A bride was among 23 people killed as US-led coalition forces bombarded a wedding party

[annm4peace]

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2008/07/06/bride-among-23-people-killed-in-us-bombardment-of-wedding-party-in-nangarhar.html

Bride among 23 people killed in US bombardment of wedding party in Nangarhar
When dwellers arrived at the scene to shift the injured and collect dead bodies, the US-led forces dropped four more bombs on us, Jamil said while giving an eyewitness account.

Twenty-two people died on the spot as a result of the latest imprecise air raid that came hours after President Karzai ordered a probe into the alleged killing of more than a dozen residents in a US airstrike on a remote village in the neighbouring Nuristan province.

All but four of the fatalities were women and children, explained Shahikhel, who disclosed the bride and two of her female relatives were among the victims.

[World Citizen]

1. OOPs

I don't want to waste my beautiful mind thinking about bodybags.

[lonestarnot]

2. More collateral fuckup.

[Mind_your_head]

3. Don't want to cast a 'focus' on this particular case., necessarily......

but what the h*ll is the deal/story with wedding parties always being hit/brutalized by the US military? Really. There must be a reason/story behind it (convoluted as it probably will be..... :eyes:).

What gives? Can anyone attempt to offer an explanation? :shrug:

[anigbrowl]

9. Most likely explanations

a) When they have wedding parties in the part of the world, it involves a lot of celebratory shooting into the air, and western observers think it's some action going down at get spooked.

b) wedding parties involve bunches of people converging on one spot from multiple destinations. Looks suspicious from a tactical point of view, and observers jump to conclusions.

c) terrorists/ freedom fighters (depending on who you ask) have relatives too, so if they're tracking potential targets and those targets happen to be on their way to a wedding, observers assume the primary purpose is for their targets to get up to No Good.

d) all of the above.

All this is further proof of our general inability to fight a modern war. I do think we have some interest in fighting in Afghanistan, insofar as we would still (theoretically at least) like to lay hands on bin Laden. But every time something like this occurs, not only do innocent people die but any and all legitimate achievements for the past year or so end up in the toilet.

And the dumb part is that it's inevitable, because calling in airstrikes like this is strategically wrong, for several reasons:

a) collateral damage often outweighs value of hitting legitimate targets (if any)
b) bombing peasants from thousands of feet up is cowardly, meaning you lose respect and thus credibility and support
c) it signals to real enemies that you have an inability and unwillingness to engage on the ground
d) all your high value assets (ie planes) become obvious targets

The ONLY major advantage we have at present is that neither Russia nor China nor Iran wants to get caught supplying higher-end weapons tech to opposition forces in Afghanistan right now. Once there's a robust OEM pipeline in place, we're going to have real problems there, despite the fact that it's the only theater where we can claim legitimacy for our operations.

[Mind_your_head]

11. Yeah, it's a great big "FAIL"

Let me say again, "FAIL"

[Selatius]

16. The US military never prided itself on fighting a fair fight. It always opts for long-range bombing.

If given the option, the US military would always opt for the avenue that risks the lowest number of soldiers or personnel as possible. Typically, this means overwhelming firepower used at a distance, so you don't have to get up close where the enemy can even the odds. In Viet Nam, the US was up close and personal with the enemy, and thousands of coffins came home each year. If getting up close and personal is fighting fair, the US military would never fight fair when it can call in a heavy bomber at 40,000 feet or a cruise missile fired hundreds of miles away.

[China_cat]

24. MOST likely explanation

Kill them before they breed.

[givemebackmycountry]

10. Easy...it's like this...

"Look!! It's some dude in a long white gown!!! Get 'em!!!"
"Roger that, it must be that Obama guy, I mean Osama guy!!!"
BLAM! BOOM! ZOOM! BAM!

Yeah, right...America wants four more years of this.
Too bad no one gives a rats ass.
To America, there all A-Rabs so fuck 'em.
Sadly, I know people like this.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

25. Must be the sequins and buttons messing with the targeting

systems. High tech does have it's low points I guess.

[EbenezerMcIntosh]

4. I'm sorry, but we are not keeping track of all of the dead women and children.

And torture and indefinite incarceration without the benefit of habeas corpus are good. You DO support the troops, don't you? I trust you will answer that question correctly. I would hate to have to ask you for your National ID Card.

:sarcasm:

[gratuitous]

5. Kama Aido, Nangarhar

What is it with our bombing wedding parties? Is this part of the attack on traditional marriage the fundy fuckheads are talking about? In that case, they might want to start picketing the U.S. military instead of gay couples.

[EFerrari]

8. You'd think they'd recognize Afghan weddings by now

BEFORE they bomb them.

[Selatius]

14. On infrared camera, wedding parties look no different than a large gathering of guerrilla fighters.

Likely, the Air Force is assuming the large group of people are gatherings of pro-Taliban guerrilla fighters.

[gratuitous]

17. Silly me

I always thought indiscriminate bombing was a sure road to a war crime or a crime against humanity.

[Quantess]

18. Seriously?

[Selatius]

20. No, it looks like God taking a piss on you and telling you it's raining.

:eyes:

[Quantess]

21. No need to be rude about it.

You'd make a terrible teacher.

[Selatius]

22. The question "Seriously?" came across as "Is it obvious day at camp stupid?"

A glance at youtube can bring up old video footage of air strikes from the 1991 Persian Gulf War where infrared footage, in black and white, shows you buildings and people, and people show up as just little dots or blobs depending on distance. A wedding party would look the same as a gathering of guerrilla fighters at a distance, unless there were tanks and artillery guns around. Then it's pretty obvious that it isn't a wedding.

[Quantess]

23. It's easy to misunderstand "tone" on an internet message board.

Obvious to you, maybe, but I truly didn't know that, (and my boyfriend doesn't either, as just yesterday we were talking about how odd it was that weddings get mistakenly bombed so frequently).

Thanks for the explanation. Very interesting.

[Truth4Justice]

26. The people who dropped those bombs are doomed by Karma.

no one gets away with evildoing, incuding *.

[dysfunctional press]

6. well, on the bright side...

there are 19 people who won't be giving birth to, and/or growing up to become terrorists themselves and trying to avenge the death murder of their relatives.

:sarcasm:

[MisterP]

7. oh god, now Afghanistan this time

I got disquieting nightmares from the '04 Iraq one

[NYC_SKP]

12. "They will greet us as liberators" nt

[RC]

13. Doesn't it seem we are killing more wedding party members than bad guys?

Why are we still over there?

Iraq hadn't done anything to anyone either and look at all the Innocent people that we have killed, i.e., murdered in bu$h's illegal war.

There will be blow back from what the criminals of the bu$h administration has done. Bringing our troops home will not end the carnage, it will just move the theater.

[Mind_your_head]

15. It's "not over" until Iraq is a TOTAL WASTELAND.....except for it's oil.....

because..it's worked out "so well" with the Palestinians, ya know. It's the same with Iraq. We're gonna spend BILLIONS and BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars to 'wear down a spirit' that's waaaaaaaay beyond 'fiat monkey (bush)' money.

M_Y_H

[Edweird]

19. "winning their hearts and minds" again I see....

[OneBlueSky]

27. I know it goes against all contemporary warfare theories, but in my view . . .

bombing should be outlawed in war . . . there's no such thing as "precision" bombing, and civilian deaths and massive property destruction are always the result of firing missiles, rockets and bombs at targets you can only see via radar or GPS . . . it's immoral, it's unethical, and is should not be allowed . . .

[GreenPartyVoter]

28. What is it with us bombing weddings?!