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

Originally posted by redmage

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.

You are absolutely right and I do sincerely apologise for my usual emotional outburst. Obviously I can't really remove them now but I will cease to try and use them in the discussion (unless required to somehow).

Originally posted by deltaboy

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!"

Your point? These were not My views, they were quoting SS to show Agent Smith why she posted what she felt.

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

Not a thing, if you read the thread you'd actually understand.


[edit on 21/9/05 by redmage]

Originally posted by redmage
Your point? These were not My views, they were quoting SS to show Agent Smith why she posted what she felt.

Actually, I think she was showing me......

This thread has been going in circles so long it's making us all dizzy.

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

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by redmage
Your point? These were not My views, they were quoting SS to show Agent Smith why she posted what she felt.

Actually, I think she was showing me......

This thread has been going in circles so long it's making us all dizzy.

Exactly, and I was quoting her doing so to make a point. lol

So dizzylol



AgentSmith
I u2u'd ya and thanks, appology accepted, these are deffinately emotional issues and can get heated pretty quick. I understand your position and
appreciated your response.

[edit on 21/9/05 by redmage]

my bad then. its to Syrian Sister instead.

Agent Smith

Lets not turn this into a slug fest.

The images you posted where from palestine. Why mix the two up? Is this part of a smere campaign against iraqies? If you'll post pics of palestine then i'll post a few pics too.





What is the difference?


And YES there are teenagers fighting in this war, ON BOTH SIDES of it.
INfact half the Iraqi population are under the age of 18. After the 500 thousand kids under 5 you killed in the sanctions, the depleted uranium deformaties and after the tens of thousands of kids you killed in ariel bombardements, it's no wonder why iraq's kids are standing up to defend themselves.

BUT i ask you who started this war so that kids on both sides can find new ways of killing each other? BUT the difference is your kids are sent to off to fight by military recruiters and our kids fight, because they have to defend themselves against the occupation.

Graphic Image

The orphan brigades is a bunch of iraqi kids whose parents have been killed in the war, and who decided to take up arms.


Delta boy

You quoted the source from the Sunday times, but you should read the whole of it. YOu will see that they took Sadrs comments and twisted them. He never blamed the "Sunni" and infact if you read on he says that the OCCUPATION IS THE CAUSE of the tension!

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.

HE doesn't want any divisions between the Sunni and the Shia.


The following Demonstrates the UNITY OF THE RESISTANCE. The Sunni and the SHia resistance.

These YOUNG Soldiers of the mehdi army are giving blood to the people of Fallujah, during the first siege.




Also notice the head scarf around this boy, looks alot like what the black haired spy was wearing around his neck doesn't it?


Also the mehdi army and the SUnni resistance have frequently helped each other in batte!

Dressed in the uniform of Saddam Hussein's Special Republican Guards, Janabi had come from his home in Fallujah to show Najaf’s poorly-trained Mahdi militiamen how to use their weapons.

"The Fallujah Consultancy Council of Mujahedin holy warriors sent me with nine other officers and forty soldiers who are well trained in using mortar and the RPG-7 grenade launcher," said Janabi, who unlike many Iraqi insurgents had no qualms about giving his name.

"We had to stand by our Shia brothers in Najaf, who stood by us in Fallujah," he said, referring to the long-running battle in that town with US troops.

"It is an honourable stance of Fallujah people who sent us experts in using weapons,” said one Mahdi militiaman, who added that “we are in need of military training”."We welcomed the mujahedin of Fallujah who came, without being asked to come, to help us out in training the fighters who lack experiences in using weapons," said Sheikh Kudair al-Ansari, in charge of Sadr's office in Kufa.


www.iwpr.net.../irq/irq_78_1_eng.txt

27JD

"They weren't spying, but observing."

LOL, is that like "they wheren't speaking, they where talking"


your quote the following:

"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."

That's rather funny since the ayatollah al-hakim is in direct opposition to muqtada. Perhaps they are medling with both sides hmm, but since their main man is IRANIAN NATIONAL Sitani, the opposite of Al Sadr, then it's easy to see which side the majority of them are going for, and it's against the resistance. They are trying to USe the occupation to get t heir foot in the door in iraq.

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

So you see the ones who want to Cause disunity in iraq, are the ones leading the occupiation. THey said it themselves, they fear unity.

DIVIDE AND CONQUER. The oldest trick in the book

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

Mod Edit: Replaced Graphic Image With Link And Warning

[edit on 22/9/2005 by Mirthful Me]

Everyone else gets a rebuttal except for me...... makes you wonder..

Am I being ignored accidentally or are you avoiding the issue and the facts as they stand?

i didn't mean to make you feel left out. I didn't actually know you where talking to me.

let me scroll back and see what you said.

hehehe still, i'm suprised your jealous i turned my guns on everyone else but you

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

Originally posted by Syrian Sister

i didn't mean to make you feel left out. I didn't actually know you where talking to me.

let me scroll back and see what you said.

hehehe

still, i'm suprised your jealous i turned my guns on everyone else but you

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

Haha....I was talking to anyone ... Was having a laugh really..

But, feel free to rail on me, I will come back at ya

my mistake. Don't worry i'm sure someone will give you a rebuttle someday

Originally posted by Syrian Sister

my mistake. Don't worry i'm sure someone will give you a rebuttle someday

To be honest, i really am not sure it's exact meaning...But it is essentially letting me have it ..Some American thing I picked up....(oh god..)

Basically, I made some clear, concise points about the events of the other day and people just ignore them and continue with their fantasies about the UK planting bombs against its own etc etc.....

I did feel left out, but then, maybe they don't want to argue as they know I am right

It has always been this way, and it still this way.

But no matter how hard they try it seems, the bond between family is stronger.

Monday, November 29, 2004, 12:00 a.m. Pacific

Permission to reprint or copy this article/photo must be obtained from The Seattle Times. Call 206-464-3113 or e-mail [email protected] with your request.

Charles Krauthammer / Syndicated columnist
It's time for full participation by Shiites, Kurds in civil war

WASHINGTON — In 1864,Six months ago I wrote in this space that while "our goal has been to build a united, pluralistic, democratic Iraq in which the factions negotiate their differences the way we do in the West" that "may be, in the short run, a bridge too far. ... We should lower our ambitions and see Iraqi factionalization as a useful tool."

That's the whole way the US deals with things isn' it, using one faction against another, just like they used the Northern Alliance faction against the taliban. Ofcource they discarded them when they where finnished with them.

A number of influential Western observers, such as Leslie Gelb at the Council on Foreign Relations, have gone so far as to suggest that Iraq be divided--by fiat of the Western powers, it seems--into three states. According to advocates of the "three-state solution," Iraq is an artificial construct and can thus be jettisoned, as if the last eighty-four years in which Iraqis have lived together can simply be ignored, not to mention the desire of most Iraqis to remain in a unitary state.

www.thenation.com...

Iraq is "artificially and fatefully made whole from three distinct ethnic and sectarian communities", says Leslie Gelb in his November 25 New York Time article. Gelb - a former editor and columnist for the Times and president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations - advocates dismembering Iraq into three parts, a Kurdish north, a Sunni center and a Shi'ite south, in what he calls the "Three State Solution"

International law prohibits an occupying power from altering the structure of the occupied country, let alone dividing it up.

Just think how YOU would feel, if someone wanted to cut up your motherland into pieces.

This reminds me of a story about two mothers who claimed the same child, the judge told them that he would cut the child in half and give each one to them. ONe women agreed and the other did not. It showed who where the ones that truly cared for the child.

I guess because it would have been a blatent violation of internatinal law, and because it would have ended their excuse to stay in iraq, the US Occupation decided to increase secterian tension by suggesting iraq becomes a federation, that is, three seperate iraqi states each with their own power.

"The people of Iraq will defeat a federal constitution in the October referendum," Sunni committee member Saleh al-Mutlaq said on Friday.

The Sunnis' cause received support from across Iraq's sectarian divide, with thousands of followers of Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia cleric who led a six-month uprising against US-led forces last year, demonstrating against a federal constitution after the main weekly Friday Muslim prayer.

english.aljazeera.net...

cayankee.blogs.com...

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.

Hostage hoax
By: weekly.ahram.org on: 23.04.2005 [10:22] (181 reads)
Article image

(7800 bytes) Print
Hostage hoax
Nermeen Al-Mufti visits Al-Madaen, the city at the centre of last week's rumours of shia hostage taking, while Mohamed El-Anwar assesses the performance of the Iraqi leadership in Baghdad

For almost a week media coverage of Iraq has been dominated by reports of a hostage-taking crisis and sectarian tension in the city of Al-Madaen. Early reports said Sunni militants had taken scores of Shia captive and were demanding Shia residents evacuate from the city.

Sunni and Shia clerics — particularly the Al-Sadr movement — warned the reports were a fabrication intended to stir up sectarianism.

DUBAI, Jan 15 (Reuters) - Iraqi militant group Ansar al-Islam denied on Saturday it was behind the killing of an aide to top Shi'ite Muslim cleric Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, according to an Internet message.

An earlier Web posting from a little-known group with a similar name, Ansar al-Islam Group - Saad bin Abi Waqqas Brigade, claimed the killing last week of Mahmoud Madaen, an aide to Sistani who is a main driving force behind Iraq's Jan. 30 elections.

Some media reports at the time said Ansar al-Islam had claimed responsibility.

The Web site message signed by Ansar al-Islam said: "In order to protect our credibility ... we announce that we were not behind that operation.

Who's making these statements, who is starting these rumours? Who are planting these bombs??? THE PURPOSE IS OBVIOUS!!!! To stop iraqies uniting with each other, and to use iraqies against themselves, just as the US used the afghanies against each other!!!!!!!

by AlvaroFrota on 15.01.2005 [21:55 ]
Ramzaj: Iraq. A year of war

To achieve this, the American agents eliminated several Shiite religious leaders. Then, in early March 2003, a series of explosions killing over 180 Shiites were organized by the Americans during a Shiite religious festival at Kerbela.

...The Iraqi Shiites laid the responsibility for the explosions on the Americans.

The Americans failed to stage a conflict between Shi’ah and Sunni communities, but this setback did not force them to reject the plans of using the internal conflicts in the Iraqi society. This plan has been altered significantly by now.

PLEASE SEE, this evil, this obomination For what it is. They are the enemy of all of us. They don't care about Iraqi lives, they don't care bout American lives. Just look at what they did to katrina, you think they wheren't behind 9/11? you think their not behind the bombings in iraq?

They will never succeed in dividing iraq.
But they have succeeded in dividing the poor workers of iraq with the poor workers of america.

However that can always be changed.

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

If there existed a "safe house" where these two brit spies where held, then the photos of it would have atleast come out BY NOW.

The photos of the destroyed police station came out, why no photos of any daring rescue from any safe house.

Hence i belive i can safely conclude, that there was no such place, and no such photos. Since by now they should be out.

If any photos come out at a later daye, i can only conclude that they where produced after the story. Since there would have been no reason not to have brought them out earlier. The only possible reason would be that it took them time to stage the photos.

Besides if there was such a safe house, and the british new about it, then why did they use 5 tanks and 2 helicopters , killing 5 civilians and wounding countless, completely destroying the poice station.

The whole reason those civilians where at the police, was to try to stop the british from taking the spies. If there where no spies at the police station. the civilians would not have rioted at the police station.

The machine has been caught lying again.

They lied about the WMD's, they lied about iraq's involvement in 9/11. They lied about the resistance, and they have been demonising them for the last 2 years.

Doesn't it hurt to be lied to? Don't let yourselves be dubed ever again.

[edit on 22-9-2005 by Syrian Sister]

Talk about a double standard. There are no pictures of the safehouse, so there isn't a safehouse. There are no pictures of explosives that the soldiers were supposedly planting, so obviously they were planting bombs and have been the "real" insurgency.

" There are no pictures of explosives that the soldiers were supposedly planting, "

That's disputed. Some would say, there are pictures of explosives the soldiers where planting.

What is not disputed, is that there are no photos of any safe house.

Yeah, it's disputed. By the people that want to believe the worst of the military and the government.

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
" There are no pictures of explosives that the soldiers were supposedly planting, "

That's disputed. Some would say, there are pictures of explosives the soldiers where planting.

What is not disputed, is that there are no photos of any safe house.

So, where are these pictures ? You've posted one which shows nothing to do with explosives. So I can quite easily say just as there is no picture of a safe house, there is no picture of any explosives.
BTW, why would there be a picture of the safe house anyway ? for what purpose ?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Yeah, it's disputed. By the people that want to believe the worst of the military and the government.

Eheh, as apposed to the people who want to belive the best?

IF you want an unbias opinion, then take the puppet police. I was talking about tone agenda and bias before. These puppet police have no reason to try to lie.

And if you claim those particular police that arrested the spies, where infact resistance infiiltrators, then two questions:

What would make you belive that? The roumer that the spies where handed over to militia? that hasn't been proven yet.

IF those particular puppet police where infact resistance, why did they chase down a car of what looks like fellow resistance fighters?

I await your answers.

BTW, why would there be a picture of the safe house anyway ? for what purpose ?

To prove that there was infact a safe house and a "daring heroic rescue", the brits and UK love that Saving private ryan crap.

You've posted one which shows nothing to do with explosives.

That is still disputed isn't it.

[edit on 22-9-2005 by Syrian Sister]

I'm still impressed at how we went from the soldiers dressed in Arab garb, to them being dressed as insurgents. I can think of a number of reasons why they would chase them down.

1. They were told the British were going to be on a mission looking for them.
2. The British soldiers did something to give themselves away.
3. Someone recognized one of them and tipped them off.
4. Someone recognized the vehicle they were in as having been on the British base.