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

Originally posted by 27jd
What in your opinion could he have said to shine a bad light on allied forces?

That two allied soldiers out of uniform and in arab attire opened fire in a public place.


[edit on 21/9/05 by redmage]

Originally posted by redmage

Originally posted by 27jd
What in your opinion could he have said to shine a bad light on allied forces?

That two allied soldiers out of uniform and in arab attire opened fire in a public place.


[edit on 21/9/05 by redmage]

What, inherantly, is wrong with that?

I find it so funny, that when the insurgents strike (and this is disregarding the causes of the insurgency and merits for the war, which I am against) all you doo-gooders are quick to say nothing.

British soldiers are actually making an effort here to stop the insurgents infiltrating the police and destabalizing the Government, which will only prolong the suffering of the Iraqi People, and all you can do is nitpick and blame THEM for setting the bombs.

This is such a simple thing that has been blown out of all proportion, I just don't get were you people are coming from!

1. Two prominent Shia are arrested for supporting terrorist attacks in the area.
   
2. In response, two undercover SRS troopers, who were monitoring corrupt "Police" are "arrested" by Police loyal to the Shia Mahdi Army militia
   
3. British Soldiers turn up at the station after being informed by the Iraq Government they will be released
   
4. Soldiers aren't released. Police defy a direct order. In fact, they incite a mob to attack the British troops. Riot insues in which some are injured, including up to 19 British Soldiers. Reports of some fatalities not confirmed.
   
5. After it became clear the Police wouldn't co-operate and that they had handed the men over to the Militia, British forces raided the Police HQ and, at gunpoint, forced the police to tell them the location of the Soldiers
   
6. Soldiers are rescued from Militia group. Considering the insurgents have a propensity of chopping of heads and what-not, this is a good thing
   

There you go, a nice condensed version. For a proper report, please check out the BBC or other news outlet, instead of making wild, unfounded accusations.


[edit on 21/9/05 by stumason]

Originally posted by stumason

British soldiers are actually making an effort here to stop the insurgents infiltrating the police and destabalizing the Government, which will only prolong the suffering of the Iraqi People, and all you can do is nitpick and blame THEM for setting the bombs.

The problem with this, is that your statements are just as speculative, and if this were true........well........the "war" is over and we are guests now which makes them spies.

As sad as it is, the UK's duty there would be to disavow any knowledge of their actions and let the chips fall where they may. Admittedly sad but that is the job the SAS sign up for.

They had no right to storm and destroy any jails or police vehicles and these actions only add to the shady look of the "operation".

Again, these photos show no masked men with machettes or guns to the troops heads. They were being detained as spies, which was within their rights, and as "out of uniform" (and in disguise) enemy combatants they were technically within their rights to do whatever they wanted to do with them.

Your source is that talks about Sadr and iran , is lying . And not just about iran.

It claims Sadr wants "A struggle against the Sunnis " .

But Al- sadr has always preached the unity of iraq. He has never ever said a bad word about the Sunnis!

abcnews.go.com...

Iraqi Cleric Urges Unity Against Violence

BAGHDAD, Iraq Sep 16, 2005 — A leading Sunni cleric called for religious and ethnic groups to take a stand against violence as Iraq endured a third consecutive day of sectarian killings the worst, a suicide car bombing at a Shiite mosque that killed at least 12 worshippers as they left Friday prayers.

And his mehdi army have sent contingents to help the sunni resistance of the north on many occasion.

HOME RULE by NIR ROSEN

A young boy from Najaf wearing a pressed white shirt tucked neatly into bluejeans walked up to the lectern, and the microphone was lowered to accommodate him. The boy raised his right arm, pointing his index finger at the sky. “I came to praise the heroes of Falluja!” he shouted. His poem ended with calls to God—“Ya Allah! Ya allah!”—that he screamed out. Then he began to sob, and he was led away, wiping his tears. The men in the front row of plastic chairs embraced and kissed him, and he returned to the lectern and recited another poem. This time, he brandished a Kalashnikov that was as long as he was tall.

cayankee.blogs.com...

Friday, August 26, 2005
Could Al-Sadr Unite Shi'ites and Sunnis Against American Forces

The Washington Times reports that firebrand Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is gaining support among Iraqi youth, raising fears he could eventually unify Shi'ites and Sunnis against American forces.


"This is an anti-American resistance movement, and he will eventually exploit this, he will eventually merge with the Sunni insurgents," Mr. Rahimi predicted. "This would prompt a stronger force against American troops in Iraq and he will have a lot more followers," he said.

Iraq: Sadr's aides meet Sunnis

Sinan Salaheddin in Baghdad | May 23, 2005 18:14 IST

Aides of a radical Shiite cleric met Sunday with a key Sunni group seeking to ease sectarian tensions in Iraq, while gunmen killed a top trade ministry official as a spree of violence that followed the announcement of a new government entered its fourth week.

www.rediff.com...

[edit on 21-9-2005 by Syrian Sister]

Originally posted by redmage

Originally posted by stumason

British soldiers are actually making an effort here to stop the insurgents infiltrating the police and destabalizing the Government, which will only prolong the suffering of the Iraqi People, and all you can do is nitpick and blame THEM for setting the bombs.

The problem with this, is that your statements are just as speculative, and if this were true........well........the "war" is over and we are guests now which makes them spies.

As sad as it is, the UK's duty there would be to disavow any knowledge of their actions and let the chips fall where they may. Admittedly sad but that is the job the SAS sign up for.

They had no right to storm and destroy any jails or police vehicles and these actions only add to the shady look of the "operation".

Again, these photos show no masked men with machettes or guns to the troops heads. They were being detained as spies, which was within their rights, and as "out of uniform" (and in disguise) enemy combatants they were technically within their rights to do whatever they wanted to do with them.

Your point is also specualative in that you are assuming that:

1. That we are guests.
   We are there (now anyway) at the request of the Iraqi's to secure the country. We not just there to top up on our tans and have a jolly good time.
   
   If we were "guests" then we would not be resposible for training them, organising them, helping them secure the place and in many cases policing the country
   
   
2. That the Iraqis consider them as Spies.
   Is that contradictory to your claim of us being Guests?
   
   Seeing as there are agreements in place with the Iraqi's concerning such matters and they were not adhered too. The Local police ignored a Judicial AND central Government order to turn over (not release) the men to the British so we could investigate. This was not done, and worse, they were handed over to local Mahdi Army militia.
   
   Bearing in mind that 2 senior Mahdi Army supporters were arrested only a day before, does it not smell a tiny bit fishy to you, or are you just a bit stupid?
   

Come on. You are clutching at straws here.




[edit on 21/9/05 by stumason]

Originally posted by redmage
The problem with this, is that your statements are just as speculative, and if this were true........well........the "war" is over and we are guests now which makes them spies.

They weren't trying to obtain Iraqi government secrets, they were monitoring a corrupt police force.

As sad as it is, the UK's duty there would be to disavow any knowledge of their actions and let the chips fall where they may. Admittedly sad but that is the job the SAS sign up for.

They weren't spying, but observing.

They had no right to storm and destroy any jails or police vehicles and these actions only add to the shady look of the "operation".

The police ignored orders from the government. Is that not shady?

Again, these photos show no masked men with machettes or guns to the troops heads.

Not yet, it was too soon. But those photos would mosty likely be next.

They were being detained as spies, which was within their rights, and as "out of uniform" (and in disguise) enemy combatants they were technically within their rights to do whatever they wanted to do with them.

The police force, again, ignored direct orders to release them. Basra is not a country, but part of Iraq. This is a renegade police force, the Brits had every right and duty to rescue those men.

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Your source is that talks about Sadr and iran , is lying . And not just about iran.

Here, try this one.

Iranian mullahs, led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, have developed close ties with Ayatollah Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, who leads the main Shi’ite list of Iraqi candidates, and with Moqtada al-Sadr, the rebel Iraqi Shi’ite cleric.

Al-Hakim’s party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri), was formed in Iran, where al-Hakim fled about 20 years ago after many of his relatives were killed by Saddam Hussein’s regime. The party has a spacious office in Tehran.

“The Iranian influence in southern Iraq is strong,” said the British military adviser last week. “It comes through the religious influence of mullahs and through Iran’s overt links with political parties such as Sciri, which controls the Basra governate.

“Iran is also secretly funding individuals and smaller groups in Iraq and trains them for their purposes.”

British officials believe that a withdrawal of UK troops from the south would hasten a de facto Iranian takeover. “There is a possibility under a Shi’ite majority government that Arab countries will be asked to help with Iraqi security, perhaps even Iranian and Syrian security forces,” said the adviser.

He also confirmed that al-Sadr, who led a violent insurgency against coalition forces last year, had been in the pay of Tehran. “According to our intelligence assessments, during the Najaf uprising last April he was being given money by the Iranians to cause trouble.”

Al-Sadr’s “Mahdi army” fought running battles with the British Army in Basra and in the Maysan province.

Al-Sadr has since been keeping a lower profile and has been sending mixed signals about his political intentions. Although he has told his followers to boycott the vote he is believed to be waiting to see whether a credible government emerges. If it does, he may seek to join it. If the democratic process collapses, he may lead his army back into battle against coalition forces.

Intelligence reports suggest that al-Sadr has placed “ciphers” — undercover militiamen posing as mainstream politicians — in various political parties and will attempt to seize power in the largely Shi’ite south at an opportune moment, possibly in concert with his backers in the IRGC.

In Al-Amara in the “Wild East” Maysan province, al-Sadr is said to have already seized hold of the political process.

www.iranfocus.com...

Al Sadr is trying to play every angle he can, he may say he wants to unite with the Sunnis, but if he were to obtain his objective they would be cast aside and repressed.

[edit on 21-9-2005 by 27jd]

[edit on 21-9-2005 by 27jd]

Originally posted by stumason

We are there (now anyway) at the request of the Iraqi's

Yup, guests.

Originally posted by stumason
If we were "guests" then we would not be resposible for training them, organising them, helping them secure the place and in many cases policing the country.

My mother works for a fortune 500 US company and is a Guest in their canadian plant to train them, organize them, and help them secure their new computer systems yet they still refer to her as a "guest" speaker.

Yup, guests.

Originally posted by stumason

That the Iraqis consider them as Spies.
Is that contradictory to your claim of us being Guests?

Nope, most of the troops are in uniform as they should be.

Originally posted by stumason
Seeing as there are agreements in place with the Iraqi's concerning such matters and they were not adhered too. The Local police ignored a Judicial AND central Government order to turn over (not release) the men to the British so we could investigate. This was not done, and worse, they were handed over to local Mahdi Army militia.

Nygdan addressed the legal issues there quite well, you should read the thread.

Originally posted by stumason
Bearing in mind that 2 senior Mahdi Army supporters were arrested only a day before, does it not smell a tiny bit fishy to you, or are you just a bit stupid?

These actions of the 2 brits smell a bit fishy. Are you saying that they only wanted to capture 2 brits for a trade LMAO, and personal attacks only show ignorance and are not warranted.

Originally posted by stumason
Come on. You are clutching at straws here.

Apparently that makes two of us lol





[edit on 21/9/05 by redmage]

[edit on 21/9/05 by redmage]

I don't know if anyone noticed, but Britain pulled a fast one here and rescued their men. Good for them:

news.bbc.co.uk...

Originally posted by 27jd

They weren't trying to obtain Iraqi government secrets, they were monitoring a corrupt police force.

Speculation.

Originally posted by 27jd
They weren't spying, but observing.

LMAO

Originally posted by 27jd
The police ignored orders from the government. Is that not shady?

Nygdan already addressed this.

Originally posted by 27jd
Not yet, it was too soon. But those photos would mosty likely be next.

Further speculation.

Originally posted by 27jd
The police force, again, ignored direct orders to release them. Basra is not a country, but part of Iraq. This is a renegade police force, the Brits had every right and duty to rescue those men.

Nygdan already addressed this.

Originally posted by Syrian Sister

HOME RULE by NIR ROSEN

A young boy from Najaf wearing a pressed white shirt tucked neatly into bluejeans walked up to the lectern, and the microphone was lowered to accommodate him. The boy raised his right arm, pointing his index finger at the sky. “I came to praise the heroes of Falluja!” he shouted. His poem ended with calls to God—“Ya Allah! Ya allah!”—that he screamed out. Then he began to sob, and he was led away, wiping his tears. The men in the front row of plastic chairs embraced and kissed him, and he returned to the lectern and recited another poem. This time, he brandished a Kalashnikov that was as long as he was tall.

I especially like the last bit, and you admire that do you?
I expect you admire the activities on the annual remembrance day of the death of Imam Hussein do you?

Does it real make you feel warm inside when you think of things like that kid in the quote above with his AK-47 and things like this:















I hope my pictures are not dis-allowed, I chose some tame ones so as to not breach any T&C's.


I'm sorry but it makes me angry and very sad to see anyone using a child in that way, it really does.

[edit on 21-9-2005 by AgentSmith]

[edit on 21-9-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I'm sorry but it makes me angry and very sad to see anyone using a child in that way, it really does.

It's disgusting. Those children are brainwashed from birth to think it's a good idea to blow yourself up. I was taught to spend most of my time trying to avoid that.

AGENT SMITH

While you have some valid info it is completly out of place here. Start your own thread if this is what you want to discuss. This, while some holds value, has no more to do with the brits captured than the "Bush bashing"
I would like to do for getting us into this mess.

Originally posted by redmage
AGENT SMITH

While you have some valid info it is completly out of place here. Start your own thread if this is what you want to discuss. This, while some holds value, has no more to do with the brits captured than the "Bush bashing"
I would like to do for getting us into this mess.

It is in response to a specific remark/example given by SS and I do not think it is out of place at all if it helps to balance out the mentality of all the people involved.

Myslef along with the rest of the UK saw the very people involved in the raids on the jail and they looked younger than me! They are good honest people and are the same sort of people I know and speak to in the pub.
I am SICK of hearing people bad mouthing them - especially OUR OWN people.
I can sympathise with people like SS who are on the receiving end to an extent but I am sick of our guys being made out as the devil's spawn when the other side isn't always so angel-ey white itself.

And yes I know not EVERYONE follows those traditions and not everyone agrees with them But the point is that there is bad and good on both sides and not eveyerthing one 'side' does is good and not everything is bad either.

[edit on 21-9-2005 by AgentSmith]

Her remarks were in response to 27jd

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Your source is that talks about Sadr and iran , is lying . And not just about iran.

It claims Sadr wants "A struggle against the Sunnis " .

But Al- sadr has always preached the unity of iraq. He has never ever said a bad word about the Sunnis!

The group that the two soldiers are speculated to have been spying on/observing and her percieved untruths regarding them in a reference posted by someone else.

Not a sensationalized non solicited offering to enflame emotions.

I'm not discrediting your points, but it is the wrong place for them. Unless you can cite sources to prove that all these pics were taken in Iraq and are a part of Al- sadr's specific group and even then it is not really relavent to an Iranian connection which was the initial reason it was even brought up because of Rummy's statement pointing to Iran in the insuing riot.








[edit on 21/9/05 by redmage]

I may have been too broad then I admit and done my usual diving in trick, it was more in response to what I saw as glorification of the actions of that young boy in the statement and the actions that happen in the Middle Eastern countries as depicted in the pictures I posted. I may very well be too broad in what I was pointing out and if it is incorrect in any way I apologise.

I've probably shot myself in the foot again by being too sterotypical in some way or generalising, I guess I am just defensive of 'my people' as much as people like Syrian Sister is which I do actually respect if nothing else.

I think actually seeing the soldiers involved on the TV and the fact they were probably younger than me and were like the guys I speak to every day who are in the services and the same sort of people I have spoken to in the pub kind of hit a chord with me more than usual.

[edit on 21-9-2005 by AgentSmith]

My mother works for a fortune 500 US company and is a Guest in their canadian plant to train them, organize them, and help them secure their new computer systems yet they still refer to her as a "guest" speaker.

Yup, guests.

Working for a "Forune 500" company and being part of a multi-national force under a UN mandate are two completely different things. Comparing the two is like apples and oranges.

Under the UN mandate, Coalition forces are there to help with the stabalisation and security situation in Iraq. As such, arresting the soldiers was not part of the agreement. the agreement is, that if any Coalition forces are suspected in any Criminal activity, that once arrested, they should be handed over to the Military for investigation.

This was not doen and they were handed to Militia. A militia, which, has had two senior members arressted a day prior by the British Army/IPS.

Nope, most of the troops are in uniform as they should be.

As part of that mandate, due to the military situation in Iraq, it is a given that there will be covert ops in situ to support the Regular forces. The Iraqi Government know this and are well aware of this. They have their own Spec ops guys doing the same thing. Along with the US.

I take it, had this been American Soldiers in this situation, that it would be acompletely different story.

I think not. I would imagine the Yanks would have done an awful lot of "killing things and blowing stuff up"...it's what they do.

Nygdan addressed the legal issues there quite well, you should read the thread.

Er...No he didn't. and if you have read the thread yourself you would know I have been in it for a while. The Geneva Conventions pertain to two countries at war. Which the UK and Iraq are not. Neither does the Geneva Conventions allow for torture if there are suspected spies as this directly contravenes Human Rights Conventions.

The two SRS (not SAS) troopers were part of an Operation to uncover corruption and infiltration into the IPS by the insurgency. they were not spying, as this would mean that they were working in order to undermine the Iraqi state or steal state secret, which they were not. They were working under a UN mandate, with the express permission to be there by the Iraqi Government in order to try and bring some sort of stability to that craphole we have created.

Its not as if they were dropped into a sovereign country which did not allow our soldiers to be there nor acknowledged that there would be SF ops in order to support that Government.

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

These actions of the 2 brits smell a bit fishy. Are you saying that they only wanted to capture 2 brits for a trade LMAO, and personal attacks only show ignorance and are not warranted.

Is it such a difficult concept to grasp that the IPS is compromised and that the two SRS chaps were taken as part of a revenge attack? If the IPS is so goddam perfect and the British are at fault, why then were they handed over to the Mahdi Army?

This is a point which you are avoiding. Take 5 mins to look at the process of events and tell me that you honestly believe that the Soldiers were setting up bombs and NOT taking part in an Obbo to uncover corruption/infiltration, only then to be taken in and handed over to militants by the very same corrupt Officers in the IPS?

I fail to see what your problem is? Is it that hard to understand? Do you have some sort of inability to see the facts for what they are? I have repeatedly shown what the chain of events were and unusally for the MOD they have actually given details of what these two SF guys were up too.

It isn't that hard a concept to grasp. You may choose to believe that that was a personal attack (which it wasn't as I didn't call you stupid...I was merely asking if you were...) and that it displays ignorance, but you sir, I think, are the one displaying complete ignorance to the facts.

If you choose to ignore the facts and buy into Syriansisters and others deluded fantasy that they were up too no good, then I don't know what else to say.

Originally posted by redmage

It claims Sadr wants "A struggle against the Sunnis " .

But Al- sadr has always preached the unity of iraq. He has never ever said a bad word about the Sunnis!"

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

09/04/05 "Sunday Times" -- -- THE maverick Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has raised sectarian tension in Iraq by vowing vengeance against Sunnis he blames for the stampede that killed almost 1,000 pilgrims last week in Baghdad.

While more moderate clerics have avoided blaming Sunni insurgents for provoking the tragedy, al-Sadr claimed in a message from his mosque in al-Kufa, near Najaf, that civil war was already underway.

The interior ministry has said 953 Shi’ite worshippers died last Wednesday, trampled underfoot and drowned in the Tigris river after they tumbled from the narrow al-Aima bridge on their way towards the shrine of Moussa al- Kadhim, an 8th-century imam. An earlier exchange of mortar fire had made the crowd nervous, but pandemonium broke out when rumours spread that there were Sunni suicide bombers in their midst.

In a statement to newspapers al-Sadr identified “Ba’athists and Saddamists” and “fanatic sectarians” as likely culprits. “The number of dead is sufficient for us to prove that this incident was organised,” he said. “You should ask about the dirty hands who spilt all this blood.”

In a sermon later, the cleric promised further resistance to the American-led coalition, which he said had failed to prevent tensions between the Sunni minority and the Shi’ites from escalating.

wat was it u say about Sadr talkin about Sunnis and unity? he seems to not able to make up his mind.

The SAS IS good at their mission, HOWEVER, if the people they were watching had suspicions that they were being watched, and were on the lookout for anything unusual, or they were just having a bad day then they're going to get found out no matter HOW good they are. You could be the best spy in the world and have a bad day, and something incredibly stupid happen and get caught.

An SAS team in the desert in the First Gulf War was found out when a goat herder happened to walk along the rim of the ravine they were hiding in. He hadn't been seen anywhere near that ravine before, after several days of observation, but that particular night he just happened to walk over and look down right at one of the SAS troopers. Sheer dumb luck.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
not eveyerthing one 'side' does is good and not everything is bad either.

[edit on 21-9-2005 by AgentSmith]

I feel that is entirely her and my point and my point, and as an American with the american media, I am sick of all our actions being whitewashed. Not all we do is "good" but when the possibility of allied forces doing something less than golden arises it is whitewashed or swept under the rug. All mass media is biased so it is only by seeing both extremes
that the truth is found.

Yet I maintain that while the photos have value, as does your opinion, they are no more relevant to the 2 brits than the "Bush/Blair bashing" I would like to do for getting us in this mess.