It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 17
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 01:37 AM

Originally posted by Syrian Sister

BTW, why would there be a picture of the safe house anyway ? for what purpose ?

To prove that there was infact a safe house and a "daring heroic rescue", the brits and UK love that Saving private ryan crap.

You've posted one which shows nothing to do with explosives.

That is still disputed isn't it.

[edit on 22-9-2005 by Syrian Sister]

Who said ANYTHING about a daring, heroic rescue? It was stated that they were found at a safehouse, after the Britsh went to the jail to get them. They went to the jail because the police were ordered by the government to hand them over. When they got there, the soldiers weren't there. Where did ANYONE other than you, with your amazing sarcastic wit, say anything about a daring, or heroic rescue?

posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 02:43 AM
My with your amazing sarcastic wit,
oh.. well chucks i don't know what to say. Thanks i guess.

Who said ANYTHING about a daring, heroic rescue? It was stated that they were found at a safehouse, after the Britsh went to the jail to get them. They went to the jail because the police were ordered by the government to hand them over. When they got there, the soldiers weren't there.

It was claimed that they where "handed over to the mehdi army" and taken to a 'safe house' if that is the case, then wouldn't the mehdi soldiers be guarding him? Wouldn't that mean that there has to be some sort of struggle in taking them from the safe house? Some would call that "a daring rescue" heh, certainly it warants images if it is true.

Here is what the british CLAIMED!!!

"the British say they rescued the soldiers in a nearby private home in the custody of Shiite militias."

And i'm not the first one that used the words "daring rescue" .

"six tanks were used to smash down the wall in a daring rescue operation."

posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 02:56 AM

1. "They were told the British were going to be on a mission looking for them.'

HUh? By whome? what do you have SAS troops who are loyal to iraqi resistance and decided to tip them about a very secret mission? Who else would know about a secret mission. Are you claiming the resistance has infilitrated the british SAS too?

"2. The British soldiers did something to give themselves away. "

Yes, possible by shooting and killing a police man in a drive by. How else would your expert SAS covert operatives give themselves away, They only started waving a british flag AFTER they where stopped. Aren't they supposed to be experts at being covert, how is it that they gave themselves away just by driving by? Where they playing Spice girls music at high volume?

By which action did it make the iraqi puppet police sure that they where british? I can just imagine them mooning the police station as they drove by LOL hahaha

"3. Someone recognized one of them and tipped them off.

HUH? which resistance fighter would know SAS troopers intimately enough to recognise them even while their wearing a disguise and driving? I thought SAS troops where supposed to hide their identity, isn't that why the british military requested their faces be blured?

4. Someone recognized the vehicle they were in as having been on the British base.

Out of all four. This one has to be the most amazing. I'll call it, my favourite. That person sounds like superman to me, first he is a resistance fighter who infiltrated a british base and saw a standard looking WHITE car. HE commited it to memory. AND then under amazing circumstances. Then this same resistance fighter coincidently was passing by a police station where he saw a similar looking white. And in his genious mind, he knew. He ran towards the police, not knowing wether that are puppet police or resisatnce infiltrators, having time to tell them all this crazy story and coincidence. They ofcource, immedietly belived him and gave chase!!!

Never mind how strange the notion that your spies where keeping a car at a base IN OPEN FULL VIEW of everyone. And they later planned to use in in a covert mission. If that where true, their reputation has just been utterly destroyed.


The nay sayers should have stuck with the story that they where simply out on a sunday drive relaxing in civilians clothes. With ofcource a large arsanal of weapons in the boot of their truck. What was it someone said "That's the SAS"

[edit on 22-9-2005 by Syrian Sister]

posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 03:13 AM
Ever read anything about Vietnam? The VC would have infiltrators working on the US bases, who would tell when units went out on patrol, and when they were expected back. Any time you have large amounts of non-military personnel working on a base, SOME of them are going to be informers for the insurgency. The insurgents would try to either force someone to become an informer for them, or get someone on the base undercover. That person overhears them talking about going out to watch the police in Basra, passes it on, and suddenly they're looking for anyone that looks foreign.

You see two guys in a car, one of them picks up a radio, or binocluars, or a camera . Oops those aren't civilians.

A civilian worker on the base sees them leave, goes to an insurgent contact, and says "Hey, this is what they were wearing." Or, sees them after they leave the base.

The military gets a car from someone in the city, that person recognizes it leaving the base, and passes that information along.

Any one of these is VERY plausible. There's no way that the military will be able to clear every civilian working on the base. Some of them are relatives of trusted people that are already working with the military, some of them clear the background check, and get disgruntled with things later. Some clear the check, and then are forced to become informants, etc.

posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 03:37 AM
That would be plausable if these where normal soldiers, but what your saying is that the resistance has infiltrated the SAS !

Atleast your admiting that iraq and vietnamn are no different. Just as the vietnamese wanted the occupation to end, so do theiraqies. History repeats.

By the way, the cressida is the most common kind of car in iraq. I see them all the time in photographs and videos.

And it was white too. Looks like someone purposely chose it to look unsupicous.

[edit on 22-9-2005 by Syrian Sister]

posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 03:47 AM
I'm NOT admitting that they have infiltrated SAS. The SAS plans missions just like the regular forces do. The only difference is that they don't talk about them after they're done. There are other people that are going to know about the missions. They could have been overheard. There are certain things that are done before a mission that give away that there is a mission going on.

In Okinawa, when the SR-71 was flying out of there, everyone knew when there was a mission going on, because the flight crews ate a high protein breakfast before going to suit up. It's the same with the SAS. There are obvious things that will happen if you know what to look for, that scream "mission" to people that are looking for them.

I'm also not saying Vietnam and Iraq are the same. Vietnam just happened to be a good example that popped into my mind.

posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 03:59 AM

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
That would be plausable if these where normal soldiers, but what your saying is that the resistance has infiltrated the SAS !

Gawd, is any thought applied to these statements SS ?

Didn't you read Zaphods previous post //hits head//. All it would take is one militia man etc to see the car leave the British compound. All he has to do is tell his mates the type of car and license plate number if any. See simple.

Also, it is you who claims that Iraqi's can tell non Iraqis very easily. You said they can tell that Iranians and Syrians etc are different. Then it isn't too great a leap ( from your own statements ) that they would recognise Brits.

posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 06:58 AM

Special Reconnaissance Regiment (not SRS).


Nice badge.

[edit on 22-9-2005 by HALODROP]

posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 08:39 AM

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

Well we did create our own rangers to do that task but the SAS would cover themselves as well.

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.

Thats what everyone would do I think.

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.

Well 14th intel was overall in charge of SF operation there and they used to work in 2 man teams, but with other units nearby for support and a chopper ready for lift off to support them.

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

[edit on 21-9-2005 by Nygdan]

Lol, spelt it wrong as HALO pointed out, its SRR.

posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 11:56 AM
This seems too contrived, and the plausability that the SAS informed an already suspect police force of thier intentions to work under the shadows in Basra seems highly illogical. To what end would they allow thier highly trained and expensive soldiers to be caught?


posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Luxifero
This seems too contrived, and the plausability that the SAS informed an already suspect police force of thier intentions to work under the shadows in Basra seems highly illogical. To what end would they allow thier highly trained and expensive soldiers to be caught?


Its about duristriction mate, the police force would complain and have rights to stop any action that wasnt reported to them.

BTW, the militia probabaly use the same tacitcs the IRA and UVF/UDA use to catch "pinkies" or try to.

posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 02:05 PM
artificial? the Shiites and Sunnis had been long rivals before western powers came to the ME. so dont say that the Shiites and Sunni or Kurds have been united. before Islam there were tribes.

posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 03:57 PM

Originally posted by stumason
I find it so funny, that when the insurgents strike [..]all you doo-gooders are quick to say nothing.

The intersting thing here is that the same rational that permits the insurgents to be summarily executed and permanently detained without charge or trial in places like Gitmo is actually the same rational that applies to the iraqis being able to arrest and try these British soldiers. They weren't in uniform, they weren't soliders. No uniform, and you are not a soldier, regardless.

British soldiers are actually making an effort here to stop the insurgents infiltrating the police

The fact remains that we now cannot say that an incident isn't infact (intenntionally or de facto) a false flag operation. What would have happened if these Brits weren't captured? The papers would've reported that a vehicle, unresponsive to local police force orders to stop at a checkpoint, opened fire on the police, killing them, and dissappeared into the desert.

And again notice, the police had set up a check point and this vehicle, which is supposed to be undercover, doesn't respond to the police orders to stop and properly pass thru the check point. If they were simply on an intellligence gathering mission, why would they do this?

But we're never going to find out, because everyone will simply say that we have to assume that nothing odd was going on unless the brits admit to it, which, obviously, wouldn't happen if it were true.

I just don't get were you people are coming from!

Coalition forces disguised as arabs/insurgents attack a local police unit, and then before any sort of investigation and without any explanation, the coalition storms the police jailhouse, literally smashing the building down with tanks and engaging in a fire fight that leaves half a dozen people dead. And still no explanation as to any of it and two sets of storied being presented by the coalition. This is a simply thing? People have been saying for a long time now that there are coalition forces engaging in counter-insurgency operations over there, which historically has included masquerading as insurgents and at a minimum inciting violence, or organizing the most radical elements of whatever insurgency is being fought against into squads and enabling them to commit really atrocious acts of violence. This incident is clearly not 'proof' of this, however, disturbingly, its a vital prediction of the counter-insurgency hypothesis.

And his mehdi army have

I have to ask, since this is not my personal context, wtf do the people think about sadr's army beign called the islamic equivalent of "Army of the Apocalypse" or the "Doomsday Militia"????

As far as Sadr wanting instability with the sunnis, this is silly, since sistani and sadr are the shia militia leaders and are probably the only reason that the attacks on the shia hasn't resutled in popular a retaliation agianst the sunnis. Far from having to work for it, if thats what they wanted they'd merely not work to prevent it.

I stil beleive that Sadr is more intersted in having a powerful hand in a republic tho than ousting the coalition.

[edit on 22-9-2005 by Nygdan]

posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 05:21 PM
To everyone that is assuming the Police are really working for the insurgents, and that it is unquestionable that they are evil, have no rights and should be killed, I ask you this.

Define the word Insurgent, and explain how people fighting against the FOREIGN forces could be Insurgents.

You will discover that there is not one single Insurgent in Iraq.

There is no civil government for them to rise up against, and even if there were the FOREIGN forces would not be a part of it.

posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 06:18 PM
For the person that said no Iraq government officials had said that the arrested SAS were taken from the jail.

But some Iraqi officials give a different version of events. Baqir Solagh Jabr, Iraq's interior minister, said the two captured SAS soldiers had not, in fact, been handed over to militants. British commanders had acted on "a rumour" when they ordered the storming of a police station, the minister said.

posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 06:32 PM
Has anything been released on what there ACTUAL mission was?
I cant see how they INFILTRATED the militia... there white brits..
not tanned arabs.. any arab would know immediately as soon as they got within 10m they werent arab. so them being UNDERCOVER just dosnt work.
They brought in hunndereds of kurds to parade around the Saddam statute when it fell, why couldnt they hire arabs whom agree with the americans to do the undercover work

If they were trying to PROVE Them selvs to the militia by shooting at the IRAQI police... where were they when this happened? It doesnt make sense why militia would need to enscript people then make them prove themselves.

I noticed than when ever a police station gets attacked ' and it seems to be bloody often ' that everyone inside is shot to $hit.. ie NO WITTNESSES!

there's reports about people being DRUGGED and coherced into performing suicide bombs...

Its becoming more and more obvious the coalition is behind that crap happening in this country.

They lied to get in, and they will lie to stay.
Whats the point in spending all this money going into iraq, then just handing it back over to them... NONE!

Remember when chenney said the insurgency was in its last throws? and we all laughed it off..
Maybe it was... and they figure they wernt ready to continue with the second part of their plan at that particular point, so they need to create some reasons to stay in.

IF they were undercover.. wouldnt they of advised the IRAQI police? and organised to have them free'd...
not send in armoured vehicles to smash through a jail to let them in?

SS I wouldnt call this similar to vietnam.. maybe in fact that the vietnamese like the iraqi's want them gone true..
but this is unlike anywar ever seen..

Wars usualyl have 2 factions going to conflict over a matter...
They way i see it majority of wars have 2 parties that can come together under the flag of peace to settle differences and end bloodshed.
This is not the case in Iraq.
A foreign nation has invaded, occupied and setup shop. Iraqi will always be known as a tainted land from now on. until someone removes the americans.

I like to think of it as France.. when the Nazi's waltzed in and setup shop.
the freedom fighters / insurgents back then fought for freedom and removal of the foreign forces.. they were praised for there bravery.
Its no different here.. A western World has taken up shop and is banding the freedom fighters as insurgents..
being they have just been caught redhanded acting as insurgents to prolong there occupation just maes this war much more haneous..

If the insurgents were really there. wouldnt they of reailsed they cant beat the coalition by now?... roadside bombs.. skirmishes agaisnt jets, bombs and tanks?... why not lay down ur arms, scatter into society.. being the Americans are tellign the world thye will LEAVE when its safe this would show u the honesty of the americans.
If they dont leave the worldw ill see this war for what it really is.
if they do leave., then come out of the woodwork and disrupt political leaders.

.... not IF but when Zarqawi is proven to be a fake image from the US, this entier war on terror will be shown for what it really is. A Curropt US governments attempt at global take over. I believe these british toops being caught is the start of the end for the americans, because people are starting to see the lengths the coalition will go to, to convince the world they need to be in iraq.

[edit on 22-9-2005 by Agit8dChop]

[edit on 22-9-2005 by Agit8dChop]

[edit on 22-9-2005 by Agit8dChop]

posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 06:50 PM
The big question should be 'Where is the car?'

Did the brits haul it, or drive it away?

If the car was 'booby trapped' the police would not have taken back to the police station.

They would have waited for a bomb squad.

It seems the Brits showed up first, and took it.

posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 07:17 PM
Have the Americans released any statement regarding the incident?

posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 08:28 PM

Originally posted by AgentSmith

This is from a religious holiday tho, it has nothing to do with aggression. Its a type of mortificiation of the flesh. Those other pictures are pretty screwed up tho. As far as them being irrelevant, if the accusation is that the anglos are bloodthirsty yobs, then demonstratin that iraqi culture can be rather brutual seems relevant to me. Either way the points are made.

I am SICK of hearing people bad mouthing them - especially OUR OWN people.

All the more reason for them to come clean here, whatever intelligence mission they were on it simply can't be as important as fundamental faith in government. Also, lets face it, there is nothing inherently special about british people that prevents them from acting like savages; its not immpossible, tho I agree the thing being hinted at here is pretty unthinkable. Any human can do these sorts of things. True enough, the culture over there seems more accepting and encouraging of these sorts of things, and given those facts alone, we'd tend to be correct in attributing the atrocities to the insurgent side. However, there are other things going on besides the innate cultures of the british and the iraqis.

The Geneva Conventions pertain to two countries at war. Which the UK and Iraq are not

I specifically noted this difference. Also, the central government and the uk are not at war, however its difficult to say what precisely is the status of the local governments. Regardless, no one on either side in this instance was following a law book, the justification for not releasing these guys to the brits seems like it stands tho, they were out of uniform, and thus not soldiers.

The two SRS (not SAS) troopers were part of an Operation to uncover corruption and infiltration into the IPS by the insurgency.

Where is this comming from??? I haven't read every link to the article, but everything I've seen has been that the brits weren't making any official statements as to their mission.

Its not as if they were dropped into a sovereign country which did not allow our soldiers to be there

Indeed, they could be considered as operatives of the central government, but, again, that government can't necessarily order local governments to release prisoners because of a deal it made.

You are ignoring some glaring differences between what constitutes a spy and what these guys were doing.

If the central and coalition are confirming that they were indeed there to gather intelligence on the insurgents, and can explain why these guys were shooting at the police (ie they were shot at first without provaction, such as not stopping at a checkpoint), then I'll agree the situation is fundamentally different. They do not seem to be doing that. Obviously the reports that we've seen so far can be explained by false flag operations, or by an intelligence operation, short of why they started shooting at the police and the confusion over where the heck they were being held.

You could be the best spy in the world and have a bad day, and something incredibly stupid happen and get caught.

This explanation doesn't make sense tho. If the arresting officers were in fact insurgents (not part of sadrs army per anyone's claims that i have seen btw), and the out of uniform brits knew this, then it strains beleif to suggest that they gave up and surrendered after a short firefight without even being hit themselves. I can't imagine that anyone would willingly put down their arms and give themselves over to these insurgents, considering that they're ripping people's heads off with small knives and doing god knows what else. And thats to civilians, let alone what they'd do with Anglo special operations teams. Also, if they were merely infiltrating, then why all the hardware? THey can't have been conducting an inflitration mission, at best an observation mission, tho thats not especially relevant here.

but that particular night he just happened to walk over and look down right at one of the SAS troopers

And did they surrender to the goat herder and turn themselves over to a republican guard unit to be hoteled in one of husseins torture palaces?? Of course not.

These YOUNG Soldiers of the mehdi army are giving blood to the people of Fallujah, during the first siege.

What are sadrites doing in the fallujan seige?? They were supposed to have restrained themselves as part of the deal that sadr made to be released from the temple. Unless they are just there for photo ops and 'goodwill' work.


Special Reconnaissance Regiment

Intersting. I am unfamiliar with them, but i was also trying to be a little cheeky, you know, 'they're super secret' 'what, who? bah, never heard of 'em"

Dang, that is a nice badge! Seems odd for 'recon' tho, the helmet of a heavy infantryman, must be the 'cool' factor there, sweet!

dont say that the Shiites and Sunni or Kurds have been united. before Islam there were tribes

The history of the divisions between these groups is intersting. Of course, the big schism in islam is between the sunni and shia, and it all starts over who is, effectively, the heir of Mohammed the prophet, and thus the 'pope' of all islamdom. The shia and sunni are not different peoples. Indeed, the original division was between members of the same group. The kurds are a different story. They are beleived to be a group of iranian/persian speakers that migrated out of south iran and into iraq, armenia, turkey, etc, tho apparently opinions differ. Whats really ironic tho is that iraq was gerrymandered by the british after wwi, they created the state of iraq, and it could've gone a completely different way, with iraq broken up. The kurds, who have tendency torwards independence nowadays, apparently were all well and fine with this, and its only after the rich oil reserves of northern iraq are discovered that kurd groups start struggling for independence. This ends up spilling over into turkey, where there are also lots of kurds. They may well get it, if the sunnis refuse to participate in the central government and it doesn't at least go federal, there might very well be a kurdistan in the region before long. The kurds would probably be better off severed from the apparently extreme sectarian struggles in the south. This will probably result in the genocide of kirkukian arabs tho (they having been moved in by saddam to be an ethnic powerbase for his group).

posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 02:48 AM

by Nygdan
I stil beleive that Sadr is more intersted in having a powerful hand in a republic tho than ousting the coalition.

Of course he does, and that would set back any progress in human rights if he had a hand. But he is not willing to work positively for his position, he wants it handed to him on a silver platter. He refused to take part in the elections. Rather, this is an example of the way he operates:

Al-Sadr's supporters were reported to be involved in an attack on a group of students in Basra who were having a picnic in a park. Several of the students were killed. Senior al-Sadr loyalists said that they had a duty to stop the students' "dancing, sexy dress and corruption." One, Sheik Ahmed al-Basri, said "We beat them because we are authorised by Allah to do so and that is our duty." [2] One of the students described what happened: "They started shouting at us that we were immoral, that we were meeting boys and girls together and playing music and that this was against Islam. They began shooting in the air and people screamed. Then, with one order, they began beating us with their sticks and rifle butts."

new topics

top topics

<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in