We covered up Iraqi bomb attack

#1
The Ministry of Defence covered up the fact that Iraqi insurgents destroyed a £30million RAF Hercules transport aircraft by planting bombs next to a runway.

Military spokesmen claimed publicly that the C-130J aircraft, with 64 people on board, had been accidentally damaged on landing - and that there was no evidence of enemy action.

The cover-up was an attempt to deny the Iraqis a further propaganda coup following the earlier loss of another Hercules. It is revealed in official documents seen by the Mail.

In reality, the aircraft was blasted by a string of at least five bombs buried next to the runway, the Board of Inquiry report reveals.

They exploded just before it touched down in darkness - destroying aircraft systems, injuring passengers and setting fire to the wing close to the fuel tanks.

Those on board had a lucky escape because the pilots' night vision goggles were temporarily blinded by the explosions and the burning aircraft veered off the runway at more than 100mph.

Commanders decided they could not secure the hostile area of Maysan Province long enough to repair the badly- damaged Hercules and it was blown up to stop it falling into enemy hands.

The Board's findings congratulate RAF officials on their "well-reasoned" cover-up of the incident last February, lying to the media and the public to minimise interest and 'denying the enemy the opportunity to exploit the situation' for propaganda purposes.

The report highlights the way insurgents were able to sneak up to the airstrip in south-eastern Iraq - which was in regular use by the RAF supplying ground forces - and to plant five bombs next to the touch- down point. These were missed by soldiers who 'cleared' the site ready for the Hercules to land.
 

oldbaldy

LE
Moderator
#2
source?
 
#3
Space pope?
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#8
Bleeding rockapes!!!!

Aaahh, my taxi . . .
 
#11
If indeed the crabs took this COA it is unfortunate that the Mail (on the side of the forces aren't you?!) see fit to expose it - public interest? No. Forces interest? Certainly not. Financial interest? Er, well.... :x

Fcuking media - it's not even as though there's a story of dodgy dealing etc - if true it was a legitimate and reasonable call so no need to publicise it.
 
#12
Information release was delayed for same reason as Chally penetration was - if you release details on same day as Paris Hiltons new haircut - nobody will notice. Dont see why it need be made public at all.
 
#13
Like to know where they get the idea it was covered up. At the time it was kept fairly quiet due to Op Sec.

But of course, it's the Mail and bullshit headlines are always more important than peoples lives. :roll:
 
#15
annakey said:
oldbaldy said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=566873&in_page_id=1770

It's stupid of them to lie. Now each time a Hercules punctures a tyre insurgents can claim they blew it up and no one will believe the denials. The same happened in NI: everyone thought PIRA was regularly shooting down helicopters when, in fact, they did so only irregularly.
Nobody thought that PIRA were shooting down SF helicopters - primarily because they weren't :roll:

And of course the MOD denied it. What do you want them to say? 'Congratulations, your audacious attack on our Herc succeeded. Same time next week?'
 
#16
annakey said:
oldbaldy said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=566873&in_page_id=1770

It's stupid of them to lie. Now each time a Hercules punctures a tyre insurgents can claim they blew it up and no one will believe the denials. The same happened in NI: everyone thought PIRA was regularly shooting down helicopters when, in fact, they did so only irregularly.
I would normally agree that it is stupid to lie. There is nothing wrong with refusing to give information though (when it involves something like persec).

Now how accurate are the "Taliban" claims that British troops in Afghanistan would all be dead by 2003/4/5/6/7/8?
 

Latest Threads

Top