Please let this be just paranoia.

by

I am not immune to the siren call of superstition myself, and so I am indulging in some right now: to wit, writing out a post that worries about something that may happen, thus somehow making it less likely that something will happen, thus demonstrating my utter lack of precognitive powers (and theoretically increasing my embarrassment).

Or something like that.

The topic in question: Spain’s Crown Prince is getting married this Saturday, amid both extreme gaiety by the Spanish people and insanely high security by the Spanish security services. Both seem reasonable reactions; the Spanish royal family is well liked by their subjects and this will be the first large celebration since those awful bombings in March. So far, so not unusual.

What struck me – and I’m not sure why – was something from this AFP article on the subject. Assuming that AFP is correct (my usual caveat, but without its usual force this one time) the bride (Letizia Ortiz Rocasolano, a former journalist) is going to be also given the title Princess of Asturias (traditional, given that I understand that the heir to the throne takes the title of Prince of Asturias). I went and looked it up:

The Kingdom of Asturias was the first Christian nation to be established in the Iberian peninsula after it was conquered by the Islamic Moors in 711.

The kingdom was established by a Visigothic nobleman, Pelayo, who rebelled against the Moorish governor of Asturias in 718. Not long afterwards, he inflicted a crushing defeat on the Moors at the Battle of Covadonga, an event which likely took place in the summer of 722, although some sources place it as early as in 718, and others in 721. At some point, Pelayo was elected king of a small realm which included a mountainous area along the northwestern part of Spain, just west of the Basques who also stayed independent of Islam.

Given the way that Islamic terrorists violently obsess over the ‘lost’ Iberian peninsula, I am going to be flipping overjoyed on Sunday when it becomes clear that I was worrying about nothing.

37 thoughts on “Please let this be just paranoia.”

  2. Tasmanian bride, too. The society folks were all aflutter when I was down in Adelaide last month.

  5. Ah, Adelaide. Visited there three years ago, and loved it. Easily my favorite city in Australia, of the several I visited.

  6. Well, we can hope that no more wedding parties suffer the fate of this one. And I do hope so – I’m not a prayerful person.

    By the time the sun rose on Wednesday over the Rakat family house, the raid had claimed 42 lives, according to Hamdi Noor al-Alusi, manager of the al-Qaim general hospital, the nearest to the village.
    Among the dead were 27 members of the extended Rakat family, their wedding guests and even the band of musicians hired to play at the ceremony, among them Hussein al-Ali from Ramadi, one of the most popular singers in western Iraq.
    Dr Alusi said 11 of the dead were women and 14 were children. “I want to know why the Americans targeted this small village,” he said by telephone. “These people are my patients. I know each one of them. What has caused this disaster?”

  7. I think Wretchard covered this most ably, Jesurgislac.
    I think the question is not why would we do such a thing, but why on earth would anyone swallow whole any sort of press report that comes out of the region, without having multiple corroborations first?

  8. Quite so, Slarti: one should always assume that the people with brown skins are lying, and the noble American soldiers are telling the truth. I forgot that this is always and invariably the case: silly me.

  9. Quite right. Remember, the Iraqi citizenry are our enemies and can’t be trusted. That’s why we invaded them in the first place.

  10. I don’t find that even a remotely accurate characterization of what Slarti said. Not that I expect any less from you, Jes, but you’ve all but called him a racist, here.

  11. Ah, Jesurgislac plays the race card. Of course, he has absolutely no idea what color my skin is. My daughter Emily characterizes me as “brown”.
    Not that that’s relevant, but it’s just as relevant as Jesurgislac’s implication that I’ve discounted what people say because of the color of their skin. I’m just wondering why Wretchard’s bit got a pass. I wonder what color his skin is?

  12. Meanwhile, sidereal slurs me in a slightly different way. I can only conclude it’s because he hates America.
    And now I can’t recall how to close that irony tag.

  13. Key words missed by several in Slarti’s post: “any sort of press report.”
    To emphasize the single key word: “any.”
    To put it in plain language: he didn’t advise that the Coalition story be taken over the Grauniad/etc./Iraqi version. He simply advised that no story should be taken seriously, in such a case, without multiple corroboration.
    That’s wise, and correct, and, ladies and gentlemen, I suggest apologies are in order.

  14. Oh, good lord. Just when the dukes were going up.
    Well, now that it’s all out in the open, I’m just suggesting, for the umpty-first time, that waiting and seeing is in order. K?
    And now, a word from my three-year-old:
    oooooooooooooooooooooooooooc
    I didn’t say it was going to mean anything; she really likes the letter ‘o’.

  15. Hey, no slur intended. Just some sarcasm, which is a character flaw. My point was that we should be careful about conclusions premised on the idea that any random Iraqi is likely to be an enemy of the United States. Of course, that may be true, in which case our adventure is doomed. But I like to think it’s false.

  17. oooooooooooooooooooooooooooc
    I didn’t say it was going to mean anything; she really likes the letter ‘o’.
    And apparently, the Librarian from Discworld…
    ook! 🙂

  18. I have a shorter version. “We should be careful about conclusions.”
    I have no idea what happened out there in the desert. I’m not going to go with anyone’s early reports, but wait for later evidence.

  22. Go read Wretchard’s post.
    Wretchard “tracks” the story in a table with the following headers on LHS:
    1. U.S. Helicopter Fires on Iraqi Wedding
    2. US helicopter attacks Iraqi wedding
    3. U.S. Aircraft Reportedly Kills 40 Iraqis
    4. US disputes 40 killed Iraqis were wedding party
    5. U.S. airstrike along Syria border in Iraq reportedly kills more than 40; Iraqis say wedding party attacked
    Wretchard says this is an example of how “the story goes on after he closes the browser.” But what it really amounts to is:
    1. The Iraqis report an attack on a wedding party.
    2. The American army deny it and say they were attacking a safe house.
    (Some of the means by which it is denied are covered here.)
    Race card? Are you assuming that all American soldiers must be white? I don’t.

  23. P.S. However, I will admit that I have assumed up to now that you were white, Slarti. I also assumed the beard, the cryptic way of speaking, and the liking for fjords. Sorry.

  24. P.S. However, I will admit that I have assumed up to now that you were white, Slarti. I also assumed the beard, the cryptic way of speaking, and the liking for fjords. Sorry.

  26. So apparently Bill Nighy, the guy who played the elder vampire in Underworld, is playing Slartibartfast in the movie adaptation. And Mos Def as Ford! All for the good.

  27. Are you assuming that all American soldiers must be white? I don’t.
    Of course not. That’s why you suggested that there was a contrast between “people with brown skins” and “American soldiers.” ( . . . one should always assume that the people with brown skins are lying, and the noble American soldiers are telling the truth . . . )

  29. That’s why you suggested that there was a contrast between “people with brown skins” and “American soldiers.”
    I couldn’t think of another effective grouping for Iraqis and Afghans, both of whom have generally been assumed to be lying when their evidence contrasts with that of the US military – even when there’s video evidence, as there is in this case.
    On reflection, however, using “brown-skinned people” as a grouping caused far more offense than was intended – often a problem with a failure to think. For which I apologise.
    Now shall we get back to discussing why a terrorist attack on an Iraqi wedding by US soldiers is not regarded as a major problem… unlike a speculative terrorist attack on a Spanish wedding?

  30. I am now, I suppose. Sorry, I’ve been hard at work planting various pretty-making items around the yard.
    I’m not easily offended, anyway. I suppose JadeGold has thickened my skin, and deposited a layer of callous over my olfactory receptors.
    I couldn’t think of another effective grouping for Iraqis and Afghans, both of whom have generally been assumed to be lying when their evidence contrasts with that of the US military – even when there’s video evidence, as there is in this case.
    I think this is indulging in yet another unwarranted generalization.

  31. Further on the wedding report:

    However, the video obtained by APTN – which lasts for several hours – shows a large wedding party, and separate footage shot by AP cameramen the following day shows fragments of musical instruments, pots and pans, and brightly coloured beddings used for celebrations scattered around a bombed-out tent. There were also fragments of ordnance that appeared to have US markings.
    An AP reporter and photographer, who interviewed more than a dozen survivors a day after the bombing, were able to identify many of them on the wedding party video.
    The survivors say dozens of missiles were launched lat at night after the festivities had ended and that women and children were among those killed, as were the bride and groom.

    (cite)
    Slarti says:I think this is indulging in yet another unwarranted generalization.
    How so? Read through reports of atrocities in Iraq on this blog and you will find, cropping up again and again, the presumption that if only Iraqis are the witnesses, what they are saying cannot possibly be true: the “real” truth is what the US soldiers are reporting.

  32. I couldn’t think of another effective grouping for Iraqis and Afghans . . .
    In the future, I would suggest the phrase, “Iraqis and Afghans.” It seems to be a little less . . . ambiguous.

  33. The presumption that I distrust Iraqis for being Iraqi is just completely wrong, Jesurgislac. Unless you can produce some sort of evidence for that, I recommend that you retract.
    And while you’re considering that, you might want to consider this:

    Posted on Sun, May. 23, 2004
    No evidence of wedding at air strike, U.S. military says
    By ROBERT MORAN
    Knight Ridder Newspapers
    BAGHDAD, Iraq — At the site where a U.S. air strike killed 40 persons Wednesday, troops found “terrorist manuals,” machines for making fake IDs, and battery packs rigged for homemade bombs.
    They found nothing to indicate a wedding party, as some witnesses have said, a senior military official said Saturday.
    Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, chief military spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition, said evidence at the location about 15 miles from the Syrian border suggested that there had been a secret meeting of anti-occupation forces.
    However, Kimmitt left open the possibility that there also may have been some kind of celebration.
    “Bad people have parties, too,” he said.
    The incident has stirred further anger among Iraqis already bitter about the American occupation, and U.S. military officials have moved swiftly to counter the allegation that they may have slaughtered innocent persons.
    A videotape emerged late Wednesday allegedly showing the bodies of the dead, including children. Purported witnesses said the air strike hit a wedding party.
    At a briefing Saturday, Kimmitt showed photographs of the interior of the targeted building that showed stacks of bedding — more than 300 sets — a table used for medical examinations, and medical supplies, including syringes with residue suspected of being cocaine. There were assorted firearms and a large number of packed sets of clothing.
    He said the setup appeared to be a way station where foreign fighters slipping through the border could get bogus identification documents and clothes that would help them blend in with the Iraqi population.
    “There was no evidence of a wedding,” Kimmitt said. “There was no decorations, no music instruments found, no large quantities of food or leftover servings one would expect from a wedding celebration. No gifts.”
    To reach Robert Moran, send e-mail to bmoran@phillynews.com.

    Link here (registration required).
    And, anticipating the question, I do trust Gen. Kimmitt more than I trust reporters. He’s put his reputation and career on the line here, while the reporter in question in all probability wouldn’t even have to publish a retraction, if it turns out that he’s wrong.
    And, finally, a hint: there’s more to the war than combat. There’s also propaganda, on both sides. If you’re willing to jump to conclusions that the propaganda of one side is true, that makes you look pretty gullible.

  34. And, finally, a hint: there’s more to the war than combat. There’s also propaganda, on both sides. If you’re willing to jump to conclusions that the propaganda of one side is true, that makes you look pretty gullible.
    Quite. And your excuse for doing so is…?

Comments are closed.