No Wedding Party, Children's Deaths Indicated

[seruriermarshal]

No Wedding Party, Children's Deaths Indicated, Military Spokesman Says

By Rudi Williams, American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, May 22, 2004 – There are no indications a wedding party took place at a remote desert site in western Iraq near the Syrian border where U.S. forces are accused of killing about 20 people May 19, including women and children, a senior military spokesman said today.

"Contrary to media reports, there was no wedding tent and no nuptial tent in the area," Army Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy operations director for Multinational Force Iraq said during a Baghdad news conference.

"To the allegation that there was a wedding going on, there was no evidence of a wedding," Kimmitt reiterated. "There were no decorations, no musical instruments found, no large quantities of food or leftover servings one would expect from a wedding celebration and no gifts.

"The men were almost all military-aged, no family elders that one would expect to see at an event of this type," he said.

To help substantiate his comments, the general showed reporters slides of items found at the site, which included a significant number of weapons, battery packs used to power improvised explosive devices and a host of other non-wedding-related items.

"What was interesting is that the building seemed to be somewhat of a dormitory," Kimmitt pointed out. "There were more than 300 sets of bedding gear in it and about 100 sets of prepackaged clothing. It's suspected that when foreign fighters come in from other countries they change their clothes into typical Iraqi clothing sets.

"We also found a significant number of identity cards, ID-making machines, the capability to make exit visas for Iraq and a couple of passports," the general noted. "And we found a waist-high medical table for examination and treatment."

Highlighting some other intelligence found at the site, Kimmitt said, "There were a couple of other items we found to be quite interesting. None of the bodies had any identification of any kind – no ID cards, no wallets, no pictures. They had watches, and that was about the only way you could identify one person from another.

"We feel that that was an indicator that this was a high-risk meeting of high-level anti-coalition forces," he said. Kimmitt pointed out items found in the victims' pockets, "including a lot of telephone numbers to foreign countries -- Afghanistan, Sudan and a number of others."

He said the site was purported to be a ranch, but there was no indication of ranching activities. "Most homes in remote desert areas support sheep ranching operations," Kimmitt noted. "But there wasn't any evidence of livestock at that location. There were large farm trucks present, but no indication that they'd ever been used for ranching."

"There were also a number of terrorist training manuals (and) suspected forged Iraqi IDs," he said.

Kimmitt said there may have been some kind of celebration going on at the said, but not a wedding. "Bad people have celebrations too," he noted. "Bad people have parties too. It may have been that what was seen as some sort of celebration may have just been a meeting in the middle of the desert by some people that were conducting either criminal or terrorist activities. That's the conclusion we're continuing to draw the more we look at the material, intelligence, post-strike, and follow-up intelligence."

Kimmitt said the coalition believes "a handful of women" could have been present. "We believe six were killed, and we acknowledge that in all of our reports," he said. "But there are still not reports of any children being killed."

Kimmitt said a videotape distributed to the media showing at least a dozen bodies, including small children, wrapped in blankets for burial, being unloaded from a truck doesn't look like the video taken at the site of the attack.

"None of the geography in those videos match the geography of this open area," he noted. "But there are still some inconsistencies. We still remain opened-minded about this. We'll continue to look into everything that's provided to us in the way of evidence."

The general said the area was attacked based on significant multiple sources of intelligence that came in the night of May 18 and morning of May 19. "That caused us to launch a quick-reaction force to that area," he said.

Air and ground element were dispatched to the area. "We got into the area and our soldiers took fire and they responded," Kimmitt explained. "As soon as they finished sweeping the objective, they went back to their bases."

[talib_killa34]

This could be another "baby milk plant" propaganda ploy like in '91 Desert Storm.

Could be, but you never know.

[MetalBoy]

It's sad that most people I know on campus still think this was a wedding party. What it comes down to is who are you going to believe, a bunch of Iraqis who have every reason to make up **** and spread hateful lies, or the US military. Sadly a lot of people here would tend to side with the Iraqi story.

[henksmoeder]

uuuhm, yesterday on the news they showed footage of the wedding. It was a f*cking wedding! I'll see if it's somewhere on the net.

[Jack Mehoff]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15655

[ronin2172]

uuuhm, yesterday on the news they showed footage of the wedding. It was a f*cking wedding! I'll see if it's somewhere on the net.
uuummm u r not quite up on the latest news huh? Well this wedding had some interesting party favors......those crazy iraqis sure no how to party!

[Secret Squirrel]

uuuhm, yesterday on the news they showed footage of the wedding. It was a f*cking wedding! I'll see if it's somewhere on the net.
uuummm u r not quite up on the latest news huh? Well this wedding had some interesting party favors......those crazy iraqis sure no how to party!

anyway to prove those weapons and things were found at that site? any video? Would be nice if the U.S released the video footage from the attack, which should quell any arguments over if this was a wedding or not; seems like a simple thing to do that would put an end to a lot of these discussions. How do they explain that people in the wedding video, including children and a well-known wedding singer, match those who were killed during the attack.

[ronin2172]

uuuhm, yesterday on the news they showed footage of the wedding. It was a f*cking wedding! I'll see if it's somewhere on the net.
uuummm u r not quite up on the latest news huh? Well this wedding had some interesting party favors......those crazy iraqis sure no how to party!

anyway to prove those weapons and things were found at that site? any video? Would be nice if the U.S released the video footage from the attack, which should quell any arguments over if this was a wedding or not; seems like a simple thing to do that would put an end to a lot of these discussions. How do they explain that people in the wedding video, including children and a well-known wedding singer, match those who were killed during the attack.
the video doesn't prove a damn thing, it sure as hell didn't show us helicopters attacking the reception did it? So what if the dead bodies match? We don't know how or when those people were killed all we see are some broken instruments and bodies being buried, and y r people covering their faces with shemaghs? How do we know those killed were not used as human shields?

[seruriermarshal]

The video in day , but the Iraqi killed in night .

[Argyll]

uuuhm, yesterday on the news they showed footage of the wedding. It was a f*cking wedding! I'll see if it's somewhere on the net.
uuummm u r not quite up on the latest news huh? Well this wedding had some interesting party favors......those crazy iraqis sure no how to party!

anyway to prove those weapons and things were found at that site? any video? Would be nice if the U.S released the video footage from the attack, which should quell any arguments over if this was a wedding or not; seems like a simple thing to do that would put an end to a lot of these discussions. How do they explain that people in the wedding video, including children and a well-known wedding singer, match those who were killed during the attack.
the video doesn't prove a damn thing, it sure as hell didn't show us helicopters attacking the reception did it? So what if the dead bodies match? We don't know how or when those people were killed all we see are some broken instruments and bodies being buried, and y r people covering their faces with shemaghs? How do we know those killed were not used as human shields?

Interesting point there,as for this ah but the attack happened at night,stuff doesn't wash with me,they took plenty of footage before,and after,but if they were attacked,why not video the attack,even the sounds would either back up their claims it was all innocent,I'm more inclined to believe this was not a wedding,but a gathering of Incoming jihadists,who brought their families for a feast before setting off to their war with the Coalition.
Some of those mourners at the graves and over a coffin were deliberately covering their faces with shemaghs.

[ronin2172]

it's kinda funny that people require US /UK forces to provide overwhelming evidence that they acted right, yet people will believe individuals who have no credibility and provide no tangible evidence whatsoever. Video footage can be faked and or edited to make something out to be what it isn't (god i hope that made sense). Trust me, i know; give me enough footage and i can make the pope look guilty of a crime. What u don't see is just as important even more so than what u do see.

[seruriermarshal]

I know , there have Wedding Party in day , not night .

[Ichhabe]

uuuhm, yesterday on the news they showed footage of the wedding. It was a f*cking wedding! I'll see if it's somewhere on the net.
uuummm u r not quite up on the latest news huh? Well this wedding had some interesting party favors......those crazy iraqis sure no how to party!

anyway to prove those weapons and things were found at that site? any video? Would be nice if the U.S released the video footage from the attack, which should quell any arguments over if this was a wedding or not; seems like a simple thing to do that would put an end to a lot of these discussions. How do they explain that people in the wedding video, including children and a well-known wedding singer, match those who were killed during the attack.
the video doesn't prove a damn thing, it sure as hell didn't show us helicopters attacking the reception did it? So what if the dead bodies match? We don't know how or when those people were killed all we see are some broken instruments and bodies being buried, and y r people covering their faces with shemaghs? How do we know those killed were not used as human shields?

Interesting point there,as for this ah but the attack happened at night,stuff doesn't wash with me,they took plenty of footage before,and after,but if they were attacked,why not video the attack,even the sounds would either back up their claims it was all innocent,I'm more inclined to believe this was not a wedding,but a gathering of Incoming jihadists,who brought their families for a feast before setting off to their war with the Coalition.
Some of those mourners at the graves and over a coffin were deliberately covering their faces with shemaghs.

I actually go for that explanation aswell now. I must admit that first I thought it was a wedding celebration, but now I am not so sure anymore.
I know the Americans anyway wouldn't delebraty attack a wedding, but mistakes have happened in the past, and the Americans haven't had a good track record on different attacks wether it be on weddings or allied forces, and even their own.

I truly hope that the truth for our own sake one day will surface. For the Arabs, it is already carved in stone what went on that night. But most important, for those pilots that did the attack the truth, real truth must be known.

[Fargin]

why not video the attack

Perhabs the cameraman was busy doing something else


...like dying.


The agency says the material broadcast was taken from several hours of footage, apparently filmed by a hired photographer who was among those killed.
source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3741223.stm)

[Argyll]

why not video the attack

Perhabs the cameraman was busy doing something else


...like dying.


The agency says the material broadcast was taken from several hours of footage, apparently filmed by a hired photographer who was among those killed.
source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3741223.stm)

aye did he spring to life again to show video footage of the bodies? :bash:
Several hours of footage,.........but conveniently left out the mayhem of an attack.........yeah right,this smells of Tuna this story!

I've no doubt kids were killed but I'll stick with my theory of the families farewell celebrations for the Jihadists.

[ariweiner]

You can see why American's will never get far in winning their hearts and minds...

[Argyll]

You can see why American's will never get far in winning their hearts and minds...

Maybe if you'd have looked at some of the stuff posted about this in the photo's section ,then your comments may not have looked like you were just here to stir the ****................again!
then again reading and actually digesting some of the possibilities instead of your usual Anti American rhetoric,might make you look a bit more credible here

[ronin2172]

i can't beluieve people r still accepting this video 'evidence' as proof of a massacre :cantbeli:

Perhabs the cameraman was busy doing something else


...like dying.

news.bbc.co.u wrote:
The agency says the material broadcast was taken from several hours of footage, apparently filmed by a hired photographer who was among those killed.

wow...if u had hours of footage why leave out the most damning portion...if not the attack itself, then how about the immediate aftermath? Burning cars, buildings,etc. Dismembered bodies laying about while a US helicopter circles about in the distance would be so more effective. In the least it would make for great TV

If u r gonna do it then do it right. And if u r gonna believe something please tell me u r going to believe something more credible than what has been shown.

I'm tired of all these convinient bull**** excuses as to y this bull**** tape doesn't show more. If the rodney king tape couldn't convict those LAPD officers then how r u gonna convict the US army on the basis of this wedding footage? We actually saw the LAPD beating king down. In this tape u see exactly zero americam military personell and equipment. U don't hear (or see) any weapons being fired. All u see is broken instruments (like insurgents couldn't have f***ed up those themselves) and dead bodies but wait a minute we have no idea how or when they were killed.

Wow the mourners are hiding their faces...hmmm i remember those IRA funerals when IRA 'soldiers' (sarcasm) would give an 'honor' (hey hey more sarcasm) guard, looking all so snazzy in DPM, berets and hoods, y hoods? maybe because they were terrorists? while those that did not engage in illegal activities showed their faces with no problem. C'mon people u cannot be this stupid.

Mods, Hood pardon my bad language...

[ariweiner]

Maybe if you'd have looked at some of the stuff posted about this in the photo's section ,then your comments may not have looked like you were just here to stir the ****................again!
then again reading and actually digesting some of the possibilities instead of your usual Anti American rhetoric,might make you look a bit more credible here

I have already posted articles that I am using as my proof. 10 dead children is not acceptable. Failure to adequately guard againt creating civilian casualties is terrorism. Or State terrorism in this case. It is nice that we like to create disconnects between words and reality. We are not bombing wedding parties and decapitating children, no, we are "hunting and killing insurgents." Has a nice ring to it. Until you see video images of headless children...

[agcsy]

Maybe if you'd have looked at some of the stuff posted about this in the photo's section ,then your comments may not have looked like you were just here to stir the ****................again!
then again reading and actually digesting some of the possibilities instead of your usual Anti American rhetoric,might make you look a bit more credible here

I have already posted articles that I am using as my proof. 10 dead children is not acceptable. Failure to adequately guard againt creating civilian casualties is terrorism. Or State terrorism in this case. It is nice that we like to create disconnects between words and reality. We are not bombing wedding parties and decapitating children, no, we are "hunting and killing insurgents." Has a nice ring to it. Until you see video images of headless children...

If this was indeed a terrorist hideout then it is still a legitimate target even if children are present. The blame for the childrens death lies at the feet of the people who placed them in the building.

I find it very funny that the United States history of war crimes is almost non existant when compared to 99% of the people complaining about the way we conduct a war. They refuse to see that Americans are dying daily simply because we refuse to adopt a stance that while saving American lives would not be politicaly correct to the rest of the hyper sensitive world.

[Seraphim]

I have already posted articles that I am using as my proof. 10 dead children is not acceptable. Failure to adequately guard againt creating civilian casualties is terrorism. Or State terrorism in this case. It is nice that we like to create disconnects between words and reality. We are not bombing wedding parties and decapitating children, no, we are "hunting and killing insurgents." Has a nice ring to it. Until you see video images of headless children...

So wheres this video of headless children, even AP and APTN reporters who went to the scene and burial did not report seeing any dead children.

[ariweiner]

They refuse to see that Americans are dying daily simply

And the thousands of Iraqi civilians who have been killed and yes, murdered by American troops and who continue to be killed and continue to be murdered by American troops at checkpoints, in the prisons and so on? US troops go invade an area and then "defend" themselves when they come under attack. The originally aggressed "defend" themselves. The aggressor remains the aggressor.


So wheres this video of headless children, even AP and APTN reporters who went to the scene and burial did not report seeing any dead children.

LINK (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=295066&highlight=#295066)

include those of 2-year-old Kholood and 1-year-old Anoud, daughters of Amal Rikad, who was killed; of 2-year-old Raad and 1-year-old Ra'ed — whose headless body was found near his house — sons of Fatima Madhi, who was killed; of Saad, 10, Faisal, 7, Anoud, 6, Fasila, 5, Kholood, 4, and Inad, 3 — children of Mohammed and Morifa Rikad, who were killed.

There also are photo images of dead children, but it was not possible to determine if those victims were already accounted for by relatives.

...

Kimmitt confirmed that the operation was an air and ground assault. "Those people on the ground identified no children as part of that location that were killed," he said, adding that they reported only adult deaths.

He also referred to the APTN video, shot Thursday in Mogr el-Deeb, as well as separate APTN footage from Wednesday in Ramadi that showed a headless body of a child and other bodies of children.

"What we saw in those APTN videos were substantially inconsistent with the reports we received from the unit that conducted the operation," Kimmitt said. "We're now trying to figure out why there's an inconsistency.

[Seraphim]

They refuse to see that Americans are dying daily simply

And the thousands of Iraqi civilians who have been killed and yes, murdered by American troops and who continue to be killed and continue to be murdered by American troops at checkpoints, in the prisons and so on? US troops go invade an area and then "defend" themselves when they come under attack. The originally aggressed "defend" themselves. The aggressor remains the aggressor.

You really think that American troops kill civilians on purpose? If so your a idiot. Maybe they should start carpet bombing whole cities. Your also saying that you cannot defend if your the "invading" country??? Do you actually think before you say something?

And about the report of the dead children...Ive read conflicting reports from the same agency, so I dont know what to think about that.

[agcsy]

They refuse to see that Americans are dying daily simply

And the thousands of Iraqi civilians who have been killed and yes, murdered by American troops and who continue to be killed and continue to be murdered by American troops at checkpoints, in the prisons and so on? US troops go invade an area and then "defend" themselves when they come under attack. The originally aggressed "defend" themselves. The aggressor remains the aggressor.

You really think that American troops kill civilians on purpose? If so your a idiot. Maybe they should start carpet bombing whole cities. Your also saying that you cannot defend if your the "invading" country??? Do you actually think before you say something?

And about the report of the dead children...Ive read conflicting reports from the same agency, so I dont know what to think about that.

No he thinks that Americans are evil and everything we do is for our gain at other peoples expense. There is a very strong Anti American sentiment brewing in Europe. It has been there for along time they are just finding new ways of bringing it to light under the guise of something else.

To them its perfectly ok to keep a man in power whose family murders, rapes, and lives the life of a king while others are suffering. Its the USA's fault anyway i mean we put all those nasty little UN sanctions on them to starve the average Iraqi citizen.


Just to make it clear im not bashing all Europeans there are still some people who think using logic and not based on "what we feel is right".