It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iraq: Brit Soldiers Dressed As Arabs In car Packed With Explosives Captured

page: 13
3
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Delta boy

i've already delt with that source already, please read the above.





At first, Basra police said the men shot and killed a policeman, but on Tuesday al-Jaafari's spokesman, Haydar al-Abadi, said the men — who were wearing civilian clothes — were grabbed for behaving suspiciously and collecting information.


reread it again. (points upward) somewhere it says at first.......and then it says but....




posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   
i'll reread and you reread it, and then read this.



The Iraqi interior minister has disputed the UK's account of the circumstances surrounding the release of the two British soldiers in Basra.
Baqir Solagh Jebr told the BBC the men never left police custody. He said the UK forces that freed them had reacted to a "rumour" that they were in militia hands.


news.bbc.co.uk...

And please reread i have already addressed that source.

Quote: "How did they "seem" like they where "collecting informa
tion". Did they go around asking people questions with pen and paper in hand?"



[edit on 21-9-2005 by Syrian Sister]



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Syrian Sister,

Arguing with you is like fighting a sniper...you never know which tree the next shot will come out of. >LOL

I guess I should be glad you actually answered one of my questions and leave it at that, but what can I say, I'm a glutton for punishment.


So with the niceties out of the way….I’d still like to know how you justify some of your beliefs.

1)I’d still like to know how you can assume that ALL the attacks on civilians that are attributed to the “insurgents” are “false flag” operations carried out by the U.S.

1a.If you don’t think that the western news agencies are biased, do you then concede that at least some of their reports on insurgent attacks are true?

1a(i): If so, do you then at least concede that it’s possible that these alleged SAS operatives were there not to plant bombs but to stop those who would?

1a(ii): If not, how do you then explain the various extremist web sites that claim responsibility for the attacks in the name of Al-Queda, Ansar al-Islam, Asbat al-Ansar, etc, etc, etc?

1a(iii): Are these ALL figments of the American imagination, or products of the CIA et al?

2) I’d also still like you to expound on your reasoning regarding the actions of the “puppet police” in detaining the alleged SAS operatives.

2a.If the “puppet police” have no incentive to go against the United States agenda, then why would those same individuals have any incentive to go against the British?

2b:Are not the British and U.S. forces just separate arms of the same “occupation” force”

3) Could you also please explain in more depth how you concluded from the pictures given, that the two soldiers were intent on bombing Iraqi civilians from the pictures that have been shown?

3a: Specifically, how does a picture of one black shirt, one white shirt, and two black wigs, plus a photo of the two alleged soldiers wearing what appears to be brown colored pants indicate to you that they were dressed as Mehdi Army? I thought that the Mehdi Army wore all black with green scarves.

3b: Also, how do you conclude that the reports of mines and explosives being in the possession of the two soldiers are true based on the pictures given, as there are NO mines or explosives that can be made out in those photos?

4)Could you explain how Arab news services that continually air concocted propaganda stories against the U.S. and Israel are somehow controlled by the U.S. government?

4a. Further, could you then explain why if you don’t trust those news services, you do place your trust in the news services of Communist governments that are specifically geared toward anti-American stories?

4b. Could you also explain why since you claim that you don’t distrust western news agencies, you ignore the fact that their stories generally don’t support your suppositions?

In conclusion, would you care to explain how you can continue to reject ANY story that doesn’t support your assumptions and grasp at any that does regardless of where that information comes from?



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
i'll reread and you reread it, and then read this.



The Iraqi interior minister has disputed the UK's account of the circumstances surrounding the release of the two British soldiers in Basra.
Baqir Solagh Jebr told the BBC the men never left police custody. He said the UK forces that freed them had reacted to a "rumour" that they were in militia hands.


news.bbc.co.uk...

And please reread i have already addressed that source.

Quote: "How did they "seem" like they where "collecting informa
tion". Did they go around asking people questions with pen and paper in hand?"



[edit on 21-9-2005 by Syrian Sister]

Because we all know that you would NEVER notice two people driving around in a car watching things, or not behaving normally.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
What do you mean there is no uniform? The mehdi army soldier uniform is just "wear all black". They sometimes have green scarfs tied around their arms to show they are soldiers.

Sometimes eh?

These guys are not soldiers. If you are simply wearing all black and on occasion a green scarf, you cannot be said to be wearing an identifiable uniform. That is why, for what its worth, these two Brits can't be considered soldiers, because they had ditched their uniforms. That is why they don't fall under any international protections, because they weren't wearing uniforms.

And the men you see had removed their outer garb when the photo of the fatigues was shown. The outer garments where mostly black I already posted the photos, didn't you see them.
Yes, there was a black shirt and white pants or some such.


It just seem a very interesting coincidence that these two men should be dressed as arabs, in mostly black, with long beards , shooting wildly, killing police and wounding civilians.

Coincidence? I don't know about that. On the surface and so far it looks to jive with the claim that the coalition is masquerading as insurgents and commiting crimes to make it seem like the insurgency is more violent than it is. At a minimum, this sort of thing is a prediction of that theory.


souljah
Oh yes they have:

My mistake, I hadn't seen that


So, who were they by your Opinion?

Clearly they were british soldiers, i simply hadn't seen that the brits admited that they were SAS. They might very well have been regular army soldiers on a special operation. Most likely they were SAS, I was just trying to be precise and note that there are lots of ways to have soldiers on a special operation without them being special forces or even SAS.

rougue1
Name one group which doesn't chant ' Alluha Akbar ' when they go and bomb a market place.

Apparently this group of two british soldiers disguised as natives didn't scream 'god is great' when they shot at and killed police. Given that this happened and they were caught, is it not possible that other similar incidents have happened where the special operatives didn't get caught???

I haven't heard of any Western soldiers chanting god is great when they go into battle

The point is that this incident, had the brits not been captured, woudl've been reported as "a car load of insurgents attacked iraqi police today, killing at least one officer and wounding many others, the insurgents were able to escape. many question when the iraqi policewill be well trained enough to counter the insurgency".

Zaphod58
with no evidence of explosives

I agree, there is no evidence that they had explosives other than pure propaganda cites like the CCP controlled press or insurgency websites.

According to a couple of articles, even the Iraqi Government said they were at a safe house

lets just look at this logically for a moment. How's the iraqi government not kinow who is an insurgent or where they are and can't do anything aobut them, but now, precisely when it "happens" to provide backstory, they know exactly who the insurgents are, how they are operating, and what their structure is, and are able to act upon it with lightening speed? And yet at the exact same time, they send a force of tanks, troops, and helicopters to literally smash into a prison to rescue soldiers that they already know are being held in a safe house?

It does not follow.

or engage in a running gun battle

Its silly to suggest that SAS or any British soldiers simply surrendered after engaging in a fire fight. As out of uniform people, they are no longer soldiers, and their captors can legally torture them as spys (pretending for a moment that we're not considering the complicating factor of the iraqi government nt being at war with the UK), or also considering that, accoring to one of the back stories, these guys already knew that the police were insurgents, and could well expect that they'd have their heads hacked off with knives, like others who've been captured by insurgents.
OR are no insurgents doing this and only counter-insurgency operatives doing (or rather organizing radicals and enabling them to do) this, a la most counter-insurgency operations????

I mean, thats a wilded assed accusation, but here we stand, two brits, apparently SAS, iow, counter-insurgency/counter-terrorism agents, masquerading undercover and attacking iraqi policeunits. I mean, which is it, are they attacking presumably innocent police, or are they surrending to known murderous monstrous insurgents? Neither jives.


And since when have the insurgents, of for that matter, when did IRAQ go by the Geneva Convention?

Little difficult to talk about geneva convention violations when we literally cannot say that all the attacks have been commited by the insurgency now. The wild assed claims of the pro-insurgents of false flag operations on the part of the coalition are dangerously close to being vindicated by
this incident. And, again, these guys can be vivisected after capture on broadcast television without even the pretense of a trial and it would still be in accord with the geneva conventions, because they weren't wearing uniforms.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
27JD

yes i remember and i stand by everything I said.


I know you do, and that was my point.


But back to the topic, you quoted the BBC, so allow me to as well.



Iraq's national security adviser Muwafaq al-Rubaie has said Iraqi security forces had been penetrated by insurgents but he did not know to what extent.



So we now know the police are corrupt, we just don't know how many.



There were anti-British protests on the streets of Basra on Wednesday, the BBC's Paul Wood reported.

He said the demonstrations were organised by local police.


Shouldn't police be worried about policing?



Paul Wood said demonstrators believed Iranian TV reports that the two men were detained after they opened fire on Shia pilgrims on Monday.


Ahh, the Iranians. Now the picture is really coming together nicely. Now why would the Iranians want Britain to look bad?




He said they were probably on a covert mission to get the intelligence needed to stop further attacks on British troops.


That's what we've been saying all along.



Their weapons, explosives and communications gear are standard kit for British special forces.


That too.





news.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 21-9-2005 by 27jd]



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   
So with no evidence of explosives ANYWHERE, we suddenly know that some of the insurgent attacks were carried out by the Coalition? Not suspect, KNOW. Because that seems to be what is being said now.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
There is no way to explain or excuse this. This might possibly be the most heinous thing that has happened in Iraq that we have come to know of. It is most definitely the most unexplainable and concerning.

I don't kow how Britain specifically, or any occupying force in general, can talk their way out of this, or even survive this.

This is the end.


Yet 13 pages later, it's still "complicated" and I still haven't seen an explanation on mainstream cable news.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Yet 13 pages later, it's still "complicated" and I still haven't seen an explanation on mainstream cable news.


Good luck seeing anything other than hurricane Rita coverage. It was reported late last night on Fox, at a press conference Rumsfeld was asked about it and said he didn't know all the specifics (what a surprise), but suspected Iran's involvement in that area. Now it's coming out that the protesters there are acting on Iranian TV reports that the SAS opened fire on Shia pilgrims, which I highly doubt.

I'm sure we will never get an explanation of a covert military operation, especially one involving spying.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Not suspect, KNOW. Because that seems to be what is being said now.

I have not stated that we know this, at any point. Obviously anyone stating that they know that they have been carried out by the coalition is blathering without basis.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Anyone remember a similar incident happening in northern ireland in the late eighties or early nineties, 2 SAS in plain clothes where watching a republican terrorist funeral in a cementary from a car...they got a bit too close and a mob surrounded the car, one of the sas fired a few rounds off but they where dragged out of the car and later killed by the IRA..the MOD said they where off duty and didnt know what they where doing near the funeral as they didnt have permission to be there ???

Shame they didnt have tanks near by then eh !!

What really happened we in Basra we will never know...its all part of the media hype and state controlled press now..


Gathering of intelligence is necessary, and further more a hyper sensitive field..if they send you in on a mission like this if you get caught your seriously on your own...maybe the fear that these two would be traded over to the iraqi militicia later tortured and killed and all on video was one of the governing factors of the reaction of the british local command in Basra..after all we have lost three troops this week in Iraq and to quote Michael Caine in "ZULU" ..."We cant have two disasters in one week Chard, the government dont like it and it upsets civilians at their breakfast"..



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
It was reported late last night on Fox, at a press conference Rumsfeld was asked about it and said he didn't know all the specifics (what a surprise), but suspected Iran's involvement in that area. Now it's coming out that the protesters there are acting on Iranian TV reports that the SAS opened fire on Shia pilgrims, which I highly doubt.


"Suspected" lmao, What happened to police "inciting the riot"?

Great, now we've got good ol' "Rummy" attaching this to Iran. Kinda like the Sadam/Al Queda "link".



Originally posted by 27jd
I'm sure we will never get an explanation of a covert military operation, especially one involving spying.


Agreed, do ya think we'll even hear when Iran is invaded with the 24/7 katrina/rita coverage?



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Last time I checked there was no proof of explosives, also if the SAS wanted to make a false flag operation SS then they would have not been caught.
How?
Because for an operation to attack THEY would have a support unit ready to suppress any following forces, but oh no there was no support force!
Ever wondered why the ranger unit was created?

Also, yet again they where accused of attacking a police station and stopped at a checked point ,yes or no?

There was a considerable threat that the two men could end up in militia hands, yes or no?

I have still yet to see pictures of these "explosives" the only kit that I have seen showed 0 explosives that I could see.

Yet again, propaganda works for boths sides not just the superior force.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Because for an operation to attack THEY would have a support unit ready to suppress any following forces

But if this is a false flag operation there might not be any reason to expect this to follow, no?? Indeed they wouldn't be able to involve other groups in support.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by redmage

"Suspected" lmao, What happened to police "inciting the riot"?

Great, now we've got good ol' "Rummy" attaching this to Iran. Kinda like the Sadam/Al Queda "link".


Iran is known to actively support Sadr's Army ( felloe Shiites) . And Iranian Pasdaran officers have been reported in Iraq. So it could be possible there was Iranian involvement. There is no suprise that Iran's name did come up.

Anyonw who thinks Iran is not operating in Iraq is IMO naive to the real situation in that area.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
But if this is a false flag operation there might not be any reason to expect this to follow, no?? Indeed they wouldn't be able to involve other groups in support.

You would expect iraqi police to follow you since they outnumber you quite considerably.

They wouldnt even need anyother units expect SAS, the SAS is over a regiment strong and frankly they could spare more than 2 men.

Besides...if they wanted to attack somewhere they'd used SRS, UK's most secret SF unit.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
There is no way to explain or excuse this. This might possibly be the most heinous thing that has happened in Iraq that we have come to know of. It is most definitely the most unexplainable and concerning.

I don't kow how Britain specifically, or any occupying force in general, can talk their way out of this, or even survive this.

This is the end.


We wont talk our way out of it, it done and thats that as far as the British Military is concerned. They got the two men out and as far as they are concerned it is one more mission accomplished. We dont have a good track record for appologising, after all it took nearly 200 years to say sorry to the US for burning the library of congress. The fact is the comander on the ground made a command decision and the British Military will live with that.

[edit on 21-9-2005 by Janus]



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
So it could be possible there was Iranian involvement.


Possible, yes. Proven, no. I was just admiring the political game of "not having details" but adding fuel to the "agenda".


Originally posted by rogue1
There is no suprise that Iran's name did come up.


Agreed wholeheartedly.


Originally posted by rogue1
Anyonw who thinks Iran is not operating in Iraq is IMO naive to the real situation in that area.



I would add that anyone who thinks allied forces (albeit on a small scale)
are not already operating in Iran is IMHO naive to the real situation in that area.

*patiently waiting for Rummy's Syrian tie in as well*

[edit on 21/9/05 by redmage]



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by redmage
What happened to police "inciting the riot"?


That's what was meant, I think it is believed the police force in Basra has been infiltrated by Shia radicals (al-Madhi army) working for Iran, not the Iraqi government.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
They wouldnt even need anyother units expect SAS,

Ah. THought that you were saying they operate like delta, with rangers running cover.

This is an intersting point tho, if i was running an army and wanted false flag operations, maybe it would be most likely to have some sort of unit in reserve to prevent their capture.


the SAS is over a regiment strong and frankly they could spare more than 2 men.

I'll agree that it could go down like this, but is it the case? What's the UKer normal procedure when running counter-insurgency operation like this? As in ireland and elsewhere? I mean, its unusual to the point of refutation that they'd operate in such a small group/cell? I'm not familiar enough to judge either way. But then they would have a two man group collecting intelligence? Than again, they might mean little more than monitoring with feild glasses.


Besides...if they wanted to attack somewhere they'd used SRS, UK's most secret SF unit.

*lobs it up*
Who? Never heard of them?.....


[edit on 21-9-2005 by Nygdan]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join