Syrian Sister. Your three points rebutted.

"Create a reason to stay - The brits and the US can now claim that they need to be in iraq longer to "protect the civilian population." ironically the people who they are killing."

The Coalition HAS a moral obligation under the Geneva Convention to maintain law and order in Iraq. UK troop numbers rise and fall based on how many troops the UK thinks it needs to have in Iraq to carry out this mission. UK troop numbers in Iraq are, anyway, very low at 9 1/2 thousand soldiers, that's less than the peak deployment in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, and about 20% of the intial force deployed during the Invasion. It became pretty clear after the invasion that the UK was not impressed by the US's post-war plan and massively descaled it's presence in southern Iraq to a minimum level required to carry out it's obligations. The UK isn't looking to increase the numbers deployed unless it has to in order to meet its obligation. The sooner the Iraqi Constitution is agreed and a new round of elections are held the sooner a freely elected and representative government of Iraq can ask the Coalition to leave. I for one look forward to the day the last British soldier sets foot out of Iraq.

"Defame the Resistance- The US learned from Vietnam that a gorrilla army can only exist with a good civilian support base. These bombings are designed to get the iraqi people to distrust and dislike the iraqi resistance, and hence that would destroy the resistance."

So you've gone from 'unamed source' on Xinhua.net claiming British Soldiers in Basra were driving a car packed with explosives to believing that the wave of car bombings in and around Baghdad is the work of Coalition troops? The US did not learn from Vietnam that a guerilla army can only exist with good local support. It already new that, what the US learned from Vietnam is not to ring fence a war. If you speak to most Americans who are knowledgeable on the subject they believe that more, rather than less force should have been used during the Vietnam War against bases outside the territory of South Vietnam. From Tet in early 1968 the war in Vietnam was mostly being fought between NVA regulars and ARVN and US troops. The grass roots guerillas, the FLN, were finished, used up by Tet. In the context of Iraq what this means is that if the US decides the Iraqi insurgency is receiving aid from outwith the borders of Iraq it will act decisively against those sources of aid.

"Divide and conquer - Get iraqies to start fighting each other instead of fighting the occupation. This will create more opportunists vying for power, to collaborate with the occupiers."

Sure, but eventually in a civil war you have to choose a side. Who's your money on? Besides, the Iraqis aren't fighting the Occupation in the UK's area of responsibility with anything like the fervour they are in the Sunni heartlands. Seen as you think the Coalition are the only countries with an interest in Iraq let's have a think about who else might be interested. Other countries in the region may understandably think that the USA is on a mission to democratise the Middle East. By bogging down the US in a disintergrating Iraq they may well feel that the US will be unable to do to them what it did to Saddam. Would Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the autocratic Gulf States rather Iraq burned than became a democracy? Many of the Arab states also have an interest in furthering the interests of their Sunni brothers over the Shias, who are more likely to sympathise with their co-religionists in Iran if they were to dominate a secular Iraq. Let's not forget that the Arab states and the West funded and supported Saddam's war against Revolutionary Iran during the 1980s. A civil war in Iraq could benefit all of these parties, certainly they'd be opportunities to suck up to America in return for American acquiescence of their corrupt regimes. As it is, a Shia dominated unified Iraq doesn't really work in anyone but Iran's favour does it?

I don't know why everyone's so suprised by the notion of Army intelligence operatives working undercover, this sort of thing's been going on for centuries. And they're not technically spies under the Geneva Convention as they're there at the behest of the government of Iraq, the members of which at least went through a democratic process to get where they are which is more than you can say for any other government on the Arabian Penninsular.

not to mention adding dbates info, but i remember some freelance journalists were killed wen they were trying to report on Iraqi police who were infiltrated by political parties of Shiites from Sadr's Army for example. people in Southern Iraq are complaining about Iraqi police members imposing their own laws and policies.

Orias.

You'll belive the two men where "handed over to militia" , however you deny that they where in civilian garb, fired at civilians and iraqi puppet police, perhaps killing one, and had a car laden with explosives? Even after iraqi officials, those who iraqies who are meant to be pro-american, and have nothing to benefit from saying it, are saying these things. Even after the photographs and images of the spies in civilian clothes, who where wearing long beards inorder to look more arab have come out.

Why do you only belive what the US military says,? Didn't they lie about the WMD's from the very begining? Who has never lied to you? Belive them.

Explosives? Their millitary, possibly SAS I wouldnt be suprised if they we're carrying some C4 or grenades.

Spies are supposed to blend in you know, no good going undercover in a clown costume.

Maybe they did all of the above, I didnt say they were inoccent. But regardless of wether they are guilty or not i still believe the actions taken by the our armed forces were justified.

Yes i do think they were handed over to the militia but thats because i tend to take everything said by lil internet news sites with a pinch of salt and think that the BBC is a more credible source. Why are you so ready to dismiss anything thats in favour of the US/UK.

As for what the US millitary says, well I take that with a pinch of salt as well i was one of the first to say that we were not goin to find WMD's in Iraq.

The problem is that no one tells the whole truth if any truth at all. So untill either one of us get undeniable proof we cant't be one hundred percent sure that we're right. I bet you beieve they were on their way to blow up innocents isnt there same amount of evidence to suggest that they were on their way to blow up an insurgents stronghold? Let be answer that for you yes there is, theres sweet FA to suggest either.

What a mess the liberation of Iraq has done to that country.

No control, not laws that the people will follow, everbody is an insurgent no matter if is an Iraqi just wanting the occupation to leave.

No wonder any country can go in there and do anything they want to keep the pot boiling.

Look what liberation western style does to a country.

False flag ops don't make sense - that can't be a motive. The main threat to continued presence in the country is lack of Western support due to the ongoing conflict.

Defaming resistance fighters - doesn't make sense either, because there are plenty of real Arabs who do this for cash at the drop of a hat, and they look a lot more authentic than white guys with beards.

Here's an idea - they were doing legitamite undercover work to help uncover terrorists.

This doesnt add much to sorting out what happened, but i was just chatting to a navy buddy of mine and the rumors spreading through the armed forces (brits on here will know how well squaddies like to gossip) is that the guys were army inteligence (read sas) and when they were captured they said they were marine commando's to take the heat off the regiment. Apparently the marines are fuming about it! cos all the news reports are saying the marines screwed up!

BBC radio is saying it's been confirmed the two men are SAS.

I have to say, I'm not really surprised. I mean this is how the war machine starts and keeps going right? Probably members of the same crew that hit the London trains. How sick and twisted must one be to commit an act like that? Who are the terrorists again now? I'm confused.

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Radio remote controlls and explosives.

Up to your old tricks again, eh SS? Showing pictures, saying they are something other than what they clearly are? Those are weapons and radio equipment, but not explosives for a car bomb. Thanks for posting that, it puts to rest all the wild speculation that they have been carrying out car bombings, and shows it for what it is, an undercover SAS operation to gather intelligence on an infiltrated police force gone wrong. Did you also see the giant spiders taking part in the rioting? They were clearly shown in the photos, and the doves were throwing rocks as well.

well i'm no weapons expert, and neither are you.

But certainly the iraqi police, thought they where about to plant some bombs

and the fact that they where shooting at civilians, and iraqi police, while dressed as arabs and in a civilian car.

Screems, PSY-OPS!!!!

"The Iraqi security officials on Monday variously accused two Britons they detained of shooting at Iraqi forces or TRYING TO PLANT EXPLOSIVES." Washington Post, Ellen Knickmeyer, 9-20-05; "British Smash into Jail to Free Two Detained Soldiers"

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
well i'm no weapons expert, and neither are you.

Oh the arrogance! How do you know who your talking to on here? How do you know who is a weapons experts and who isn't? You seem to know rather a lot.

But certainly the iraqi police, thought they where about to plant some bombs

and the fact that they where shooting at civilians, and iraqi police, while dressed as arabs and in a civilian car.

None of this is known 100% for certain and neither are the circumstances. They definately do not look like they where equipped to go out on a wild shooting spree to ruffle up feathers. And where are all these explosives? You'd think they would be eager to release pictures of it but they havn't.

"The Iraqi security officials on Monday variously accused two Britons they detained of shooting at Iraqi forces or TRYING TO PLANT EXPLOSIVES." Washington Post, Ellen Knickmeyer, 9-20-05; "British Smash into Jail to Free Two Detained Soldiers"

I accuse you of being a MELODRAMATIC DRAMA QUEEN who likes to exaggerate and twist facts and theories to further her own cause.

[edit on 20-9-2005 by AgentSmith]

So what the US is saying about all this evidence, anybody have any links to what our nation respond to all this?

I can not find much in the news.

Per your link SS:

A grab from footage released on September 20, 2005 shows weapons which Iraqi police said were confiscated from two undercover British soldiers after their arrest in Basra, southern Iraq, September 19, 2005. (Al-Iraqiya via Reuters television/Reuters)

Doesn't say anything about explosives, especially not enough for a car bombing. That would be an important detail not mentioned, but one that has been injected by you and a few others here. I'm no weapons expert, but it doesn't take an expert to see the large amounts of explosives needed for a car bomb are not present.

What are those long green-handled things? Hedge trimmers? Now that is suspicious. I thought they were bolt cutters at first, but noticed that they actually look like giant scissors. As for the other stuff, yeah looks like jumper cables, a floor jack, a yellow tow strap, radios, a couple guns and some extra clips of ammo. The long greenish tube isn't even big enough to be a LAW. Looks like a case for a tripod stand. Who knows. I would say that these guys were probably some of the most poorly armed people in Basara.



[edit on 20-9-2005 by dbates]