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: 14
3
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

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.



So are you saying that when we trained their police force we didn't check to make sure they were actually Iraqi's?




posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   

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


He didn't have details of this specific event, but stated they believed Iran was operating in Basra, which was probably the reason the SAS troops were there to observe. Then Iranian TV reported the SAS troops just began firing at Shia pilgrims, I don't like Rumsfeld, but this seems very cut and dry to me.



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

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


Thanks, that's a great compliment.

Number one.


If you don’t think that the western news agencies are biased,


Who told you that, their not only bias, but they actively lie and twist facts, and i've seen in happen blatently with my own two eyes on more than one occasion, something that i actually saw happen, and they report something else. The western media is completely controlled, by the you know who. And so is alot of the arab media, but possibly not all.

as for the websites.
Yes, all those websites are products of the CIA or perhaps another agency, they are always appearing ananymously in the time the CIA needs it.

number two



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.


They DON'T have any incentive to go against the british, that is what makes their story more credible.That was my point.


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


Yes they are, that is why i often use british and US interchangably.

number three.



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


Why from From the pictures alone? and not from the sources? why not from the history of other conflicts? And the "who benefits" proverb? very well.

Going by the pictures alone we have.

two arrested british operatives in civilian clothes wearing beards
Discarded arab style dress and wigs.
A photo graph of what looks like some sort of weaponry, the kind of which is disputed.
picture of wounded civilians
Angry basra police and civilians, rioting aganst british forces.
Destroyed police station.
Crushed police cars.

From these images we can say that those men or perhaps what they knew is important, that the british would completely destroy relations with the basrah police in order to retrieve them.

Whatever these two men where doing, it made the people of basra and the police, very very angry, angry enough to risk their own lives and torch british vehicles.
what was it that they where doing that made so many people, so angry?

What where they doing dressed up as arabs, carrying that much weaponry. It obviously angred the people of basrah.

one can possibly conclude from these photos that they were something against the people of basra, and that is what made them angry. One can asertain, that they where doing it under the guise of being arab. And the fact that they where so important that a police station would be completely destroyed to get them back. One has to conclude from the pictures alone that this may very well be, a psy-op.


number four

Firstly i would just like to ask have you ever read anything that comes from these sources?

Well, i've been exposed to both the arab media and the western media.

If you have heard news from some of this sources you would notice the following.

The bigger arab satelite channels, Al Arabya and Al Jazeera, are not pro-resistance, they ussually carry the same myths and lies that the western media carries. In arabic they don't call the iraqi resistance the resistance=muqawame' but they call them insurgents. They perpetuate the myth that the political process in iraq is democratic, they perpetuate the myth that al qaeda is real and a threat, by prodcasting those holiwood tapes all the time. However they never show the tapes from the real resistance, which i can show you if you would like to see them.

The US government just keeps telling you that they are sooooooo extreme, just so you don't realise what the real opposition media is saying, that there is no such thing as al zarqawi.

For example, Al Jazeera didn't run the story that the Syrian channel ran. You think about that.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by redmage
So are you saying that when we trained their police force we didn't check to make sure they were actually Iraqi's?


No, the madhi army is made up of Iraqis, however they are shiites loyal to Al Sadr, who is loyal to the mullahs in Iran. It is in Al Sadr's interest to be allied with Iran, they want a mirror of Iran in Iraq, and he wants to rule. I'm sure you already know this, I don't know why you would pretend not to.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   
It's not personal or an attack on you 27jd, like I said "I was just admiring the political game of "not having details" but adding fuel to the "agenda".



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

No, the madhi army is made up of Iraqis, however they are shiites loyal to Al Sadr, who is loyal to the mullahs in Iran. It is in Al Sadr's interest to be allied with Iran, they want a mirror of Iran in Iraq, and he wants to rule. I'm sure you already know this, I don't know why you would pretend not to.


I'm not pretending to or "not to", but Rummy is blurring the line, between Irani's involved and Iraqi's who have outside interests, to further the agenda. Admittedly it's a fine line, but not forthcoming none the less.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by redmage
It's not personal or an attack on you 27jd, like I said "I was just admiring the political game of "not having details" but adding fuel to the "agenda".


I didn't take it personal. I'm against this war, and I can't stand Rumsfeld. But I think the assertion that the SAS were there on a mission to kill innocent civilians is ludicrous. I believe Iran is adding fuel to the "agenda" in Basra, and Iran is pulling the strings of the police force there. I think this was known before this incident with the SAS, who I believe were only there to gather intel on the situation. I am not bias because I don't believe the SAS, or any coalition forces should be in Iraq in the first place. But I know BS when I see it, from both sides.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
But I know BS when I see it, from both sides.


And you see no BS in; not commenting on anything that could shine a bad light on allied forces but instead just pointing the finger elsewhere on an assumption?



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Nygaand

first, thanks for your last post. You got some things wrong, and some things right in my opinion.

You said:



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


But, That the only source that tells us there where explosives in their car, is not from any strange "insurgent website", but from the iraqi police , and this was put on washington post.


"Monday's clashes stemmed from the arrest by Iraqi police on Sunday of two Britons, whom Iraqi police accused of planting bombs."

www.washingtonpost.com...


Now i admit that it is a pure propoganda site, but it ussually has anti resistance propoganda.


As for wearing black makes you a soldier, i think you miss understood me.

I'm not saying the brits where soldiers, I'm saying the opposite, they where nothing but spies.

I'm just saying the mehdi army uniform, is the black shirts and the green bandana's.


I like most of what you said those, and your answer of this. "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


You don't mind if i repeat it



Zaphod58

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

wheren't you the one talking about how good your SAS troops where, why would they expose themselves as not behaving normally? Doesn't that make them bad spies?




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



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by redmage
I'm not pretending to or "not to", but Rummy is blurring the line, between Irani's involved and Iraqi's who have outside interests, to further the agenda. Admittedly it's a fine line, but not forthcoming none the less.


Let me clear the line a bit for you.



August 20, 2004

His relations with the Iran's religious establishment ( the only country he visited) played a role larger than what seems in his politics. The confrontations he generated coincided with American or Israeli criticism of Iran.

Sadr's men provoked the Najaf confrontation by attacking Iraqi policemen, about the time Iran was criticised its nuclear programme. At the same time, some untypical trouble started in Basra, controlled by British, when London joined other EU members criticising the Iranians ( They asked their stunned negotiators for nuclear know how to ` protect themselves from Israeli threats' Iran then threatened to attack Israeli nuclear facilities if the Israelis attacked Iran)

www.mideastnews.com...


Funny how this incident occurs as the heat is being turned up on Iran's nuclear program.


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



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Remember the press conferences with the US and Iraqi presidents? Bush kept saying, don't ask me, ask the president of Iraq. It's their country, we're just guests, helping them. So, according to Bush, a sovereign nation's police force arrested service members who are guest in their country. Those guests, without respecting the host country's laws, freed their prisoners through force. It's almost an act of war.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by redmage
And you see no BS in; not commenting on anything that could shine a bad light on allied forces but instead just pointing the finger elsewhere on an assumption?


The press conference was yesterday morning, how could Rumsfeld have specific details on a British covert op that quickly? And how often does the military of any country ever comment openly about a covert intelligence operation? What in your opinion could he have said to shine a bad light on allied forces? That they were spying on police they believed to be corrupt? If they're still investigating the police force there, I doubt they would just come out and say it, but I'm sure the cat's already out of the bag.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   
27JD


No, the madhi army is made up of Iraqis, however they are shiites loyal to Al Sadr, who is loyal to the mullahs in Iran


Actually your mistaken about Sadr and iran.

Sadr is in opposition to iran, because iran's man in iraq is Sistani, and perhaps you might now that Sadr and Sistani are total opposites rivals. The Iranian Sistani who instructs the shia not to fight, while Al Sadr instructs them to do the opposite.

Whatever the iranian governments claim, the sad fact is, they sponser a pro US anti-resistance group in iraq called "the badr brigades". A group which has also helped to put a wedge between the different sects in iraq, who have helped the US fight in Fallujah, and who have always had fire fights and conflicts with Al Sadrs mehdi army.





Fighting between the Mahdi militia and the Badr Brigades-- the military wing of the leading Shi'ite political party, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) -- began after Sheik al-Sadr's followers tried Wednesday to reopen an office in Najaf.

www.washingtontimes.com...


(note: the largest party in the US puppet regime)


Ayatollah Al Hakim started this force with a brigade called Badr Brigade which developed in to a division and then into a corps. It consists of thousands of fighters recomited from Iraqi refugees in Iran .

www.sciri.btinternet.co.uk...



Yes my friends, the world is more complicated than just "us" and "them".


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



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   
You can call them guest, but when the guest just finished taking you out like the kitchen trash, and they currently own the title to your house, they are "special" guest. You may not like it, but you won't complain if they knock down a couple walls here and there. British and US forces have immunity in Iraq right now. That much should be obvious. Are the Iraqis going to demand that the British turn this guy back over to them? I doubt it somehow.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
So, according to Bush, a sovereign nation's police force arrested service members who are guest in their country. Those guests, without respecting the host country's laws, freed their prisoners through force. It's almost an act of war.


Well, if it's true that the police force ignored orders from Baghdad to release the prisoners, they are not respecting the authority of their government. And if it's true the police force has been infiltrated my militants, and were possibly going to hold these soldiers hostage and mabe even threaten to cut their heads off, it was a rescue.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Watch my dear
, the " complaints" are about to get louder and lourder.

Do you all have your seat belts on, because we are about to go on a roller coaster.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Sadr is in opposition to iran


I'm sorry, that is incorrect.



Muqtada al -Sadr’s conduct emphasizes four major elements:


Boosting his power within the Shiite camp through the waging of a determined and ongoing struggle against Sistani’s traditional moderate leadership.

Standing up to, sometimes through violence, coalition and occupation forces. This struggle is characterized by a tendency to “go to the brink” and test the limits of the Americans without going overboard, so that gains already made are not lost.

A struggle against the Sunnis and against former Saddam’s loyalists in order to boost the position of Shiites in Iraq vis-à-vis other powers.

Tightening relations with Iran, with the support of the Iran-based Iraqi Shiite cleric Ayatollah Khairi and Iran’s supreme leader, Khamenei.

www.ict.org.il...


Indeed the world is more complicated than "us" and "them", and Iran is playing every side they can.


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



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Funny how this incident occurs as the heat is being turned up on Iran's nuclear program.


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


Yup

I love this bit


When asked during his first meeting with the press last year whether he would attack the Americans?

His shocking reply in street slang was the equivalent of :

``Why would I want to f**k myself?''


And it appears he doesn't have "total" support


He later would criticise most of Shia leaders, with the exception of his Iranian tutor. But the latter stopped short of endorsing his former disciple's occupation of Najaf, showing respect to al-Sistani's authority.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by redmage
And you see no BS in; not commenting on anything that could shine a bad light on allied forces but instead just pointing the finger elsewhere on an assumption?


The press conference was yesterday morning, how could Rumsfeld have specific details on a British covert op that quickly? And how often does the military of any country ever comment openly about a covert intelligence operation? What in your opinion could he have said to shine a bad light on allied forces? That they were spying on police they believed to be corrupt? If they're still investigating the police force there, I doubt they would just come out and say it, but I'm sure the cat's already out of the bag.


That is basically what they were doing. Special Recon Squadron (SRS) troops were monitoring the local Iraqi Police suspecting them of being involved with the insurgency.

Seems the Police took offense...and well, the rest is history.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Hmmm
Looks like it has already begun....



Iraqis Protest British Rescue Mission

"The Basra governor threatened to end all cooperation with British forces unless Prime Minister
Tony Blair's government apologizes for the deadly clash with Iraqi police. Britain defended the raid."










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



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join