Irish troops come under fire in Syria

Local-womanizer

Rte have ima report on it, a convoy was hit by an unknown explosion while out on patrol. They returned fire and returned to base. 1 reported injury but it's on no concern. Can't link to article as I'm on mobile

Manic Moran

How does one return fire against an unknown explosion?

Local-womanizer

Manic Moran wrote: »

How does one return fire against an unknown explosion?

Scream uncontrollably while firing in all directions? :P

That bit I'm not sure about, the explosion must have been followed up by an ambush of sorts, or rte just ballsed up the report perhaps....

arybvtcw0eolkf

LINK

IRISH troops on a peace-keeping mission in the Golan Heights have exchanged fire with Syrian rebels after a convoy came under attack.

ALSO IN THIS SECTION
Teen held as woman found dead at home
Crumlin board admits top-ups controversy has caused concern
HSE to review role of doctors in clinic
The brief fire-fight took place at 9:50 local time this morning on the Syrian-Israeli border where Irish soldier have been patrolling since September as part of a UN force.

No Irish troops were seriously injured in the incident which is the second time this month that they have come under fire in the disputed region which has been monitored by international peacekeepers since 1974.

Defence Forces spokesman Cmdt Denis Hanly told the independent.ie that a convoy of five Irish Mowag armoured cars came under small arms fire by an unknown number of assailants.

He said they returned fire using the vehicles' heavy machine guns and withdrew to their base.

Cmdt Hanly said there are “no reports” of casualties among the Syrian rebels and said that one Irish soldier sustained a minor injury while taking cover inside one of the vehicles.

He said the solider has “been x-rayed and he's fine.

“He'll be back on duty tomorrow.”

Earlier this month another Irish patrol passed within 200 metres of artillery fire between rebels and forces loyal to the regime of Bashar Al-Assad.

Most of the Irish troops in the Golan Heights are from the east of the country with many based in Cathal Brugha barracks in Dublin.

Local-womanizer

Goodman Mak, just came in to post the same link. Hopefully the 2 incidents are the only we will see for the foreseeable future.

pilatus

Are they being mistaken as Assad forces by the rebels? Wrong place, wrong time, if not then why would the rebels want to pick a fight with the UN?

the_syco

pilatus wrote: »

Are they being mistaken as Assad forces by the rebels? Wrong place, wrong time, if not then why would the rebels want to pick a fight with the UN?

They've been put between two hostile forces, so all it takes is a bit of jumpy militants on either side to see armour, and shoot.

shanered

I thought the.point of them being there was to defend Isreal from the Syrian conflict?
Could be the reason for shooting at them possibly?

Frosty McSnowballs

They also rescued 3 Fiji soldiers from being hijacked a few weeks ago. Also exchanged gunfire but that doesn't seem to be reported.

earlytobed

pilatus wrote: »

Are they being mistaken as Assad forces by the rebels? Wrong place, wrong time, if not then why would the rebels want to pick a fight with the UN?

Irregular forces don't necessarily use proper justification for opening up.

Morpheus

pilatus wrote: »

Are they being mistaken as Assad forces by the rebels? Wrong place, wrong time, if not then why would the rebels want to pick a fight with the UN?

with blue flags and helmets?

neilled

shanered wrote: »

I thought the.point of them being there was to defend Isreal from the Syrian conflict?
Could be the reason for shooting at them possibly?

You thought wrong. Google UNDOF for information about the mission.

pilatus

Morpheus wrote: »

with blue flags and helmets?

The Blue flags and helmets obviously didn't stop them being targeted, and thats why I asked in the first place for other potential reasons.

Lemming

pilatus wrote: »

The Blue flags and helmets obviously didn't stop them being targeted, and thats why I asked in the first place for other potential reasons.

Could just be a simple case of "They're not with us. Shoot them" owing to a good old-fashioned case of tribal mentality.

Or could be a lot of other things. Who knows really; we'll likely never find out.

shanered

neilled wrote: »

You thought wrong. Google UNDOF for information about the mission.

Well, I dont think the statement is completely wrong is it. Since it i suppose technically to stop both Syrian and Isreal from attacking each other which has been relativly quiet since the ceasfire in the 70s.
But seeing that most of the attacks seem to be from Arab syrian forces am I completly wrong in saying it is to defend Isreal?

neilled

shanered wrote: »

Well, I dont think the statement is completely wrong is it. Since it i suppose technically to stop both Syrian and Isreal from attacking each other which has been relativly quiet since the ceasfire in the 70s.
But seeing that most of the attacks seem to be from Arab syrian forces am I completly wrong in saying it is to defend Isreal?

The Golan heights is contested - everyone accepts this. However it is in the interests of both parties not to start scrapping over the golan again. As per resolution 350 its job is to


Maintain the ceasefire between Israel and Syria;
Supervise the disengagement of Israeli and Syrian forces; and
Supervise the areas of separation and limitation, as provided in the May 1974 Agreement on Disengagement.


To this end in laymans terms, the Israeli's and Syrians set up a buffer zone into which certain military personel and equipment are not to go. As with most things in the middle east, whenever something happens both sides always insist that someone else fired the first shot, or somebody gets jumpy and decides to pull a trigger, resulting in massive retaliation on both sides.

UNDOF is there to monitor all sides and parties and provide an impartial reporting system ie to put it really simply

"Lads ye both said you wouldn't put stuff in here and now we've spotted three of yer tanks. Withdraw them back to the agreed limits you eijits before you start shooting at each other again"


This does not constitue protecting israel.

shanered

If the mission wasnt happening would I be correct in saying more than likely Isreal would take up defensive positions in place of our soldiers.
I understand that you believe its an impartial UN mission, but why do i feel the UN lads in that zone will be taking fire from Syrians which ultimatly would be aimed at Isreal.
In my opinion we are protecting Isreal, and I would say Isreal is happy enough having our lads coming under fi rather then theirs.

goldie fish

shanered wrote: »

If the mission wasnt happening would I be correct in saying more than likely Isreal would take up defensive positions in place of our soldiers.
I understand that you believe its an impartial UN mission, but why do i feel the UN lads in that zone will be taking fire from Syrians which ultimatly would be aimed at Isreal.
In my opinion we are protecting Isreal, and I would say Isreal is happy enough having our lads coming under fi rather then theirs.

Where is this Isreal place you speak of?

wildfowler94

are you saying that the bullets on UN mission aint real? tell that to those who are dead tac.
just because we dont hold a cavalier attitude towards foreign policy.

Frosty McSnowballs

Jaysis tac,

I have to say I used to enjoy your posts but over the past year I find them very irritating and unnecessary. I'm getting tired of your less than subtle digs at the PDF's abilities, experiences and general calibre. The undertone of your posts just show how little you think of them, and that's fine, everyone is entitled to an opinion but there's no need for the blatant "put down" in almost every post.

We know you are an ex squadie. We know the PDF has limited resources, experience and abilities. We know they may not be on par with other military giants. They still volunteer to deploy irrespective of the negatives. The stench of "the Brits are better than you" is ridiculous around here and does nothing for the wider community.

You would think that someone of your previous rank and vast operational/training experience would be more humble and tactile. Instead, you are disrespectful and argumentative and just plain boring at this stage. You may profess that I am imagining it all, but lets not play silly beggars....eh?

I'm actually just disappointed in your manner, rebuttal all you like, I won't be here to read it.

Enjoy the forum.

tac foley

Sir - I have nothng but respect for the PDF, and have never belittled their abilities or skills. I've even trained them and still have friends who were in PDF.

My point was quite plain - Israel does NOT expect foreign troops of any nation to fight their battles, in spite of the assertion by the other poster that Israel is a nation of cowards hiding behind the UN troops in place in a buffer zone.

THAT was my point.

The Buffer zone is exactly that - a neutral zone that was not threatened by Israel, but by an incursion from the Syrian side.

Please calm down, and re-read what I wrote.

And please, have another look at any of my posts and tell me where I've EVER put down the PDF. The comment that Irish troops are fighting on Israel's behalf would be deeply insulting to any Israeli. Of course Ireland would not send troops to fight in another war between Israel and any other belligerent, nor would any other country for that matter.

Please feel free to put me your ignore list, if my posts cause you so much offense/boredom. I'm sure I can handle the angst it causes.

tac

arybvtcw0eolkf

tac foley wrote: »

ISRAEL does not need foreigners fighting its wars, thanks. The Golan Heights enclave is an agreed non-combatative area, patrolled by the UN forces, who happen, on this occasion to be Irish troops.

So next time there is a real shooting war, perhaps your government will offer to send troops of the PDF to help out?

I don't think so. :rolleyes:

tac

I have to agree with Tac here... There is absolutely no fighting in The Golan, or UNDOF's AO.. None at all, zero in fact.

The lads are sitting around playing don while the officers sip on their Pimms in the gentlemans club and talk about cricket.

/sarcasm

neilled

shanered wrote: »

If the mission wasnt happening would I be correct in saying more than likely Isreal would take up defensive positions in place of our soldiers.
I understand that you believe its an impartial UN mission, but why do i feel the UN lads in that zone will be taking fire from Syrians which ultimatly would be aimed at Isreal.
In my opinion we are protecting Isreal, and I would say Isreal is happy enough having our lads coming under fi rather then theirs.

If UNDOF weren't there, the Syrians and Isreali's would be manning a disputed border with each other. With face to face confrontation - the potential for resumed hostilities would be much increased. The whole point of UNDOF is to prevent the two sides losing the run of themselves, thus triggering a wider regional conflict into which other states could be sucked.

Remember - Both Israel and Syria agreed to this!

The Syrian state/Assad regieme does not want a scrap with Israel - whilst it remains a useful bogeyman to be condemned ad nasseum for the population at large, it knows its not capable of winning a scrap with Israel, something the rebel's haven't grasped.

Israel is more than capable of defending itself, the forces it has its disposal would be more than capable of crushing UNDOF if it so chose to.

Edit : might i add that the Syrian regime would have been more than capable of squashing UNDOF like a bug as well......

kabakuyu

Senor Jingle Balls wrote: »

Jaysis tac,

I have to say I used to enjoy your posts but over the past year I find them very irritating and unnecessary. I'm getting tired of your less than subtle digs at the PDF's abilities, experiences and general calibre. The undertone of your posts just show how little you think of them, and that's fine, everyone is entitled to an opinion but there's no need for the blatant "put down" in almost every post.

We know you are an ex squadie. We know the PDF has limited resources, experience and abilities. We know they may not be on par with other military giants. They still volunteer to deploy irrespective of the negatives. The stench of "the Brits are better than you" is ridiculous around here and does nothing for the wider community.

You would think that someone of your previous rank and vast operational/training experience would be more humble and tactile. Instead, you are disrespectful and argumentative and just plain boring at this stage. You may profess that I am imagining it all, but lets not play silly beggars....eh?

I'm actually just disappointed in your manner, rebuttal all you like, I won't be here to read it.

Enjoy the forum.

Well said Sir,that needed saying.I don't expect the auld curmudgeon will take any heed.:(

tac foley

Rudy Famous Sandalwood wrote: »

I have to agree with Tac here... There is absolutely no fighting in The Golan, or UNDOF's AO.. None at all, zero in fact.

The lads are sitting around playing don while the officers sip on their Pimms in the gentlemans club and talk about cricket.

/sarcasm

NOT what I wrote.

NOT what I implied.

I took issue with the comment that Israel was cowering under the protection of UN troops of whatever nationality, and that those UN troops were bleeding for the sake of Israel, who was happy for those UN troops to do so.

tac

Fukuyama

tac foley wrote: »

NOT what I wrote.

NOT what I implied.

I took issue with the comment that Israel was cowering under the protection of UN troops of whatever nationality, and that those UN troops were bleeding for the sake of Israel, who was happy for those UN troops to do so.

tac

One poster wasn't 100% up to scratch on the history of the Golan Heights or the mission. So you crack off into a rant about people criticizing Israeli military might.

And, tbh, I'd say Israel are happy enough having a buffer zone manned by impartial troops now that the region isn't controlled by their old enemy, but a new, irregular enemy that very clearly doesn't mind creating the odd international incident. If I was the Prime Minister of Israel I'd hate to have to explain the inevitable (why Israeli troops are firing on Syrian targets) when I could have an internationally recognized force that won't be criticized for defending itself or the mission.

Dublinstiofán

Why so Syriaous?

tac foley

Dean0088 wrote: »

One poster wasn't 100% up to scratch on the history of the Golan Heights or the mission. So you crack off into a rant about people criticizing Israeli military might.

Of course I did, I'm a Jew. That's what Jews do, support other Jews, and so do the Irish, and I'm 3/4 Irish, too.

And now we have a pile of folks running around with their hair on fire because of what they read into my comment.

Show me anywhere on this forum where I have been anything other than supportive of Irish troops, anywhere and at any time.

tac

Stovepipe

Tac is right---the Israelis don't need or want anyone else to fight their wars for them and are perfectly capable of sending any Syrian interlopers home in one piece or many pieces. They don't want a shooting match anymore than anyone else does, but they will reply robustly if challenged, which has always been their stated policy. It suits ALL sides to have the UN patrolling the Golan. The PDF are perfectly capable of doing the job.

regards
S

tac foley

Stovepipe wrote: »

Tac is right---the Israelis don't need or want anyone else to fight their wars for them and are perfectly capable of sending any Syrian interlopers home in one piece or many pieces. They don't want a shooting match anymore than anyone else does, but they will reply robustly if challenged, which has always been their stated policy. It suits ALL sides to have the UN patrolling the Golan. The PDF are perfectly capable of doing the job.

regards
S

Totally correct in every word.

tac

Fukuyama

tac foley wrote: »

Of course I did, I'm a Jew. That's what Jews do, support other Jews, and so do the Irish, and I'm 3/4 Irish, too.

And now we have a pile of folks running around with their hair on fire because of what they read into my comment.

Show me anywhere on this forum where I have been anything other than supportive of Irish troops, anywhere and at any time.

tac

So next time there is a real shooting war, perhaps your government will offer to send troops of the PDF to help out?

I don't think so.

I think it was mainly this that ticked people off. Irish people don't want to get involved in "real shooting wars" when the majority of 'real' wars these days, particularly in the middle east, are proxy wars that kicked off because a G8 leader felt threatened by an oil rich nation. Furthermore, public sentiment in Ireland about Israel's foreign policy tends to differ from popular opinion in the US and UK.

I'd be all for stepping up Irish participation internationally (I say this as someone who's not in the DF) but it'd be on the premise that if Irish troops go abroad it's either to keep peace, restore it or for some genuine humanitarian reason (who wouldn't, in retrospect, go back to 1994 and deploy an aggressive EU peace enforcement mission to Rwanda in some form or another?). I know if I was in Shatter's position I wouldn't sleep at night knowing I'd sent off soldiers to a 'real shooting war' which I couldn't possibly justify participating in myself.