70 bodies discovered in Iraq in day of horrific violence

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Agent_Smith, Apr 20, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  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:

    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. moron
  4. I think you let him off lightly there :roll:
  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. Вы будете задержанным в развитии кретином очень низкой сведении. Я надеюсь вы падение и ломаюсь вас негожая шея.
  7. Ummmmm, any chance of subtitles?
  8. Sorry about that, I'll go outside and kick some soap dodgers.
  9. uuummmm..............best not :wink:
  10. 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.
  12. This is an interesting continuation of this story. The plot thickens...
  13. Sergey, my point was merely to alert arrse members of a breaking story.

  14. 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

    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

    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

    It is strange intelligence.

    06.07.2004 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3868927.stm
    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

    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. 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 ;)