'Significant force' of SAS troops on ground in Iraq - Polidicks

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2732785/SAS-high-tech-hunt-killers-James-Foley-Significant-force-UK-elite-troops-ground-Iraq.html[/url] [QUOTE]British Special Forces hunting the killer of James Foley are using an array of sophisticated equipment to track him down – and possibly free other hostages being held.The Mail on Sunday has been given a detailed account of how elite troops from the SAS and the Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR) are conducting high-tech operations inside Syria and Iraq, which could lead to the capture of the extremists within days. It is understood the true identity of Jihadi John has not yet been established and that the precise location where Mr Foley was executed – as seen in a video which shocked the world – remains unknown. However, according to sources, the SAS and SRR are closing in on their targets.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/08/23/1408827023714_wps_14_ISI_GRAPHIC.jpg[/IMG]

A category 5 shitticane is about to hit Iraq, and it's gonna smell.

Kill some of some of the Australians over there who joined IS while you're at it, we don't ever want them back in our Country

[IMG]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/08/23/1408827023714_wps_14_ISI_GRAPHIC.jpg[/IMG] way to go guys now THEY know

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;45781716]Kill some of some of the Australians over there who joined IS while you're at it, we don't ever want them back in our Country[/QUOTE] And the Canadians who've done the same too please.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;45781970]way to go guys now THEY know[/QUOTE] They're not allowed to screen-watch, that's cheating.

I thought I detected a british accent on the guy who killed Foley. So the british are there to clean up whatever UK citizens decided went over there to fight?

[QUOTE]Jihadi John[/QUOTE] Lol i really like how they refer to his killer [editline]23rd August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=proboardslol;45781983]I thought I detected a british accent on the guy who killed Foley. So the british are there to clean up whatever UK citizens decided went over there to fight?[/QUOTE] Probably learned english in a British college or something. My Russian teacher said that because a lot of times Russians learn english through British teachers or schools, they have a sort of english accent sometimes.

Why does the infographic look like it's from the mid nineties?

[QUOTE=Svinnik;45782037]Why does the infographic look like it's from the mid nineties?[/QUOTE] Dailymail is stuck in the past so that could explain it

Haha I don't trust a damn word about the SAS from the Mail. They seem to be the only paper that knows 1) Lots of their operations, 2) Inside SAS sources, and 3) seemingly 'up to the minute' details from top class commanders. I think they live in a bit of a fantasy, so take it all with salt.

Seems pretty strange that British forces would be sent in response to the death of an American journalist.

There's just something so ridiculous about having infographics of a nation's special forces tactics to fight an enemy so easily shared around

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;45782144]Seems pretty strange that British forces would be sent in response to the death of an American journalist.[/QUOTE] Guy who killed him was a Brit.

[QUOTE=abananapeel;45781997]Probably learned english in a British college or something. My Russian teacher said that because a lot of times Russians learn english through British teachers or schools, they have a sort of english accent sometimes.[/QUOTE] Doubt that, it sounded like a normal British black person

any other source than daily mail or a tabloid?

[QUOTE=Taepodong-2;45781974]And the Canadians who've done the same too please.[/QUOTE] Holy shit, what? No way, bring them back and I'll strangle them myself.

I get the feeling that releasing this information to mass media is part of the operation to flush them out

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;45782189]Doubt that, it sounded like a normal British black person[/QUOTE] I'm a bit bemused by 'normal british black person', aside from being a bit of a shitty statement, he pretty much just sounded like a Londoner. [QUOTE=luverofJ!93;45782158]There's just something so ridiculous about having infographics of a nation's special forces tactics to fight an enemy so easily shared around[/QUOTE] What can they do with that information though? Shoot our intelligence planes down, or maybe not get captured? The only way I can see that they'd avoid being caught, knowing this information, is to stop fighting.

Get a group of Ghurkas to fight ISIS. War is over in half a year.

[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;45783643]Get a group of Ghurkas to fight ISIS. War is over in half a year.[/QUOTE] A group? Send them all in., really fuck them up.

[QUOTE=RayvenQ;45783823]A group? Send them all in., really fuck them up.[/QUOTE] Hey now! We all hate ISIS here, but we gotta keep our humanity even in situations like this!

This seems like some of the least shocking news ever, "Hey guys guess what, there's special forces operating in a middle eastern country"

2 A, 3 B

I'm wondering why they're making these claims now. I would have thought this comes under Opsec. I'd put this down to misinformation, whether it's deliberate or bad press sources. You [i]do not[/i] hear about SF operations until they're history, especially not in Britain. This is irresponsible reporting either way. I guess it's only personnel on base that get informed about Opsec these days; I try to avoid reporting any activities on station to anyone regardless of how mundane they seem, but the press doesn't give a fuck about reporting on 'SAS activities'. Edit: Also, I didn't think those RC-135s were in active service yet. Last I heard, the RAF grounded them almost as soon as the first arrived because of some issue or other. Certainly they'd still be lacking trained crews and operators.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;45781983]I thought I detected a british accent on the guy who killed Foley. So the british are there to clean up whatever UK citizens decided went over there to fight?[/QUOTE] lol no, they're probably there as an ally to the US. [QUOTE=abananapeel;45781997]Lol i really like how they refer to his killer [editline]23rd August 2014[/editline] Probably learned english in a British college or something. My Russian teacher said that because a lot of times Russians learn english through British teachers or schools, they have a sort of english accent sometimes.[/QUOTE] The UK (or maybe France) is the country with the most jihad tourists. In all likelihood he was British. [editline]24th August 2014[/editline] oh look, they actually have a suspect: [url]http://www.haaretz.com/1.612137[/url]

[QUOTE=Jon27;45784688]I'm wondering why they're making these claims now. I would have thought this comes under Opsec. I'd put this down to misinformation, whether it's deliberate or bad press sources. You [i]do not[/i] hear about SF operations until they're history, especially not in Britain. This is irresponsible reporting either way. I guess it's only personnel on base that get informed about Opsec these days; I try to avoid reporting any activities on station to anyone regardless of how mundane they seem, but the press doesn't give a fuck about reporting on 'SAS activities'. Edit: Also, I didn't think those RC-135s were in active service yet. Last I heard, the RAF grounded them almost as soon as the first arrived because of some issue or other. Certainly they'd still be lacking trained crews and operators.[/QUOTE] How is this Operational Information? It's a VERY broad overview of what they'd do to catch the british nationals fighting there - there's no locations, times, equipment details, anything. There's not even any implication of doing anything other than questioning suspects. The only things it tells you, ie. 1. NATO signal intelligence planes are flying overhead, 2. They're using drones, 3. They're taking pictures of the people they find, in an attempt to track them - I doubt they surprise anyone. The only operationally relevant thing I gather from this is that there actually are SAS currently on the ground, somewhere in Iraq - but since they're embedded with existing troops, that's not so useful. And this is not so unusual, we knew there were SF operating in Libya and Afghanistan, while that was going on. And regarding the RC-135s, [URL="http://theaviationist.com/2014/05/28/rivert-joint-first-raf-flight/"]this[/URL] suggests that they've been flown since May, and [URL="http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/raf-personnel-start-rivet-joint-training-351887/"]I'm pretty sure they do initial training[/URL] before having a new plane delivered. I know with the F-35, they've got quite a few pilots in America learning to fly that, so that they can eventually train other pilots here.

Yeah, I see what you mean, it's not particularly useful to anyone. But even considering that, what exactly is the point of this article? Informing people on the British strategy in Iraq, while that strategy is being used? This shit would not have been acceptable during the Second World War, and that was pre-internet. If the Daily Express had, for example, reported 'SOE operatives currently being deployed in the Netherlands with support from RAF Mosquitoes', they wouldn't have got to press. What changed, apart from the magnitude of the conflict? I dunno, it just bothers me that we feel the need to inform the masses about how we're fighting our wars. And yeah, now you say that, it makes sense. The Rivet Joint has been in use in the USAF for a long time so they probably already had experience flying with them. My bad.

When you say: [QUOTE]It just bothers me that we feel the need to inform the masses about how we're fighting our wars.[/QUOTE] I assume you don't mean generally, like journalism, and keeping the armed forces accountable to the population and all that? I think it is pretty much just the difference in the conflict, in WW2 it seemed clear to all that war was necessary, we needed to fight the Nazis for our survival. Nowadays, when it's special forces and drone strikes half-way across the globe against unconvential forces, I'd guess it's about drumming up support for that fighting, or just informing us what our armed forces are doing. Interesting infographics and stuff appeal to that.

[QUOTE=Limed00d;45784188]2 A, 3 B[/QUOTE] no no no you got it all wrong it's 2 A, 1 mid, 2 B :v: