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: 18
3
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
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.

Easy, they are killing thier own people in attacks against members of the law and infiltrateing the law to further thier groups needs.
And to think Colonel Collins lost his rank over helping people, the same people that seem to be fighting against the thing he worked to build. Ok sorry thats not fair, not all just a small section of the comunity.


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

So the policemen get shot because thier forign?


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.

Eh? So the ellection was a ploy?
The US and UK government are taking over?
Oh come on, if we wanted to do that it wouldnt be too hard and we would have done it by now.

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]




posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 04:53 AM
link   
Nygaand.

You are confused .



As far as Sadr wanting instability with the sunnis, this is silly, since sistani and sadr are the shia militia leaders


Sistani and Sadr are worst enemies.

Sadr wants to resist the occupation, and Sistani wants to welcome it.

This is the main divide with the Shia, and has been since the start of the war.

"Muqtada al-Sadr, Al-Sistani’s rival "
www.worldpress.org...

Sadr's resistance and the Sunni resistance are one. Read my sources and learn.

"Our unity shuts up those who repeat that the end of the occupation will
lead to civil war," said Moqtada al-Sadr, in a speech read by one of his
aides, Nasser al-Saaidi."

As for what we think about what we are called whatever apocaluypse etc. We are called alot of things by the enemy, we are used to this defamation.

The Mehdi army means the Army of the Mehdi, a figure in Shia islam who is said to return some day, no one knows when. The mehdi will one day lead the army so it is said. They are HIS army, not Sadrs.
That's how Sadr sees it.


[edit on 23-9-2005 by Syrian Sister]



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 07:27 AM
link   
looks like thigs are getting complicated

Iraqis demand apology for Basra raid


By Abdul-Razzak Hameed

BASRA, Iraq (Reuters) - Basra city leaders vowed on Thursday not to cooperate with British forces until they received an apology and compensation for a late-night raid by British troops that freed two detained soldiers.

The governor of Iraq's second largest city said a unanimous decision had been taken at a provincial council meeting late on Wednesday and it was now up to British forces to make a move to end the dispute that has fuelled anger towards foreign troops.

"The governing council ... decided to stop all cooperation with the British until they meet three demands," Governor Mohammed al-Waili told Reuters.

"To apologise for what happened, to guarantee that it does not happen again, and third, to provide some compensation for all the damage they did during the operation," he said, referring to the crushing of jail walls by armoured vehicles.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 07:35 AM
link   
...And More Complicated they will Get...



Anger Grows in Basra After British Raid



BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 21 - Waving pistols and assault rifles, Iraqi police officers led an angry anti-British demonstration in the southern city of Basra on Wednesday, and the provincial council voted unanimously to stop cooperating with British forces in the area until Britain apologized for storming a police station to free two of its soldiers.

At least 200 people, mostly officers who work in the police station that was damaged in the raid, rallied outside Basra's police headquarters, demanding an official apology from Britain and the resignation of Basra's police chief, Hassan Sawadi, Iraqi officials said.

Source:
New York Times

Apparently 200 Police Officers demostrated - the same Police Officers that were stationed in the Station that was stormed by the Britsh Troops.

They were not some kind of Militia - but local POLICE!



Opposition leader says British troops part of the Iraq problem

LONDON (AFP) - Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy was set to deliver a hard-hitting speech, warning that the presence of British troops in
Iraq is now "part of the problem" and calling for plans for their departure.

Kennedy also accuses Prime Minister
Tony Blair of being "in denial" about the fact that most Iraqis now view British and US soldiers as occupiers, not liberators, according to an advance copy of the speech.

On Iraq, he accuses the prime minister of allowing his "pride" and his "blind support" for US President
George Bush to stand in the way of a solution involving the phased withdrawal of British troops, according to details provided by Britain's domestic Press Association.

Source:
Yahoo! News


[edit on 23/9/05 by Souljah]



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
[sadr] refused to take part in the elections.

It is a sensible course (in a certain way of thinking anyway). He can't participate in the elections without being coopted by the coalition and central government, where he'd simply be the second most commanding shia cleric in the south, which isn't very much of anything. By staying with the militias and outside the official system, he has less position, but more influence on events. Its the old seperation between power, and office. Also, its very sensible given that sistani can still motivate the shia to participate in the elections, wherein they'll obviously dominate by virtue of their numbers, and thus his powerbase is made even more powerful. If he was there alone and discouraging governmental participation, he'd be gaining support amoung the shia, but the shia would be weaker because of it.

ss
Sistani and Sadr are worst enemies.

Yes, i spoke to quickly in saying that sistani was a militia leader, thats obviously not the case. I don't know if i buy into them being in such competition tho, regardless of appearances on the surface.

We are called alot of things by the enemy, we are used to this defamation.

its hardly a defamation, is not the mehdi the one who returns at the end of the world? This is why the enemy of the brits in teh sudan was the so-called "Mad Mahdi". The same appeal and phenomenon is going on amoung the more radical christians, they 'see' the forces of doom and final destruction of the world gathering today too, and their saviour who will be heaven sent will have an army also, so i don't see how its meant to be a defamation. Just seems like people might want to say 'sadr is not the mehdi, and I really hope that this isn't the mehdi's army because I'd like for the world to continue on for a few generations more'



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by ArchAngel
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.

Easy, they are killing thier own people in attacks against members of the law and infiltrateing the law to further thier groups needs.
And to think Colonel Collins lost his rank over helping people, the same people that seem to be fighting against the thing he worked to build. Ok sorry thats not fair, not all just a small section of the comunity.


You did not answer the question. How can the ones fighting against the FOREIGN FORCES be Insurgents?



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

So the policemen get shot because thier forign?


The ones supposedly shooting the police are not insurgents because there is no legitimate civil government 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.

Eh? So the ellection was a ploy?
The US and UK government are taking over?
Oh come on, if we wanted to do that it wouldnt be too hard and we would have done it by now.

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]


The election was held by rules imposed by the occupational forces.

The new constitution has not been ratified.

The only law that exists in Iraq is that which was imposed from the outside.

That is not CIVIL, nor is it LEGITIMATE.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 09:33 AM
link   

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 !

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



depends on the Vietnamese u talking about. the North Vietnamese or the South Vietnamese. its like North Korea invading the South. bad comparison with Iraq. there is no North Iraq and South Iraq. North Vietnam invaded the South and millions of South Vietnamese refugees desperate to escape.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I agree that More Iraqies want you out than the vietnamese.

And yes some of the upper class in vietnamn feared communism, But as far as all of the south wanting you to stay, then here's a little history they don't teach kids in the USA.



18 NGO DINH DIEM
President of South Viet Nam
Ngo Dinh Diem oppressed the Vietnamese people so badly that many of them turned to the communists for protection from his ruthless rule. Even President Eisenhower admitted that "had elections been held, possibly 80% of the population would have voted for Ho Chi Minh [the communist leader]." Yet Diem, who had once lived in the U.S., had connections in Washington who liked his anti-communism. He founded the Can Lao Party (CLP), a secret police force overseen by his brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu, and Nhu's wife, Madame Nhu. The three (whom one U.S. official called "three victims of blank wall irrationality") were notorious for their ineptitude and cruelty, and, according to Brigadier General Edward Lansdale, the CLP was not their idea; it "was originally promoted by the U.S. Stale Department" to rid the country of communists.
Diem alienated urban professionals by suppressing all opposition to his regime. He alienated peasants by cancelling their age old local elections, forcing them off their land, and moving them into "agrovilles" surrounded by barbed wire. which even U.S. officials conceded bore a striking resemblance to "concentration camps." Ultimately, he angered his own military officers because he promoted on the basis of loyalty - not merit. In an effort to keep Diem in power, the U.S. tried to persuade him to make political reforms. He refused, so they persuaded him to make "military reforms." But when Diem was finally overthrown and assassinated in 1963, none of his generals rose to defend him. Nor did the U.S., which, after 8 years, had finally realized that Diem wasn't popular.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
You did not answer the question. How can the ones fighting against the FOREIGN FORCES be Insurgents?

The ones supposedly shooting the police are not insurgents because there is no legitimate civil government in Iraq.

So thats the exscuse, their not "legitiate" so that makes them fair game?
Yeah sure , you can call them what you want I know thier policemen and want to keep the peace, atleast some do.



The election was held by rules imposed by the occupational forces.

I didnt know we had placed men with SMG's at the ballot boxs..


The new constitution has not been ratified.

So this means they can murder policemen?


The only law that exists in Iraq is that which was imposed from the outside.

Really? So what about the police forces that british forces set up all along the country I guess those are manned by outside forces too?
The british army LAW states it will obey the local law, so how can they obey the local law if there is no law?


That is not CIVIL, nor is it LEGITIMATE.

Was the Ba' athisist party legit?
Was it civil?



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
I agree that More Iraqies want you out than the vietnamese.

And yes some of the upper class in vietnamn feared communism, But as far as all of the south wanting you to stay, then here's a little history they don't teach kids in the USA.

[


he may not be popular and i would prefer a leader that is supported by the South Vietnamese and stays democratic. otherwise milliions of Vietnamese left South Vietnam after North Vietnam successfully took over. the South Vietnam just need support like South Korea. the U.S. just gave up. i wonder why they gave up on South Vietnam but not South Korea.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
So thats the exscuse, their not "legitiate" so that makes them fair game?
Yeah sure , you can call them what you want I know thier policemen and want to keep the peace, atleast some do.


It is not an excuse, it is the definition of the word. They were insurgents when they were fighting against Saddam. We are not the LEGITIMATE[look up the word] rulers of Iraq, and we could not be unless we united...



I didnt know we had placed men with SMG's at the ballot boxs..


They were given no other choice other than what we imposed on them.

Just because there was a constitution, and an election of representatives the Iraqi government is not legitimate until all FOREIGN influence is removed.


So thats the exscuse, their not "legitiate" so that makes them fair game?
Yeah sure , you can call them what you want I know thier policemen and want to keep the peace, atleast some do.


I was refering to the foreign troops, not the local police who are a legitimate authority.

Never did I say it was acceptable to kill.



So this means they can murder policemen?


I never said anything like that. Why do you change the subject, and make extreme rationalizations?



Really? So what about the police forces that british forces set up all along the country I guess those are manned by outside forces too?
The british army LAW states it will obey the local law, so how can they obey the local law if there is no law?


Reference please. The British Army does as its ordered, and is above the Law in Iraq.



Was the Ba' athisist party legit?
Was it civil?


It was both.

Look up the word before you reply........



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
It is not an excuse, it is the definition of the word. They were insurgents when they were fighting against Saddam. We are not the LEGITIMATE[look up the word] rulers of Iraq, and we could not be unless we united...

We are not the rulers of iraq, we do not try to be.
The definition of "insurgent"is..


guerrilla: a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment




They were given no other choice other than what we imposed on them.

Really?


Just because there was a constitution, and an election of representatives the Iraqi government is not legitimate until all FOREIGN influence is removed.

How can that be done if people are still killing each other and trying to take power?
Do you suggest we leave the place in chaos?
BTW, who says its legitimate or not?



I was refering to the foreign troops, not the local police who are a legitimate authority.

Never did I say it was acceptable to kill.

Thats what it damm well sounded like.
Foreign troops (ours) rarely keep the peace, they are there only to go in when asked.



I never said anything like that. Why do you change the subject, and make extreme rationalizations?

Thats not even on the extreme.
Your post sure sounded like it supported that kind of action.



Reference please. The British Army does as its ordered, and is above the Law in Iraq.

Ok no problem..



STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
As a soldier in the British Army you must:

Abide by the civil law, wherever you are serving.

Abide by military law, which includes some additional offences such as insubordination and absence without leave which are needed to maintain discipline.

Abide by the laws of armed conflict whenever you are on operations.

Avoid any activity which undermines your professional ability, or puts others at risk. In particular, the misuse of drugs and abuse of alcohol.

Avoid any behaviour which damages trust and respect between you and others in your team and unit, such as deceit or social misconduct. In particular, you must not commit any form of harassment, bullying or discrimination, whether on grounds of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or any other behaviour which could undermine good order and military discipline.

Also the british army follows orders that IT thinks are right, hell they've revolted for less, you think they'd stand for murdering?
The british army is above no law.



It was both.

Tell that to the people of iraq.


Look up the word before you reply........

I have ..
Civil:


Everything that is not criminal


Legitimate;

That which is legal

It took power in a coup....


xu

posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   
another source on the topic.


U.K. media is now desperately backpedaling from the version of events reported by at least a dozen independent reporters working in Iraq, after reporting the same general events as other world media on Monday.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 08:46 PM
link   
BTW, I wouldnt say that source is badly informed but the fact it says that the SRR is an offshoot of the SAS is rather......stupid..



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Here is the Latetest Update to this Story:

Iraqi judge seeks arrest of British soldiers

BASRA, Iraq (Reuters) - An Iraqi judge has issued arrest warrants for two British soldiers freed after a British raid in Basra, an Iraqi lawyer said on Saturday, and thousands rallied in the southern city in support of a new constitution.



Judge Raghib Hassan issued the warrants on Thursday, accusing the men of killing an Iraqi policeman and wounding another, carrying unlicensed weapons and holding false identification, Kassim al-Sabti, the head of the lawyers' syndicate in Basra told Reuters.

Britain's Ministry of Defense said on Saturday it had not received any arrest warrants for the soldiers in Basra, adding that in any case the warrants would have no legal basis.



The Reaction of British Army to the Arrest of two of Special Forces Members has Angered the Iraqi People Alot.

Source:
Reuters

I wonder if these Arrest Warrents mean Anything at all when they are targeting British, or US Soldiers.

[edit on 24/9/05 by Souljah]



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Needless to say, the careers of these 2 SAS troopers are over. Goodluck try to find them.



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   
REUTERS


today.reuters.com...

BASRA, Iraq (Reuters) - An Iraqi judge has issued arrest warrants for two British soldiers freed after a British raid in Basra, an Iraqi lawyer said on Saturday, and thousands rallied in the southern city in support of a new constitution.

Judge Raghib Hassan issued the warrants on Thursday, accusing the men of killing an Iraqi policeman and wounding another, carrying unlicensed weapons and holding false identification, Kassim al-Sabti, the head of the lawyers' syndicate in Basra told Reuters.

Britain's Ministry of Defense said on Saturday it had not received any arrest warrants for the soldiers in Basra, adding that in any case the warrants would have no legal basis.

Continued......


The fact that they were carrying false ID's shows that they were prepared to go through checkpoints, and fool police into believing they were NOT Brit Agents.

What other purpose would it serve?



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Legitimate;
quote: That which is legal
It took power in a coup....


Saddam was elected.

The Baath party took power after they overthrew the ILLEGITIMATE Monarchy that the British installed before they withdrew from Iraq ending their decades of occupation.

The constitution he operated under was ratified by the people of Iraq, and Originated from Iraqis without foreign influence.

Saddams government was absoluetly legitimate.

The one we are imposing on Iraq is not.

In many ways the old constitution was better than the new one, and the one they are to soon put to the people for ratification.



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/ 2005/09/23/wirq23.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/09/23/ixnewstop.html

The Telegraph (UK), 23 September 2005, has a report on terrorism in Iraq:

Abdel Hadi al-Daraji, Moqtada al-Sadr's top official in the sprawling Sadr City slums of Baghdad, told The Daily Telegraph that Britain was plotting to start an ethnic war by carrying out mass-casualty bombings targeting Shia civilians and then blaming the attacks on Sunni Arab groups.

"Everyone knows the occupiers' agenda," insisted Mr Daraji, who is currently the only Mahdi army official authorised to speak directly on Sadr's behalf.

"They are in bed with Mossad the Israeli intelligence service and their intention is to keep Iraq an unstable battlefield so they can exploit their interests in Iraq." But Mr Daraji insisted that Sadr was not going to call for a Shia uprising in Basra, where he enjoys only a limited, if growing, following in the city's slums.

"We have to take the moral high ground and resist this provocation by the British," he said.

"This is a very dangerous, very sensitive time in Iraq but we must calm our supporters or we will fall into the British trap."

According to The Telegraph, Sadr has been keen to cultivate a degree of legitimacy since he agreed to join the political process last year.

iraqwar.mirror-world.ru...
Continued......


The hand has been revealed, but the game is not up because the mass media in America, and other western nations will not ever allow their people to know about this.



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   

english.pravda.ru...

Mr.Blair, an explanation, please!!
09/22/2005 09:43
British soldiers in terrorist attack? What is going on in Iraq?

That nothing would surprise anyone now, two and a half years into the incredible act of mass butchery called the war in Iraq, in which a sovereign nation was attacked, its infrastructures destroyed and tens of thousands of its civilians slaughtered in an unprovoked and unfounded casus belli, is nothing new. But day-by-day, new chasms of incredulity are opened with revelations which would have appeared absurd only a few years ago.

After Abu Ghraib, little else remains to shock and few stones are unturned in terms of the depths of evil and sheer depravity to which the soldiers of the USA and its allies are prepared to sink to, in a never-ending war which sees the occupation forces losing control on a daily basis.

Now it transpires that two British soldiers were dressed as Arabs and attacking the Iraqi security forces in Basra? And the British authorities have admitted they were members of the SAS? They were caught after shooting at and murdering an Iraqi police official and their car was found to be packed with explosives and a C4 detonator?

Continued......


Why would they have detonators if they were not planning to use explosives?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join