mon, 24 May 2004 20:37:00 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

If so, one
wonders why, if he is so disgusted with his nation, as he makes clear at
every opportunity, he doesn't just pack up and head back home?

Oh, but Mr Brooks, I'm not disgusted with the United States at all. I
do sometimes get a little bored with this rock-headed,
love-it-or-leave-it chauvinism that passes for patriotism on
america.net, but I see rather less of that in real life.

(You might note that the last time I was invited on r.a.m. to go home
to Soviet Canuckistan, it was by some of your compatriots,
_outraged_!, yes _outraged_! that someone might say that there were
grounds for thinking that American soldiers were abusing prisoners in
Afghanistan....)

And where have I 'rewritten' General Kimmitt's comments? The poor
general doesn't seem to know quite what to think about what happened
in the case we're arguing about, but that's hardly my fault.

Scott

"Scott MacEachern" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 May 2004 20:37:00 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

If so, one
wonders why, if he is so disgusted with his nation, as he makes clear at
every opportunity, he doesn't just pack up and head back home?

Oh, but Mr Brooks, I'm not disgusted with the United States at all. I
do sometimes get a little bored with this rock-headed,
love-it-or-leave-it chauvinism that passes for patriotism on
america.net, but I see rather less of that in real life.

Out of curiousity--when was the last time you posted something positive
about the US, or its military forces, or its military operations (and keep
this in the modern era, please)? My observation to date is that you are
pretty much a continual naysayer in regards to the US. Yeah, you have the
right to do so--that is why our military exists, to ensure you keep that
right. But if you are so disgusted with us, and find things so much more
likeable across the border, why don't you go back? Why stay in such a nasty
place that foments the likes of GWB and a US military force you despise?


(You might note that the last time I was invited on r.a.m. to go home
to Soviet Canuckistan, it was by some of your compatriots,
_outraged_!, yes _outraged_! that someone might say that there were
grounds for thinking that American soldiers were abusing prisoners in
Afghanistan....)

And where have I 'rewritten' General Kimmitt's comments? The poor
general doesn't seem to know quite what to think about what happened
in the case we're arguing about, but that's hardly my fault.

You have inaccurately paraphrased, or incompletely paraphrased his
statements to the point of changing his meaning. As a big "edumacator" you
ought to be familiar with that process, which was at least when I went
through school highly frowned upon as being intellectually dishonest.

Brooks


Scott

"Scott MacEachern" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 May 2004 15:29:15 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

You conveniently missed the PICTURE that showed the rocket launchers,

There are no slides (that I can see, anyway) with the transcript at
http://www.dod.mil/transcripts/2004/...0524-0793.html. And oh, yes,
if there's an RPG it must involve insurgents. After all, who else in a
law-abiding country like Iraq would own an RPG?

The pictures were shown at the brief, but curiously none of the news outlets
seem to want to run them on their sites, as best I can determine
(understandable--they in general much prefer running anti-US materiel, of
course). And yeah, having an RPG and a few extra projectiles for it does
seem to point to something a bit more sinister than your run-of-the-mill
"wedding party", or even your "smugglers". Which does bring to mind another
possibility--what if it was a "smuggling operation" aimed at providing
supplies to the insurgents/terrorists? Guess that still makes them a
non-target in your mind, eh?


And all of those *Sudanese* attendants..heck of along way to travel for a
wedding in those parts...

Why so? People travel all over the Middle East: Sudanese (and not
Muslims, but Nuer and Dinka from the south) were an important element
in the construction force in Yemen and Jordan for quite some time. Do
you actually think that, after the degree of smuggling tolerated by
all sides (even America, in Kurdistan) during Saddam's rule, movement
of peopel an dgoods has just stopped?

So you find it quite understandable that a large number of Sudanese men of
military age, armed to the degree we have seen thus far in this case, and
carrying a pretty grand portable field medical set with them, etc., are just
your average local smugglers, right? Used car salesmen must love you..."No,
sir, that is NOT a dent! That is a...uhmmm...a, errr.... BEAUTY MARK! Yeah,
that's what it is! And I tell you what, sir, I don't do this for just
anybody, but for *you* I'll let you have that feature at NO EXTRA COST!"


(This has been your pet peeve, right?
The alleged butchering of children?)

Quite a bit of it, yes. (They found no children being killed... except
of course for all of those people who say that children were killed.
But hell, they're only Iraqis, right?) But more generally than that
the idea that in occupied Iraq (or Afghanistan) the best procedure in
such a case is simply to bomb the hell out of the place and then ask
questions and stonewall later. Because what Kimmitt is making clear is
that he _doesn't know what that meeting was_. Here he is again, from
the section of the transcript that you quoted:

...our post-strike analysis suggests that what we had was a
significant foreign-fighter waystation, smuggler waystation in the middle
of
the desert ...

and he's treating them as if they were the same thing. But as far as I
know being a smuggler in Iraq is not supposed to automatically bring a
sentence of Death From On High. Still less attending a wedding.

Well, if we have smugglers running RPG's and ammo, then they sound like a
viable target to me. Those RPG's are killing our guys, don'tcha know?
Yep...lots of Suadanese smugglers a long way from home, with terrorist
training manuals, armed to the teeth, to include at least one RPG, battery
kits of the same type being used to set off IED's, etc.... Yep, they are
most definitely innocent bystanders--the PA system proves it, right?!

Brooks


Scott

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.

"Tamas Feher" wrote in message
...
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.

God is patient, and the Israelis have time on their hands, like sand on the
beach. Millenia are but seconds to the almight. The children of God will
retain 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.

I think Arabs should just move to California and live there. They have done
so much harm and terror to the middle east in the last 600 years (invasions,
bombs, biological weapons, ethnic cleansing, fratricide, regicide,
matricide, suicide, genocide, etc.) that you really cannot expect arabs to
live in peace with anyone ever. Damn it, Arabs still haven't paid each other
for all the destruction they've done in the centuries they've been
butchering each other.

In message Kjosc.108968$iF6.9831270@attbi_s02, raymond o'hara
writes
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Yeah, the nerve of those people.....having customs like that in their own
country! Where do they get off doing stuff like that?
(^-^)))

it's fine in peacetime idiot, but firing mg's in a war zone will get you
killed .

It's not a "war zone" - major combat operations ended last year. Your
President said so, I saw him on the televisualiser gadget thingy,
standing on one of his big grey war canoes.

What, was he wrong or something? Isn't anyone going to tell him?

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

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

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...

The pictures were shown at the brief, but curiously none of the news outlets
seem to want to run them on their sites, as best I can determine
(understandable--they in general much prefer running anti-US materiel, of
course).

Of course. That must be why they're not on dod.mil as well.
Subversives in the Pentagon, no doubt.

what if it was a "smuggling operation" aimed at providing
supplies to the insurgents/terrorists? Guess that still makes them a
non-target in your mind, eh?

Nope. What it does indicate is that _it would be a capital idea to
know who they are before blowing them up_! Kimmitt's various
statements over the last few days make it clear that the military did
not know what was out the terrorists? smugglers? bad people? bad
people having celebrations? women? children? musicians from Baghdad?
What are you going to do, just fly over the Western desert of Iraq and
drop bombs on everyone who moves?

So you find it quite understandable that a large number of Sudanese men of
military age, armed to the degree we have seen thus far in this case, and
carrying a pretty grand portable field medical set with them, etc ...

Where did this come from? One passport from Sudan, from what Kimmitt
said on the 22nd. A medical examinationtable on the site. Syringes.
This is a 'pretty grand portable field medical set '? AKs and an
RPG.... in Iraq.

Well, if we have smugglers running RPG's and ammo, then they sound like a
viable target to me. Those RPG's are killing our guys, don'tcha know?

So are AKs. Are you going to declare open season on everyone in Iraq
who owns an AK, as well? A pistol... don't forget, there were some of
those found, too. Do you want to kill everyone in Iraq who owns a
pistol?

Yep...lots of Suadanese smugglers a long way from home, with terrorist
training manuals, armed to the teeth, to include at least one RPG, battery
kits of the same type being used to set off IED's, etc.... Yep, they are
most definitely innocent bystanders--the PA system proves it, right?!

Quite a bit of this seems to be your imagination. You might note that
the 'terrorist training manuals' seem to have disappeared from the
last briefing given by Kimmitt, although you'd think they'd be pretty
determinative. And as for teh rest... no, I can't see anything in
there that proves these anything but bystanders, innocent or not.

You also conveniently forget to mention video of the wedding, video of
smashed musical instruments and furniture taken by AP last week,
grieving widows in Baghdad, pictures of women and kids being buried.
But hell, that's only Iraqis, eh? Not nearly as convincing as a nice,
clean briefing room in Baghdad...

Scott