Dead bodies of Islamic State fighters dumped with trash: Nineveh official

[!eon]

Don't be angry at me. It was Iranian mad mulla who chose you to be Russian dogs in this fight, not me. Dogs should not divert their attention while barking

No Muslim begger in Germany,

Unlike Daesh, Iran Doesn't get funding from America (or Russia). We buy.

So Only Dogs here are Daesh, You and maybe Pakistan Administration.

All three of Rely on $$$ from your owners America, Saudi & Europe.


Even if Iran was Dogs, You could never even compare to our feet, how pathetic is that?


As I said, You are the slave, so were your ancestors. Thank Pakistans Founding Father a Persian Mohammad Ali Jinnah For Freeing You from Slavery.

 

[Rustam]

Don't be angry at me. It was Iranian mad mulla who chose you to be Russian dogs in this fight, not me. Dogs should not divert their attention while barking

We have Burried bodies of our own.

But the Bodies of your ISIS brothers are rotting, Eaten by animals by now.

Go burry them and make sure to pray so their souls can go to heaven. We will laugh our assess off in the background. Go beg in German streets, buy ticket go syria, join your brothers.

 

[!eon]

We have Burried bodies of our own.

But the Bodies of your ISIS brothers are rotting, Eaten by animals by now.

Go burry them and make sure to pray so their souls can go to heaven. We will laugh our assess off in the background. Go beg in German streets, buy ticket go syria, join your brothers.

Before you were burning their bodies now leaving them on streets ? have you changed your mind mulla ? was that order from dog owner Mr. Putin ?

 

[haviZsultan]

ISIS deserves to have its fighters killed in the most violent means possible. They are the scum of the world and traitors to the respective countries they belong to. They have no religion and no brain. If Iran kills them or Iraq it is no problem. The good thing is they should die like dogs.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

They WEREN'T present where they could be considered military targets, they were continuing with day to day activities.

The bus can never be considered a military target, the location where the bus was, may have been.
Three soldiers were killed in the same shelling, which indicates that your neighbours was firing at military targets.

Unless You have information about the position of Pak troops at the time, you simply cannot judge
the legality of the attack.
How far in meters were the most adjacent troops? Sources?
Have troops passed by the area recently?
So far, I have not seen any information about how far from the border it was.

Can Indians actually see the location?
If so, was the bus visible to Indians when the shell was fired?

Such questions needs to be answered before any judgement is made.

 

[Mamluk]

As I said, You are the slave, so were your ancestors. Thank Pakistans Founding Father a Persian Mohammad Ali Jinnah For Freeing You from Slavery.

LOL

How is Jinnah Persian? Have you gone NUTS?

 

[Śakra]

Thank Pakistans Founding Father a Persian Mohammad Ali Jinnah For Freeing You from Slavery.

Jinnah wasn't a Parsi he was a Gujarati. You seem to think everyone is Irani. You probably believe Obama is Irani too b/c his middle name is Hussein and that's a Shia name.

 

[Rustam]

Jinnah wasn't a Parsi he was a Gujarati. You seem to think everyone is Irani. You probably believe Obama is Irani too b/c his middle name is Hussein and that's a Shia name.

So? He was Born there, like many Iranian leaders like presidents are born in Iraq,

His not Ethnic Gujrati. Hes Born into a Shiah Family with Parsi Roots.

Just because you are born in canada does not make you a white canadian, but just an canadian born indian.

khomenei's great grand father moved to india, where his grand dad was born in india, and moved back to iran. There are Millions of Parsis in india,

 

[Hamza913]

The bus can never be considered a military target, the location where the bus was, may have been.
Three soldiers were killed in the same shelling, which indicates that your neighbours was firing at military targets.

Unless You have information about the position of Pak troops at the time, you simply cannot judge
the legality of the attack.
How far in meters were the most adjacent troops? Sources?
Have troops passed by the area recently?
So far, I have not seen any information about how far from the border it was.

Can Indians actually see the location?
If so, was the bus visible to Indians when the shell was fired?

Such questions needs to be answered before any judgement is made.

Prove to me 3 soldiers were killed in the same firing. Even if they were, that must be a pretty strange mortar they are using which hits soldiers on the front line as well as people inside a town/city.

Please don't make excuses, because the ones you are using are BS.

 

[livingdead]

dead bodies should be given the respect it is due.... whoever your enemy might be....

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Prove to me 3 soldiers were killed in the same firing. Even if they were, that must be a pretty strange mortar they are using which hits soldiers on the front line as well as people inside a town/city.

Please don't make excuses, because the ones you are using are BS.

Prove to me 3 soldiers were killed in the same firing. Even if they were, that must be a pretty strange mortar they are using which hits soldiers on the front line as well as people inside a town/city.

Please don't make excuses, because the ones you are using are BS.

Plenty of articles mentioning the three soldiers killed.
This claims they were killed afterwards when they tried to respond.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pakistan-india-idUSKBN13I0I9

Other articles which I can't find now claims that they were killed in the same shelling,
(which could be ongoing for a few hours).

If they are responding, then they should be fairly close, question is how close.

Articles says that it was an artillery shell, not a mortar bomb,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-...-in-indian-shelling-of-bus-in-kashmir/8052226

"According to deputy commissioner Waheed Khan, an artillery shell hit a passenger bus in Neelum Valley in the Pakistani part of Kashmir, killing 10 people — three died on the scene and seven later, at a hospital."

The article also mentions mortar shell, so the difference is known.

Meanwhile Al-Jazeera claims they interviewed the bus driver claiming it was small arms fire and a rocket. Still the same article claims it was artillery fire.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/11/indian-shelling-kills-civilians-pakistan-161123071537408.html

India claimed they fired upon position used to attack India.

I am not claiming it was or was not a war crime.
I am saying that it is not PROVEN to be a war crime,
and You need to provide a lot more facts before that happens.

It is quite clear from articles that some of the journalist are wrong,
and neither You nor I know which are correct.
Even if the majority of the articles point in one direction, they may all be based
on the same source.

 

[Hamza913]

Plenty of articles mentioning the three soldiers killed.
This claims they were killed afterwards when they tried to respond.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pakistan-india-idUSKBN13I0I9

Other articles which I can't find now claims that they were killed in the same shelling,
(which could be ongoing for a few hours).

If they are responding, then they should be fairly close, question is how close.

Articles says that it was an artillery shell, not a mortar bomb,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-...-in-indian-shelling-of-bus-in-kashmir/8052226

"According to deputy commissioner Waheed Khan, an artillery shell hit a passenger bus in Neelum Valley in the Pakistani part of Kashmir, killing 10 people — three died on the scene and seven later, at a hospital."

The article also mentions mortar shell, so the difference is known.

Meanwhile Al-Jazeera claims they interviewed the bus driver claiming it was small arms fire and a rocket. Still the same article claims it was artillery fire.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/11/indian-shelling-kills-civilians-pakistan-161123071537408.html

India claimed they fired upon position used to attack India.

I am not claiming it was or was not a war crime.
I am saying that it is not PROVEN to be a war crime,
and You need to provide a lot more facts before that happens.

It is quite clear from articles that some of the journalist are wrong,
and neither You nor I know which are correct.
Even if the majority of the articles point in one direction, they may all be based
on the same source.

It is clear that they hit both targets in separate incidents, therefore India did target civilians so yes it is a war crime.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

It is clear that they hit both targets in separate incidents, therefore India did target civilians so yes it is a war crime.

No, it is not clear.
First of all, it appears that the soldiers are close, if they are responding.
Secondly, "responding" may be true or untrue, because it is "sounds" better.
It may be just propaganda.

If "responding" is true, it may be 10-15 seconds later, and they may then be hit a few seconds later,
by shells which are already in flight before the response.

If they are responding, they may be 50 meters from the truck,
who according to the al-Jazeera article was moving when it was hit.

Indians claims that this location was used to fire upon Indians.
You have no facts disproving this.

You have produced no facts that substantiate any claims of war crimes.

 

[Hamza913]

No, it is not clear.
First of all, it appears that the soldiers are close, if they are responding.
Secondly, "responding" may be true or untrue, because it is "sounds" better.
It may be just propaganda.

If "responding" is true, it may be 10-15 seconds later, and they may then be hit a few seconds later,
by shells which are already in flight before the response.

If they are responding, they may be 50 meters from the truck,
who according to the al-Jazeera article was moving when it was hit.

Indians claims that this location was used to fire upon Indians.
You have no facts disproving this.

You have produced no facts that substantiate any claims of war crimes.

If you honestly believe that the Indian Army didn't do this intentionally, you are incredibly naive.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

If you honestly believe that the Indian Army didn't do this intentionally, you are incredibly naive.

That is the type of comments You get from someone that lacks any real arguments.
I don't "believe" anything.
I subscribe to the notion that everyone is innocent, until proven guilty.
You make an accusation, You prove it.