theavonlady 2 Posted March 26, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 26 2003,13:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Another possibility is that the Turkish decision not to let  American-British troops on its soil really screwed over the war plans.<span id='postcolor'> That's for sure. After this is over, when it comes to diplomatic relations between Turkey and the US, it could be that Turkey's goose is cooked. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallenPaladin 0 Posted March 26, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 26 2003,11:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Since I'm not Christian, I have no problems saying that the Pope is wrong. Note that I did not state that Bush is right. <span id='postcolor'> I`m no Christian, too. But the Pope vs. Bush thing is just tickled pink for an infidel like me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 26, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ Mar. 26 2003,12<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Something is fishy about the reports on that engagement where 2 Abramses were lost.<span id='postcolor'> There is something extremely fishy about this whole alledged engagement. With a sandstorm like that the only possible engagements would be short range (<<50 m) light infantry engagements. There is no way the coalition forces would fight on those terms since they would have no advantage at all. On the contrary, the Iraqi would have an advantage by  larger numbers, knowledge of the terrain and experience with that kind of weather. Tanks, missiles, aircraft are out of the question. Sand storms are the worst possible environmental condition since it blocks all forms of sensors -everything from optical, to IR and magnetic. It would be fighting in the blind. Edit: One disclaimer - we don't know actually how bad the weather was then, but if it was as bad as the pictures shown on Sky News then the above holds. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Coalition airstrike missed it's target and hit a residental area instead killing at least 15 civilians. Reuters report<span id='postcolor'> Reuters has a video of the damage and some explicit pictures of the burned bodies. Very nasty It seems that one or several bombs/missiles hit a large residential building. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blaegis 0 Posted March 26, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You use them from short range.<span id='postcolor'> Duh. All of these missile systems have a minimum range, inside which the HEAT warhead isn't armed. This minimum range is quite long for the missiles of this class (100+ meters, AFAIK). So, either there was no sandstorm or those M1s were hit by something else. Either way, the press bollocked it up again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 26, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ Mar. 26 2003,13:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You use them from short range.<span id='postcolor'> Duh. All of these missile systems have a minimum range, inside which the HEAT warhead isn't armed. This minimum range is quite long for the missiles of this class (100+ meters, AFAIK). So, either there was no sandstorm or those M1s were hit by something else. Either way, the press bollocked it up again.<span id='postcolor'> OK, 100 meters - not 50. Regarding the sandstorms, fact is there were times yesterday where planes were grounded because of them but there were also times where they weren't. Who knows! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 26, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 26 2003,13:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Reuters has a video of the damage and some explicit pictures of the burned bodies. Very nasty It seems that one or several bombs/missiles hit a large residential building.<span id='postcolor'> Video on this report page at Sky is not as explicit. I've been impressed so far by Sky's coverage. I've rarely browsed there in the past. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
killagee 0 Posted March 26, 2003 An candid tactical analysis http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news078.htm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhoCares 0 Posted March 26, 2003 I wonder, whether the Iraqis used the Sandstrom as opportunity to plant some mines on the supply routes. Would make sense, wouldn't it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CosmicCastaway 0 Posted March 26, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WhoCares @ Mar. 26 2003,13:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wonder, whether the Iraqis used the Sandstrom as opportunity to plant some mines on the supply routes. Would make sense, wouldn't it?<span id='postcolor'> They'd have to be able to see the supply routes first. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 26, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WhoCares @ Mar. 26 2003,14:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wonder, whether the Iraqis used the Sandstrom as opportunity to plant some mines on the supply routes. Would make sense, wouldn't it?<span id='postcolor'> Go to Reuters Raw Video and find and view the video on Iraqi Munitions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Balschoiw 0 Posted March 26, 2003 It´s been a while since I posted last on this thread. Now I have some very interesting things to share. We are now advised to see US official news coverage and reports from official authorities like the White House and the Pentagon as TV-related material. This means it is not worth a penny. We know that Basra is under heavy shelling and the British troops try to get into urban warfare there. They are still bombing the town in large numbers wich will INDEED cause countless numbers of civillian deaths. Water and electricity is cut and pentagon sourced rumours of an uprising within Basra have been counterchecked by contacting local residents and journalists. There are no signs for an upcoming uprise within Basra. US forces still suffer numerouse losses on their support ways. Umm Kasr is still not clear. Heavy battles reported and it is very likely that all numbers presented by US and coalition forces are nothing than bullshit. It looks like the war on civillians has started on full scale. British troops have been ordered to engage ANY I repeat ANY persons in civillian clothes. No matter if they are actually fighting or not. Basra has been declared a military target wich in the language of war means that any inhabitant, military or not is an enemy and will be shot if possible. In Bagdad missiles hit crowded civillian, NOT MILITARY, areas and resideantial zones. We all share the opinion that coalition forces try to break the civillian will now to enforce a revolution within Bagdad. US troops around Bagdad are scared of the losses and a possible defeat that would (even if only parts of the invading army would be defeated) be a major loss for the coaltion forces on the international stage. Therefore we will see a lot more "misguided" rockets the next hours, days... I doubt that the missiles were actually mislead. I think they are fired with purpose into civillian areas to put pressure on the people and in the end on the regime itself. The strikes will be mentioned in comparison with the accuracy of the rest of the missiles on Bagdad and the US officials will claim the percentage of the "mislead" missiles is low overall. But as we all know it was Mr Rumsfeld who repeated the accuracy of these LRW´s over and over again. I repeat. These were no Ari shells, these were LRW´s with most modern technologies that if you follow Rumsfeld, don´t even explode if the target in the visor does not match the preprogrammed target. You see ? This war is getting very dirty now and the freedom the coaltion forces proposed to bring to Iraq turns out to be a freedom of death. I wonder, I really wonder, how the coaltion forces still think that peace and democracy (their primary claim) can be established that way. Now it shows that the respect and shelter of civillians within Iraq does not mean anything to the coaltion forces. The current situation is dangerouse for the coaltion forces and they know it. They want to push even harder now and this will only worsen the scenario in the next days. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samelborp 0 Posted March 26, 2003 Balschoiw, excuse me but I am not very familiar with this thread, what are your sources? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 26, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (killagee @ Mar. 26 2003,13:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">An candid tactical analysis http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news078.htm<span id='postcolor'> I would not really call it "candid" but more like a worst case analysis. What one can conclude overall is that all media is full of bs and speculations and so are the official press releases from both Baghdad and Washington. I've recieved some 4 meter resolution IR satellite images taken last night that as far as I can see are inconclusive. Â These were however not postprocessed images and I suck at reading satellite images. They will probably be declassified in a day or two and then I'll post them. CNN Breaking news: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Pentagon looking seriously at report that seven U.S. soldiers in an ambushed convoy were killed by Iraqis on Sunday as they got out of their trucks with their hands up, surrendering, sources told CNN. Details to come. <span id='postcolor'> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhoCares 0 Posted March 26, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 26 2003,13:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WhoCares @ Mar. 26 2003,14:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wonder, whether the Iraqis used the Sandstrom as opportunity to plant some mines on the supply routes. Would make sense, wouldn't it?<span id='postcolor'> Go to Reuters Raw Video and find and view the video on Iraqi Munitions.<span id='postcolor'> Unfortunatly, I can't see videos there on this machine. But the article in the link provided in the post above mine mentioned mines several times. However, this source seems to be pretty biased... According to the Iraq Country Handbook I linked before, they have a large variety of mines, AP and AT... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 26, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 26 2003,14:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We are now advised to see US official news coverage and reports from official authorities like the White House and the Pentagon as TV-related material. This means it is not worth a penny.<span id='postcolor'> So you say. BTW, who advised you? Most reports I'm seeing are from reporters in the field. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We know that Basra is under heavy shelling and the British troops try to get into urban warfare there. They are still bombing the town in large numbers wich will INDEED cause countless numbers of civillian deaths. Water and electricity is cut and pentagon sourced rumours of an uprising within Basra have been counterchecked by contacting local residents and journalists.<span id='postcolor'> Source? Haven't seen this one anywhere. Reports of uprising are very subdued from coalition sources. See the BASRA UPDATE raw video on Reuters </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are no signs for an upcoming uprise within Basra.<span id='postcolor'> So you say. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">US forces still suffer numerouse losses on their support ways.<span id='postcolor'> Statistics? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Umm Kasr is still not clear.<span id='postcolor'> Port is already open and receiving cargo from what I'm reading. Already yesterday, there were pictures of the port showing soldiers mostly at ease, without signs of action in that direct area. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Heavy battles reported and it is very likely that all numbers presented by US and coalition forces are nothing than bull<span id='postcolor'> So you say. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It looks like the war on civillians has started on full scale.<span id='postcolor'> Talk about wild headlines! Which press agancy do you work for now? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">British troops have been ordered to engage ANY I repeat ANY persons in civillian clothes. No matter if they are actually fighting or not. Basra has been declared a military target wich in the language of war means that any inhabitant, military or not is an enemy and will be shot if possible.<span id='postcolor'> If the Iraqi military is attacking as civilians and it appears that they've pulled this trick enough times over the last several days, then that's what's going to happen. Don't bother questioning Iraq's own tactics of endangering their own people through such ploys. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In Bagdad missiles hit crowded civillian, NOT MILITARY, areas and resideantial zones.<span id='postcolor'> I'm sure it was intentional. After all, it's to the coalitions great benefit to drop bombs on houses and markets. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We all share the opinion that coalition forces try to break the civillian will now to enforce a revolution within Bagdad. US troops around Bagdad are scared of the losses and a possible defeat that would (even if only parts of the invading army would be defeated) be a major loss for the coaltion forces on the international stage.<span id='postcolor'> Are you broadcasting from a bunker in Baghdad? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Therefore we will see a lot more "misguided" rockets the next hours, days...<span id='postcolor'> More wild headlines and presumptions. Now you can guarantee to predict the future. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I doubt that the missiles were actually mislead. I think they are fired with purpose into civillian areas to put pressure on the people and in the end on the regime itself.<span id='postcolor'> You couldn't get a job as a spin doctor in Washington. You're too extreme. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I repeat.<span id='postcolor'> Have you tried Dicarbosil? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Balschoiw 0 Posted March 26, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Balschoiw, excuse me but I am not very familiar with this thread, what are your sources? <span id='postcolor'> My sources are defined by my job. I am UN soldier of the UN core force. I am living and working in germany. This way I have sources from german intelligance but more interesting intel sources of the UN connected security organizations. This goes from locals in Irak to military officers of the coaltion troops that speak fact in their reports to their homecountries. This is off course nothing broadcasted by major TV stations or confirmed by the officials of the coaltion forces. Same goes for Iraq forces btw, but the crosschecking of the reports represents the truth and shows what it far from being real. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 26, 2003 And, of course, all UN and German sources are most impartial, especially since they all adore the US? Nope. Unimpressed - and that's an understatement. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Balschoiw 0 Posted March 26, 2003 Avon what are you after ? You don´t believe me ? You don´t have to. It´s that easy. The next days will show if I am right or not. For sure I am not in the region. But as I mentioned before we have access to a larger variety of info than the averag couch - potatoe. And on another aspect I am with military forces for over 10 years now, have fought in the desert, have knowledge of the current plans the coaltion forces follow and I know that 70 - 90 percent of the info coming from embedded journalists and coalition officials has proven to be wrong. Don´t piss my leg Avon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blaegis 0 Posted March 26, 2003 Come on, let's try to maintain a semblance of objectivity and detachment here. I know that every one of us has a personal position on what's going on in the theatre of operations (usually defined by the pre-invasion stance of whether the war was justified or not ) but there's no reason to get reduced to personal squabbling. Was it Voltaire who said "I may despise your opinions, but I'd fight for your right to express them"? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Balschoiw 0 Posted March 26, 2003 It is/was not my intention to start something like that. I only report things apart from TV shows and official TV interviews. That´s what I do. If this is not appreciated I will stop it. Saves time for me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallenPaladin 0 Posted March 26, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 26 2003,13:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It looks like the war on civillians has started on full scale. British troops have been ordered to engage ANY I repeat ANY persons in civillian clothes. No matter if they are actually fighting or not. ... In Bagdad missiles hit crowded civillian, NOT MILITARY, areas and resideantial zones. We all share the opinion that coalition forces try to break the civillian will now to enforce a revolution within Bagdad.<span id='postcolor'> Well, that`s not so surprising. The coalition failed on full scale on their analysis of the Iraqi reaction towards an invasion. There were neither happy crowds greeting the troops nor signs of breaking with Saddam Hussein. Instead of that the coalition forces are fought in a way they never expected to be. They are counterattacked and even thrown back from certain cities, e.g. Basra and Um Quasr (sp?). In addition to that the Iraqis managed to attack the supply and maintenance troops of the coalition with guerrilla tactics, causing fear, destruction and taking POWs. The coalition attempt to rush headless towards Baghdad seems rather desperate. On the northern front the Iraqis managed to repell an insertion of more coalition troops by chopper. The only remaining way to win this war is now by breaking the neck of Iraq and that`s not done with killing Saddam Hussein (even if they managed to, and I don`t believe in that possibility, because the USA also failed in killing Osama bin Laden) , instead of that the coalition has to stun the will of the Iraqi people. Â "If you can`t hit the facilities, hit the workers!", that saying from WW2 can also be adopted from now on to the situation in Iraq. Opinions do of course differ, the written above is just a collection of news given in the last days which I analysed. But an analysis of mine is of course nothing compared to the analysis Mr. Franks, Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair or even Mr. Hussein can give us. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 26, 2003 General Weasly Clark: Quick victory "not going to happen" </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> (CNN) -- The scenario of a quick coalition victory in Iraq is "not going to happen," according to retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark, a CNN analyst and former NATO supreme allied commander. "The simple fact is that the liberation didn't quite occur. They didn't uprise," Clark said Tuesday night. Clark said that more than a quarter of coalition troops are "tied up in a messy fight in Basra." British troops have gathered outside Basra after Iraqi paramilitary forces retreated into the southern Iraqi city. An apparent local uprising began Tuesday, and the troops are prepared to assist civilians to attack the military regime once the scope and scale of the rebellion is determined, according to British military officials. Clark said another significant portion of coalition troops are fighting in Nasiriya, where Marines seized a hospital on the third consecutive day of fighting. "We've got logistics problems," Clark said. In addition, he said that Turkey's "failure to permit the 4th Infantry Division to go through was a significant problem, not an insignificant problem." Turkey has allowed coalition forces to use its airspace but denied access to ground troops that were to move through the country into northern Iraq. U.S. Central Command announced that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's command and control capabilities had been destroyed, along with the national television station, a key telecom vault and a group of buildings housing Baghdad Satellite Communications. But just hours after the command report, local broadcast of the TV station resumed Wednesday. Clark predicted before transmission resumed that it may take several attempts to knock the station off the air completely. "It's probably redundant, so there's probably another set of mobile antennas that they will erect," Clark said. "They'll probably try to get a weakened signal back out, at least once or twice." <span id='postcolor'> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oligo 1 Posted March 26, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 26 2003,13:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Pentagon looking seriously at report that seven U.S. soldiers in an ambushed convoy were killed by Iraqis on Sunday as they got out of their trucks with their hands up, surrendering, sources told CNN. Details to come. <span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'> I wonder whether there will be an academic discussion later on about this incident, like there was about the "highway of death"-incident back in the day. I remember our pro-US forum regulars arguing that the Iraqis displayed no "adequate signs of their intent to surrender" and thus got blasted to crap. Too bad we have no Iraqis in the forum who could argue that the US soldiers getting out the trucks did not display "adequate signs of their intent to surrender". Another thing comes to mind as well. In Saving Private Ryan, there is a moment where surrendering germans are gunned down accomppanied by one-liners as: "He was saying look, I washed my hands for supper." There always seemed to be a bunch of people who saw no wrong with that action, since the US soldiers were so pissed at the germans or something. Well, maybe the Iraqis are just so pissed to what they see as the invaders that they don't want to take any prisoners? Can you really blame them? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sn1per 0 Posted March 26, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 26 2003,16:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is/was not my intention to start something like that. I only report things apart from TV shows and official TV interviews. That´s what I do. If this is not appreciated I will stop it. Saves time for me.<span id='postcolor'> Hopefully you don't stop posting here. You and Denoir are the two persons keeping this thread on track. It seems most of the others just believe all the 'information' CNN, BBC and Skynews broadcast. But time will tell. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DracoPaladore 0 Posted March 26, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 26 2003,13:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My sources are defined by my job. I am UN soldier of the UN core force. I am living and working in germany. This way I have sources from german intelligance but more interesting intel sources of the UN connected security organizations. This goes from locals in Irak to military officers of the coaltion troops that speak fact in their reports to their homecountries. This is off course nothing broadcasted by major TV stations or confirmed by the officials of the coaltion forces. Same goes for Iraq forces btw, but the crosschecking of the reports represents the truth and shows what it far from being real.<span id='postcolor'> Hmmm...Isn't this a breach and woulden't one get arrested for this information? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
