Madbob - An Angry American

Thoughts & rants concerning US & world events |

Thursday, May 27, 2004

Ummm, What Wedding Party Incident?

The following article was taken from Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily – sorry no link cuz…
Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily is a five-day-a-week intelligence report published electronically, as part of the Global Information System (GIS). It is only available as part of GIS, and therefore is only available to authorized subscribers from governments (including armed services, intelligence officials, government libraries, etc.

This article contains information that completely refutes any claims that this incident was a wedding party. But will Big Media report on this fact (and consequently, that they once again have become propaganda-spreading allies of our militant Islamic enemies)? Not a chance in hell, no freakin’ way – ummmm, what wedding party incident?

From Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily, May 27, 2004:

US Sources Note So-Called 'Wedding Party' Attack In Iraq Was Legitimate
From GIS (Global Information System) sources in Washington and Baghdad.

US intelligence and military sources confirmed to GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily that the air strike on an Iraqi guerilla site near the Syrian border on the night of May 19-20, 2004, was against a legitimate target which had been arranged to look like a wedding party. The assumption by GIS analysts was that either the US was lured into striking the target in order to create a propaganda incident for Iraqi opposition elements, or that the “wedding party” cover was designed to deter US military interest in the site.
There seems little doubt that Iraqi opposition elements were immediately prepared for the incident and to publicize it. On May 20, 2004, only hours after the air strike, the Doha, Qatar-based al-Jazeera satellite television network noted: “More than 40 Iraqis have been killed in a US helicopter bomb attack on a huge tent where a wedding party was in progress. The attack took place in the small town of Qaim in Iraq's western desert bordering Syria early on Tuesday [May 19, 2004] ... APTN [Associated Press Television News] syndicated footage of a mass grave being filled with the casualties, including children.” The report pointedly compared the attack with an accidental attack by the US Air Force of a wedding party in Afghanistan in July 2002.
In fact the strike took place at 03.00hrs on the morning of May 20, 2004.
There was some suggestion that video footage of a wedding which was released immediately after the strike may have been shot the week before. US officials said immediately that the activities which were observed, and which prompted the strike, were incompatible with activities of a wedding party.
Sources who inspected the post-strike target site noted:
*Weddings are traditionally held on Thursdays in Iraq to take advantage of Friday as a day of rest; the raid took place on a Tuesday night (03.00 Wednesday morning). The Iraqis who claimed that the event was a wedding said that the event had started on the Monday;
*The only permanent dwelling at the site held large stocks of food, bedding (for approx. 300 people), and substantial quantities of medical supplies, ammunition and weapons, as well as what appeared to be document forging laboratory;
*Meat found at the site was still frozen solid; it was not prepared for a wedding feast and there were no stocks of dishes, plates, etc. Contrary to media reports, no "Nuptial Tent" was found and a 1km area around the site was searched;
*No evidence was found of any means of support for the house (such as sheep farming which is most common in that area)
*All evidence pointed to a smuggler way-station, and the site fitted perfectly the description of several other found in the past;
*The alleged "wedding guests" (killed in the strike) were almost all men of military age. There were only a couple of women, no elders at all, and only one child (wounded);
*All the deceased were dressed as city dwellers, not bedouin or tribespeople, who would hold a wedding at such a location;
*All of the deceased were "sterilized" clean; none had any form of ID on them at all. Only IDs found were in a “nice neat stack inside the house”, and then quite a few less of those than there were people at the site;
*Weapons found were varied and included RPGs which — unlike handguns and rifles are not fired during festive celebrations — and there were also military binoculars, and IED (improvised explosive devices);
*Substantial quantities of clothing, prepackaged in pants and shirt sets were found;
*No wedding gifts or decorations were found at the site; no food was set out or left over, and the money recovered was all in the pockets of the "guests".
GIS analysis: All indications were that the site which was hit was, indeed, a way-station for moving fighters and logistical support to or from Syria. Given the major, and growing, involvement of Bosnian Islamist fighters moving through Syria into Iraq, it should be taken for granted that the extensive Bosnian experience in manipulating imagery for psyops purposes would be used when possible. The Bosnian Islamists on numerous occasions during the Bosnia fighting until 1995 staged attacks on their own citizens in order to create incidents which could be blamed on their Serb opponents. It would be highly likely that the game-plan to issue a cover for any such attack by US forces against border way-stations would have been prepared in advance — including, for example, the videotape — in order to gain a propaganda advantage. However, more significantly, by making the strike so politically controversial, the effect of the psychological operation would be to deter Coalition commanders from attacking such sites in the future.

***********end of article************************

Jeez, this pisses me off – Big Media jumps all over the story, taking our enemies word as gospel, and denigrating any US attempt to explain the incident. And when the dust clears and the US is vindicated, there is no coverage AT ALL. No wonder why newspaper subscriptions rates and network/cable news (Fox excepted, last time I checked) ratings keep dropping, dropping – when will they realize the damage they’ve done to their credibility (and hence, their profession/business)?
posted by Madbob  # 7:50 AM

Friday, May 14, 2004

Required Reading for Those Tired of the Doom & Gloom Reportage Out of Iraq

Want some perspective on the Iraqi EPW scandal/Rumsfeld resignation issue?
Read this, from Victor Davis Hanson.

posted by Madbob  # 9:33 AM
Low-Carb Diet & Even Lower Media

Between work and springtime-home improvement tasks, my blogging has suffered – not that I’ve ever been all that consistent…

Anyhoo – quickly, there are 2 phenomena currently sweeping this nation that I’ve never quite seen before. The 1st is the Atkins/So. Beach/Lo-Carb diet craze, and the 2nd is the low – and getting lower – opinion people have regarding the Media.

What do these 2 things have in common? Absolutely nothing. It’s just that I’ve lived through many diet crazes that - no matter how popular at first - just faded away (e.g., Scarsborough Diet, grapefruit diet, liquid protein diet, etc.), and journalists/media have always been known for their “editorial” slant, meaning they’ve always faithfully espoused the political leanings of their ownership – which has always colored the general public’s opinion on journalist/media “objectivity”.

But now, these 2 things are permeating the country like never before.

None of those earlier diets lasted long enough, nor were popular enough to influence the menus at fast food restaurants, nor to cause a noticeable fluctuation in commodity prices & stock value (e.g., increased beef consumption has both increased the cost of red meat & milk – milk be/c former dairy farmers have jumped on the “eat red meat” bandwagon, decreasing the supply/increasing price; Cripy Crème’s stock price dropped 20% in one day on news of piss-poor earnings, resultant from America’s new infatuation with all things lo-carb – which donuts ain’t).

In the past, when I used to complain of Media bias, people would just roll their eyes, and assume it’s just ol’ Madbob, foamin’ at the mouth about a whole lot of nothing. But now, esp. after the reeeeeeeeeDICKyouless, relentless, 24/7 “All Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal, All the Time” coverage of the Iraqi EPW abuse scandal, there’s hardly a soul I talk to that has not come the conclusion that Big Media is incapable of being objective, esp. in an election year, when they have a president to dethrone. And make no mistake – the vast majority of large media operations & their employees are Dems (with the biggest notable exception being Murdoch-owned Fox). And not just Dems, but waaaaaaaay left-leaning Dems, and guess what? They vote Democratic, too! That’s all fine & dandy. What’s not fine & dandy is that they report on events in such a way as to effect public opinion in a direction they desire, and then have the hubris to call this “news”. Bullshit – that ain’t “news”, it’s political campaigning. And I think the general public has finally caught on; witness the demise of the prestige of the New York Times, once considered the “newspaper of record”, but now the butt of Jason Blair-inspired humor, and exposed as blatantly liberal-biased with a “Defeat Bush at all costs” mentality (have you ever sullied your brain by reading a Maureen Dowd editorial? That woman wouldn’t know a “fact” if it bit her in the ass, if the “fact” could indeed get to her ass with her head up it and in the way).

Did I say “quickly”? I don't appear cabable of it...
posted by Madbob  # 6:54 AM
Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com


10/01/2003 - 11/01/2003   11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003   12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004   01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004   02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004   03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004   04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004   05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004   06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004   07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004   09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004   10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004   12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005   01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005   02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005   03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005   06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005   07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005   08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005   10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005   05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006   07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006   10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006   02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007   03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007   05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007   06/01/2007 - 07/01/2007   07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007   08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007   09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007   01/01/2008 - 02/01/2008   05/01/2012 - 06/01/2012  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?