Pentagon says it attacked fighters -- not wedding

[Bombardier]

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Pentagon officials Wednesday denied alleged eyewitness reports of a U.S. attack on a wedding party in a remote area of western Iraq that killed innocent civilians.

"Our report is that this was not a wedding party, that these were anti-coalition forces that fired first, and that U.S. troops returned fire, destroying several vehicles, and killing a number of them," a Pentagon spokesman said.

He was responding to a video distributed by The Associated Press showing Iraqi witnesses who said that at least 20 people were killed and five others critically wounded early Wednesday when planes fired on a wedding celebration.

A man on the video said all homes in the village near the Syrian border were destroyed in the attack at about 3 a.m. local time Wednesday.

The video showed at least a dozen bodies, including small children, wrapped in blankets for burial as they were unloaded from a truck.

Men with picks and shovels were digging a series of graves in the video.

A senior military coalition official said as many as 40 people were killed in the attack, but said it was his belief that the attack was against a foreign fighters' safe house.

A coalition official said in a written statement that coalition forces conducted a military operation "against a suspected foreign fighter's safe house in the open desert, 85 km southwest of Husaybah, and 25 km from the Syrian border.

"During the operation, coalition forces came under hostile fire and close air support was provided.

"Coalition forces on the ground recovered numerous weapons, 2 million Iraqi and Syrian dinar, foreign passports and a satcom radio," the statement said.

Asked if the incident was the same one described on videotape, he said, "Yes, it is the same incident."

He added, "We had actionable intelligence to go after a foreign fighters' safe house. It is not our belief that there was a wedding party in the open desert."

The taped witnesses identified the village as al Qa'im, which maps show is on the Iraqi side of the Syrian border, along the Euphrates River.

In Afghanistan two years ago, U.S. airstrikes killed dozens of civilians at a wedding party.

After an investigation, a report issued by U.S. Central Command blamed those deaths on hostile anti-aircraft fire from the ground that provoked a U.S. AC-130 gunship to respond.

Local Afghans said that U.S. forces confused "celebratory fire" from wedding participants for hostile fire, but the U.S. military found that several compounds in the area were "positively identified" as sources of anti-aircraft artillery fire.

Two U.S. soldiers killed

The report came as military officials said two U.S. soldiers from the 1st Infantry Division were killed in northern Iraq, one of them by hostile fire, and a Marine previously reported killed in western Iraq died of causes unrelated to combat.

A soldier was shot to death around 4:30 p.m. Tuesday while on patrol in the town of Muqdadiyah, according to a statement from the 1st Infantry Division, based in Tikrit. An unidentified gunman fired on the soldier's patrol from a cemetery, the statement said.

Another soldier died in an electrical accident Tuesday evening at a coalition base near Baiji. The identities of soldiers were not released.

Meanwhile, the Marines reclassified the death of one of their troops as "nonhostile" in a statement Wednesday.

The Marine, initially reported as killed in action, was assigned to the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. The death occurred in Kamah, near Fallujah, the the U.S.-led coalition said. Fallujah is a Sunni Muslim stronghold where resistance to the U.S. occupation has been the strongest.

The United States has lost nearly 800 troops in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion that deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The majority of the dead have been killed in a guerilla campaign against occupation forces that began after the collapse of Saddam's government.

In Washington, the chief of U.S. forces in the Middle East told a Senate panel Wednesday there was no pattern of prisoner abuse by American troops.

But Gen. John Abizaid said preliminary findings by the Army's inspector general cite problems in training and organization and recommend "very specific changes."

"I specifically asked the [inspector general] of the Army, did he believe that there was a pattern of abuse of prisoners in the Central Command area of operation?" Abizaid testified. "And he looked at both Afghanistan and Iraq, and he said no."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/19/...main/index.html

[method77]

The video showed at least a dozen bodies, including small children

fighters? Somebody punch this pentagon spokesman

[Ken]

Well, it is "possible" that women and children would be with "fighters", be it human shield, or just their family.

I find all this a little strange though, especially how the numerous eyewitness reports are just ignored, like they don't even matter.

It is in my personal opinion, that the U.S. military made another mistake, and instead of admitting it, they're playing the denial game.

[DudeAsInCool]

I dont believe children were involved in the fighting either. (But its not unusual to see kids in certain war zones in Africa packing machine guns--Ive seen the pictures before and its scary)

[Ken]

Yeah, i've seen those pictures too Dude.

Nothing is out of the realm of possibility.

I suppose what I, and many living far away from this conflict lack most of all, is hard, truthful evidence, right in front of our eyes.

All of us have to rely on a source(s).

[NullsRevenge]

From other news reports ive seen women and children have been used for cover by insurgents when getting things like weapons and ammo, so its not out of the relm of possibility that they were being forcibly used for cover there. If thats the case and this whole wedding party thing is just propoganda to try to get others to incite violence.

If thats not the case then it was probably a accident because i dont believe that they would a hit a group of civilians like with no reason at all.

But I dont think anyone really knows what went on yet, so who knows what really happen..

[Potato]

I hate that those kids died for this, whatever the reason was.

[Bombardier]

I hate that those kids died for this, whatever the reason was.

Yeah, I wish those cowardly bastards would leave the women and children out of harm's way.

When I say cowardly bastards, I'm referring to those who use them for suicide bombers and "human shields" :angry:

[method77]

wtf people...!!!

It was a freakin wedding. You all reffer to those people as they were fighters and they used their children for shields! I reapeat! IT WAS A WEDDING!

[NullsRevenge]

wtf people...!!!

It was a freakin wedding. You all reffer to those people as they were fighters and they used their children for shields! I reapeat! IT WAS A WEDDING!

How do you know for certain, where you there?

[DudeAsInCool]

Looks like there is plenty of blame to throw around: the parents are culpable for having a weddding in a war zone, and bringing their children; if insurgents used the children as cover, they should be banished from the earth; if the soldiers had an accident, that's not an excuse for what happened to the children - it was a massacre and its disgusting. :reallymad:

[Wolfie]

As someone who lived in middle east I have to say that the firing shots at weddings is very common especially in the rural areas. If I remember correctly there was also an incident in Afganistan too which the coalition forces shot up another wedding for the same reason.

[method77]

wtf people...!!!

It was a freakin wedding. You all reffer to those people as they were fighters and they used their children for shields! I reapeat! IT WAS A WEDDING!

How do you know for certain, where you there?

Do you have evidence that they were fighters using their children as shields? Were YOU there?

I believe it was a wedding and all evidence shows that. If you don't want to believe it, then don't

[DudeAsInCool]

I believe it was a wedding and all evidence shows that.

Even so, it wasnt very smart, or responsible, to hold it in a war zone...

[method77]

I agree with that.

[Shawn]

Tough to really hold them responsible for holding a wedding. Maybe they were supportive of the American invasion. While not all Iraqis were, some were. They might see this as a less dangerous time than that under Hussein. At time of renewal..for new beginnings and new partnerships. A wedding may look like not only a good idea, it might have looked like good timing. (Needless to say, if that was the case they will have gotten over it)

Another thing is that I doubt (although I don't know) that the U.S. circulated a list of everyday freedoms of which people were not to partake. Telling the people not to do numerous everyday activities wouldn't have looked much like liberation. I see it like this-> If a powerful Iraqi force conquered the U.S., there would be those in the U.S. that would attempt to carry on with their lives.

[DudeAsInCool]

Im not making apoliogies for the soldiers actions. Im simply saying that it wasnt exactly the safest place to hold a wedding...

[Wolfie]

The problem is the entire country is a damn warzone and there is no safer place to have a wedding. One place is almost as bad another, unless they crossed over in Syria and had thier wedding there.

[Bombardier]

I don't know if Syria is even the best place for a wedding.

I'd go to Jordan or Egypt if I was to be wed in the Middle East.

[slum_goddess]

I believe it was a wedding and all evidence shows that.

i do as well. however, this happened during a week of continued outragous crap, more abuse photos were released, the first dude went on trial and got sentenced...almost every day this week, the headlines are screaming whatever-the-fuck including gwb's approval rating plunging (YAY!).

Ken:

find all this a little strange though, especially how the numerous eyewitness reports are just ignored, like they don't even matter. It is in my personal opinion, that the U.S. military made another mistake, and instead of admitting it, they're playing the denial game.

isn't this the usual MO? deny/ignore until whatever proof positive emerges and then back-pedal? like rummy and those photos?