The Iraq thread 3

[Pathy 0]

Nice story, would benice to have it confirmed by an external source.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2761-1111774,00.html

......thats the difference between the US army and the British army doctrine right there.....i don't think the US army is big on bayonet charges....its more a fire superiority thing for them......British Army loves to go in close and dirty......

[bn880 5]

I mean external source though, not AU, US UK etc. you know.

[Jinef 2]

Bollocks.

Noone likes fighting close and dirty. It's just the British military has been around for 400 years, we have learnt some stuff in that time. The Infantry carry bayonets as they are a reusable weapon and are time proven, rifle rounds are not reusable. It's about sustainability of combat ability, you've seen Black Hawk Down, 5 guys get wounded and 1 killed and a platoon of airborne infantry is (heavy Texan accent) 'combat innefective'. Don't worry, Iraq has been a good lesson for the Americans, they aren't so fucking cocky anymore, they think before they do stuff and they are realising the difference between offensive war and holding territory.

Anyway, it's quite possible they did that bayonet thing, however beware of what the Sun says. 100 Iraqis probably means about 4 guys and a dog, who were probably simultaneously immigrating into the UK and scrounging off the welfare state.

[Pathy 0]

Bollocks.

Noone likes fighting close and dirty.

Just a figure of speech mate, referring to the fact that its the UK's doctrine.....get in close and finish them off.....in that sense, we "like" to do it that way (as opposed to the US method, but down a hail of fire, call in heavy support, ect)....but yeh, thats 400 years of infantry fighting experience.

The Times also confirms it. I saw it on the front page on sunday, and the Times is not a tabloid.......

[MLF 0]

Nice story, would benice to have it confirmed by an external source.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2761-1111774,00.html

......thats the difference between the US army and the British army doctrine right there.....i don't think the US army is big on bayonet charges....its more a fire superiority thing for them......British Army loves to go in close and dirty......

already posted it a page or so back ;) good lads, stick it to em.

[Balschoiw 0]

The shell detonated but only released a poo of gas.

I bet it´s a remain from the Iran - Iraq war.

There are numerous of those shells buried in the Iraqi sands so if this should be the "smoking gun" of WMD´s in Iraq I´m falling of my chair.

[red oct 2]

i think the U.S. marines use bayonets. but not as much as the brits do. maybe the marines should use them more though, their long rifle m16's may give them a good advantage and better reach than the armies m4 or sa80.

[bn880 5]

Bollocks.

Noone likes fighting close and dirty.

Just a figure of speech mate, referring to the fact that its the UK's doctrine.....get in close and finish them off.....in that sense, we "like" to do it that way (as opposed to the US method, but down a hail of fire, call in heavy support, ect)....but yeh, thats 400 years of infantry fighting experience.

The Times also confirms it. I saw it on the front page on sunday, and the Times is not a tabloid.......

It does not matter, all sources are coalition, you guys have to realize this. When the 6th army invaded Russian cities was it better to have "respected" German media report on how it went? It makes no difference, it is still internal to the coalition and therefore you have to give it a 90% chance of being inaccurate, it's war, and support for it is badly needed these days.

I'm just saying, don't get dragged into fairy tales.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]good lads, stick it to em.

Stick it into Shia Iraqis that had nothing to do with Saddam gouverment and have not opposed the invading forces in the war.Men with famillies that waited patiantly for an YEAR for you to keep your promises and to respect them as human beings and now are fighting to eliberate their country.stick it to em   ..

I can understand that you are reliefed that your country didn`t suffer casualties,but how can you want this men death is far beyond my comprehension.

[Pathy 0]

BN880, there was a link from Al Jazeera (spelling!) 2 pages ago, this was pointed out to you on the last page.....

Quicksand, these were people launching an ambush, not civilains.....

Quote[/b] ]The fighting began when soldiers from the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders were ambushed in two Land Rovers on Friday afternoon, about 15 miles south of the city of Amara.

They escaped, only to be ambushed a second time by a larger group armed with machineguns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars. Reinforcements were summoned from the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment at a base nearby.

What do you want us to do, slap thier wrists, tell them they've been naughty?

And look on the bright side....if we really wanted to slice all thier guys open, we'd have sent the Gorkhas in......(yes that IS the proper spelling)

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]Quicksand, these were people launching an ambush, not civilains.....

So they don`t have famillies?They aren`t shias who didn`t oppose the invasion and waited an year before they started battling occupation troops?

What is it so great from this men deaths who were promised ellberation,jobs,ellectricity and security?

I never said they were civillians...

Quote[/b] ]What do you want us to do, slap thier wrists, tell them they've been naughty?

I`ve never said that but comments such as "stick it in em" are disgusting from my point of view.Again I can understand relief for the side that hasn`t suffered any casualties but not this.

How would you feel if soldiers from your country are killed by a roadside bomb and people start saying "good lads blow them up"..

[bn880 5]

BN880, there was a link from Al Jazeera (spelling!) 2 pages ago, this was pointed out to you on the last page.....

I never saw anything pointed otu to me mentioning Al Jazeera, just Times.

EDIT: Anyway, if Al Jazeera confirms something like that then it obviously must have been pretty bad on the insurgents. I guess I'll have to find that story.

[bn880 5]

Nice story, would benice to have it confirmed by an external source.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2761-1111774,00.html

......thats the difference between the US army and the British army doctrine right there.....i don't think the US army is big on bayonet charges....its more a fire superiority thing for them......British Army loves to go in close and dirty......

already posted it a page or so back ;) good lads, stick it to em.

Looked 5 pages back and nothing, especially Al Jazeera related, can you post the link? I must be blind today.

[MLF 0]

Quote[/b] ]good lads, stick it to em.

Stick it into Shia Iraqis that had nothing to do with Saddam gouverment and have not opposed the invading forces in the war.Men with famillies that waited patiantly for an YEAR for you to keep your promises and to respect them as human beings and now are fighting to eliberate their country.stick it to em   ..

I can understand that you are reliefed that your country didn`t suffer casualties,but how can you want this men death is far beyond my comprehension.

Yes "Stick it to em" was a comment to my countries Armed forces, it was a comment related to the fact they had to fix bayonets to attack morter positions instead of calling down an arty strike on a densly populated civilian area after themselves beign ambushed twice, how am i supposed to feel after they attack my countries troops (UK not US) when all they are doing is trying to rebuild there country and who have always been diplomatic when it comes to problems with the locals, they have always sat with the locals and dicussed there grievences, how can i be sure that the mortar position  did not cause this.

Image

Quote[/b] ]British soldiers examine the spot where a mortar shell landed on a house near a British military base in Basra, southern Iraq, Sunday May 16, 2004. The attack killed four Iraqi civilians, including 2-year-old female twins, witnesses said. Another four people were injured. All of the victims were from the same family. (AP Photo/Nabil Al-Jurani)

sorry its from AP and not the holy fair unbiased Al Jazeera, also "Stick it to em" is slang for give it to em or your doing a good job keep it up.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]So they don`t have famillies?They aren`t shias who didn`t oppose the invasion and waited an year before they started battling occupation troops?

What is it so great from this men deaths who were promised ellberation,jobs,ellectricity and security?

I never said they were civillians...

They should of been standing up to (battling/protesting) the insurgents that are hindering this not the coalition.

[bn880 5]

Image

Quote[/b] ]British soldiers examine the spot where a mortar shell landed on a house near a British military base in Basra, southern Iraq, Sunday May 16, 2004. The attack killed four Iraqi civilians, including 2-year-old female twins, witnesses said. Another four people were injured. All of the victims were from the same family. (AP Photo/Nabil Al-Jurani)

sorry its from AP and not the holy fair unbiased Al Jazeera.

Okay, but...

Quote[/b] ] Headquarters

50 Rockefeller Plaza

New York, N.Y. 10020

Main Number

+1-212-621-1500

[MLF 0]

Quote[/b] ]British troops kill 20 in bayonet clash

Quote[/b] ]British troops kill 20 in bayonet clash

Stephen Grey, Basra, and Adam Nathan

BRITISH soldiers fixed bayonets and fought hand-to-hand with a Shi’ite militia in southern Iraq in one of their fiercest clashes since the war officially ended last May.

They mounted what were described as “classic infantry assaults†on firing and mortar positions held by more than 100 fighters loyal to the outlawed cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, military sources revealed yesterday.

At least 20 men from al-Sadr’s Mehdi army were said to have been killed in more than three hours of fighting — the highest toll reported in any single incident involving British forces in the past 12 months. Three British soldiers were injured, none seriously, and nine fighters were captured.

“It was very bloody and it was difficult to count all their dead,†said one source. “There were bodies floating in the river.â€

Details of the incident emerged as General Sir Michael Walker, chief of the defence staff, told The Sunday Times that British forces would remain in strength at least until Iraq’s elections next year.

A further 3,000 troops may also be sent to boost troop strengths around Najaf in the centre of the country, also the scene of violent clashes.

The fighting began when soldiers from the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders were ambushed in two Land Rovers on Friday afternoon, about 15 miles south of the city of Amara.

They escaped, only to be ambushed a second time by a larger group armed with machineguns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars. Reinforcements were summoned from the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment at a base nearby.

“There was some pretty fierce hand-to-hand fighting with bayonets fixed,†the source said. “There were some classic assaults on mortar positions held by the al-Sadr forces.â€

Major Ian Clooney, the official spokesman, confirmed that the Mehdi army “took a pretty heavy knocking†but declined to specify the tactics. “This was certainly an intense engagement,†he said.

Since their arrival in Amara just under a month ago, the Princess of Wales’s regiment had been engaged in a tough struggle with the Mehdi army, which has been launching mortar attacks at night on the British and the coalition civilian headquarters in the city.

Although armed with rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), the militia has found it hard to cope with Britain’s heavily armoured Warriors, one of which is reputed to have been struck by seven different RPGs and still managed to continue safely to base.

Walker said that “sufficient superiority†of British forces would be required to deal with unrest in the run-up to 2005 elections.

“There are some incursions that will occur, particularly up to June 30, and during the period up to elections next year,†he said. “We will need to have sufficient superiority of force to be able to deal with civil unrest and terrorism.

“We are in discussions with the Americans about putting more people out. If one suddenly had a major reconstruction problem we would need more troops to be able to support that without removing people from their role.â€

Among the 3,000 troops under consideration to boost forces around Najaf is 3 Commando Brigade of the Royal Marines.

Tony Blair will come under pressure from some Labour MPs and the Liberal Democrats to hold a Commons vote before the troops are sent.

Blair is likely to dismiss Labour calls as being from what he will portray as the left of the party. But if the calls gain momentum and key figures such as the former foreign secretary Robin Cook speak out, he may have his hand forced.

Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, said: “Before any further British troops are sent, the government should consult with and listen to parliament about the role they are to undertake.â€

However, Walker said the plan was gradually to reduce the 12,000 British troop presence in the southeast region of Basra and Amara as soon as local security forces gained control of the area.

“The main task is to continue to ensure that we prepare Iraq for the Iraqi people to be able to take sovereignty on June 30,†he said.

“The intention is to draw back the coalition face of the security activities in the southeast so it becomes increasingly Iraqi. When it gets to a stage where they can do it on their own we will reduce our numbers.â€

British troops in southeast Iraq are already significantly outnumbered by local Iraqi police and the 5,100-strong Iraqi civil defence corps.

Walker said that British troops would stay in Iraq as long as they were needed. “It is very difficult to say how long we will have to stay but we are committed to stay until we are no longer needed.â€

Article Link

o and to quote a truthful unbiast source.....

Al Jazeerah

Quote[/b] ]Reuters reported today (read below) that Aides to the Shi'i cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in Najaf accused British Troops in Amara of murdering prisoners from Sadr's Mehdi Army and mutilating their bodies, yesterday. Members of the Mehdi Army in Najaf buried 22 comrades, who they said died as a result of a battle with the British near the southern town of Amara Friday.

Al-Manar TV reported on May 15, 2004 that British troops captured 22 members of the Mahdi Army during a battle in Amara. Later in the day, they were brought to the hospital dead but with clear signs of torture and mutilation in their bodies. The eyewitness, Adel Al-Maliki, said some of them had poked eyes. Others had their hands cut off but most with signs of torture on their bodies.

Reuters reported yesterday (May 15, 2004) that a "British military spokesman said two British soldiers were wounded when their convoy came under attack and a second patrol racing to the rescue was ambushed by Iraqi fighters. " "About 20 were killed and 13 captured," he said. This gives evidence that British troops captured at least 13 Iraqi fighters, which supports the above story that the mutilation and torture signs happened to prisoners before killing them.

Residents said there was widespread anger at the British in Amara. British officers said they killed about 20 fighters on Friday when British occupation soldiers fought off a series of ambushes. A British defense ministry spokesman dismissed the accusations of maltreatment.

British newspapers quoted an unidentified military source as saying men from a Highland regiment fixed bayonets to charge Mehdi Army mortar positions in "fierce hand-to-hand fighting."

Article Link

[MLF 0]

Image

Quote[/b] ]British soldiers examine the spot where a mortar shell landed on a house near a British military base in Basra, southern Iraq, Sunday May 16, 2004. The attack killed four Iraqi civilians, including 2-year-old female twins, witnesses said. Another four people were injured. All of the victims were from the same family. (AP Photo/Nabil Al-Jurani)

sorry its from AP and not the holy fair unbiased Al Jazeera.

Okay, but...

Quote[/b] ] Headquarters

50 Rockefeller Plaza

New York, N.Y. 10020

Main Number

+1-212-621-1500

   

sorry, im very tired and don't get it.

[bn880 5]

Ok thanks, and 20-22 is more believable, not 100. PS, Al-Jazeera is not unbiased!, the point is they tend to bias towards the Arab point of view, and if they report 20 insurgents killed in hand to hand combat then at least something must have gone down, I find I have difficulty explaining some common sense things to you, first it was the "why anti war people can be happy when things go wrong" thing, and now this "unbiased Al Jazeera" crap.

EDIT: and now, why a firm with HQ in New York can't by consitedered a 100% reliable source when claiming coalition success. hehhe come on!

[MLF 0]

Ok thanks, and 20-22 is more believable, not 100.  PS, Al-Jazeera is not unbiased!, the point is they tend to bias towards the Arab point of view, and if they report 20 insurgents killed in hand to hand combat then at least something must have gone down, I find I have difficulty explaining some common sense things to you, first it was the "why anti war people can be happy when things go wrong" thing, and now this "unbiased Al Jazeera" crap.

EDIT: and now, why a firm with HQ in New York can't by consitedered a 100% reliable source when claiming coalition success.  hehhe  come on!  

They (AJ) scew the facts, those people where not tortured, they where most probally gunned down or bayoneted, but they report it as being tortured, they only report it as torture because of what the US troops have done.

i never said Al jazeera was unbiased for the opposite actually i reqard them as the Sun of the Arab world or the Fox equivalent, but they seem to sensationalise baby killings and blame it on any non arab country without investigating it further, also the thats the HQ of AP but IIRC there fairly international when it comes to reporters, also IIRC UN hq is in NY are they not to be trusted?

ps i was being sarcastic about al jazeera, because of quicksand he thinks there holyier than tho.

[denoir 0]

Yes "Stick it to em" was a comment to my countries Armed forces, it was a comment related to the fact they had to fix bayonets to attack morter positions instead of calling down an arty strike on a densly populated civilian area

I agree with you on this one. Killing is bad and so on, but this is a military conflict. The people manning the mortar positions weren't shelling the British troops with candy and flowers. From a military point of view, hand to hand combat with bayonets is one of the most dangerous, difficult things to do as you fight on equal terms. And 20+ to 0 casualties is an impressive result reflecting upon the superior training and fitness of the British troops. They could have also easily called in air strikes or artillery with the risk of killing innocents as well. They did not do that.

The only thing that you could perhaps comment on is the fact that the Al-Sadr people are a bunch of happy amateurs and that the British superiority is not surprising. Overall the Shia insurgents have showed themselves much less competent than their Sunni equivalents. It probably has to do something with the fact that the Sunnis have ex-Saddam military officers in their organization who have extensive military experience and training.

[bn880 5]

UN? UN is a different matter, for the most part they can't agree on anyhting because of Veto powers, an no, if you are on the recieving end of some Israeli or US weaponry, you can't trust the UN to help you at all... just some condemnation, if it doesn't get Vetoed.

EDIT: On the rest of your post, I view AL Jazeera (now) about the same as mainstream US news sources, jsut pointed the other direction in how they interpret the news. CNN is in there...

[denoir 0]

Bit of speculation from myself, but have resistance forces been using standard artillery rounds for road side bombs previously? Possibly the gas filled shell was not recognised for what is was. You need to fire the shell in order for significant amounts of gas to be produced, not just blow it up.

BBC seems to be reporting the same thing.

Quote[/b] ]However, a senior coalition source has told the BBC the round does not signal the discovery of weapons of mass destruction or the escalation of insurgent activity.

He said the round dated back to the Iran-Iraq war and coalition officials were not sure whether the fighters even knew what it contained.

And it is still not determined that it was sarin. This was the first guess they made in the field. Remeber the sarin that the Danish troops claimed to have found?

[bn880 5]

EDIT: On the rest of your post, I view AL Jazeera (now) about the same as mainstream US news sources, jsut pointed the other direction in how they interpret the news. CNN is in there...

I forgot to mention that I repsect Al Jazeerah for taking severe risks to get their story. We all know reporters die in the field, but the means by which Al Jazeerah reporters got killed are epsecially frightening. Despite everyones best efforts they get pounded.

... for the most part I think reporters are true heroes in wars, risking their lives to get the real events out to us... shame the stories don't always reach the 10,000Km intact.

[ralphwiggum 6]

... for the most part I think reporters are true heroes in wars, risking their lives to get the real events out to us...

nnoble, yes, but not heroic. they get paid to go into the place and send stories. they know the risk.