US strikes on Iraqi convoy

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Lostnfound, Jun 24, 2003.

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. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3014850.stm

    I have to admit to being a little confused by this.  And don't get this wrong I'm not jumping on the anti-US band wagon - I am genuinely confused.

    How is it that US forces are allowed to attack vehicle convoys without apparently knowing who is in them?  The story suggests that 20 people were taken captive at the site and released shortly after.  DNA testing is now being carried out to try to work out who was killed.  Furthermore, it appears that the attack may have taken place on Syrian soil.

    I'm just utterly lost as to how the US can take a decision to attack a convoy without knowing who is in it or even in which country it is?
     
  2. The initial mission I thought was to capture Saddam. It's obvious that can't happen, because ,my word, Saddams statements post-capture would make interesting bedtime reading. The Muslims hereabouts, are saying Saddam is CIA, and they will "fabricate evidence" that he and his sons are dead, before they give him a new life. Not sure if I subscribe to that, but it would be convenient.

    Meanwhile, the BBC are still dutifully reporting actions against US troops as the work of "Pro-Saddam terorists"

    Even the Spam media has started referring to them as Insurgents. BBC, get your tongue out of Blairs Arrse, and get back to what you lead the world at, and that is REPORTING THE FACTS.