Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (47098)	5/24/2004 5:20:58 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

From the information I have seen so far, the Iraqis have more credibility than the General. Both agree that there was an attack. The general does not deny that a celebration could have taken place. The location probably was on a pipeline for smugglers. The differences in the film locations is explained by the circumstance. The general says the ground troups didn't report finding children. That isn't as conclusive as the relatives reports. One discrepancy is that the surviving musician admits the party had been disbanded for a while. He was sleeping.... So why were guns being shot off, hours after the ceremony? That is not the tradition. The men don't get drunk but they might have been drinking some turkish coffee. I have heard of wedding parties there lasting 3 days... If it was a hoax committed by the Iraqis, there is no evidence to support it. "Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt showed photographs of rifles, machine guns, foreign passports, bedding, syringes possibly for illegal drugs as well as other items that he said suggested the site was used by foreigners infiltrating from Syria. He U.S. troops took the photos." I don't see a contradiction from the general's statements and from the report given by the Iraqis. Both can be true. But it appears like the general is trying to refute their credibility.