70 bodies discovered in Iraq in day of horrific violence

#1
Reports coming in that up to 70 bodies have been found in Iraq.

50 executed hostages reported found in the river tigres in varying states of decomposition. Majority show signs of torture, beheading and other attrocities. Victims are believed to be shia muslims killed by sunni insurgents

Upto 20 members of the Iraq Army have been found executed North of baghdad after being ambushed by insurgents, then lined up and shot in cold blood

Not a good day for iraq! :cry:

The bodies of more than 50 iraqi hostages have been found in the Tigris River south of Baghdad, according to the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani.

The news comes after reports that Sunni gunmen had taken scores of Shi'ite residents hostage in the town of Madain.

A 1,500-strong Iraqi force backed by US soldiers swept into town on Monday to deal with the situation.

They found no evidence that any hostages had been taken.

However, Mr Talabani has now said: "More than 50 bodies have been brought out from the Tigris and we have the full names of those who were killed and those criminals who committed these crimes."

The bodies recovered are said to be those of men, women and children.

Madain lies 18 miles southeast of the capital in an area considered an insurgency hotbed.

Mr Talabani said: "The terrorists committed crimes there, and it is not true that there were no hostages, there were."

"They were killed and they threw the bodies in the Tigris."

A police spokesman said the bodies had already been buried following their discovery.
50 bodies found in river tigres
 
#2
Hi Agent!

I don't understand your point. Civil war (especially oriental one) is usually cruel. But what we have?

1. Saddam is not connected to this atrocity.

2. Coalition troops are unable to stop violence.

3. Cost of lives of thousands (including women and children) killed during storm of Fallujah is the same. So Americans are not better than "insurgents".
 
#3
KGB_resident said:
Americans are not better than "insurgents".
moron
 
#5
It would appear that the insurgents want a civil war. Then related ethnic/religious groups could send in support to help and then a close government could legitimately invade as they would be bring peace to the area and a more fundamentalist government. So the more the smaller group is perceived to be attacking the larger group the better, so that when they (the larger group) eventually retaliate they will look bad.
 
#6
KGB_resident said:
Americans are not better than "insurgents".
Вы будете задержанным в развитии кретином очень низкой сведении. Я надеюсь вы падение и ломаюсь вас негожая шея.
 
#7
armourer said:
KGB_resident said:
Americans are not better than "insurgents".
Вы будете задержанным в развитии кретином очень низкой сведении. Я надеюсь вы падение и ломаюсь вас негожая шея.
Ummmmm, any chance of subtitles?
 
#8
#9
Plant-Pilot said:
armourer said:
KGB_resident said:
Americans are not better than "insurgents".
Вы будете задержанным в развитии кретином очень низкой сведении. Я надеюсь вы падение и ломаюсь вас негожая шея.
Ummmmm, any chance of subtitles?
uuummmm..............best not :wink:
 
#10
Plant-Pilot said:
armourer said:
KGB_resident said:
Americans are not better than "insurgents".
Вы будете задержанным в развитии кретином очень низкой сведении. Я надеюсь вы падение и ломаюсь вас негожая шея.
Ummmmm, any chance of subtitles?
Roughly translated, please subject me to MDNs porridge gun as I am a cnut
 
#11
I love the way that moral relativists such as KGB-blerk think that people being tortured & beheaded by insurgents is the same as women & children who were given 3 weeks to leave a town but CHOSE NOT TO getting killed as collateral damage duting a counter-insurgency operation.

Go on, compare Falluja to the Holocaust as well, whilst you're at it.

Tw@t. Go hang out on Unwashed 75, you'll be in good company.
 
#13
Sergey, my point was merely to alert arrse members of a breaking story.

A_S
 
#14
armourer said:
KGB_resident said:
Americans are not better than "insurgents".
Вы будете задержанным в развитии кретином очень низкой сведении. Я надеюсь вы падение и ломаюсь вас негожая шея.
Dear friend!

Now I see how my posts look to native English-speaker. I understand your impessive mesage so I hope that my ones will be understood too.

First of all, I didn't mean noble American people. Moreover, I feel respect to brave American army that demonstrated genuine heroism on fields of Mesopotamia in bloody struggle with experienced and well-armed enemy.

But some operations unfortunately were badly planned. As a result there were plenty of innocent victims (including momen and children). Were all possible measures used to avoid a lot of civilian victims? Let's regard concrete cases:

20.06.2004 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3822973.stm

Residents of the Iraqi city of Falluja have disputed an American account of an air attack in which at least 20 people were killed.

They say women and children were among the dead, and that a second missile strike was aimed at rescuers trying to find victims of the first attack.

US forces say they were targeting members of a network headed by an al-Qaeda leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

They have not suggested, however, that Zarqawi was caught in the assault.
Suppose that first strike was simply a mistake. But after it "insurgents" (if they ever had been there would run away. So the secind strike was senseless.

25.06.2004 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3840443.stm

US forces have carried out an air strike on a suspected militant hideout in the Iraqi city of Falluja, the US military has said.

At least 20 people were killed in the raid, coalition officials said.

It is the third such strike this week on Falluja, where the US believes a key al-Qaeda leader is hiding.
So US military only believed (didn't knew) it. It was clear that without firm knowledge possible damage to "insurgents" would be minimal but risk to cause innocent victims is too big. Maybe next time US military would be more carefull?

01.07.2004 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3855287.stm

Four people were killed when a house in the Iraqi city of Falluja was hit by a US air strike, witnesses have said.

Another 10 people were injured in the incident and residents are still digging through the debris.

"The house was completely destroyed. It is basically rubble," one local told Reuters news agency.

The US military said the house was a hide-out for members of the Tawhid and Jihad movement led by senior al-Qaeda member Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
....
Brig Gen Kimmit said the attack was based on "multi-confirmations of Iraqi and multinational intelligence".
It is strange intelligence.

06.07.2004 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3868927.stm
Iraq's new prime minister says his government co-operated in a US air strike on the volatile city of Falluja, which killed at least 10 people.

The US military says it dropped four 500-pound (225kg) bombs and two 1,000-pound (450kg) bombs in the raid, which took place at about 1915 local time (1515 GMT) on Monday.

"After consultations between Iraqi government officials and multinational forces-Iraq, Iraqi security forces provided clear and compelling intelligence to conduct a precision strike this evening on a known Zarqawi safe house in south-eastern Falluja," Mr Allawi said in his statement.
From previous case US military knew 'quality' of Iraqi intelligence and knew that risk of causing of civilian victims is 100%. Even if all these 10 were militants then it is insignificant number to make such a strike.

2.09.2004 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3619858.stm

At least 17 Iraqis have died in a US air strike on the city of Falluja, hospital officials have said.

Reports say the dead included three children and a woman.

US officials say the strike was a deliberate, "precision" attack aimed at followers of the wanted militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Were these strikes reasonable from military point of view? Were intelligence reliable? What is outcome? Is there any difference between Iraqis killed by insurgents and civil Iraqis killed by senseless strikes?

In this contexts you should understand my words. Bwt, I didn't mean even pilots. As soldiers they obeyed orders. It is an unconditional law to obey orders.

I meant top American political and military leadership, that are not better than "insurgents". They are planning war games that has as a result so many innocent victims.
 
#15
Plant-Pilot said:
armourer said:
KGB_resident said:
Americans are not better than "insurgents".
Вы будете задержанным в развитии кретином очень низкой сведении. Я надеюсь вы падение и ломаюсь вас негожая шея.
Ummmmm, any chance of subtitles?
You will be the delayed in the development cretin of very low information. I hope you drop and I break you the worthless neck??

I get the jist ;)
 
#16
stoatman said:
...women & children who were given 3 weeks to leave a town but CHOSE NOT TO getting killed as collateral damage duting a counter-insurgency operation.
If you remember first storm of Fallujah (a year ago) then...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/14/wirq14.xml

General criticises Fallujah strategy
By Toby Harnden in Baghdad
(Filed: 14/09/2004)

A US Marine commander attacked his military and civilian superiors yesterday for an initially over-aggressive and then vacillating strategy towards the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah.

Lt Gen James Conway, who is relinquishing his command, said he had not wanted to mount an offensive against the town after the killing of four American defence contractors whose mutilated bodies were hung from a bridge in April.
You claim that American strategy in Fallujah was excellent but general Conway obviously disagree with you.
 
#17
Spursluv said:
Plant-Pilot said:
armourer said:
KGB_resident said:
Americans are not better than "insurgents".
Вы будете задержанным в развитии кретином очень низкой сведении. Я надеюсь вы падение и ломаюсь вас негожая шея.
Ummmmm, any chance of subtitles?
You will be the delayed in the development cretin of very low information. I hope you drop and I break you the worthless neck??

I get the jist ;)
Words 'Вы будете' normally means 'You will be' but in old-fashioned speech they have meaning 'You are' (with shade of politeness). This meaning is rarely used now. It is bookish. But computer is soulless piece of iron and don't feel emotions.
 
#18
KGB_resident said:
Spursluv said:
Plant-Pilot said:
armourer said:
KGB_resident said:
Americans are not better than "insurgents".
Вы будете задержанным в развитии кретином очень низкой сведении. Я надеюсь вы падение и ломаюсь вас негожая шея.
Ummmmm, any chance of subtitles?
You will be the delayed in the development cretin of very low information. I hope you drop and I break you the worthless neck??

I get the jist ;)
Words 'Вы будете' normally means 'You will be' but in old-fashioned speech they have meaning 'You are' (with shade of politeness). This meaning is rarely used now. It is bookish. But computer is soulless piece of iron and don't feel emotions.
Oh I see, thankyou, I'd love to learn Russian, I think it's a lovely language :)
 
#19
KGB_resident said:
Let's regard concrete cases:


Residents of the Iraqi city of Falluja have disputed an American account of an air attack in which at least 20 people were killed.

They say women and children were among the dead, and that a second missile strike was aimed at rescuers trying to find victims of the first attack.
Suppose that first strike was simply a mistake. But after it "insurgents" (if they ever had been there would run away. So the secind strike was senseless.
Heaven forbid that the Fallujan Residents that are quoted may have an agenda here.

Let's go worst case, int was sh!te and two runs were made on the same target. Bad skills, but not deliberate. Unless you are suggesting that US/UK forces deliberately went in to kill civilians 'just for the hell of it'? In which case I question your tenure on reality.

KGB_resident said:
At least 20 people were killed in the raid, coalition officials said.

It is the third such strike this week on Falluja, where the US believes a key al-Qaeda leader is hiding.
So US military only believed (didn't knew) it. It was clear that without firm knowledge possible damage to "insurgents" would be minimal but risk to cause innocent victims is too big.
Do you have any military experience at all? Since when is intelligence a 100% certainty? Who says possible damage was too great? If we hit what we believe was a HQ, how many of those 20 were enemy head sheds and well worth a couple of 1000lb-ers? Why do you put insurgents in quotation marks? Do you think the bad guys in Iraq are made up? Go there yourself, walk through a few key towns on your own. Find out for yourself.

KGB_resident said:
The US military said the house was a hide-out for members of the Tawhid and Jihad movement led by senior al-Qaeda member Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
....
Brig Gen Kimmit said the attack was based on "multi-confirmations of Iraqi and multinational intelligence".
It is strange intelligence.
who says? you? from what particular level of authority and insight? Did an angel tell you?

KGB_resident said:
Iraq's new prime minister says his government co-operated in a US air strike on the volatile city of Falluja, which killed at least 10 people.

The US military says it dropped four 500-pound (225kg) bombs and two 1,000-pound (450kg) bombs in the raid, which took place at about 1915 local time (1515 GMT) on Monday.

"After consultations between Iraqi government officials and multinational forces-Iraq, Iraqi security forces provided clear and compelling intelligence to conduct a precision strike this evening on a known Zarqawi safe house in south-eastern Falluja," Mr Allawi said in his statement.
From previous case US military knew 'quality' of Iraqi intelligence and knew that risk of causing of civilian victims is 100%. Even if all these 10 were militants then it is insignificant number to make such a strike.
Wow, your impartial, erudite and reasoned approach to your analysis leaves me dumbfounded.
The precedents you are quoting to illustrate the US/UK/Iraqi int are your own interpretations of one sided secondary open source material.

Who says those 10 were an insignificant number? Again you seem to trust your own military experience and ability to analyse sources and information a great deal more than I do.

KGB_resident said:
What is outcome? Is there any difference between Iraqis killed by insurgents and civil Iraqis killed by senseless strikes?
Not to the dead. However, do you think it is in anyone's interest in the MNF heirachy to deliberately target civilians? Will that ensure the politicians get the backing and funding for continuing their war? Will it ensure they get re-elected? Is an assessed strike against possible enemy leadership the same as gathering women and children together, torturing them and then executing them? Are you rational?

KGB_resident said:
It is an unconditional law to obey orders.
No it's not and you're showing your ignorance again.

If you are going to accuse members of the US/UK/Iraqi forces then do it. Don't try to placate us, because this is a military forum, by allowing us to shift blame to the powers that be. I have no love for bush or for the execution of the war as a whole. I do know that we don't deliberately go for civilians because I know the US and UK soldier. They have a humanity that I have yet to see displayed in the actions of Soviet/Russian soldiers in the last centuary or so.

Before you answer, serve some time in the forces, and do me the courtesy of dropping any pretense you may or may not be hiding behind. Something doesn't sit right about you and I wouldn't mind betting that you're a 17 year old student from Milton Keynes with a lot of time on his hands.

And don't start your reply with Friend! I've yet to decide whether that is the case.
 
#20
Okay, I'm bored of that kind of quoting of casualty figures.
It might work in Mother Russia when you're fighting in Stalingrad, but it doesn't work in Fourth Generation Warfare. What's the difference between a civilian and an insurgent? A weapon and the intent to kill. And since you can't read minds and weapons can be dropped, there's nothing to distinguish the two.
If you're fighting in the Sunni Triangle, you're up against an entire sect of people who want to discredit the Americans and the Shiites. Do you think they'll honestly say, "Dang, you killed Ahmed, our glorious insurgent", or will they seize the moment to exclaim to the world, "Oh my G-d, you killed Ahmed, you Bastards!"?
Anyone with an inkling of common sense and counterinsurgency experience knows that things are infinitely more complex in Fourth Generation Warfare. Anyone like this also knows that there will be more to simplistic media reporting than meets the eye. Look at Isreal. Every time they blow up a car with a Hellfire, they incinerate a bunch of guys dressed in civilian clothing. How do they know the difference?

It's called Human Intelligence. And that's what the Americans are gathering, and they're getting better at it every day.
There are tons of informants in every counterinsurgency environment. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong, but if the Yanks keep doing what they're doing, it's a sign that it's working.
Contrary to a simpleton's black/white world view, the Americans are in fact doing their best to learn how to fight this kind of war effectively. I know this because I was a huge critic of their SOPs, and I remain critical to this day. I've spent the past four years studying them, talking to them and working with them.
Ask any Brit who's worked with the Yanks, and they'll know how eagerly they've snapped up the training the British Army offers to them. They may not get it as right as we do, but they're getting closer every day.

Now, do you have actual data and an actual argument to counter me, or will you go back to rhetoric?

PS: Orders are open questioning at all times. To say that there is an "unconditional law to obey orders" is an amateurish and dangerous oversimplification. Armies that trust their soldiers do not rob them of their brainpower and ability to question. That is why General Conway disagreed with the methods employed - because he had a right to and he stood up for what he thought was right.
The point about 99% of orders is that they are sound, that's why no one questions them. The Soviets and the Americans (to a lesser extent) may believe in blind obedience, but that's why they lost in counterinsurgency situations. That's another thing the Americans are changing: they're teaching their soldiers to think for themselves more than ever.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top