BREAKING NEWS ONLY

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2003-03-22 01:03pm

A taste of things to come, perhaps?

Has anyone noticed the lack of attacks at Bagdad tonight? Unlike yesterday..

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-22 01:55pm

As we approach Baghdad, we very well may encounter stuff resistance from Republican Guard/Special Republican Guard.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-03-22 02:15pm

USMC spokesman says Basra has been taken, along with hundreds of
prisoners

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-03-22 03:34pm

According to www.FoxNews.com, the four forward-recon soldiers casualty in the attack by rocket-propelled grenades on their Humvees were wounded and not killed.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-03-22 04:07pm

Axis Kast wrote:According to www.FoxNews.com, the four forward-recon soldiers casualty in the attack by rocket-propelled grenades on their Humvees were wounded and not killed.

They lost some limbs, though.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-03-22 04:23pm

True, though at they're still alive. And it's probable that not all of them are going to be amputees.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-22 04:57pm

CNN [NetRadio] and FNC [Website] are reporting that troops have crossed the Euphrates.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-22 05:01pm

MKSheppard wrote:Those are some brave sons of a bitches on the other side. Lets hope enough of them survive to help rebuild Iraq.

A similar thread on SB reported that the embedded reporter with the troops said "They have more than satisfied the honour of the Iraqi nation." - leading one SBer to comment "He has been around cavalrymen far too long."

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-03-22 05:46pm

Rob Wilson wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:Russian intel on why the two British helicopters crashed:
A radio intercept made last night at approximately 4:40 am indicated that two British helicopters were shot down by a "Strela" SAM system after flying into a SAM trap. It is believed that the two SAR helicopters were to retrieve the pilot of the combat plane downed during the earlier air strike. The number of dead and wounded is still being established. So far the coalition command did not report these losses. (1)

Full intel report: http://www.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article ... icleId=399
You know, that would hold some water, if they had been anywhere near the Enemy at the time. The fact that British Minesweepers were able to launch rescue efforts immediately as they were practically on top of the crash site should tell you all you need to know about the veracity of your report.

Seeing as the intercept never states were the helicopters where shot, no it doesn't. Having said that, I'm leaning towards the British version of the crash. The Russians may have intercepted "2 helicopters down" only, then had a guess what could have caused the crash.

Then again it isn't like we've never been fed a lie during a war.

Rob Wilson wrote: Also they are not SAR helicopters, the Heli's involveds were AEW varients.
Some thought shows these 'intercepts' to be nowehere near the truth.

Nowhere near the truth? Well you haven't convinced me.
So far these intercepts have been fairly good. This intel disputed first media reports that Umm Qasr was under coalition control, later vindicated when the media did a little backpeddle from "under control" to "not yet under allied control".

Analysing an intercept is error prone if you don't get the entire conversation, jump into the middle of one for an example. They may need to fill in the gaps, but the Russians have less reason to bullshit than the US and British.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-03-22 05:52pm

Iraqi raid in 101st base Camp Penn.

8 wounded, atleast 5 seriously by grenades.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-03-22 05:53pm

Ted wrote:Iraqi raid in 101st base Camp Penn.

8 wounded, atleast 5 seriously by grenades.

Seems like the sappers were trying to get the Camp Commandant.

SHIT, they did, blew up two leadership tents

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-03-22 06:00pm

Vympel wrote:
According to intelligence reports, at Umm Qasr American and British forces have sustained 10 killed and around 40 wounded soldiers and officers. Additionally, the Iraqis have destroyed up to 8 British and US armored personnel carriers.
Makes sense. After all- you expect casualties when you report a place captured and then the next day it's reported that it actually is still contested. Not a peep from the mainstream.

During the past night a fuel supply convoy of the US 3rd Infantry Division was attacked by Iraqi special forces. Up to 7 fuel trucks have been lost in the attack. Three US soldiers were killed and nine wounded. Another three US soldiers are considered MIA and are believed to have been captured by the Iraqis.
Also unreported.

The coalition commander Gen. Tommy Franks demanded from the Air Force a maximum possible increase in the close air support of the ground forces. During a "radio-bridge" with the commanders of all units Gen. Franks expressed his concern with the mounting casualties and the stubborn Iraqi resistance. "We've just spent three days trying to capture one small town, so we can only guess what awaits us in Baghdad!" - angrily said the commander and demanded better aviation support to soften up the defending Iraqi forces ahead of the advancing coalition units.

For the past day the coalition losses ar up to 30 killed and around 40 wounded. Ten coalition armored vehicles were destroyed my land mines. At least two armored vehicles were destroyed by anti-tank weapons.
Possible counter-propaganda? If so, for what purpose? Well- you decide. I sure as hell don't know what to believe.

(yes, that's right, *counter* propaganda. Because if you stick with the mainstream for your news you're not going to get jack shit information. Long live the internet.)

Yeah, fucked if I know what to believe. Everyone's got a reason to lie, damn humans. This wouldn't be a problem with monkeys you know.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-22 06:11pm

101 Airborne has by hit with a terrorist attack at one of its bases in Kuwait. At least ten men are wounded

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-03-22 06:19pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:101 Airborne has by hit with a terrorist attack at one of its bases in Kuwait. At least ten men are wounded

If it was Iraqi's who did it then it isn't a terrorist attack.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-03-22 06:21pm

Ted wrote: If it was Iraqi's who did it then it isn't a terrorist attack.

*shoots ted*

Anyone not in Iraqi uniform is a terrorist, nimrod

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-22 06:23pm

MKSheppard wrote:CNN correspondent with the 3-7 Cavalary was just on.

A company-sized element of Iraqis halted the 3-7th's movement
and so we called down an artillery strike on them to dislodge them,
but that wasn't enough, so we sent in the Apaches, and enough Iraqis
were still alive to give the AH-64Ds a tough time with anti-aircraft
weapons, so we called in a couple of A-10s...

The American Civil War showed that whenever possibul expend things like ammo rather then lives in combat. 3-7 probably could have overrun the position without losses, but there's no reason to risk it.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-03-22 06:40pm

Rob Wilson wrote:
Vympel wrote:
Mmmahhhh alright you're too reasonable for me to persist in my position
Your right to be sceptical of reports, but that goes on all reports (including Internet sources that are not answerable for the veracity of their stories ). I try to get corroboration before I post a story on the War. I haven't found any Corroboration of the 'Intercept' story.

ADDENDUM : The last thing we need is people blindly accepting stories being spoon-fed to them. If a number of agencies (with differing Political and national backgrounds/leanings) report the same incident, then there's a good chance it's real.

That doesn't generally work here as the "coalition of the short sighted" is the one and only source of information [a source which is not answerable to its veracity of their stories

]. So you have one source, but several sinks (fox, cnn, bbc etc). The sinks will all basically say the same thing in other words [this all flies out the window if a journalist can personally verify a story]. So you need to go to the Russians for some unbiased military intercepts

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-03-22 06:41pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Ted wrote: If it was Iraqi's who did it then it isn't a terrorist attack.
*shoots ted*

Anyone not in Iraqi uniform is a terrorist, nimrod

..or a freedom fighter.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-03-22 06:46pm

It was just reported on TV that the translators of our troops turned out to be the suicide bombers.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-03-22 06:56pm

MKSheppard wrote:It was just reported on TV that the translators of our troops turned out to be the suicide bombers.

Therefor infiltrators and not terrorists.

Because the US is at war with Iraq, any action by Iraqi's cannot be counted as terrorism, unless you count the American invasion as terrorism.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-22 06:59pm

Ted wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:It was just reported on TV that the translators of our troops turned out to be the suicide bombers.
Therefor infiltrators and not terrorists.

Because the US is at war with Iraq, any action by Iraqi's cannot be counted as terrorism, unless you count the American invasion as terrorism.

Nothing has yet indicated they where Iraqi moron.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-22 08:22pm

[BBC | CNN | MSNBC] US troops are within 100-mi/160-km of Baghdad.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-22 11:24pm

What is with these persistent reports that Basra has been captured? It hasn't. They haven't even stepped into there- they don't plan on it- a few thousand allied troops are being left behind to secure the rear area and they're moving on.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-03-23 12:35am

Vympel wrote:What is with these persistent reports that Basra has been captured? It hasn't. They haven't even stepped into there- they don't plan on it- a few thousand allied troops are being left behind to secure the rear area and they're moving on.

As they should.
The target is Bagdad, why settle for less with out good reason?

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-23 12:42am

A soldier from the 101st, from an Engineer unit, is suspected of attacking the officer tents at the Division's camp in northern Kuwait. Prelimenary reports are that he has an Arabic last name and is a Moslem. One soldier has now died of his wounds. The soldier who unleashed the attack was shot in the leg and is now in custody. He will undergo trial by courts martial, and will likely either be put to death or spend the rest of his life at Fort Leavenworth.