Three UK Iraq servicemen killed

[Eugene]

Source: BBC News

Last Updated: Thursday, 19 July 2007, 22:48 GMT 23:48 UK

Three UK Iraq servicemen killed

Three RAF servicemen have been killed after encountering an
"indirect fire attack" in Basra, southern Iraq, according to
the Ministry of Defence.

Two of the men were from 1 Squadron RAF Regiment, while the
other served with 504 Squadron Royal Auxiliary Air Force.

Next of kin have already been informed, the spokeswoman added.

Following the latest fatalities, the total number of UK service
personnel killed during operations in Iraq now stands at 162.

-snip-

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6907641.stm

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. What is an "indirect fire attack"?

Caught in crossfire between 2 other parties? Or what?

[Eugene]

2. Reuters calls it a mortar attack.

Three British servicemen dead in Iraq mortar attack

Link: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L1980758.htm

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Mortars seem a pretty direct way of attacking, to me

:shrug:

[demoleft]

4. Basra attack kills three RAF personnel

Source: The Guardian

Three Royal Air Force personnel have been killed and several other people wounded in an attack on a military compound in the southern Iraqi city of Basra, a military spokesman said today.

Attacks on British bases in Basra occur almost every day.

The latest deaths raises to six the number of British troops killed in Iraq this month, with at least 161 killed since the invasion in March 2003.

Britain has withdrawn hundreds of troops from Iraq, leaving a force of around 5,500 based mainly on the fringes of Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, 340 miles south-east of Baghdad.




Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2130964,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

[Henny Penny]

5. According to the beeb...

"Three RAF servicemen have been killed after encountering an "indirect fire attack" in Basra, southern Iraq, according to the Ministry of Defence."

What might an "indirect fire attack" be?

[demoleft]

6. "the term usually used to refer to mortar and rocket attacks"...

...which are not fire meant to directly harm but are thrown and launched just for kicks...

The military language is often "surrealistically" pitiless, isn't it?

[Henny Penny]

7. Thanx for the explanation.

They do have a lot of ways of making horrible stuff seem quite ok.

[Captain Kronos]

9. "Indirect Fire" Attack

Actually, "Indirect Fire" isn't as "surrealistic" as it might sound.

The proper military definition of the term refers to firing at a target that one cannot see with the naked eye, using some form of artillery (howitzers, cannon, mortars, rockets, etc.). If not firing blind at a large-sized, multi-acre "area target" such as the Green Zone or this UK military base, then a "spotter" or "forward observer" (who CAN see the target) is used to communicate precise targeting information to the weapon crew positioned farther back.

Either way, in an indirect fire attack the guys who are actually firing the weapons cannot physically see what they are trying to hit.

[Massachusetts]

8. I wonder

if Toothy Tony Blair and Wrinkle Face Murdoch will ever be aware of these deaths?

Robespierre may have been correct (to a point). let the cleansing begin.