British Soldiers Fleeing Tank

4.9 EF Futura · 21-09-2005, 04:14 PM

Not sure if anyone saw this on the news last night.

But i felt sick to my stomach wathcing the soldeirs flee the tank, each of them engulfed in flames.

Thoughts go out to all armed forces in Iraq and everyone who signed up to defend their country.

NC 5ltr · 21-09-2005, 04:22 PM

yeah saw that in the paper,apparently they were getting stoned as well(rocks thrown at them)

merlin · 21-09-2005, 04:34 PM

Yeah saw it on the news - not only were they engulfed in flames but then pelted with rocks when they got out.

I would have thought a tank could not be taken down by some civilians weilding nothing more than molitov tails - guess i was wrong.

Feathers · 21-09-2005, 05:01 PM

I saw that in the paper while having lunch. I actually didn't notice there was a person in the fireball, until it was pointed out to me.

**Falcon Coupe** · 21-09-2005, 05:16 PM

I can't say what i think of the situation, it would breach the terms and conditions of this site.

Valknutr · 21-09-2005, 05:40 PM

about this, that guy in the photo (i think it was him) when he finally got off the tank took off his jacket and squared up against the iraqis and held them off til reinforcements arrived!! Seems he just happened to be a boxing champ in the army.... No bull

Mike Gayner · 21-09-2005, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

I can't say what i think of the situation, it would breach the terms and conditions of this site.

Ditto.

Blue Oval Mopar Man · 21-09-2005, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

I can't say what i think of the situation, it would breach the terms and conditions of this site.

I think the tanks should be fitted with flame throwers. Fight fire with fire I think !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Walkinshaw · 21-09-2005, 08:40 PM

wierd, that tanks 20mm cannon and 115mmcannon must be fake.

Bossxr8 · 21-09-2005, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merlin

Yeah saw it on the news - not only were they engulfed in flames but then pelted with rocks when they got out.

I would have thought a tank could not be taken down by some civilians weilding nothing more than molitov tails - guess i was wrong.

Apparently it got so hot inside the tank they had to bail out. The aircon musn't have been working.

NC 5ltr · 21-09-2005, 09:26 PM

i think most of the time they drive around with the hatchet open with a bloke sitting out of it. thats why i think they got burnt

Falcon Freak · 21-09-2005, 10:31 PM

If the British soilders were not in Iraq then they wouldn't have found themselves in such a situation.

FF

Shonky · 21-09-2005, 10:37 PM

And if the terrorists weren't in Iraq, the British Soldiers would have been there...

I will bite my tongue at that so I don't get banned.

22-09-2005, 12:10 AM

last i checked most of the terrorists got into iraq after it was attacked...

Falcon Freak · 22-09-2005, 07:16 AM

FF

Shonky · 22-09-2005, 08:20 AM

Regardless, they're still there and we should blow the F*** outa them! Or were you talking about the Pommy Soldiers? lol!

I am aware that the war in Iraq wasn't really anti-terrorism moivated...

Anyhoo... It's all a matter of opinion, and I still wouldn't want to be anywhere near the place let alone being burnt to death in a tank...

4.9 EF Futura · 22-09-2005, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falcon Freak

If the British soilders were not in Iraq then they wouldn't have found themselves in such a situation.

FF

Surely your beef rests with the Blair Government...

Those men were simply following orders, doing their job. They should be respected for doing so. Im sure your moral opinion gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling inside but I doubt it does very little for soldeirs under a rain of fire.

DivHunter · 22-09-2005, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EL_Advanti

last i checked most of the terrorists got into iraq after it was attacked...

Funny I thought gassing your own people, attacking other countries for no good reason etc kind of made you a terrorist and or genocidal maniac. But I'm sure you thought Saddam and his govt. were completely legal, democratic and benevolent

:

They are there to try and stop the fighting with superior force, only problem I see is they don't run people over or shoot them just because they fire-bombed them. Show some bloody respect, they could have just mowed the lot of them down and rolled on out. And you know what? No one would have really cared. Instead they risked their lives so those mongrels could live.

Your tax pays soldiers salary and the bullets they use to kill people. Don't like it? Bugger off somewhere else.

MYV8 · 22-09-2005, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fairmont99

Funny I thought gassing your own people, attacking other countries for no good reason etc kind of made you a terrorist and or genocidal maniac. But I'm sure you thought Saddam and his govt. were completely legal, democratic and benevolent

:

They are there to try and stop the fighting with superior force, only problem I see is they don't run people over or shoot them just because they fire-bombed them. Show some bloody respect, they could have just mowed the lot of them down and rolled on out. And you know what? No one would have really cared. Instead they risked their lives so those mongrels could live.

Your tax pays soldiers salary and the bullets they use to kill people. Don't like it? Bugger off somewhere else.

I agree, right down to the last full-stop.

Shonky · 22-09-2005, 01:03 PM

Cheers guys, I was starting to think I was alone on this one...

It is true though. They could have flattened them so easily. I didn't really think about why they didn't..

Des · 22-09-2005, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fairmont99

Funny I thought gassing your own people, attacking other countries for no good reason etc kind of made you a terrorist and or genocidal maniac. But I'm sure you thought Saddam and his govt. were completely legal, democratic and benevolent

:

They are there to try and stop the fighting with superior force, only problem I see is they don't run people over or shoot them just because they fire-bombed them. Show some bloody respect, they could have just mowed the lot of them down and rolled on out. And you know what? No one would have really cared. Instead they risked their lives so those mongrels could live.

Your tax pays soldiers salary and the bullets they use to kill people. Don't like it? Bugger off somewhere else.

What he said x 2....

tbearz · 22-09-2005, 02:58 PM

If saddam was there, there would be no fighting, kofi would still be getting his kickbacks for food for oil program, the price of petrol wouldnt be near $80 more like $35 and those blokes wouldnt have been fire bombed cos they would be at home at their barracks. And think about it for one minute, why did they get fire bombed, cos iraq is worse off now than it was pre march 2003. Please even the us senator who did the whole freedom fries thing see's that the whole going into iraq thing was wrong. And those soldiers know that they are getting into to when they signed up to go to iraq as part of the army. I am not saying what happened is good, far from it. But you have to look at it objectively not narrow minded and in a particular view.

/rant

gozza · 22-09-2005, 03:11 PM

none of these people join the damn army just to oil a weapon and shine boots
i for one get sick of people(not reffering to anyone here) saying how howards an idiot for doin this and that with our troops...its what there paid to do...no one makes them join

DivHunter · 22-09-2005, 03:12 PM

There was plenty of fighting while Saddam was around as well as brutal oppression of minority groups. You can't pick and chose which parts of Saddam's reign you want to focus on. Petrol prices would still soar (we don't control the weather). This transition period is violent and Iraq isn't exactly a great place to be right now (was it ever?) but saying it's because the soldiers are there is like saying it was the people inside the twin towers that caused the terrorists to crash into them. They are currently a crappy, petty, violent society but we are trying to change that. Where people are ready and willing to kill for the sake of it you have to be ready and willing to defend yourself and those that can't.

DivHunter · 22-09-2005, 03:25 PM

Then there's always the 'bugger it' option, lets just give in to the hippies show them what their reasoning would get them (you can't say leave Saddam there, apathy is not an option and throwing money and aid into the pits that these kind of leaders create doesn't work). Pull every last troop out, massive power vacuum, whoever arrives with the most guns wins, sounds like that would create a society you would want to live in doesn't it?

Through history armies of civilised nations have been stopped from 'finishing the job' and this has in turn caused more wars fighting the same enemies and ideals over and over. You need to hit the aggressor so hard they don't get back up (in a military sense) ever. The world just doesn't have the stomach for what is required anymore and they reap the rewards of half arsed efforts.