The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Just some more info about that wedding (one other thing that didn't go wrong) that the media jumped all over

Coalition: Target not a wedding
A senior coalition military spokesman said Saturday that dozens of people killed in a U.S. attack in the Iraqi desert early Wednesday were attending a high-level meeting of foreign fighters, not a wedding. Photos shown to reporters in Baghdad support that contention.

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said six women were among the dead, but he said there was no evidence any children died in the raid near the Syrian border. Coalition officials have said as many as 40 people were killed.

Kimmitt said video showing dead children killed was actually recorded in Ramadi, far from the attack scene.

"There may have been some kind of celebration," Kimmitt said. "Bad people have celebrations too. Bad people have parties too."

Kimmitt said troops did not find anything -- such as a wedding tent, gifts, musical instruments, decorations or leftover food -- that would indicate a wedding had been held.

Most of the men there were of military age, and there were no elders present to indicate a family event, he said.

What was found, he said, indicated the building was used as a way station for foreign fighters crossing into Iraq from Syria to battle the coalition.

"The building seemed to be somewhat of a dormitory," Kimmitt said. "You had over 300 sets of bedding gear in it. You had a tremendous number of pre-packaged clothing -- apparently about a hundred sets of pre-packaged clothing.

"[It is] expected that when foreign fighters come in from other countries, they come to this location, they change their clothes into typical Iraqi clothing sets."

At Saturday's briefing for reporters in Baghdad, Kimmitt showed photos of what he said were binoculars designed for adjusting artillery fire, battery packs suitable for makeshift bombs, several terrorist training manuals, medical gear, fake ID cards and ID card-making machines, passports and telephone numbers to other countries, including Afghanistan and Sudan.

None of the men killed in the raid carried ID cards or wallets, he said.

"We feel that that was an indicator that this was a high risk meeting of high-level anti-coalition forces," Kimmitt said.

"There was a tremendous number of incriminating pocket litter, a lot of telephone numbers to foreign countries, Afghanistan, Sudan and a number of others."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/ ... index.html

FFA,

Skinsfan55, you have NO IDEA. First of all your comment about the military being a blending of anything proves you have no clue about the military. The purpose of basic training is to break you down and rebuild you to be "uniform", to fit into one mold. Not to blend anything!
Secondly there is not military training, aside from officer training, that requires more then a few weeks of schooling. MP included. You can call a recruiter and do the research yourself.
I am done posting on this thread and to you in general. It's obvious you are the one with a closed mind and set opinion.

NikiH wrote:Skinsfan55, you have NO IDEA. First of all your comment about the military being a blending of anything proves you have no clue about the military. The purpose of basic training is to break you down and rebuild you to be "uniform", to fit into one mold. Not to blend anything!
Secondly there is not military training, aside from officer training, that requires more then a few weeks of schooling. MP included. You can call a recruiter and do the research yourself.
I am done posting on this thread and to you in general. It's obvious you are the one with a closed mind and set opinion.

I completely disagree, and seeing as how neither of us are soldiers, we only know at least one I'd say we're on even ground to interpret what we see when it comes to the armed forces. The purpose of basic training/boot camp is to teach you the basic skills that every soldier in the field ought to know. That includes dicipline but you still remain the person you were when you entered for the most part. I've seen a lot of people go in, and come out very similar to the people they were before, a little for the better, a little for the worse, but you don't just become a mindless drone. You follow orders because it's good for your wellbeing, not because you don't know any better.

I know that you don't gots to has a whole mess of schooling before you sign the dotted line. Not sure what this is refering to...

It may be "obvious" to you that I am closed minded but IMO I have softened my stnace considerably on the war, and I am willing to listen and to process any differing opinions and then make up my own mind on them. From my side you have not softened your stance one bit, in fact, none of you have even admitted that things are going wrong and need straightening out. I feel they do, but even if you disagree, could some straightening out really hurt? We can't be TOO careful, or TOO thoughtfull about this conflict.

hey skinsfan55, i'm really looking forward to your reply to FanfromAnnapolis's last post and 1niksder's last post...let's see it, don't just fight the battles you think you can win. don't turn a blind eye when posters show you articles and facts to prove their points. it definitely makes your arguements less credible when you don't respond when you've been called out. but hey, this is just my observation on this thread.

surferskin wrote:hey skinsfan55, i'm really looking forward to your reply to FanfromAnnapolis's last post and 1niksder's last post...let's see it, don't just fight the battles you think you can win. don't turn a blind eye when posters show you articles and facts to prove their points. it definitely makes your arguements less credible when you don't respond when you've been called out. but hey, this is just my observation on this thread.

No need to be rude, I just hadn't gotten around to it yet... I do have a life outside this forum you know.

Anyway, as for FanFromAnnapolis's post, I was very impressed. Unlike most here they were able to conduct a lucid and thoughtful argument, what's more is that they didn't stoop down to insults.

I will admit that this war is lower on casualties than a normal war... but this is not a normal war (it's not even a war tecnically) so we need to alter from the normal war ideology here. The object of this armed conflict is to kill as few Iraqi's as possible and to make their land a safer area for US to operate in and less safer for terrorists to operate in. Obviously we're deviating from the path with prison abuses and civilian assaults. Now, I've significantly softened my stance on this conflict from being totally against going into Iraq (although being FOR hunting terrorists) but now I can see how stabalizing governments along the way may be helpful, still there's obviously a right and a wrong way to do this.

The Iraqi people hate us enough, (yes, they may enjoy their new freedoms, but the second they leave... they will go back to hating us) do we really need to mock their religion and abuse their people? No, of course not (especially if we want them to hate us less). The "war" is not a "complete mess" but it DOES need some straightening up.

I was a little shocked at your downplaying SOME of the prisoner abuse (There have been attrocities far worse than making prisoners get naked in every war ever.) I think that is the big problem here. These people are different from us, they have different belief sets, different ideas, and being naked to them is FAR more horrible for them than it would be for most Americans. It seems to me that we don't know much about the people we are trying to help, and I think that's something that ought to be fixed.

I'll leave with one parting note in response to your last words, because soldiers (especially ones involved in the action) say that things are going well doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot. They are forced to put their lives on the line every day that they are over there, in their minds... would they be doing this if it weren't for a worthy cause? No, it's called cognitive dissonance and it would easily explain why soldiers would be "for" a war they have no choice about. I know everyone else will cry about "liberal biase" (which is totally idiotic to think that the entire entity of media can be swayed one way or another) but the news is a fine source for fidning out what is going on (going over there yourself would be the best way, but that's not quite possible for most people). Yes, the media will find the story that is most interesting to report, but you will still get the best information they have. That is why I choose to take the word of a reporter, over a soldier... a soldier is motivated by brain impulses he or she cannot control, while a journalist is motivated by getting the best story possible.

1niksder wrote:Just some more info about that wedding (one other thing that didn't go wrong) that the media jumped all over

Coalition: Target not a wedding
A senior coalition military spokesman said Saturday that dozens of people killed in a U.S. attack in the Iraqi desert early Wednesday were attending a high-level meeting of foreign fighters, not a wedding. Photos shown to reporters in Baghdad support that contention.

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said six women were among the dead, but he said there was no evidence any children died in the raid near the Syrian border. Coalition officials have said as many as 40 people were killed.

Kimmitt said video showing dead children killed was actually recorded in Ramadi, far from the attack scene.

"There may have been some kind of celebration," Kimmitt said. "Bad people have celebrations too. Bad people have parties too."

Kimmitt said troops did not find anything -- such as a wedding tent, gifts, musical instruments, decorations or leftover food -- that would indicate a wedding had been held.

Most of the men there were of military age, and there were no elders present to indicate a family event, he said.

What was found, he said, indicated the building was used as a way station for foreign fighters crossing into Iraq from Syria to battle the coalition.

"The building seemed to be somewhat of a dormitory," Kimmitt said. "You had over 300 sets of bedding gear in it. You had a tremendous number of pre-packaged clothing -- apparently about a hundred sets of pre-packaged clothing.

"[It is] expected that when foreign fighters come in from other countries, they come to this location, they change their clothes into typical Iraqi clothing sets."

At Saturday's briefing for reporters in Baghdad, Kimmitt showed photos of what he said were binoculars designed for adjusting artillery fire, battery packs suitable for makeshift bombs, several terrorist training manuals, medical gear, fake ID cards and ID card-making machines, passports and telephone numbers to other countries, including Afghanistan and Sudan.

None of the men killed in the raid carried ID cards or wallets, he said.

"We feel that that was an indicator that this was a high risk meeting of high-level anti-coalition forces," Kimmitt said.

"There was a tremendous number of incriminating pocket litter, a lot of telephone numbers to foreign countries, Afghanistan, Sudan and a number of others."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/ ... index.html

No one knows for sure what happened that day, but we DID see a picture of a dead little girl with a sheet over her body. No one can be sure that this was, or was not a wedding as it turns out, but I guess we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss either.

If it was a high level meeting of terrorists, then bravo... if it was a wedding, then shame on the people responsible...

And even if it was a meeting of terrorists, how irresponsible to set up a situation where the enemy can make up a story so easily? Why not send troops on the ground to clear it out? That sureley would have made it more difficult to let the enemy stir up such heavy anti US sentiment.

Perhaps bombers should be followed by recon planes from now one, so we can know (and show) the truth.

This whole thread is giving this person what he wants most... debate? No - Attention! It's sad - reminds me of the Buck Henry skit on Saturday Night Live. He'd begin with a topic like - taxes, as the host of a fictional talk show asking for callers. No calls came in, so he changed the topic to politics. After several changes, he states - "I'm for Killing Puppies!" He stares at the phone - "anyone out there who wants to argue with me - I'm for killing puppies!" It's desparate, sad very misquided. I wonder if your buddy likes to be called a terrorist?

My fellow Americans - I'm done with this part of the debate. I sincerely appreciate the venue to get things off my chest though - and I especially appreciate knowing that there are true patriots and people who DO get it. When ABC, CBS and NBC - New York Times... push their slant everyday. I sometimes feel frustrated and think I'm in a world of my own. Glad you fellas are out there!

Skinsfan55 wrote:

No one knows for sure what happened that day, but we DID see a picture of a dead little girl with a sheet over her body. No one can be sure that this was, or was not a wedding as it turns out, but I guess we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss either.

but you said

Skinsfan55 wrote:That is why I choose to take the word of a reporter, over a soldier... a soldier is motivated by brain impulses he or she cannot control, while a journalist is motivated by getting the best story possible.

Skinsfan55 wrote:And even if it was a meeting of terrorists, how irresponsible to set up a situation where the enemy can make up a story so easily? Why not send troops on the ground to clear it out? That sureley would have made it more difficult to let the enemy stir up such heavy anti US sentiment.

Who are they going to tell these made up stories to and who would believe it?

Skinsfan55 wrote:That is why I choose to take the word of a reporter, over a soldier... a soldier is motivated by brain impulses he or she cannot control, while a journalist is motivated by getting the best story possible.

Skinsfan55 wrote:Perhaps bombers should be followed by recon planes from now one, so we can know (and show) the truth.

Recon goes before the bombers

Skinsfan55 wrote:You can have an opinion, but if my opinion is that the world is flat against a mountain of evidence, then that's pretty silly.

Why do you have a right to have a opinion?.....

because the young men and women willing to die to keep us free (to do and SAY whatever we want)...

Skinsfan55 wrote: a soldier is motivated by brain impulses he or she cannot control

This was (may still be) your Opinion:

Skinsfan55 wrote:Things aren't going right in Iraq and it's plain as day. People can argue until their face turns blue and they'll still be wrong.

and you have every right to it

but this is how you thank them??

Skinsfan55 wrote:They are forced to put their lives on the line every day that they are over there, in their minds... would they be doing this if it weren't for a worthy cause?

You are a American.... you are a worthy cause

Skinsfan55 wrote:What gets me is the blatant lies that people make up and assume I believe. I certainly am not "badmouthing" the military. They are a resource that can be misused, what's so hard to understand about that?

Skinsfan55 wrote:That is why I choose to take the word of a reporter, over a soldier

if you havn't noticed I havn't typed much during this post it's mostly you talking to you

but I'm say...

you have a right to choose just like you have a right to a opinion I've followed along as the 2 of you have stated your postions on the war(IT IS A WAR) you both have stuck to what you believe and thats cool.... but think about ....YOU choose to beleive the reporters about the wedding (and was wrong) could your opinion be wrong also

really I'm interested in your opinion

1niksder, NICE avatar!!!

I've got one coming one of these days, I'm pretty excited about it. . .

FanfromAnnapolis wrote:1niksder, NICE avatar!!!

I've got one coming one of these days, I'm pretty excited about it. . .

Yeah I had a idea and NC43 ran with it

I was actually FOR this threat, before I turned against it :0)

Wow Scooter is really John Kerry!!

Well, I thought I was until I thought I wasn't. I was going to vote formyself - before I decided to vote against me.

I didn't know John Kerry was from NM - just thought he hid his... I mean his wife's SUV there

I never said I was from New Mexico, even if I did - you misunderstood me. I meant that I bought a ribbon from New Mexico. It really depends what the definition of "from" is. And since you didn't get the memo: My wife is off limits - because she says so! :0).

Scooter wrote: It really depends what the definition of "from" is.

WOW from Kerry to Clinton in a bling of an eye

1niksder, NICE avatar!!!

Yea man, that thing surely is sweet.

Boss Hog was gracious enough to hook me up with my current avatar. I think when I start playing football again I'll have to snap a shot and let someone run with it.

now now Scooter - don't get kerryed away. After all - you knew this would ketchup to ya sometime. Heinz is a sweet tomato isn't she? Not pasty or anything like that. I can understand you going for her, and if I come of sounding saucy, well I apologize. If that doesn't cut the mustard, well then, mayo I suggest you lettuce go back to the issue we were originally discussing?

Hey Dawg -
I'm totally applesauced by that statment. There must be 57 other things we should be talking about! :0)