A burning question

[Pathy 0]

Hmmm found it on the BBC site

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1....tm

Its one of those. But i think they'd say if they were killed by gunfire. Doesnt say anywhere British troops opened fire. No offence but i think you're reading too much into that one line at this moment in time.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

No offence but i think you're reading too much into that one line at this moment in time.

You beat me to it.

[Major Gripe 0]

The military are saying they asked for over 2 hours for their release but it was refused. And when they stormed the prison they found out the soldiers had been handed over to militia in a nearby house! So good job they were suspicious otherwise there may have been more beheadings!

The interior minister of Iraq had ordered that the soldiers be handed over but this was apparently ignored. The British military in Basra had worked virtually all day to secure the soldiers peaceful release but when it was rumoured that the soldiers had been handed to a one of the militias which control the city (one of which includes that friendly bunch led by Moqtadr al Sadr! ), the brigadier in charge decided to intervene.

Interestingly if these two SAS troopers were on a recon mission as their actions and equipment suggest, I would have thought that they would have had a discreet back-up force in close proximity if things did get hairy, I wonder what happened?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]No offence but i think you're reading too much into that one line at this moment in time.

Who knows. I haven´t been there. But maybe it wasn´t a good idea not to stop at a checkpoint and then kill one policeman and injure another one badly ?

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Who knows. I haven´t been there. But maybe it wasn´t a good idea not to stop at a checkpoint and then kill one policeman and injure another one badly ?  

Quote[/b] ]According to the Iraqi authorities they refused to stop, instead allegedly firing at the officers, killing one and wounding another. This has not been confirmed by the Ministry of Defence.

When someone else other than Iraqi authorities confirm what happened i'll believe it. Given the track record of the Iraqi governments past or present for telling the unspun truth i dont think its an unreasonable stance.

Following on from the 'assumption' that they opened fire on the checkpoint - I'm very curious how the British Troops were taken captive. Knowing the policy of the MoD I cant believe that thier RoE would allow them to open up on a checkpoint unless threatened. Add to that the 'investigations' into militant infiltrators into the Iraqi Police, it does bring up some interesting questions and possibilites about what exactly happened at the checkpoint?

But until we get an official line from the MoD we wont know. But even then i'm sure you will belive what you believe.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]But even then i'm sure you will belive what you believe.

Just like you do without knowing anything ?

Talking about truth... I guess the current government in Iraq has a bleach white vest compared to the UK vests, don´t you agree ?

Or is memory such a short living thing ?

Apart from that, who are you to tell me what to think ?

Quote[/b] ]Who knows. I haven´t been there.

Can´t you read ?

[Scrub 0]

Here we go again...

Lotsa nasty, underhanded stuff going on in Iraq, it's an ugly situation and needs to be sorted. Opinions vary....

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Quote[/b] ]But even then i'm sure you will belive what you believe.

Just like you do without knowing anything ?

I’m basing my assumption of past experience as a former soldier who served in Iraq in the first gulf war and as a civilian contractor to the MoD who has actually been to Iraq 4 times in the last 2 years (admittedly only for about a week or two each time) and finally as someone who has friends serving out there, who have been kind enough to tell me some of the things that have gone on. The frustrating RoE they have to operate under and how hard they are trying to make a better situation out of the mess politicians got them into.

Any actual member of the UK’s armed forces will tell you how ridiculous the RoE can be, but they will also tell you that in a situation like the one in Basra last week; that the last thing they would do would be to open up on a crowd or rioting civilians. The British Army isn’t populated by homicidal maniacs no matter what several national news services & anti war websites will say.

In that article you referred to, nowhere did it say British troops killed the civilians. Only that “A number of civilians were reported killed and injured in the demonstrationsâ€. I’ve not seen any other news feeds from any countries news services that claims they did yet you implied it. You have the right to believe what ever you want. I’m not trying to force you to believe anything but you shouldn’t imply or suggest things that aren’t true without expecting someone else to challenge you on your facts. All I asked for was your facts.

But considering all the politics inside Iraq, the different factions all trying to undermine each other as well as the current government isn’t it possible that things aren’t so black and white. Since I doubt we’ll ever get the “100% god’s honest truth†we’ll probably never know for sure.

Talking about truth... I guess the current government in Iraq has a bleach white vest compared to the UK vests, don´t you agree ?

Or is memory such a short living thing ?

Apart from that, who are you to tell me what to think ?

Oh no, im not suggesting that the British government is any more or less honest than either the Iraqi, French, American or German governments. But the Iraqi’s have been publicly caught lying or at least confusing the issue a bit more often. From my own personal experience disinformation and rumour is a way of life in Iraq, it doesn’t matter what race or nationality you are.

Quote[/b] ]Who knows. I haven´t been there.

I’m not trying to stir up any arguments, nationalistic or otherwise, but as pathy suggested you are perhaps reading more into this than the current known facts suggest. The media isn’t the best choice for reliable information at the end of the day, its only one opinion of events at the time. Give it a week or so and more facts should be known. Then there might be basis for accusations.

[Balschoiw 0]

Especially when you have own experience you should know that no situation is comparable to another one. That´s what I´ve been learning over the years. There are so much factors that do contribute to a situation that they never follow a unified line. That is what I learned. While you can go safe through one, the next day with a comparable situation can turn out totally different. That´s what I learned. The ROE´s in any scenario are a set of rules, printed on a nifty laminated card for your trousers pocket. For sure they do have relevance, but I seriously haven´t seen anyone pulling it out during a situation of life-threat and checking if the intended reaction to the situation was conform with the ROE´s. If you have experience in the fields you should know that ROE´s are followed up to some point. When the shit hits the fan noone really follows the ROE´s literally. ROE´s are something for politicians and the TV audience at home, in the fields ROE´s are interpreted much more flexible by the guys fearing for their own lives. ROE´s are no military drill that goes into your bones. If I wake you up in the middle of the night pointing a gun at your head and ask you to tell me your ROE´s, I doubt that you will be able to tell me the content, other than "Don´t shoot until shot upon".

There are already newsfeeds now that do go into the situation more indepth. And no, I´m noone who believes in official statements from any side of the parties who were involved in a situation. The situation in Iraq and at the home-front is just too crucial right now. Noone would risk either the drop of support at home or the build of widespread anti-occupation sentiments in the country concerned. That´s the approach.

I don´t want to compare the Brits to the US forces in Iraq. But both have their history and both have a record on such things. It´s natural, it´s a warzone, but don´t expect that they will serve the truth on a plate. They have not done it throughout the ongoing conflict and they won´t do it most likely for the reasons mentioned above.

Quote[/b] ]But the Iraqi’s have been publicly caught lying or at least confusing the issue a bit more often.

Examples ?

Quote[/b] ] The media isn’t the best choice for reliable information at the end of the day

I disagree. The only unpolished info from Iraq we got over the last years was from the media. The official statements were polished and twisted to death and in the long-run we learned that a filtered amount of media input was just what really happened there. Official outputs were often ridiculous and still are.

It´s like saying that "investigations" would bring more light into a large amount of issues in Iraq. I guess the word "investigation" is the most abused word just to keep people calm and give them the illusion that things that went wrong would be seriously investigated. How mayn of those are running ? Must be thousands. Does anyone expect that those investigations are handled on a public level ? No. Have we seen that those investigations have really lead to either a change or that the results were published ? No. Are those investigations really taking place ? Who knows.

Just to add some more :

Iraqis in Basra Slam 'British Aggression'

I´m not saying this and that, I´m just trying to keep pace with the international news-feeds. If BBC has a picture of the incident and puts a sentence below the picture that indicates that a number of civillians were either killed or injured I take this info, put it into the picture and draw my conclusions. Don´t tell me that you don´t do that. Official statements do not mean much to me. Especially when those statements are done right after the situation happened. Yes, I also learned that throughout the years.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote[/b] ]the last thing they would do would be to open up on a crowd or rioting civilians

To be honest, I probably would! Hitting one or two would have made the crowd back up!  However I ask myself the question why wasnt option 2 used, escape? What was wrong with the driver? He tries to get out of the crowd driving backward but somehow fails.

This is why I love the old Luchs (thanks Bals) tank. It cannot get stuck in narrow roads or crowds because it has a front driver and a back driver, Even if the fuchs was never constructed for such a scenario I believe it would have gotten out of this trap. Personally, I would have raced through the crowd.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Since we’ve strayed away from the debate whether or not you are reading too much into a news article, I’ll follow you a little way down this route.

Especially when you have own experience you should know that no situation is comparable to another one. That´s what I´ve been learning over the years. There are so much factors that do contribute to a situation that they never follow a unified line. That is what I learned. While you can go safe through one, the next day with a comparable situation can turn out totally different. That´s what I learned. The ROE´s in any scenario are a set of rules, printed on a nifty laminated card for your trousers pocket. For sure they do have relevance, but I seriously haven´t seen anyone pulling it out during a situation of life-threat and checking if the intended reaction to the situation was conform with the ROE´s. If you have experience in the fields you should know that ROE´s are followed up to some point. When the shit hits the fan noone really follows the ROE´s literally. ROE´s are something for politicians and the TV audience at home, in the fields ROE´s are interpreted much more flexible by the guys fearing for their own lives. ROE´s are no military drill that goes into your bones. If I wake you up in the middle of the night pointing a gun at your head and ask you to tell me your ROE´s, I doubt that you will be able to tell me the content, other than "Don´t shoot until shot upon".

OK, agreed.  The  1st practical rule of anything plan/rule concept in warfare – after the first 2 seconds any plan is useless.  But if you think that your ROEs are open to interpretation then, if you survive you will have to face the consequences. Some situations allow you to be flexible, but peacekeeping with a large civilian populace and demonstrators allows no interpretation of the ROE.  They must be followed.  For the sake of politics if you want.   But more likely for the preservation of human life.

Every member of the UK’s armed forces is trained to understand the consequences of not following the ROE.  Northern Island over the last 25-30 years has made the British forces very aware of its responsibility in those situations.  I think it’s very easy to make assumptions and point fingers with little knowledge of the reality. The use of the ROE is pretty self evident considering the actions of both sets of British troops.  

The events and evidence that we have seem to suggest that the 2 marines returned fire in self defence and then gave up when they were unlikely to get away to prevent any further problems (a lot of assumptions I know but more likely than them opening fire on the checkpoint).

The same goes for the Warrior crew, when the situation escalated and their vehicle was disabled rather than open fire on the crowd they chose to follow the ROE and get to safety subjecting themselves to a hail of rocks and beatings rather than risk civilian casualties.

If any professional soldier forgets his responsibility to civilians and ignores the ROE and orders then he shouldn’t be in the armed forces.  From your own description and interpretation of the application of ROE I really wouldn’t like to serve with you under fire.  A “flexible†interpretation can kill yourself and a lot more people.

There are already newsfeeds now that do go into the situation more indepth. And no, I´m noone who believes in official statements from any side of the parties who were involved in a situation. The situation in Iraq and at the home-front is just too crucial right now. Noone would risk either the drop of support at home or the build of widespread anti-occupation sentiments in the country concerned. That´s the approach.

I don´t want to compare the Brits to the US forces in Iraq. But both have their history and both have a record on such things. It´s natural, it´s a warzone, but don´t expect that they will serve the truth on a plate. They have not done it throughout the ongoing conflict and they won´t do it most likely for the reasons mentioned above.

As you said earlier no two situations are the same.  I think the record of the British forces in Iraq speaks for itself.  Walk around a British controlled area and then a US one and you will feel the difference in the atmosphere.  It’s unfortunate that this happened and it has been made worse by the fact that it was British troops that did this.  Had it been American troops (excuse me for saying this) I seriously doubt it would have got as much press coverage.  The range from normal operations to this rescue operation is more extreme in this (British) case than it would be for American operations.

Getting back to the original point – you saying that the British Warrior crew opened fire on the crowd; It seems there is increasing evidence to prove you wrong.  

Quite a few of the decent official news sites (not just the once voicing opinions and rumours) CNN, BBC, Sky etc are openly stating that troops in the Warrior did NOT open fire on the crowd.  Some have even gone so far as to suggest they should be commended for their restraint under pressure.

Do you now accept you might have been reading too much into a single line of text?

Quote[/b] ]But the Iraqi’s have been publicly caught lying or at least confusing the issue a bit more often.

Examples ?

Leaving the former Iraqi information minister aside for the moment and sticking to present issues:

Stating to the world that they had a stable government…

Kurdish land rights were promised – the government then auctioned the same land off to business men – the monies involved seem to have dramatically reduced by 80% orignailly it was US$3 million - last figure was USÅ240,000- late 2003

Fair Distribution of medical/food aid from western countries – upto 90% of the medical supplies were being redirected from distribution depots and sent back to government held depots.  The government denied it publicly; the US army investigated and found that the medical supplies were being sold off by members of some minister’s families. Early 2004

Figures of people killed a raid by US troops on a Mahdi stronghold – government claimed 150 dead in raids – claiming victory over the Mahdi – official US reports was 7.

Iraqi Government claims about restructuring and health services – they claimed to be establishing more hospitals and clinics in all areas of Iraq – a World Health Organisation report in august 04 claimed that some areas were being left out because of religious prejudice.  UN health workers reported similar situations and supporting evidence last month.

If you want more try and find the Arabic news sites for Iraq then look at the UN, WHO and other international agencies publications and reports including the Red cross and Amnesty International there are several interesting stories.  Mostly about the criminal acts of torture, deprivation and prejudice conducted by the current Iraqi government while they condemn British and American troops for doing less.

I´m not saying this and that, I´m just trying to keep pace with the international news-feeds. If BBC has a picture of the incident and puts a sentence below the picture that indicates that a number of civillians were either killed or injured I take this info, put it into the picture and draw my conclusions.

IE you read what you want into it base don your own preconception of events.

Don´t tell me that you don´t do that.

I try very hard not to because experience has taught me that you often draw the wrong conclusions because you don’t have all the facts and may not consider other factors.

My approach has always been to deal with the information I have and not to assume too much.  My opinions change depending on how much info I have but I at least try to be open minded, question the information I have and find the truth.  I don’t blindly accept opinions as facts.

Official statements do not mean much to me. Especially when those statements are done right after the situation happened. Yes, I also learned that throughout the years.

Official statements are only 1 side of the story.  Like any balance opinion or argument; you need to take both sides stories, any relevant information and decide for yourself what the truth is most likely to be.  But simply stating your opinion as fact isn’t enough.

[Balschoiw 0]

Albert, the picture shows a Luchs, not a Fuchs

Quote[/b] ]Getting back to the original point – you saying that the British Warrior crew opened fire on the crowd

I never said that. You can write it in bold letters up to the sky but I didn´t say it. You might want to recheck what I wrote.

Quote[/b] ] But if you think that your ROEs are open to interpretation then, if you survive you will have to face the consequences.

ROE´s are useless when you can´t decide between civillians and attackers. This is the everyday situation anywhere on this planet. I have worked under ROE´s and know how they are handled.

Quote[/b] ] But more likely for the preservation of human life.

In theory, yes. That´s what they are meant for. The situation itself however often does make ROE´s somehow obsolete.

Little example: Kid at road waving gun, pointing into your direction, a shot rips of the gun and goes *pling* at the tank hull near you. According to ROE´s you are free to engage.

See what I mean ? These things do happen alot. A little set of rules written on a pocket - sized card never applies to every situation. Those are no uncommon situations.

Quote[/b] ]The same goes for the Warrior crew, when the situation escalated and their vehicle was disabled rather than open fire on the crowd they chose to follow the ROE and get to safety subjecting themselves to a hail of rocks and beatings rather than risk civilian casualties.

How could they open fire when the gunner´s optics were disabled and the tank was on fire ?

This had nothing to do with ROE´s. They simply were not able to do anything but try to escape their vehicle.

You may want to read the eye-witness report:

Basra soldiers tell of fire drama

excerpt:

Quote[/b] ]He said: "The first thing I heard was the gunner saying his sights had been smashed. The second thing was a petrol bomb, coming over my hatch and the platoon sergeant shouting the petrol bomb had gone in the turret.

"It had seeped down in the back with the troops in the back, and down into the driver tunnel, located between the turret and the driving hatch."

He said he had to kick open the hatch before jumping through the flames to escape.

"As soon as I jumped off there were a good five or six people around me, telling me where to go."

ROE´s ? Not here.

Quote[/b] ] From your own description and interpretation of the application of ROE I really wouldn’t like to serve with you under fire.

Check above and think again.

Quote[/b] ]Do you now accept you might have been reading too much into a single line of text?

You´re reading to much into something I never said

Quote[/b] ]Stating to the world that they had a stable government…

As we both know the Iraqui government is very much a US controlled one. As the US say they have a stable government, what else should they say at this point ?

Quote[/b] ]IE you read what you want into it base don your own preconception of events.

Whatever.

Quote[/b] ]My approach has always been to deal with the information I have and not to assume too much.

It looks somehow different, reading your current stance and checking the info we have so far.

Quote[/b] ] I don’t blindly accept opinions as facts.

Neither do I.

Quote[/b] ]But simply stating your opinion as fact isn’t enough.

Did I do that ?

Just tell me where.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Quote[/b] ]the last thing they would do would be to open up on a crowd or rioting civilians

To be honest, I probably would! Hitting one or two would have made the crowd back up!  However I ask myself the question why wasnt option 2 used, escape? What was wrong with the driver? He tries to get out of the crowd driving backward but somehow fails.

This is why I love the old Fuchs tank. It cannot get stuck in narrow roads or crowds because it has a front driver and a back driver, Even if the fuchs was never constructed for such a scenario I believe it would have gotten out of this trap. Personally, I would have raced through the crowd.

[]http://images.google.de/url?q=http://www.panzer-modell.de/referenz/in_detail/Luchs/Luchs.jpg[/img]

Killing how many and causing a huge political stink - kinda like this one?

I dont honestly know why or how the Warrior was disabled but to mow people down or fire into the crowd wouldnt be something any one with an gram of morals would do. I know i wouldnt want to do it and im sure if you were actually in that situation you wouldnt either.

[EiZei 0]

No need to put the pedal to the metal, just go slow enough, I dont think anybody is feeling like standing in front of a 25 ton vehicle rolling towards you.

Personally I think the brits handled this well enough considering the circumstances. It's easy to think about these in retrospect but..

[Pathy 0]

You didnt say the British troops caused the casualites though, but the implication was there. Maybe you didnt mean it to read like it does.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

I'm just suprised the Brits didn't open fire

They did , but it´s not pictured on the video. An unknown number of demonstraters have been killed/wounded

On another note:

An interesting point: If they really did fire on the checkpoint, how did they end up captured, and not either a) escaped or b) shot ? Not sayng it couldnt have happened, mind....

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]This is funny, you're the one who started this little war between yourself and RKSL as far as i can see, by stating something you assumed, there is no evidence for, and cant prove, without gathering the facts first, and now you're argument is that the other party is posting without knowing anything.

No, I only wrote what was posted on the BBC webpage. I did not assume anything. It is there to read. If you have better "evidence" just let me know.

But if you just want to try to put something on me to have a better day in your teenager life, why don´t you just go away ?

Actually you don´t contribute to the discussion.

Teenagers are so funny

Quote[/b] ]An interesting point: If they really did fire on the checkpoint, how did they end up captured, and not either a) escaped or b) shot ? Not sayng it couldnt have happened, mind....

Vehicle broken

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Quote[/b] ]I'm just suprised the Brits didn't open fire

They did , but it´s not pictured on the video. An unknown number of demonstraters have been killed/wounded.

Heres where you said British troops opened fire

It seems that everything since is an attempt at distraction

[Balschoiw 0]

Oh great ! We have proof !

So what ?

How do you understand the writing below the picture on the BBC webpage ? They committed suicide ?

And they did open fire. One confirmed killed policeman and one seriously injured.

Oh, and :

Quote[/b] ]Police and witnesses said at least two Iraqis were killed in the violence.

Basra refuses to deal with Britain after raid

Tata !

And another Tata !

Quote[/b] ]At least five Iraqis were killed during Monday clashes between British forces and Iraqi police and demonstrators. British armor crashed into a jail to free the two soldiers arrested by Iraqi police and militiamen. Earlier, a crowd attacked British troops with stones and Molotov cocktails.

British Troops Reduce Presence in Basra

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Oh great ! We have proof !  

So what ?

How do you understand the writing below the picture on the BBC webpage ? They committed suicide ?

And they did open fire. One confirmed killed policeman and one seriously injured.

Man you are a real piece of work...

to quote you directly

Actually you don´t contribute to the discussion.

Teenagers are so funny        

You've posted something denied it and then tired to confuse the issue now you resort to poking fun at people now that you've been uncovered. I think this debate is over.

[Murmur2k 0]

The policeman being shot was not part of the rioting! Maybe/Probably the SAS were involved in a firefight. However, we are talking about the rioting situation with the molotov's being thrown at the vehicle. They didn't open fire in that situation, but people did die and were injured in the riot - not by british soldiers - but by themselves.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]You've posted something denied it and then tired to confuse the issue now you resort to poking fun at people now that you've been uncovered.

Aha. That´s why there are reports of people killed now.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

On another note:

An interesting point: If they really did fire on the checkpoint, how did they end up captured, and not either a) escaped or b) shot ? Not sayng it couldnt have happened, mind....

These are 2 separate events really.

The 2 Marines and the checkpoint and the Warrior.

I think the events up to the Marine's capture are getting a bit cofused by some press agencies.

But i think its probable there was a fire fight, but i doubt the marines fired first as a german news agency reported yesterday. Ive read some stuff on Military.com that people seem to think they were going around setting up bombs to blame on the militants now too. What next?

From what was said by the MoD in their Statementsand what has since been admitted by the Iraqi defence minister. It may be that they were shot at while trying to avoid being stopped, they returned fire and then surrendered. Its obvious it was a covert job but i seriously doubt we'll found out what the objective was.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

...However, we are talking about the rioting situation with the molotov's being thrown at the vehicle. They didn't open fire in that situation, but people did die and were injured in the riot - not by british soldiers - but by themselves.

Someone else made the point for me.

There were reports of people dying form burns after the riots...maybe that was your casulties.  Molotov cocktails arent precise weapons.

In your subsequent edits of your post you are posting news reports from several different incidents. Stop trying to hide your mistake. Yes people are getting killed but the incident that you originally claimed British troops killed civilians is not one of them.

[Pathy 0]

Seems people like you don't like not always being right, thats extremely sad. Whats even more sad is when they have to resort to telling other people, like RKSL, they know nothing, or posting flames at them, like with me, when they challenge what you've said.

The saddest point of all is that someone i'd have put on my "respected forum member" list is resorting to the old "age" tactic in a debate. Why don't you just tell me its past my bed time, go and squeeze my pimples ect ect, like all those other people who have run out of valid points and resort to calling the other participants (regardless of thier actual age) kids...

I'm not contributing anything? What have you contributed other than dragging this thread into an argument, handing out insults and acting like a spoilt brat. Funnily enough i'm 20 tomorrow, so yes i am technically still a teenager right now.

As RockofSL said: Discussions over.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

.... Funnily enough i'm 20 tomorrow, so yes i am technically still a teenager right now.

As RockofSL said: Discussions over.

Happy birthday for tomorrow!