Wedding Party Massacre? Doubtful.....

Mike Baudrillard wrote:

Scott MacEachern wrote in message . ..


On 22 May 2004 22:59:32 GMT, (Dav1936531) wrote:



http://tinyurl.com/2qklu
Dave


"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."




They didn't find any weapons outside of what one would expect a group
of villagers to possess. They put on show a paltry amount that would
not impress Charlton Heston to the extent it was more than he had in
his cupboards.




Funny. I wonder what those ripped-up speakers and the microphone
stands (not musical instruments, I guess...) in the NYT pictures from
the site were doing there, then?

Note as well that Kimmitt is now admitting that (a) there were women
killed there and (b) there may have been some sort of celebration
going on. And, shamelessly quoting from another post of mine...




It was probably a pre-something celebration which poorly armed drug
dealing Syrian terrorists by tradition get involved with in the middle
of nowhere.

I suppose it is an explanation and we should be grateful for whatever
the US military feel able to offer.

Usually they offer no explanation and get troublesome journalists
black-listed. there might be acfew holes in their story, but they had
a story and it is indeed remarkable that they shared it with us.






Having spent some time working in border areas in Central/West Africa
-- Nigeria-Cameroon-Niger and latterly Cameroon-Chad-CAR -- there are
smugglers all over the place, and they haul all kinds of good with
them. Finding large amounts of clothing, bedding and so on wouldn't be
surprising at all in such cases -- think of it as capitalism at work.
I'd be very surprised if that wasn't how most of the consumer goods in
Baghdad made their way there.

Scott


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

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 21:32:42 -0400, Scott MacEachern wrote:

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

You are an ass regardless of your nationality. You consistently take
"news reports" as gospel, regardless of the facts of a situation.

Being an apologist for Saddam and Al-Q is not the road to
credibility.

Al Minyard

On Tue, 25 May 2004 11:30:47 -0500, Alan Minyard
wrote:

Being an apologist for Saddam and Al-Q is not the road to
credibility.

Mr. Minyard, you're a living example of that 'rock-headed,
love-it-or-leave-it chauvinism' that I mentioned in another context on
this thread. How, exactly, does wanting to get to the bottom of this
event -- hell, for that matter doubting the official American accounts
of it -- make me an apologist for Saddam and/or al-Qaeda?

And quite right, I do read the news, pretty often in fact. IIRC, you
were one of the people vociferously objecting to the possibility that
those news reports from 18 months ago, talking about abuse of
prisoners by Americans, might be worth investigating...

Scott