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.

 

Clear Evidence British Special Forces are Recruiting and Training Terrorists in Iraq

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
I do think its kinda hiliarious that Alex Jones is talking about MI5 links to the IRA and he will not address the amount of Americans who funded the IRA.


In all fairness to Alex Jones I have heard him mention American funding of the IRA on air before. The man is no fan of Clinton, either, and I have heard him mention before dealings had at the time with the Gerry Adams. You can't really be blamed for not knowing that, though. Jones is on air 3 hours per day, and a lot gets said. Perhaps he should talk about it a bit more often.



Originally posted by infinite
Lets not forget the countless Irish American politicans who supported the IRA and the republican movement in Northern Ireland. Lets not forget the fact President Clinton invited Gerry Adams (President of Sinn Fein and the head of the IRA) over for dinner on St.Patricks day when the IRA were blowing up half of London.


Indeed, indeed. But let us also not forget our own involvement. We British are not exactly innocent here, are we?


Originally posted by infinite
We have peace in Northern Ireland now, its amazing what happens when Americans don't stick their nose into matters that do not involve them.


It was also us stirring tensions and commiting crimes. Americans were funding the IRA, but our Agents were right there working with them! We were in it together with the Americans, there is no use blaming it all on one and not the other. You said it was hilarious that Alex Jones mentions the MI5 links to the IRA and not the American links, but wouldn't doing the opposite be just as 'hilarious?'



Originally posted by infinite
The Government NEVER gave the nood over collusion and it was only a small minority in the Army and RUC who did leak information to the Loyalist Paramilitaries.


Ah yes, the ever conveniant 'rogue units.' This is deeper than just Pat Finucane. What about the British double agent who claims he tipped off the RUC about a bombing and they failed to act on it -- denying that they had recieved any warning -- resulting in 29 deaths.

I'm not saying that all British serving over there knew about these types of acts and were involved in them -- far from it, but some operatives were involved and their orders didn't came from anywhere else other than somewhere right near the top, if not the top.


Originally posted by infinite
My Father served in Northern Ireland for the Army and risked his life protecting citizens from IRA tyranny and I had a family member in the RUC too. He never leaked information too, but he was shot and killed in the line of duty by an IRA gunmen.


I'm very sorry to hear that.


Originally posted by infinite
So, lets not focus on IRA sympathy please


Unless we blame it all on the Americans? Don't get me wrong, I think they are partly responsible, but to use them as the solitary blamegoat while neglecting to mention any of our own wrongdoing would be quite disgraceful.


Originally posted by infinite
I love this bit of the article...



British government supports and engages in acts of terrorism in order to further its agenda in occupied territories


Who wrote the article? Gerry Adams?


Is that statement really so far from the truth?

[edit on 8-2-2007 by MassiveOrigamiRacoon]




posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Well I guess that some people can not connect certain dots in front of them. And they have a problem with the title of this thread. Why is that? If you read posts and examine the links I provided, it is pretty much clear who is doing what in Iraq. And I always thought this is AboveTopSecret, where members strive to find information about goverment conspiracies - yet when such information is presented here, everybody starts to wave with their hand and say "BAH!". Yet you have vast resources of this thing called Internet, and you can check this information out, because what is going on in Iraq is a typical example of a certain thing called...:


Operation GLADIO

"Prudent Precaution or Source of Terror?" the international press pointedly asked when the secret stay-behind armies of NATO were discovered across Western Europe in late 1990. After more than ten years of research, the answer is now clear: both. The overview aboves shows that based on the experiences of World War II, all countries of Western Europe, with the support of NATO, the CIA, and MI6, had set up stay-behind armies as precaution against a potential Soviet invasion. While the safety networks and the integrity of the majority of the secret soldiers should not be criticized in hindsight after the collapse of the Soviet Union, very disturbing questions do arise with respect to reported links to terrorism.

"There exist large differences among the European countries, and each case must be analyzed individually in further detail. As of now, the evidence suggests the secret armies in the seven countries, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Luxemburg, Switzerland, Austria, and the Netherlands, focused exclusively on their stay-behind function and were not linked to terrorism. However, links to terrorism have been either confirmed or claimed in the nine countries, Italy, Ireland, Turkey, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, and Sweden, demanding further investigation."

As we can see operations and cladendestine warfare - which is actually Terrorism by definition - is nothing new within NATO operations, which means that Western intelligence agencies have been using terrorism tactics since the end of WWII to deflect the Soviet Union. Yet you are all surprised when such evidence of similar operations are found in Iraq? And you all know that such similar operations were executed in Balkans in South America in Africa by Western intelligence agencies - so why the denial? Why the surprise? Why keep defending the real terrorists, when you clearly see what is going on? How much more evidence have to be displayed in order for people to stick their heads outta sand and start looking around with their own eyes for a change? I just hope not TOO late (for them)....



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Well I guess that some people can not connect certain dots in front of them. And they have a problem with the title of this thread. Why is that? If you read posts and examine the links I provided, it is pretty much clear who is doing what in Iraq. And I always thought this is AboveTopSecret, where members strive to find information about goverment conspiracies - yet when such information is presented here, everybody starts to wave with their hand and say "BAH!". Yet you have vast resources of this thing called Internet, and you can check this information out, because what is going on in Iraq is a typical example of a certain thing called...:


Operation GLADIO

"Prudent Precaution or Source of Terror?" the international press pointedly asked when the secret stay-behind armies of NATO were discovered across Western Europe in late 1990. After more than ten years of research, the answer is now clear: both. The overview aboves shows that based on the experiences of World War II, all countries of Western Europe, with the support of NATO, the CIA, and MI6, had set up stay-behind armies as precaution against a potential Soviet invasion. While the safety networks and the integrity of the majority of the secret soldiers should not be criticized in hindsight after the collapse of the Soviet Union, very disturbing questions do arise with respect to reported links to terrorism.

"There exist large differences among the European countries, and each case must be analyzed individually in further detail. As of now, the evidence suggests the secret armies in the seven countries, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Luxemburg, Switzerland, Austria, and the Netherlands, focused exclusively on their stay-behind function and were not linked to terrorism. However, links to terrorism have been either confirmed or claimed in the nine countries, Italy, Ireland, Turkey, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, and Sweden, demanding further investigation."

As we can see operations and cladendestine warfare - which is actually Terrorism by definition - is nothing new within NATO operations, which means that Western intelligence agencies have been using terrorism tactics since the end of WWII to deflect the Soviet Union. Yet you are all surprised when such evidence of similar operations are found in Iraq? And you all know that such similar operations were executed in Balkans in South America in Africa by Western intelligence agencies - so why the denial? Why the surprise? Why keep defending the real terrorists, when you clearly see what is going on? How much more evidence have to be displayed in order for people to stick their heads outta sand and start looking around with their own eyes for a change? I just hope not TOO late (for them)....


With all due respect, there's a huge difference between Special Forces conducting Unconventional Warfare against military targets, creating confusion and havoc in an enemies rear echelons, and terrorism. Unconventional warfare is not synonymous with terrorism. Members of a military conducting ops against members of another military isn't terrorism. Civilians conducting ops against other civilians with the intent to create terror, intimidation, and chaos would be terrorism.
The SAS, Delta, and any other SOF unit you care to mention ARE NOT training anyone to be terrorists. They are training double agents to infiltrate terror cells, to thwart terrorist acts. They most certainly ARE NOT conducting attacks against friendlies, nor are the MI6/CIA(who are also working to infiltrate these cells to thwart attacks). They have to do this to get the needed intel, as you can't always rely on cell phone intercepts, etc.. to give away bad guys. You do a disservice/dishonor to the men in these units by making absurd allegations of treachery. These men are the best of the best in their respective militaries and didn't get there by being traitors to their country.

[edit on 8-2-2007 by BlueRaja]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
They most certainly ARE NOT conducting attacks against friendlies


This is untrue. Read this article. You may find the source questionable, but it was all over BBC News and SKY News at the time. You can still find several articles about the incident on their websites.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by MassiveOrigamiRacoon

This is untrue. Read this article. You may find the source questionable, but it was all over BBC News and SKY News at the time. You can still find several articles about the incident on their websites.


BS!! That don't mean anything. Does American Special Operations troops wearing Afghan garb in Afghanistan means they are trying to be terrorists?




Whats the motto of the SAS? "Who Dares Wins"

Instead of wearing insignias which would easily show that you are a member of the U.S. or British military, the best thing to do is to blend in with the local populace to do recon, gathering intel, assassination, etc.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
BS!! That don't mean anything. Does American Special Operations troops wearing Afghan garb in Afghanistan means they are trying to be terrorists?


No, it doesn't, but the American Special Operations troops wearing 'Afghan garb' in the pictures you posted were not arrested in Iraq for speeding towards a roadblock in a car full of explosives, dressed as Iraqi's, whilst shooting Iraqi Policemen, were they? Those troops in the pictures you posted didn't have to be busted out of an Iraqi jail with British tanks, either, did they?



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by MassiveOrigamiRacoon
No, it doesn't, but the American Special Operations troops wearing 'Afghan garb' in the pictures you posted were not arrested in Iraq for speeding towards a roadblock in a car full of explosives, dressed as Iraqi's, whilst shooting Iraqi Policemen, were they? Those troops in the pictures you posted didn't have to be busted out of an Iraqi jail with British tanks, either, did they?


Well gee buddy, the Brits are alot smarter in knowing how corrupt the Iraqi police is, dealing with death squads don't you think? Arrested or not, the SAS were wearing civilian clothing to disguise themselves and blend with the populace, not wear uniforms and have insurgents and terrorists blow the hell out of them. If caught, they could be legally executed for not wearing any insignia, which is why the British reacted fast to save them.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Well gee buddy, the Brits are alot smarter in knowing how corrupt the Iraqi police is, dealing with death squads don't you think?


On what do you base this? Besides, there is no evidence shown that these Police were corrupt. They went through the legal process of arresting and detaining these Men, didn't they? They don't sound very corrupt to me.


Originally posted by deltaboy
Arrested or not, the SAS were wearing civilian clothing to disguise themselves and blend with the populace, not wear uniforms and have insurgents and terrorists blow the hell out of them.


It is reported that one Iraqi Police Officer was shot dead in the incident. What reason did the SAS have for executing an operation such as this?


Originally posted by deltaboy
If caught, they could be legally executed for not wearing any insignia, which is why the British reacted fast to save them.


Speculation. They were arrested for dressing as Iraqi's and shooting Iraqi Police, not for not wearing any insignia. You think that if they had been wearing insignia, they would have been released? For obvious reasons, I think it would be quite obvious that they were not Iraqi resistance.

Let's not be silly here.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MassiveOrigamiRacoon

On what do you base this? Besides, there is no evidence shown that these Police were corrupt. They went through the legal process of arresting and detaining these Men, didn't they? They don't sound very corrupt to me.


We know how much influence the Shiite militias have taken control of the police force as well as the Iraqi military. It may be named Iraqi, but its more like kill Sunnis, serve Shiites. I can post a couple of links about the history of the Iraqi police.


It is reported that one Iraqi Police Officer was shot dead in the incident. What reason did the SAS have for executing an operation such as this?


Why did the SAS kill him? Did the Iraqi police notice that they were British? Could be used for ransom or for bargaining chip. There are many reports of people who are either actually Iraqi police, as well as those who are fake at checkpoints that kidnaps Iraqi civilians and executed them. Would have understand the SAS reaction to kill him.



Speculation. They were arrested for dressing as Iraqi's and shooting Iraqi Police, not for not wearing any insignia. You think that if they had been wearing insignia, they would have been released? For obvious reasons, I think it would be quite obvious that they were not Iraqi resistance.


Speculation maybe, but that Iraqi police unit has a known history of being members of the Shiite militia. Wearing insignias don't mean crap, it justs pretty much tells you that you are a member of the British military and go kidnap me, not go and release me.

And did they say they were members of the Iraqi resistance?



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   
And o yeah, I remember that there is a story where the British military blew up a police station in southern Iraq after finding tortured prisoners, and the Iraqi police unit was disbanded.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
With all due respect, there's a huge difference between Special Forces conducting Unconventional Warfare against military targets, creating confusion and havoc in an enemies rear echelons, and terrorism. Unconventional warfare is not synonymous with terrorism.
Members of a military conducting ops against members of another military isn't terrorism. Civilians conducting ops against other civilians with the intent to create terror, intimidation, and chaos would be terrorism.
The SAS, Delta, and any other SOF unit you care to mention ARE NOT training anyone to be terrorists. They are training double agents to infiltrate terror cells, to thwart terrorist acts. They most certainly ARE NOT conducting attacks against friendlies, nor are the MI6/CIA(who are also working to infiltrate these cells to thwart attacks). They have to do this to get the needed intel, as you can't always rely on cell phone intercepts, etc.. to give away bad guys. You do a disservice/dishonor to the men in these units by making absurd allegations of treachery. These men are the best of the best in their respective militaries and didn't get there by being traitors to their country.

You are mistaken.

Please read the following article:



UK agents 'did have role in IRA bomb atrocities'


The controversy over claims that Britain allowed two IRA informers to organise 'human bomb' attacks intensified this weekend.

The 'human bomb' tactic involved forcing civilians to drive vehicles laden with explosives into army checkpoints and included deadly sorties near Newry and Coshquin outside Derry. Six British soldiers and a civilian worker at an army base died in the simultaneous blasts on either side of Northern Ireland.

British Irish Rights Watch said: 'This month BIRW sent a confidential report to the Historical Enquiries Team on the three incidents that occurred on 24th October 1990... at least two security force agents were involved in these bombings, and allegations have been made that the "human bomb" strategy was the brainchild of British intelligence.

As you can see, Britis Intelligence has a past of "suicide bomb techniques" and as you can see, they have been caught with their pants down on several occasions in Northen Ireland - which only proves the theory, that Western intelligence agencies are actually behind suicide bombings in Iraq. I know it is hard to belive, but that is called False Flag Operations - which arecovert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. Is that any clearer? Still remember two SAS agents caught by Iraq police, wearing traditional muslim clothing, driving into the checkpoint, shooting one policeman dead? What do you call that? An accident? A mistake? An error? How many agents dressed like this are operating in Iraq? The following article is also most interesting:


Troops Killed By "Insurgnts" Wearing US Army Uniforms

New details also emerged about clashes on Saturday in the Shiite holy city of Karbala, which left five Americans dead. Lt. Col. Scott R. Bleichwehl, an American military spokesman, said the gunmen who stormed the provincial governor’s office during a meeting between American and local officials were wearing what appeared to be American military uniforms in an effort to impersonate United States soldiers.

Colonel Bleichwehl declined to provide further details about the Karbala attackers, emphasizing that the attack was still being investigated. But Iraqi officials said the gunmen disguised their intent with uniforms, American flak jackets, guns and a convoy of at least seven GMC sport utility vehicles, which are usually used by American officials in Iraq.

Now how did they get American uniforms and equipment? Okey, uniforms mabye - but flak jackets, guns and a convoy of seven GMC sport utility vehicles? Well something definetly smells fishy here.

Furthermore;


Iran’s IEDs: Made in America

As it turns out, these “advanced explosive devices” are from Britain, not Iran. Back in October of 2005, the Independent reported “soldiers, who were targeted by insurgents as they traveled through [Iraq], died after being attacked with bombs triggered by infra-red beams. The bombs were developed by the IRA using technology passed on by the security services in a botched ’sting’ operation more than a decade ago…. This contradicts the British government’s claims that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard is helping Shia insurgents to make the devices.”

In fact, the devices were made in America. “In late 1993 and early 1994, I went to America with officers from MI5, the FRU and RUC special branch. They had already sourced the transmitters and receivers in New York following liaison with their counterparts in the FBI,” Kevin Fulton, who infiltrated the IRA in the Newry area while being handled by the Force Research Unit, told the Sunday Tribune in June, 2002. Fulton’s trip was confirmed by the FBI, according to Matthew Teague, writing for the Atlantic.

As more information pours our, more evidence is right in front of you all, that terrible terrorists in Iraq are actually sponsored, recruited, equipped and possibly even trained by Western intelligence agencies.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   
There's a big difference in shooting a corrupt policeman(who in many cases were insurgents on the side), for reasons unbeknownst to us, and SAS/Delta/SF/SEAL forces killing friendlies, trying to make it look like bad guys. That's a total load of BS, and I speak from personal experience on that matter. If these units got an order to attack friendlies, you can be assured they'd tell whomever was asking to piss up a rope, prior to reporting them. As for the attack on the US forces by insurgents dressed in US uniforms- there's nothing they did or had that isn't easily acquired. They obviously were well organized, and a high ranking Iraqi General has been implicated, with ties to Iran(whether they were Iranian agents or Shia Iraqis, isn't known or at least hasn't been made known to the public).



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by MassiveOrigamiRacoon

Originally posted by BlueRaja
They most certainly ARE NOT conducting attacks against friendlies


This is untrue. Read this article. You may find the source questionable, but it was all over BBC News and SKY News at the time. You can still find several articles about the incident on their websites.



The fact is, you don't know what their mission was, only that -"The Arab garb is obviously undeniable proof that the operation, whatever its ultimate intention, was staged so that any eyewitnesses would believe it had been carried out by Iraqis."

This is called military deception. This doesn't mean they were on their way to killing Brits or Americans. As for my opinion of Alex Jones- he is the sombrero of a$$hats.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
I love the way the article titles it "who are the real terrorists?"
Makes me laugh.


No kidding, from the way it reads it would make you think that britain was supporting the insurgents which is not what they are doing. They are using their owbn tactics against them. Infiltrating and overwhelming the terrorist organizations. good job brits



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I am not being rude, but the only "clear evidence" here is twisting stories to suit an agenda that is making claims that cannot be proven (about Iraq)

Did you know that the British raised the question about terrorist being put into the Iraqi police force? The British Army told the US that they were worried about it, it was on a documentary on Channel Four about Iraqi death squards...

ashame you left that out, eh?



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Now how did they get American uniforms and equipment? Okey, uniforms mabye - but flak jackets, guns and a convoy of seven GMC sport utility vehicles? Well something definetly smells fishy here.


Easy, by stealing or buying the vehicles, not to mention theres many American equipment laying around that can be stolen. Especially ambush on convoys.



Here's a video of Marines killing the Syrian driver and passenger and trying to destroy a VBIED with their rifles. Look at the vehicle closely, what does that model look like?



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Now how did they get American uniforms and equipment? Okey, uniforms mabye - but flak jackets, guns and a convoy of seven GMC sport utility vehicles?


The very same way the Germans got jeeps uniforms at the Battle of the Bulge they stole them. It is not all that hard to do ya know. Now no doubt you will want to know why they could speak English, well they probably recruited American/English speaking soldiers, again the very same way the Germans did during the battle of the Bulge.

Edit to add. Sorry I see deltaboy beat me to it


[edit on 2/8/2007 by shots]



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Whats the motto of the SAS? "Who Dares Wins"


It's "Who cares Who wins"



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   
it is obvious USA and Britain never wanted any kind of peace in Iraq. They need Iraq to be in a mess so they have a great excuse to keep their troops out there, securing the oil pipelines, selling armaments, and other big business interests for the neocons, and to have a stronghold in the middle east



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
There's a big difference in shooting a corrupt policeman(who in many cases were insurgents on the side), for reasons unbeknownst to us, and SAS/Delta/SF/SEAL forces killing friendlies, trying to make it look like bad guys. That's a total load of BS, and I speak from personal experience on that matter. If these units got an order to attack friendlies, you can be assured they'd tell whomever was asking to piss up a rope, prior to reporting them. As for the attack on the US forces by insurgents dressed in US uniforms- there's nothing they did or had that isn't easily acquired. They obviously were well organized, and a high ranking Iraqi General has been implicated, with ties to Iran(whether they were Iranian agents or Shia Iraqis, isn't known or at least hasn't been made known to the public).

Well I noticed that you did not pay attention to basicly none of the posts I made here. Even if I have shown to you, that there are Evidence (with a capital E), about how MI5 infiltrated IRA in Northern Ireland, gave them weapons, plans, bomb designs and actually operated their own terrorist cell in order to create a very bad picture for the "Real" IRA. Several MI5 agents admitted to that and you can go to the page 1 of this thread and start actually reading. I have also shown, that a big dream for Isreali intelligence agencies was to divide Iraq, saying that "an inter-Arab conflict help us and accelerate our goal of breaking up Iraq into small, diverse pieces." I have shown you Pentagon plans for Balkanization of Iraq and also a creation of a new intelligence organization called Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG) - which brings togather the CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence and cover and deception. I have also shown you plans for the so called "Salvador Option", which involves Death Squads, being trained by the CIA, just like in the good old days of Cold War and South America. And you still can not see these pieces of puzzle coming togather? Best thing you can do, is to call Mister Alex Jones stupid names? Well that sure just shows how mature you really are. I suggest you do your own research to counter the information - or as I like to call it: EVIDENCE - which I presented here. Or was that your best shot?

Sorry Mate -

The Truth is There for Those Who Have the EYES to SEE it.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join