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

The people had no say whatsoever.....

The same as in many other nations.

The fact still remains that he was the legally, and constitutionally elected leader of Iraq.

What is your point leading to?

Unlike America he had legitimacy both under law, and in his blood.

Originally posted by ArchAngel

Why especially American?

You really do not know?

America is Israels unquestioning ally, and Israel is the blood enemy of Iraqis.

That's why Israel was not part of the coalition. There are no Israeli soldiers in Iraq, the Iraqis blood enemy was not invited.

America killed countless Iraqis in wars, and through sanctions.

The UN imposed the sanctions, not the US, and it did not include humanitarian supplies. If Saddam cared about his people at all, humanitarian aid would have been plentiful. Also, you are buying into Iraqi propaganda, they blamed every civilian death (that they didn't cause), on sanctions.

America invaded, and occupied.

Yep. And like you I didn't agree with that.

Put the shoe on the other foot for real, and ask yourself if you would like the nation that was best friends with your worst enemy, devesated your national economy with sanctions, and killed your family and/or friends.

There are no best friends in world politics. There are no Israeli soldiers in Iraq. The sanctions were imposed by the UN. Either way, the Iraqis have the right to want us to leave. I want us to leave as well. But what do you think will happen in Iraq if we do just up and leave? Now that we're there and we turned the place on it's ear, what do you think would be best for the average Iraqi?

That's why Israel was not part of the coalition. There are no Israeli soldiers in Iraq, the Iraqis blood enemy was not invited.

America is Israels best friend in the world.

Were it not for our political, financial, and military support the Palestinians would not be under occupation, and maybe all of Israel would be Arab again....

No matter what you think we are discussing what the iraqis think.

By being Israels friend we make most of the Iraqis into our enemies.

The UN imposed the sanctions, not the US, and it did not include humanitarian supplies. If Saddam cared about his people at all, humanitarian aid would have been plentiful. Also, you are buying into Iraqi propaganda, they blamed every civilian death (that they didn't cause), on sanctions.

American and UK threats to veto any lifting of the sanctions is the reason why they stayed until we invaded.

The Iraqis blame America for the sactions, and again that is the subject here.

There are no best friends in world politics. There are no Israeli soldiers in Iraq. The sanctions were imposed by the UN. Either way, the Iraqis have the right to want us to leave. I want us to leave as well. But what do you think will happen in Iraq if we do just up and leave? Now that we're there and we turned the place on it's ear, what do you think would be best for the average Iraqi?

Iraqis want us to leave, yet we are digging into the bases being built all over Iraq.

Few if any are fooled by any claims to the contrary.

All while Israel continues building the wall that we are paying for around the Palestinians with the Dome one their side....

Originally posted by ArchAngel
The fact still remains that he was the legally, and constitutionally elected leader of Iraq.

What is your point leading to?

My point is leading to the fact that regardless of any country's constitution, the world cannot allow any government to brutalize it's people the way he did. There is no constitutional or legal protection for raping, torturing, and murdering people who have commited petty offenses or just disagree with the government. That was common practice for that legally and constitutionally elected leader of Iraq. Just because somebody is unfortunate enough to be born in such a situation, doesn't mean they should have to suffer. And I'm well aware Iraq isn't the only country that oppresses in that way. The entire world should have stepped in to remove Saddam long ago, because the Iraqis were too paralyzed by fear to help themselves obviously, and every other government that commits such acts should be taken down as well. It shouldn't have been because of the greed and hunger for control of the mideast of the Bush administration that Saddam was removed, it should have been because of the unity of the civilized world to make sure ALL human beings are given a fair chance at life, regardless if a country's constitution says it's okay to murder those who did not commit an equal offense.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Iran gassed the Kurds during the war, and it was a terrible thing....

Dude, did you even read the entire article you linked?

However the DIA's final position on the attack was in fact much less certain than this preliminary report suggests, with its final conclusions, in June 2003, asserting just that there was insufficient evidence, but concluding that "Iraq ..used chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians in 1988" [3]. The CIA altered its position radically in the late 1990s and cited Halabja frequently in its evidence of WMD before the 2003 invasion [4]

Another extensive analysis of the incident is contained in a post [5] to the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq listserv by Cambridge political theorist Glen Rangwala. Rangwala describes how the attack followed the occupation of the city by Iranian and pro-Iranian forces, leading to the conclusion that the gassing was an attack on these forces by the Iraqis. Rangwala also cites studies done by non-governmental organizations that concluded different chemicals were used than the ones cited in the DIA study, although a 1991 DIA report stated that Iraq did also possess Hydrogen Cyanide gas supplied by the US. Rangwala's analysis effectively sums up the current prevailing view of the event, that Iraq was indeed responsible for the attack on Halabja, and that the DIA analysis is in error. This evidence backed up by extensive witness testimony gathered by organisations like Human Rights Watch[6] and Indict (www.indict.org.uk), has, more recently, added to the growing evidence that the initial DIA appraisal of the events was mistaken. The most categorical proof is the many further well-documented incidents of deliberate attacks on Kurdish civilians occurring at the same time throughout Kurdish northern Iraq also perpetrated without doubt by Iraqi forces (Al-Anfal Campaign).

Originally posted by ArchAngel
America is Israels best friend in the world.

Did we give them the BFF necklace?

Were it not for our political, financial, and military support the Palestinians would not be under occupation, and maybe all of Israel would be Arab again....

I see. You are one who believes Israel has no right to exist. That explains alot. What would then become of the Israelis? Where do they go? Do you think they should be exterminated? Should they all move to the US?

No matter what you think we are discussing what the iraqis think.

We're discussing what we think the Iraqis think, err.....I think. How do you know what they're thinking? When was the last time you went there and interviewed a few average Iraqis on the street? Are you getting your knowledge of what tehy think from media propaganda machines that you denounce? Or are you just making assumptions that all average Iraqis are captivated by their hatred for Israel and fighting the Americans, and that they are not worried about their families or trying to make a living just like the average American? You don't think that maybe just a handfull are tired of wars and death, and want to see a new government thrive and bring Iraq into the civilized world again? Maybe just a handfull would like to stop by McDonalds and get a Big Mac and some Happy Meals for their kids after a hard day's work. Maybe a few would like to be able to voice their opposition to a government policy in a peaceful way without having them and their family murdered because of it. You have no idea what the average Iraqi thinks, and neither do I. But being as we're all human, we can make guesses based on what we think.

By being Israels friend we make most of the Iraqis into our enemies.

Again, I really don't think most Iraqis care that much about Israel. It would be a pretty miserable existance to spend all your time hating someone else.

American and UK threats to veto any lifting of the sanctions is the reason why they stayed until we invaded.

Well, it was legal. Isn't that what you like to say? In this case you're probably willing to admit there's a difference between something being legal, and something being right. Also, there was no limit on humanitarian aid. Looks like instead of the American propaganda machine, you're brain is washed by the former Iraqi one.

The Iraqis blame America for the sactions, and again that is the subject here.

Because the Iraqi leadership made them believe that we were to blame, and held back humanitarian aid to further that agenda.

Iraqis want us to leave, yet we are digging into the bases being built all over Iraq.

Few if any are fooled by any claims to the contrary.

I believe it. And I'm against it.

All while Israel continues building the wall that we are paying for around the Palestinians with the Dome one their side....

If the Palestinians weren't blowing up buses full of innocent civilians, Israel wouldn't have a reason to do that. But that catch 22 's an entirely different issue altogether.

wow that is some story why would british soldiers attack the Iraqi authorities that are trying make so hard, if this so then the many attacks that took place on police station could be of british troops?

Maybe they just wanted to join the attackers who already do this every day just for the fun of it after all who gives a damn on how many Iraqi die

Originally posted by ArchAngel

There is much more to this story than you suggest, and it is much more likely that the Iranians were the ones to gas the Kurds.

There is much more evidence pointing to Iraq. Why would the Iranians gas their allies ? duh.

The Kurds died from a cyanide based gas that Iraq did not use, at leats not at the time.

NO NO NO, there are some reports that Hydogen Cyanide may have been used. However it is indisputable that Mustard and nerve agents were used. From your own wikipedia source -
The Halabja attack involved multiple chemical agents, including mustard gas, and the nerve agents sarin, tabun and VX." Some sources have also pointed to the blood agent Hydrogen Cyanide.
en.wikipedia.org...

There are dozens of references to reports pinning the blame on Iran if you care to look.

Yes and many more pointing to Iraq.

Defense Intelligence Agency report backs it all up.
A preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) study at the time concluded, apparently by determining the chemicals used by looking at images of the victims, that it was in fact Iran that was responsible for the attack, an assessment which was used subsequently by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for much of the early 1990's.
Continued.....
en.wikipedia.org...

Umm, do you just have selective reading or what Once again from your source wikipedia -

Some debate continues, however, over the question of whether Iraq was really the responsible party, perhaps stemming from well supported claims that the United States supplied chemical weapons to Iraq. The matter is further complicated by the fact that the U.S. State Department, in the immediate aftermath of the incident, instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame. According to an article published in the International Herald Tribune by human rights researcher Joost Hiltermann the US intentionally tried to shift the blame for the gassing of Halabja off of Saddam, and declassified State Department document demonstrate that US diplomats received instructions to press this line with United States allies.

Gee fancy that

Iran gassed the Kurds during the war, and it was a terrible thing....

Well, I think you've proven yourself wrong

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by ArchAngel
You took my quote, and changed the context by changing the subject.

Your point?

It is true that Saddam was legally, and constitutionally elected despite what the US media has said.

Did the iraqi people vote him into power or did someone else?

Well, what about George Bush? Did the American people vote him into power or did someone else?
Seems to me that the Supreme Court elected him into power the first time, and under some very dubious circumstances. And the second time, well, if he won that election it will be the first time that exit polls have EVER failed to accurately predict the outcome of an election. And the voting irregularities in Ohio alone (my home state, where I was born, btw) are enough to call into question the whole election. So, here in the good ol' USA, we have a situation where the POTUS is unelected twice in a row...now if that is not a coup, I don't know what is!

And this illegal usurper of power in the US lied through his teeth to provide rationale for illegally invading a soveriegn nation, the very one that we are discussin here. If it weren't for that coup, the US might still be enjoying budget surpluses, might still have a healthy economy, and might have given a d*mn when some of its poorest citizens were rocked by environmental catastrophe...one that might not have happened at all if it weren't for budget cuts that stripped the levee projects to make tax cuts for the rich...but I stray from the topic at hand, forgive me.

Someone earlier asked what people are afraid to stand up against the state? I'll name one: the United states of America.

(edited for spelling).

[edit on 10/6/05 by without_prejudice]

Originally posted by without_prejudice
Well, what about George Bush? Did the American people vote him into power or did someone else?
Seems to me that the Supreme Court elected him inot power the first time, and under some very dubious circumstances. And the second time, well, if he won that election it will be the first time that exit polls have EVER failed to accurately predict the outcome of an election. And the voting irregularities in Ohio alone (my home state, where I was born, btw) are enough to call into question the whole election. So, here in the good ol' USA, we have a situation where the POTUS is unelected twice in a row...now if that is not a coup, I don't know what is!

I believed that GWB won those 2 elections (I aint exsactly keeping up on US politics..)....have I been misinformed about this?

And this illegal usurper of power in the US lied through his teeth to provide rationale for illegally invading a soveriegn nation, the very one that we are discussin here. If it weren't for that coup, the US might still be enjoying budget surpluses, might still have a healthy economy, and might have given a d*mn when some of its poorest citizens were rocked by environmental catastrophe...one that might not have happened at all if it weren't for budget cuts that stripped the levee projects to make tax cuts for the rich...but I stray from the topic at hand, forgive me.

Cant comment here mate..

]

but look at the facts, as some of you are fond of saying, and apply a little experience and common sense here:

1) the reports from news services that are actually on or near the event are the most likely to have accurate reports. Proximity allows eye witness accounts to be reported--and reports from lands thousands of miles away are by definition less immediate and more second-hand. Likewise, the earliest reports are more likely accurate than those that have been approved by the Coalition spin doctors.

2) both the British and the Americans have a historical precedent of lying and covering up the truth about first the reasons for invading Iraq, and then the actuality of what has been going on there.

3) it is no secret that just as Bush was determined to go into Iraq regardless of legality or reason, he is also determined to invade Iran. The corproate owners of American media have unilaterally supported him in these endeavors, and have elasticized the truth over and over again to propel this agenda forward. To a lesser degree, so has the BBC. Therefore the need for an ever-present and growing need for our presence in the area is certainly more important than any individual incident's truth or falsehood when it comes to reporting the news.

4) the lack of pictures of a safe house attack makes that idea seem pretty suspicious. After all, we have pictures of everything else that happened once the action really got rolling. Why wouldn't both sides in this skirmish have pictures of such a house? The locals would want to show how the "invaders" wantonly attacked a civilian home with armored personnel carriers, and the "invaders" would surely want to show how the corrupt police had proven their collusion with the "insurgents" by moving them to such a questionable and hostile location.

And how convenient that the "insurgents" got the two soldiers/spies/special forces guys from the "corrupt" Iraqi police of Basra. This is just the kind of cover story I would invent when I realised how bad my guys looked attacking a civilian jail and the local police (again--after all, that is what the first two were picked up for according to the earliest reports, attacking police officers). The Brits and the Americans are the masters of spin, emulating the founding fathers of America, whose graves must surely now be the consistency of whipped cream from all their spinning!

Whether the police in Basra are corrupt or not is not pertinent here--their "corruption" is understandable as their homeland has been torn apart by foeign invaders. What would you do if your survival depended on walking a tight line between those who have guns to your head from a foreign land, who have proven their corruption time and time again, who are ruled by an unelected usurper, and those who are your own countrymen who refuse to be ruled by such a criminal power? Survival necessitates harsh compromises of morality and idealogy in such circumstances.

5) the lack of pictures of the explosives from the car also makes that part of the story somewhat suspicious, but that does not lend itself to explaining the whole incident away in the manner that several posters here seem to think it does and cannot stop repeating their conspiracy theories ad infinitum and ad nauseum.

6) there is one bit of evidence that does make the explosives a near certainty, much more plausible than the safe house story:

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

If explosives are a standard kit for British special forces, then it stands to reason these two men had explosives on them. That pictures of these explosives have not surfaced does not mean that they weren't there. Perhaps they had already been deployed? Perhaps theywere not removed from the car for fear that they might detonate? Or maybe there were no explosives, and that part of the report is fabrication, fueled by the tensions and suspicions and assumptions of people who are fearing for their lives every day after being illegally invaded by high tech warriors from across the oceans and continents, warriors who have already laid waste to that land once, warriors whose leaders have kept food and kept medicines from reaching those people for more than ten years, warriors who are the best friends of their mortal enemies, the Israelis.

One thing for certain is that we do not now know, nor will we ever know, what happened there for certain, any more than we will ever know what happened in Dallas the day Kennedy was shot, or in Oklahoma City the day the bombs went off, or in NYC on September 11th, 2001. The best we can do is tally up the evidence and the probabilities based on our a priori assumptions and our prejudices. And the reason that we can do no more than that is because we do not live in a free society with a free press, none of us. And that is what we should all be seeking to change, in my opinion.

Peace to all the people of all the world, peace and liberty to each and every one of us!

(edited for spelling)

[edit on 10/6/05 by without_prejudice]

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by without_prejudice
Well, what about George Bush? Did the American people vote him into power or did someone else?
...So, here in the good ol' USA, we have a situation where the POTUS is unelected twice in a row...now if that is not a coup, I don't know what is!

I believed that GWB won those 2 elections (I aint exsactly keeping up on US politics..)....have I been misinformed about this?

And this illegal usurper of power in the US lied through his teeth to provide rationale for illegally invading a soveriegn nation, the very one that we are discussin here...

Cant comment here mate..

I think if you want to find out about the questionable aspects of the last two American presidential elections, there are many threads on the topic here, and many more external sources of info to refer to. I have been up all night reading this thread, and find I don't have the energy to dig some of the external links up rght now! Besides, to go into that much detail might be considered off topic here. I only mentioned it because of the blustery and pretty much, in my opinion, baseless argument over Saddam Hussein's legitimacy as the leader of Iraq.

After all, Sadaam was good enough for the Bush family regime to not only recognize, but to supply with money and WMDs for ten years or more (before they set him up to be the next Hitler by telling him it was cool with them to invade Kuwait), so I think he already bears the stamp of approval from the US powers that be. That he was set up to take the big fall by those same powers is merely par for the course. Woe be to those that find themselves as allies of the Bush family! Just ask Manuel Noriega, the Shah of Iran, or even Osama bin Laden about becoming an ally of the Bush family and the American administrations they have ruled over.

If you've been told that Bush won the last two elections then yes, I fear you have been misinformed.

because if that where the case, america would find it very difficult to get any support for their puppets (thought they have very very little support right now)

Israel can't be a part of it because they have something to benefit from it.


Besides the US exists in order to protect israel, why would israel fight when they can get their american puppets to die for them???

And Israel itself, is affraid of Syria, if they went into the coallition, we could take advantage of their weekness and take back the golan hightes.

-----------------


Archangel

You have already voted for ArchAngel this month.

If only i could vote for you twice

Originally posted by without_prejudice
1) the reports from news services that are actually on or near the event are the most likely to have accurate reports. Proximity allows eye witness accounts to be reported--and reports from lands thousands of miles away are by definition less immediate and more second-hand. Likewise, the earliest reports are more likely accurate than those that have been approved by the Coalition spin doctors.

Are you suggesting that there was an Iranian news service on the scene at the time the events in question occurred? If not, they are only reporting one side of the story, just like reports from lands thousands of miles away. What makes you feel an Iranian news agency report would be any less biased or agenda serving than Fox or BBC, what makes you think these early reports were not first approved by the Mullah spin doctors? Not to mention, the eye witness accounts are far from consistent.

2) both the British and the Americans have a historical precedent of lying and covering up the truth about first the reasons for invading Iraq, and then the actuality of what has been going on there.

I mostly agree, but do you really think they would send British special forces to carry out a car bombing with a car full of indentifiable gear that would be scattered all over only to be recovered and fuel claims like the ones being made on this thread? Why is it so hard to believe that they were observing a suspected police force and were discovered, resulting in the police trying to arrest them, and them trying to escape so their cover was not blown, resulting in a gun battle.

3) it is no secret that just as Bush was determined to go into Iraq regardless of legality or reason, he is also determined to invade Iran. The corproate owners of American media have unilaterally supported him in these endeavors, and have elasticized the truth over and over again to propel this agenda forward. To a lesser degree, so has the BBC. Therefore the need for an ever-present and growing need for our presence in the area is certainly more important than any individual incident's truth or falsehood when it comes to reporting the news.

Again I agree about Bush's determination to go into Iraq, and the fact it was very wrong, but I doubt we will invade Iran. At this point, the American people are not going to support it at all, and we can't afford it, especially after the hurricanes. And none of that means there isn't a foreign insurgency in Iraq with an agenda of their own, again it takes legitimacy from the case against Bush to make fantastic claims based only on "he said, she said", which makes it hard for many to discern fact from wild conspiracy theory.

4) the lack of pictures of a safe house attack makes that idea seem pretty suspicious. After all, we have pictures of everything else that happened once the action really got rolling. Why wouldn't both sides in this skirmish have pictures of such a house? The locals would want to show how the "invaders" wantonly attacked a civilian home with armored personnel carriers, and the "invaders" would surely want to show how the corrupt police had proven their collusion with the "insurgents" by moving them to such a questionable and hostile location.

I don't think the locals have embedded reporters with cameras rolling at all times. And if the invaders have photos, I doubt they will release them, we're talking about the military here.

And how convenient that the "insurgents" got the two soldiers/spies/special forces guys from the "corrupt" Iraqi police of Basra. This is just the kind of cover story I would invent when I realised how bad my guys looked attacking a civilian jail and the local police (again--after all, that is what the first two were picked up for according to the earliest reports, attacking police officers). The Brits and the Americans are the masters of spin, emulating the founding fathers of America, whose graves must surely now be the consistency of whipped cream from all their spinning!

None of us will ever know for sure what happened, we are all just making our own conclusions based on heresay and our own personal beliefs. Also I find it amusing how so many just seem to assume our founding fathers never did anything questionable or wrong for their own gains. Human nature is human nature. Not to mention so many conspiracy theorists say free masons and such are behind so much, what do you think the founding fathers were? Of course ouir history books only paint them as righteous heroes, but I'm sure a great many of them have no grounds to be spinning right now.

What would you do if your survival depended on walking a tight line between those who have guns to your head from a foreign land, who have proven their corruption time and time again, who are ruled by an unelected usurper, and those who are your own countrymen who refuse to be ruled by such a criminal power? Survival necessitates harsh compromises of morality and idealogy in such circumstances.

That's an interesting question. You said we were afraid to rise up against our unelected government, just like the Iraqis. Say China invaded tomorrow to liberate us from Bush, would you carry out attacks against the Chinese soldiers and say things were better under Bush? Or would you thank them for removing Bush from power?

5) the lack of pictures of the explosives from the car also makes that part of the story somewhat suspicious, but that does not lend itself to explaining the whole incident away in the manner that several posters here seem to think it does and cannot stop repeating their conspiracy theories ad infinitum and ad nauseum.

Neither does the lack of photos of the safe house. All we have is two sides of a story, and most of us have the common sense to be pretty sure the British military wouldn't use it's valuable highly trained special forces to carry out simple car bombings, using a car packed with indentifiable gear. Especially when there are plenty of Arab mercenaries I'm sure who would gladly do it for cash, and if they were caught, it would be a hell of a lot easier for the Brits to deny they were behind it.

6) there is one bit of evidence that does make the explosives a near certainty, much more plausible than the safe house story:

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

If explosives are a standard kit for British special forces, then it stands to reason these two men had explosives on them.

But if they were part of standard kit, there would not likely be enough for a car bombing, and that would also be implying that all British special forces are set to carry out car bombings.

That pictures of these explosives have not surfaced does not mean that they weren't there.

Same goes for the safe house. How can you use an argument to support your theory, then use the same argument to disprove someone else's?

Perhaps they had already been deployed?

There were no reports of any explosions. Don't you think the locals would have said something about that?

Perhaps theywere not removed from the car for fear that they might detonate?

Sure they would've mentioned that as well.

Or maybe there were no explosives, and that part of the report is fabrication, fueled by the tensions and suspicions and assumptions of people who are fearing for their lives every day after being illegally invaded by high tech warriors from across the oceans and continents, warriors who have already laid waste to that land once, warriors whose leaders have kept food and kept medicines from reaching those people for more than ten years, warriors who are the best friends of their mortal enemies, the Israelis.

Makes sense to me. I just don't believe the British special forces were there to carry out a bombing or attack the police, I just think they were there observing police who they thought were playing for the other team, and things got hot. That has nothing to do with my feelings of the legitimacy of the British or American forces being there in the first place.

One thing for certain is that we do not now know, nor will we ever know, what happened there for certain, any more than we will ever know what happened in Dallas the day Kennedy was shot, or in Oklahoma City the day the bombs went off, or in NYC on September 11th, 2001. The best we can do is tally up the evidence and the probabilities based on our a priori assumptions and our prejudices. And the reason that we can do no more than that is because we do not live in a free society with a free press, none of us. And that is what we should all be seeking to change, in my opinion.

I agree here as well.


[edit on 7-10-2005 by 27jd]

Nice reply! I agree with you in so many cases on the interesting points you raise, but you took me by surprise with some of your assumptions about my assumptions....lol (To control the length of this, I have tried to edit out most of my words where you quote me at length.)

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by without_prejudice
1) the reports from news services that are actually on or near the event are the most likely to have accurate reports...

Are you suggesting that there was an Iranian news service on the scene at the time the events in question occurred? If not, they are only reporting one side of the story, just like reports from lands thousands of miles away. What makes you feel an Iranian news agency report would be any less biased or agenda serving than Fox or BBC, what makes you think these early reports were not first approved by the Mullah spin doctors? Not to mention, the eye witness accounts are far from consistent.

I don't believe I mentioned Iran anywhere in my post, so you're assertions of bias by Iran-based news--valid or not, I don't know--has nothing to do in substance with what I said. I was being general, in a common sense sort of way. If I'm reading a story in the Cleveland Plain Dealer and that story happened in Cleveland, Ohio, I am going to give their details more credibility than if the story is reported in the Wall Street Journal with different details. But we are not talking about Cleveland, Ohio...now China news, I believe, was the first to report, and they are not exactly located in Iraq, but I missed where it was shown that the Chinese news service got their info from Iran. I was more referring to the news stories that were earliest as being potentially less the product of spin, and to lend some vote of credibility to the much-derided "local reporting" found and posted by ArchAngel and Syrian Sister and others.

Of course, eyewitness accounts are often divergent in the details. Tellingly though the first reports spoke of fatalities and there were fatalitites, despite the wavering of the BBC reports that finally settled on the story, oft-repeated, that there were no fatalities. If the first reports were from Iranians utlimately, then sorry, despite your anti-Iranian bias, they have proven to be the more accurate source when compared with the BBC.

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by without_prejudice
2) both the British and the Americans have a historical precedent of lying and covering up the truth about first the reasons for invading Iraq, and then the actuality of what has been going on there.

I mostly agree, but do you really think they would send British special forces to carry out a car bombing with a car full of indentifiable gear that would be scattered all over only to be recovered and fuel claims like the ones being made on this thread? Why is it so hard to believe that they were observing a suspected police force and were discovered, resulting in the police trying to arrest them, and them trying to escape so their cover was not blown, resulting in a gun battle.

I am not discounting the explaination that you offer entirely, I just think that if you apply Occam's Razor to the situation, you have to take the mostly proven correct early eyewitness accounts at face value, rather than invent details that are not found in the sources external to our own processes of rationalization. The explaination you mention is plausible. That does not mean that it happened.

As a counterpoint, the history of warfare--especially regarding British and American military, who have dominated recent history--is replete with false flag operations and even battle strategies that in hindsight appear so foolish one wonders why they were ever attempted. My opinion is that the purpose of war is just as often to thin out the number of young, idealistic soldiers as it is to win a battle or campaign--internal idealists are nearly always the biggest threat to the status quo, as it is always compromised and corrupt compared to those ideals.

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by without_prejudice
3) it is no secret that just as Bush was determined to go into Iraq regardless of legality or reason, he is also determined to invade Iran. The corproate owners of American media have unilaterally supported him in these endeavors, and have elasticized the truth over and over again to propel this agenda forward. To a lesser degree, so has the BBC. Therefore the need for an ever-present and growing need for our presence in the area is certainly more important than any individual incident's truth or falsehood when it comes to reporting the news.

Again I agree about Bush's determination to go into Iraq, and the fact it was very wrong, but I doubt we will invade Iran. At this point, the American people are not going to support it at all, and we can't afford it, especially after the hurricanes. And none of that means there isn't a foreign insurgency in Iraq with an agenda of their own, again it takes legitimacy from the case against Bush to make fantastic claims based only on "he said, she said", which makes it hard for many to discern fact from wild conspiracy theory.

How can we agree and yet be so seemingly far apart?

Taking a comprehensive view of the pre-Iraq public, most of the united States' people (and indeed the rest of the world's, too!) did not support the invasion of Iraq at all, either, but the American corporate media did. I agree that regardless of hurricanes, even, America cannot afford to invade Iran, any more than it could it afford to invade Iraq--not this time, and not the first time either. But IMO those decisions were made with a disregard for both the prevailing pubic opinion and with disregard for the costs of the action. IMO, there is an agenda here that is being followed that is not American, and that disregards American interests, yet is being enacted through the US federal government. Look into a complete history of the Bush family and their social/business/political allies, and you may agree with me that the Bush dynasty and its allies are using the vast resources of the US to put forth an agenda that will eventually destroy national sovereignty globally and personal sovereignty entirely.

Incidentally, IMO, the greatest cost of these wars has not been the monetary expense, or even the cost in lives--the greatest cost to those of us in the USA has been setting a precednt of divergence from the Constitutionally enumerated powers of the federal government and to misuse of our defense capability to wage illegal invasions, whatever their rationale. We accept it and expect it now. And it is wrong and illegal, and is destroying that which as citizens, we hope to preserve.

If by " a foreign insurgency in Iraq with an agenda of their own" you are referring to Coalition forces, we are in complete agreement. If not, can you clarify that point?

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by without_prejudice
4) the lack of pictures of a safe house attack makes that idea seem pretty suspicious....

I don't think the locals have embedded reporters with cameras rolling at all times. And if the invaders have photos, I doubt they will release them, we're talking about the military here.

Well, who took the pictures that we have seen? It was either reporters on the scene, or the local people, or the soldiers taking action. Unless there was someone else there that I missed the mention of...and in every case, it would be in the best interests of any of those groups to continue taking pictures until the situation found resolution. Not necessarily so with the pictures of the alleged explosives from the car. The police, I imagine, took the pictures of the men, their gear, and any other photos that may have been taken at that time and which we may not have seen.Do you think every photo taken by the police of the men, the car, etc has seen the light of day? Perhaps, but typically (generalization alert!) when photos are taken of anything, many are disgarded for many reasons: as out of focus, poorly lit, or not supporting the concept that is being conveyed. Sometimes the photographer makes that decsion, sometimes the editor, sometimes the publisher, etc. To assume that we are seeing every photo taken that day defies common sense.

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by without_prejudice
And how convenient that the "insurgents" got the two soldiers/spies/special forces guys from the "corrupt" Iraqi police of Basra... ...The Brits and the Americans are the masters of spin, emulating the founding fathers of America, whose graves must surely now be the consistency of whipped cream from all their spinning!

None of us will ever know for sure what happened, we are all just making our own conclusions based on heresay and our own personal beliefs. Also I find it amusing how so many just seem to assume our founding fathers never did anything questionable or wrong for their own gains. Human nature is human nature. Not to mention so many conspiracy theorists say free masons and such are behind so much, what do you think the founding fathers were? Of course ouir history books only paint them as righteous heroes, but I'm sure a great many of them have no grounds to be spinning right now.

Your point is well-taken in the first instance; in fact, I made it in my post.

In the second instance, your point is sort of off-topic and amounts to putting words in my mouth, or so I feel reading it. I mention the founding fathers in regard to the current vivisection of Constitutionally enumerated federal power in pursuit of goals that will only harm the united States. It is true that in our Prussianesque public education system there are fairy tales describing the founding fathers, but that is certainly not informing my statement there. But I apologize for not making the point more clear. I was merely referring to the idea that the federal government appears to be the greatest existing threat to the constitution and the States and their citizens. I am of the opinion that despite their individual contradictions or foibles the founders of the US had liberty and prosperity for the citizens as their goals in creating this country, not its eventual destruction at the hands of globalists and fascists. And I will readily admit that I could be very wrong about that. But all that is another thread entirely, and I would be surprised if it doesn't already exist here.

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by without_prejudice
What would you do if your survival depended on walking a tight line between those who have guns to your head from a foreign land...and those who are your own countrymen who refuse to be ruled by such a criminal power? Survival necessitates harsh compromises of morality and idealogy in such circumstances.

That's an interesting question. You said we were afraid to rise up against our unelected government, just like the Iraqis. Say China invaded tomorrow to liberate us from Bush, would you carry out attacks against the Chinese soldiers and say things were better under Bush? Or would you thank them for removing Bush from power?

I never said "just like the Iraqis" nor did I mean to imply that. It was an answer to some one who asked something like who is afraid to rise up against the state? and perhaps I took it out of context. The only thought in my mind was to say something about the lack of individual initiative in the USA to stand up for the Constitution against enemies from within, myself included. And as we live in such a glass house, it would be inappropriate to throw said stone. And I should have said something to the effect of "once it gets that far" at the end of that quoted sentence. It is quite a testimony to the tenacity and spirit of the Iraqi people (and the other people in these wartorn areas) that they have not bowed down and accepted the machinations that have been placed on them by outside nations. We have murdered them and their children, starved them, deprived them of the things that we find necessary for our pampered survival, and for decades--yet still we have not learned that they are not a people who will give up what is our greatest birthright--the right to choose who we are.

I find your China question interesting but so baseless in probablity that it is meaningless. Now, if a resistance movement in the US sprang up with a coherent plan to put us back on a constitutional course and depose the traitors who currently hold power, I assure you I would be active in some capacity, because I believe in the ideals that the united States put down in its earliest foundation documents. I also believe that history illustrates this: never will a foreign power act in the best intersts of the poeple who already live in another nation--which is why the US history of warfare in the 20th and now the 21st century is so counterproductive to those same ideals.

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by without_prejudice
5) the lack of pictures of the explosives from the car also makes that part of the story somewhat suspicious, but that does not lend itself to explaining the whole incident away...

Neither does the lack of photos of the safe house. All we have is two sides of a story, and most of us have the common sense to be pretty sure the British military wouldn't use it's valuable highly trained special forces to carry out simple car bombings, using a car packed with indentifiable gear. Especially when there are plenty of Arab mercenaries I'm sure who would gladly do it for cash, and if they were caught, it would be a hell of a lot easier for the Brits to deny they were behind it.

Well, we are in agreement there at least at first. I tried to be fair in allowing that the lack of pictures is certainly neither evidence of existence nor non-existence in both cases. And to follow that with my reasons why I think that the safe house is more likely false, and the explosives more likely true, based solely on my admittedly limited experience of the world and how it works. But none of us are professional writers, and though it may seem hard to believe to the readers of our dissertation here, none of us is doing this just to see how long a post we can make. Often, I think clairity suffers for the sake of brevity as often as for any other reason.

Perhaps that is the case with my thoughts on your next statement above...I disagree with the "two sides of a story comment." We actually don't have two sides of a story, we have a collection of contradictory evidence from a wide variety of sources in a wide variety of media formats. Some of those rerports we KNOW through recent experience must be sanitized, while others we will assume to be spun this way or that depending on the assumed prejudices of the news agency or its government and our own assumptions and judgements. It is IMO impossible to point to ANY news source in today's world and righteously proclaim that what it reports is the honest truth. And that makes it a sad day for all of us.

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by without_prejudice
6) there is one bit of evidence that does make the explosives a near certainty, much more plausible than the safe house story:

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

If explosives are a standard kit for British special forces, then it stands to reason these two men had explosives on them.

But if they were part of standard kit, there would not likely be enough for a car bombing, and that would also be implying that all British special forces are set to carry out car bombings.

Agreed! Exactly the point I was trying to make there and with the what followed, albeit not too clearly. Not that there wasn't enough for a car bomb, but that distortions and even fabrications of the intent or existence of those explosives would be understandable. I have no idea of what those soldiers mission actually was, and I don't think anyone else here does either. But I will say that my own feelings about our political situation and its ties to the British in the UK lean me heavily in favor of what you find to be incredibly implausible, namely that they are running a false flag operation. Indeed the existence of the very term and the concept's familiarity even to me, who had never seen the term before now, speaks volumes about its plausability. So does the invovlement of the British military in the same sort of activity with regards to northern Ireland. As an ex-Brigadier was quoted, it was just like an average night in Belfast. Perhaps he said more than some realize in that statement.

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by without_prejudice
That pictures of these explosives have not surfaced does not mean that they weren't there.

Same goes for the safe house. How can you use an argument to support your theory, then use the same argument to disprove someone else's?

Hold on, I am not trying to prove or disprove anything here. I thought what I said conveyed that I find all this "proving" of the unprovable a waste of energy. It is in fact as effective at misdirection here as it would be there, if it is a false flag operation. Funny, you isolate that one sentence, where elsewhere you quote me at length and in context. I notice this tactic alot in online discussions. I stand by what I said in whole.

To address your question above, why couldn't anyone do that, and even be right in doing so. Whether the safe house or the explosives do or do not exist, the lack of pictures in either instance does not bear on that fact. And so the items in question (as opposed to just the pictures) can certainly exist in one case and not in the other, or vice versa. The point is that while I have my prejudicial opinion, I know that I don't know. If some proof of one or the other is shown then I will certinaly change my opinion, and on other issues as it relates to them. But the world is a big and whacky place, and it contains a mutlitude of mutually-exclusive contradictions.

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by without_prejudice
Perhaps they had already been deployed?

There were no reports of any explosions. Don't you think the locals would have said something about that?

deployed: 1 a : to extend (a military unit) especially in width b : to place in battle formation or appropriate positions
2 : to spread out, utilize, or arrange especially strategically

It does not mean detonated. It means to be placed.

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by without_prejudice
Perhaps theywere not removed from the car for fear that they might detonate?

Sure they would've mentioned that as well.

Or maybe there were no explosives, and that part of the report is fabrication, fueled by the tensions and suspicions and assumptions of people who are fearing for their lives every day after being illegally invaded by high tech warriors from across the oceans and continents, warriors who have already laid waste to that land once, warriors whose leaders have kept food and kept medicines from reaching those people for more than ten years, warriors who are the best friends of their mortal enemies, the Israelis.

Makes sense to me. I just don't believe the British special forces were there to carry out a bombing or attack the police, I just think they were there observing police who they thought were playing for the other team, and things got hot. That has nothing to do with my feelings of the legitimacy of the British or American forces being there in the first place.

I have no quarrel with you thinking that, or stating it. In fact, to me it is the next most likely explaination. I truly feel we agree more than we disagree. But I don't think that anything being mentioned in any fashion is ever assured. News is big business, and it has agendas of it's own. Also, we are just individuals with limited resources to hunt and find all pertinent info on any subject, so the one thing I am sure of is that only fools are sure of anything!

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by without_prejudice
One thing for certain is that we do not now know, nor will we ever know, what happened there for certain, any more than we will ever know what happened in Dallas the day Kennedy was shot, or in Oklahoma City the day the bombs went off, or in NYC on September 11th, 2001. The best we can do is tally up the evidence and the probabilities based on our a priori assumptions and our prejudices. And the reason that we can do no more than that is because we do not live in a free society with a free press, none of us. And that is what we should all be seeking to change, in my opinion.

I agree here as well.

Thanks!

[edited to fix a quote box]

[edit on 10/7/05 by without_prejudice]

weeks have passed.

Not a shred of evidence to suggest the two spies where found anywhere but in the Iraqi police station.

We're never going to see those images.

They , the British and Americans, are hoping everyone forgets about this incident.

And we all know why.

I don't really see what any pictures of a safe house would accomplish anyway, if they did publish some then you would just deny that they were real and probably say they could be pictures of anywhere - it proves nothing! There's not a shred of evidence either to say that they were found at the Police station either.

If pictures were that important and it was a lie, then they would just make some up anyway as I'm sure you'd be the first to accuse.

Personally I think the lack of any pictures showing explosives is more proof that there weren't any (at least in significant quantities) than anything else, I can understand why one might think the Western Media would not publish them but I would have thought someone like Al-Jazeera would be straight on the bandwagon with some! I'm suprised they didn't throw some together themselves.

[edit on 8-10-2005 by AgentSmith]

[edit on 8-10-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by without_prejudice
I don't believe I mentioned Iran anywhere in my post, so you're assertions of bias by Iran-based news--valid or not, I don't know--has nothing to do in substance with what I said.

You're right, I assumed. But only because Iranian news agencies were first to report the incident, and I figured you read this whole thread, in which it was discussed that Iran reported that the British troops were on a deliberate killing spree and incited the Iraqis in Basra to riot.

China news, I believe, was the first to report, and they are not exactly located in Iraq, but I missed where it was shown that the Chinese news service got their info from Iran.

And I missed where it was shown that China reported it at all, but I'm sure they did at some point.

If the first reports were from Iranians utlimately, then sorry, despite your anti-Iranian bias, they have proven to be the more accurate source when compared with the BBC.

How has Iranian news been more accurate than BBC? They have just as much of an agenda as the British.

I am not discounting the explaination that you offer entirely, I just think that if you apply Occam's Razor to the situation, you have to take the mostly proven correct early eyewitness accounts at face value, rather than invent details that are not found in the sources external to our own processes of rationalization. The explaination you mention is plausible. That does not mean that it happened.

What eyewitness accounts have been proven? The accounts of a police force possibly in bed with the insurgency? These are the same people claiming giant spiders helped them fight against the coalition. The same people claiming that their dead remain in pristine condition and do not decay. How are their accounts any more credible?

Incidentally, IMO, the greatest cost of these wars has not been the monetary expense, or even the cost in lives--the greatest cost to those of us in the USA has been setting a precednt of divergence from the Constitutionally enumerated powers of the federal government and to misuse of our defense capability to wage illegal invasions, whatever their rationale. We accept it and expect it now. And it is wrong and illegal, and is destroying that which as citizens, we hope to preserve.

I still don't think an invasion of Iran is in the cards. Remember when based on all the facts as they were seen, everybody was absolutely certain the invasion would begin in June? Here it is October and we're not even close to an invasion. I just don't see it happening, there's some things not even Bush can get away with.

If by " a foreign insurgency in Iraq with an agenda of their own" you are referring to Coalition forces, we are in complete agreement. If not, can you clarify that point?

Absolutely. The other foreign insurgency, besides the coalition, are the Iranians who are doing all they can to drive the coalition out, and take hold of Iraq in the midst of the power vacuum and civil war that they know would follow. They want Iraq to become a Shiite theocracy extension of themselves. And why wouldn't they? And I'm not saying they are any more in the wrong than we are for that, they too are looking out for their best interests.

To assume that we are seeing every photo taken that day defies common sense.

I guess we'll probably never find out for sure.

In the second instance, your point is sort of off-topic and amounts to putting words in my mouth, or so I feel reading it.

That wasn't my intention.

I was merely referring to the idea that the federal government appears to be the greatest existing threat to the constitution and the States and their citizens.

It seems so. But the constitution wasn't created in a time where so many dynamics existed in everyday life as they do today. I agree things have changed for the worst, but they couldn't stay the same. Almost everything changes.

It is quite a testimony to the tenacity and spirit of the Iraqi people (and the other people in these wartorn areas) that they have not bowed down and accepted the machinations that have been placed on them by outside nations. We have murdered them and their children, starved them, deprived them of the things that we find necessary for our pampered survival, and for decades--yet still we have not learned that they are not a people who will give up what is our greatest birthright--the right to choose who we are.

A great many of them have bowed down. And seems to me they were quite used to being starved and denied the right to choose who they are. I really hope things get better for them, one way or the other.

I find your China question interesting but so baseless in probablity that it is meaningless.

It was just a hypothetical question, probability had nothing to do with it.

I also believe that history illustrates this: never will a foreign power act in the best intersts of the poeple who already live in another nation--which is why the US history of warfare in the 20th and now the 21st century is so counterproductive to those same ideals.

It's hard to phathom any foreign power acting less in our interest than the Bush administration.

I notice this tactic alot in online discussions.

(Oops, I did it again )

Tactic? S: (n) tactic, tactics, maneuver, manoeuvre (a plan for attaining a particular goal)

If you aren't trying to prove or disprove anything, then why do you apply the word tactic to an online discussion? What goal are you trying to attain? Is your purpose on this thread then to prove that this discussion is pointless? Just kidding.

It does not mean detonated. It means to be placed.

What then would you speculate happened to the deployed explosives, and if they were deployed, how would the Iraqi police report they found the car full of explosives?





[edit on 8-10-2005 by 27jd]

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
weeks have passed.

Not a shred of evidence to suggest the two spies where found anywhere but in the Iraqi police station.

We're never going to see those images.

They , the British and Americans, are hoping everyone forgets about this incident.

And we all know why.

Yes we do, because it was a big mistake and a huge attempt at scape goating.

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
weeks have passed.

Not a shred of evidence to suggest the two spies where found anywhere but in the Iraqi police station.

We're never going to see those images.

They , the British and Americans, are hoping everyone forgets about this incident.

And we all know why.

Yeah but I haven't forgotten taht you haven't answered where you stay..
I presume your are of middle eastern origin but do you stay there as well?
Or are you residing in some western country..