Basra Jailbreak

by kintama Sat Sep 24, 2005 01:38

Al I was merely clarifying points for Terry.
I am not sure where the bit about blind hatred for ordinary British people came from but am in agreement with you on that point. I do not think it unfair to state that you have on many occasions in the past adopted a position of non acceptance of wrongdoing by state forces.
I am however heartened by your belated acceptance of the malign influence of state special forces in Ireland and Iraq and once again agree with the content of your post on this thread.

by Al Fri Sep 23, 2005 14:18

Kintama,
I posted once and you agree with me so why are you still trying to slag me off? Are you trying to drag me into this?

where does this belief that I love the British come from? I have no love for what they did to this country. I dont like their attitude towards other countries in general but Im not going to blindly hate every single person thats British because of something that happened before they were born.

Anymore than I will applaud pictures of burning men regardless of my thoughts concerning their actions.

And you have agreed with me before you just kept arguing despite that fact.

As for Spec OPs. the arrogance to believe that they have the right to do whatever they feel like purely because they are special operations. According to the British and Americans the war is over and now they are 'helping' the Iraqi people, so exactly how does shooting them dead on their own soil help them?

by kintama Thu Sep 22, 2005 23:22

I have absolutely no problem with your post Terry the reference to Thatcher was used only to highlight the hypocrisy of the British governments position on murder when their soldiers are involved. How did it come to this relates to my embarrassment at having to agree with Al when I have found myself at odds with every other post of his I have seen . It reflects shock that he has challenged actions of British military operatives but then again this particular murder is probably far enough away to avoid discomfort.

by Terry Thu Sep 22, 2005 18:15

-Re: how could it come to this
kintama,

I noticed you were quoting Thatcher there. I think while she liked to present herself as some kind of saint, it would be worth noting that in the 1980s (during the hunger strikes) while she was in public saying that they don't talk to terrorists and blattering on about murder murder, her very own SAS at that time were training and giving support to one of the most murderous and terrifying groups, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia headed then by the infamous Pol Pot who orchastrated the killing of millions over there.

Some of the training provided by the SAS was in the use of mines and psychological warfare. Thatcher was FULLY aware of all this.

Here's a quote from the article (URL below) written by no less than John Pilger:


"Until 1989, the British role in Cambodia remained secret. The first reports appeared in the Sunday Telegraph, written by Simon O'Dwyer-Russell, a diplomatic and defence correspondent with close professional and family contacts with the SAS. He revealed that the SAS was training the Pol Pot-led force. Soon afterwards, Jane's Defence Weekly reported that the British training for the "non-communist" members of the "coalition" had been going on "at secret bases in Thailand for more than four years". The instructors were from the SAS, "all serving military personnel, all veterans of the Falklands conflict, led by a captain".

The Cambodian training became an exclusively British operation after the "Irangate" arms-for-hostages scandal broke in Washington in 1986. "If Congress had found out that Americans were mixed up in clandestine training in Indo-China, let alone with Pol Pot," a Ministry of Defence source told O'Dwyer-Russell, "the balloon would have gone right up. It was one of those classic Thatcher-Reagan arrangements." Moreover, Margaret Thatcher had let slip, to the consternation of the Foreign Office, that "the more reasonable ones in the Khmer Rouge will have to play some part in a future government". In 1991, I interviewed a member of "R" (reserve) Squadron of the SAS, who had served on the border. "We trained the KR in a lot of technical stuff - a lot about mines," he said. "We used mines that came originally from Royal Ordnance in Britain, which we got by way of Egypt with marking changed . . . We even gave them psychological training. At first, they wanted to go into the villages and just chop people up. We told them how to go easy . . ."

And you may ask what were the British doing supporting this bunch. Well the Khmer Rouge, basically opposed the communists in Vietnam and so the Brits felt they had to support them and prevent any sort of social uprising. For Capitalists the logic is simple: It's better to support a reactionary murderous right-wing group, than any kind of other group that might contain elements of social revolution as that could ultimately threaten capitalism if it was ever successful.

It's the same really in Iraq. Promote civil war to divide the country, make it easier to plunder the resources and lastly to prevent any kind of social or democratic society arising. At least they are consistent.

by gurggle Thu Sep 22, 2005 13:52

there is strong evidence in the public domain that the misinformation which came from Ian Blair's hands on the Menenez shooting reflected a policy decision by the COBRA comitee to misinform the british public on the terrorist attack of July 7 and July 21. That evidence has been confirmed in the information curve of the last week since Basra. There is strong evidence that the media has been fed video images and stories which are false, that indeed the "official version" is flawed. This has diverted attention from the decision of the COBRA comittee to downscale security ahead of July 7 despite advice to the contrary, specific advice that London was about to be attacked. Advice which was acted upon by parallel security agencies.
The July suicide bombings have been linked in the popular british (and through RTE Irish) imagination with the incidents in Basra, by selective "news items" just as 911 is linked by the Bush administration with the whole Iraqi war.

It would thus be perfect, if Blair the cop resigned now, as the "homeland" development of the "war on terror meets iraq", that was the true meaning of his appointment.

It is past time that a public inquiry into all the events of July in London is held. Those who comment here are commenting on manipulation and "dark ops" and "police" in Basra, when they will find satisfactory answers much closer to home, answers to questions which cast significant doubts on the veracity of the official account of July 7.

other point is:-

The UK and USA kept the same Iraqi police force which operated under Saddam. Today the police of Basra announced their refusal to co-operate with the British till they receive compensation for their officers killed and property damaged and a full apology.

Now what exactly is it you are having difficulty with?

by what is it Thu Sep 22, 2005 01:36

and your actual point is?

by gurggle Thu Sep 22, 2005 01:15

The only institution which was restored within 30 days of the invasion of Iraq, was the Iraqi police force. As in New Orleans any post disaster situation needs certain elements or the "state" disappears. Both the USA and UK decided within a month of invasion to keep the police force, almost all officers remained except for the very very few who were on Baathist lists. They remained for a variety of reasons, principle amongst them perhaps being the secure wage in a society which lacking "state" and lacking "recognised currency" saw everyone go without wages.

that was the war in 2003.
no wages. no state. same police.
a lot of people doing the same jobs but not getting paid.

Then 2004 saw the beginning of "reform" and the introduction of "democracy" and of course a new printed batch of "currency". It is not surprising that the Iraqi police force like any police force in any state attracts those of a certain psychological, educational, social and politcal type. The UK accepted as part of the invasion "alliance of the willing" the southern sector of iraq which is rich in gas the resource they undertook to secure, and to be honest they did a good job of securing the gas. Very secure gas in basra, ask the SAS. Basra of course is where the vast majority of Sh'ite iraqi muslims live. They were quite delighted to get that slice of the pie, and were welcomed with cups of tea. ribbid ribbid.
After all their only other traditional interest in the land of the two rivers (very sunni 21sty century al q reference there) was the northern region of Kurdistan. Lovely chaps the kurds.

It seems we will witness more discussion on community policing issues.

Do we feel well practised?

meanwhile, i *do* hope everyone has looked at the dodgey photo with the text at the bottom "7/7/05" at 7am which looks so like the dry run of 3 terrorists a week before, released to counter Basra, with the "fourth man airbrushed in" referred to in a previous comment. [look for it : oh do[

Oh yes, we opposed this war, because we knew how terribly confusing it was going to be for ye.

by kintama Thu Sep 22, 2005 01:01

I find myself in the almost unbelievable position of agreeing with much of Al's last post. However his earlier use of the word blunder suggests that he still can't shake off a sneaking regard for HM Forces.These two people were clearly not acting above board, it was clearly no blunder, they shot dead a police officer and as Margaret Thatcher would say 'murder is murder is murder'.
The arrogant display of military might to spring two murderers merely confirms that the British would go to any lengths to ensure the truth of their sordid little sortie will not be uncovered.
The smokescreen has already started. Officials in Basra who might just have a fair idea of the truth have been sidelined and a puppet from Iraqi High Command has been wheeled out to give credence to the infiltration story. Locally Radio Ulstah have joined in the fun allowing Tim Collins to propound his line that the chaps were hunting out infiltrators in the Iraqi police. I suppose if in doubt stiff an Arab because their deaths are not even counted .
Unsurprisingly the fawning presenter did not challenge the Great One but disgracefully he apologised to Our Tim for forgetting to mention how grateful we should all be that these chaps were 'rescued'. We can expect the smokescreen to persist until such times as everybody forgets to ask are these people going to be tried for murder. And amid all the din who knows if some civilians were killed during the riot and if so who killed them but at least the story had a happy ending.

by Michael Wed Sep 21, 2005 23:11

Newsweek and others reported on the US policy to engage in extra-judicial executions in Iraq to kill terrorist suspects in their homes and places of work. Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker about it over a year ago, I can't find the link now, but the story was all over the international papers at the time. Bush signed Executive Orders authorising death squads and assasinations, including assisinating heads of state.

by Al Wed Sep 21, 2005 21:53

Personally Im neither anti or pro-war however how can you even try to claim working with a country and its citizens if you show such a blatant disregard for them? The police officer has every right to arrest an armed person in his own country. The subsequent shooting of him and the jail break shows that the British have no regard for Iraqi people or their country.

whatever claims the British made about the reasons for being in Iraq just got thrown out the window along with any support they may have had from Iraqi citizens.

Furthermore, if the soldiers were acting above board then there would be no need to shoot the police officer as they would have been released.

by Drbinoche Wed Sep 21, 2005 21:04

OK, now to start with all of this BOLLOX of death squads and summary executions, well if it is happening, then where is the proof. People do not just disappear nowadays, there are too many means of people telling others. Also do you not think that Al Qaeda would jump at an opportunity to report soemthing like this. If they even had a sniff of death squads, they would be all over it and release some form of propaganda stating such. Dont get all Chilean on this shite!

As for the soldiers equipment:
Two M4 assault carbines - the standard weapon for spec ops units,

a minimi SAW - once again standard, coz the guys are travelling in the car, weight does not become an issue so they can carry more guns than there are people,

a 66 inch Folding-fin Anti-Tank weapon - once again standard operational equipment for most spec op teams,

radios and wire cutters - all soldiers carry some form of a radio and the more unique the unit, the better the equipment

I saw nothing stating explosives were found other than the 66. If the Iraqis had the people arrested and had access to their equipment why did they not photograph any 'BOMBS' they were carrying and thus have evidence of them carrying a bomb!

Shooting the police officer, you have no idea what happened and yet you all jump to the conclusion that the police officer saw a bomb and was gonna act. He could easily have recognised them as undercover british soldiers and attempted to engage them or attempted to arrest em using force. Getting on here and saying that the SAS guys were completely in the wrong, proves how so many of the anti-war people are unable to accept how a military unit works or more importantly how military operations work. As Spec ops, they are not strictly governed by the same method of action as a run of the mill grunt. They are trained to use their brains and to act accordingly.

As for the British reaction, well would you rather the guys were handed over to be beheaded or used to help get former baath party members back out of jail. I suppose some of you would welcome a few 'army scumbags' getting killed, but I ask you this, if you are so fevered towards preserving life, then why do you welcome the deaths of an person, solider or not?

by Al Wed Sep 21, 2005 18:38

Blunder and Ned shows exactly why people feel alienated against supporting the anti-war movement.

I refer to attacking a police station using tanks and all they do is accuse me of loving the British. Please explain why you think I love the British? Is it because I attempt to see reasoning behind an action? Or does that get in the way of your anti-british shite talk? The blunder is by using strenght to free the men they have alienated themselves further and removed any support they had. I made no comment about why they were undercover carrying bombs. Besides all that, which do you think I support more? British army or a fellow police officer?

And if you can provide any proof that the Gardai support British terrorist acts in Ireland then show it or stop shouting the same tired and disproven crap.

If someone gets away with a crime does that mean the police helped him/her? No, so take a deep breath and think before you type or better yet, actually read my comments.

by Terry Wed Sep 21, 2005 17:15

What this incident has revealed is the operational plan by the British and Americans to provoke civil war in Iraq and lead to the breakup of the country.

With the breakup of the country into at least three smaller regions it will be easier for them to just control the oil rich North and South and forget about the middle.

Those in power in the USA (and UK) do not need the Iraqi oil just now. It will be much more valuable later when reserves elsewhere are even lower (aka Peak Oil is happening right now).

This is part of the reason they went against all military advice and used too few soldiers. Had they used enough, they would have crushed Iraq, easily installed themselves or their own puppet, and the oil would have followed. By not going to war, the oil would have been extracted. Before the war, there were many European interests and contracts on the oil and the oil would have gone to Europe or at least the benefits of it.

So by having too few soldiers, but just enough to hold on, with the option at any stage if necessary of radically increasing the fire power, the USA/UK via the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure, the spreading of Depeleted Uranium (2,000 tonnes so far equivalent in radioactive terms to 250,000 Hiroshoma atomic bombs), time itself will ensure the Iraq people are completey crushed and do not present too big an obstacle in the future. Besides with far less people, the USA/UK don't even have to be seen to share out any of the resources from the oil to do things like feed them or even provide basic social support. Looking at things from this perspective it seems that these people know exactly what they are doing and aren't as stupid as we think. Although they are murderous.

This also explains why they have set things up as they are, where they have created a deeply divisive council and constitution nobody will agree to and of course as now revealed for all to see today the mass murder to provoke civil war. If Iraqis are too busy killing each other then that takes the heat off the USA/UK in terms of costs of the operation.

This ongoing murderous operation is similar to the one carried out by the USA during the Vietnam war called Operation Phoneix (go on google it) where they used Special Forces (or should that be Special Terrorists) to murder over 200,000 people

Likewise the British in Northern Ireland, inflitrated both sides of the conflict and were instrumental in organising random attacks and killings of Catholics by Loyalists which a significant amount of the time, it turns out were lead by British agents. The idea was to distract people from the fact that a lot of the trouble was social in the sense, that it all started after the civil rights marchers were attacked many times, while the Police stood idly by. If you look at the Peace solution today, it is essentially what the catholics wanted all along, -equal rights and access to power. They more or less have that. However the point of the undercover operations was to incite religious hatred and imply to the world it was a religious war. Now that sounds just like Iraq eh, or at least what they BBC and the corporate press are constantly reporting.

These techniques in Northern Ireland often referred to as the Kitson Experiment were used by the British in Kenya (50s), Malaysia, Aden (60s), Oman (70s) and Cyprus in the 1960s

It's a very successful technique and they are still using it. This incident will of course die down, but the operation will continue and very likely be a success. I hope not.

On the NI thingy, here's a sample of what was going on. This quote is from the Sunday Herald:

"The confirmation by Sir John Stevens that Brigadier Gordon Kerr and the shadowy Force Research Unit that he headed colluded with Protestant hit-squads to kill IRA suspects echoes the findings of the Sunday Herald's three-year inquiry into the activities of Kerr and the FRU. In November 2000, we were the The first to name and picture Kerr after an award-winning investigation by our Home Affairs editor Neil Mackay linked the FRU to the murder of up to 14 Catholics between 1987 and 1991.

Subsequent investigations revealed claims from Kerr's subordinates that he was answerable to the highest levels of the British government and that the then prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, had personally sanctioned collusion with loyalist paramilitaries. This page contains a complete archive of the Sunday Herald's special investigation into Kerr and the FRU"

What's not in this particular report though is the undercover operations (mentioned above) to simply kill innocent catholics. One thing though is clear those at the very top had full knowledge of what was going on.

What's also significant in this current incident, is the way the British had to get these SAS guys out at all costs. It would be of the highest priority that the public at large including Iraqis are not in the know about their provoking the Civil War. It's alright to be suspicious, because few will act on them. And now what we see is the full force of the BBC and corporate press being brought to bear to deny what was really going on here. The press will be making sure to correct any 'wrong' assumptions by Joe Public.

http://www.relativesforjustice.com/publications/fru.htm

by Geoff Wed Sep 21, 2005 17:00

Sorry to be cynical but trying to get Bush and Blair arrested is pretty much impossible. They already have had investigations into why war came about, what intelligence was there, etc, and that has proved just as costly as trying to get the troops out. Paperwork.

At the end of the day the only ones visible in this mess are the columnists and journos who advocated this war. Little men that they are, they were no less mendacious propagandists for this war.

They are recognisable from those few writers that genuinly believed the invasion was a form of humanitarian interventionism.The latter might include Christopher Hitchens or even Andrew Sullivan, both rational writers for me, (even though Sullivan has a piece about him on rotton.com)

Those two guys are writers. They are different from the creeps I'm on about.These creeps use the same sort of language that Prag and all his friends use; words like "Ba'ath Broadcasting Corporation" for the BBC, 'Self hating Jew' liberally applied to people who are both anti War and come from a Jewish background. The likes of that disgusting little man , right wing talk show ranter in the U.Swho was caught with illegally prescribed pharmaceutical drugs last year( forgotten his name). Then there is that noteworthy fat man who started fights with kids at EU demonstartions last year in Dublin, and who now presents some crap celebrity song contest.
The list is long but if liars like that get a good stiff talking to, then perhaps there will be less leverage for politicians to act like they do. Then again, maybe not. The Rossport 5 have had virtually no media condemnation but it looks like they're staying in jail. It is hard to know, but at the end of the day we deserve everything that happens to us for buying the papers that allow the scumbags to lie and lie and lie.And be taken seriously.

Solution;have more fun, watch Tony Blair get old, and the West run out of oil.End of. Start learning survival skills. In fifty years time, we'll likely not be comunicating via e mail internet anyway...

by Shipsea Wed Sep 21, 2005 16:58

Sanctions as they were applied in Iraq, were not a good thing or in any way morally justified. But they had this effect: Iraq was devoid of weapons of mass destruction by the time of the invasion. If a country is under a violent dictatorship there is no easy solution to it and probably none at all that can be externally imposed successfully. There isnothing other countries can do other than to isolate the dictator, having careful regard to the consequences for the civilian population. There is a tolerable level of hardship that may be worth the long term objective but this would not include the deaths of children for lack of medical supplies, for instance. The invasion is proving itself worse than sanctions in terms of the rate of death and the extent of the destruction caused. We are agreed that a peacekeeping force can only be successful if it is there at the invitation of the Iraqi people and also that only the Iraqis alone will ever be able to resolve the appalling mess that the UK and US invasion has caused. Of course they should be brought to justice. But why have we not seen the least attempt to do this? It's not going to happen any time soon though we should go on calling for it.

by Duine Wed Sep 21, 2005 16:43

Dar liom, bhí an t-ádh leis an bheirt seo.
Cúpla blian ó shin i mBéal Feirste, cuireadh chun bás beirt shaighdiúir Bhriotanacha faoi ghnáthéadaigh a bheireadh orthu. Níl fhios agam cad iad na hairm a bhí ina seilbh.
Thug an bheirt seo a nanam leo.

by Geoff Wed Sep 21, 2005 16:41

Perhaps such a force should be phased in?

by Michael Wed Sep 21, 2005 16:39

Shipsee -- the sanctions were working for Saddam, Bush/Clinton/Bush and Blair. They weren't working for the people of Iraq, for the rest of humanity or the United Nations. The sanctions were a genocidal campaign against the people of Iraq, not their government. That's exactly the effect it had too -- to punish the people, while the government didn't feel a thing -- all sides agree today. It would be a terrible, terrible mistake to brush over 13 years of genocidal US-led sanctions on Iraq just like that.

Regarding the occupation fighters in Iraq -- They're not "sorting out" the mess in Iraq. They're making it worse. The CIA even says so.

Now that they are their howerever it will take at least three to six months to get them out -- that's even if an order was sent out on the radio saying "GET OUT NOW! WE'RE GOING HOME!!". There's just so many of them. So we're always going to be talking about about a 1/2 year anyway. It may be that a UN peace keeping force might be invited to come in and help out in Iraq to fill the voide, but that's really up to the Iraqis themselves.

What's more important -- far more important -- is that the states responsible for the illegal invasion and the brutal occupation of Iraq are brought to justice. If justice isn't done and seen to be done by the citizens of these western states, then I suppose there's little hope of avoiding reprisal attacks and further terror on all sides.

Our duty is not to worry and wonder about what Iraqis may do should they be left to their own devices in a terrible situation, but rather, we should work tirelessly to bring to justice the state's which caused the trouble in the first place! That means actions, arrests, prison, and whatever else we can do within a humane and civilised framework (I don't believe in the death penalty, even for Bush).

by Shipsea Wed Sep 21, 2005 16:28

were in nothing like the kind of danger under Saddam (dangerous though those times were) that they are in now because of the invasion. It is not in the Wests gift, least of all the US and the UKs' (who are the problem not the solution) to 'bring law and order to the Iraqis'. Their continued presence can do nothing but cause further bloodshed and resentment. They have created a problem that only the Iraqi people alone will ever be able to resolve. The most that should ever be offered, if they want it, is an international peace keeping force with no political or oil-motivated axe to grind.

by Michael Wed Sep 21, 2005 16:22

First off -- RP is just rolling. I won't say anymore about her/him, and I wish that others would just ignore her/his pointless comments.

Reading Robert Fisk in the London Independent, and Patrick Cockburn and others in CounterPunch.org reporting from Iraq, I get the feeling that there's probably extra judicial executions and government (US/UK government mostly) death squads operating in Iraq.

I read some time ago in CounterPunch that they were trained by the Israelis, but I wonder whether that's true, as the British and Americans have at least as much experience at this sort of thing as Israel has (see soawatch.org for information about the U.S. Army's college for death squads or torturers).

The great amount of energy that the BBC are putting into this story, and by contrast the amount of information that their reporting actually reveals is telling. No dobt medialens and other watchdogs will pick up on this or already have.

If we believe for just a moment what RP was saying -- that this was just a case of an innocent death squad duo being caught by a rotten Iraqi cops with links to the insurgency -- we're still talking about high crimes here. We're still talking about stuff that's way, way, way out of bounds.

by Geoff Wed Sep 21, 2005 16:10

I opposed the invasion of Iraq because it set a dangerous precedent i.e. pre-emptive strikes.

While it is understandable that a bible thumping coke head rich boy prone to quotes like "There is no French word for entrepeneur" would think it great invading Eye-Rawk, Blair's involvement is perplexing.

Unless one is to argue that the prospect of sharing power with the world's only(for the moment) superpower was the motive.And, of course, the oil grab-some desperation obviously there.

Now, the troops are there. Yet they still appear unable to contain the violence or bring about some modicum of law and order. Imagine what life will be like for all the ordinary Iraqi citizens if the troops left. Already Christians, Chaldeans and Mandeans are being brutally oppressed by extremist Sunni and Shia Militia.

Those who argue the troops should leave prsent no safeguards for those ordinary, vulnerable Iraqis.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a shouty hand wringing rightist in the mold of Prag Boy here. I don't call people self hating Jews just because their politics are redder than mine. I did not even want this war in the first place, a war built on a lie. A lie convieniently ignored by priggish Prag, with his gesticulating about cradle's of liberty.Fool!

Unfortunatly, the mes is there and it must be tidied up, so I do not believe in troops leaving Iraq. I will admit, though, that the prospect of a withdrawl would be a defeat for Bush and Blair, a defeat that on one hand will prevent any arrogant western government from taking on such a venture again. On the other hand, extremists might see a pull out as an omen from God to commit more attacks and bomb more tube stations.

While the presence of troops there undoubtadly leads to conflict, a power vacuum in that country could well be a far worse scenario.

Thus, the troops must stay, but I place a Curse and a Hex on the heads of those little men in suits with their postgraduate degrees in political philosophy that advocated this war via study papers and editorials. You may have your cosy jobs for now, but the Curse is enacted there is blood on your nerdy little paws. You are vampires and a stake is a coming! Sunshine too!

by gurggle Wed Sep 21, 2005 15:47

"dark ages", "saddam", "iraqi people", "911", "elections", "infiltrated".

A country the size of france has been invaded without any normal and agreed international plan for its reconstruction, that means the onus for its reconstruction, and the reintroduction of international legalilty to its institutions and structures, contracts, debt accruement and cancellation, lie with those who broke it. The USA and the UK who seemd to think the state created under the brutal repression of all key groups would re-assemble under western direction in a fortified suburb of Baghdad.

They failed to encourage an agreement between the three ethnic groups who make up the state of Iraq, and rather have further polarised their differences, unemployment is at its highest, the largest death tolls in the history of the state have occured this year. And they show no sign of fixing it because they can't.

Rather they are going sit on the "insurgency" / "civil war" till its run out of bullets, hatred, recruits, explosives and publicity.

This is what happens when you invade a country outside of UN mandate. The military interests of both the USA and UK in their "withdrawl" is to encourage that conflict to *peak soon* and on ethnic grounds. You seem to think this is about islam or religion or jihad. Its not.

When iraqis have jobs they'll be happy, they won't get jobs till peace, or international investment which is creamed off in corruption, they won't get that till international institutions return, they won't get that till the war ends, the war won't end until peace comes, peace won't come until jobs are avaiable, let's go round again will we?

or give Saddam his job back. Because this is why most of the UN were happy to leave him there.

by Shipsea Wed Sep 21, 2005 15:45

So, every sort of Iraqi that doesnt agree with what the British and US have done are barbaric terrorists. (They all happen to be Islamic or Arabic people of course) All the neighbouring countries who resent and rightly fear their marauding and looting of Iraq's resources are aiding what they justifiably see as necessary resistance. What sort of naieve fool could ever have seriously imagined it would be otherwise.
If the US wants to worry about countries that murder their own citiizens it can simply stay at home and deal with its own state-sponsored murders, the slaughter that takes place on its own streets each day because of its idiotic, adolescent obsession with guns and gun-owning, end its violent and interfering foreign policy, stop polluting the planet at a rate that vastly exceeds what any other country in the world is doing and concentrate on improving the appalling state of its own working class and infrastructure.
Obnoxious self-righteous bullying and interfering for the sake of getting oil (the US and the UK dont give a f***k about Iraqi casulaties under Sadam) - that's what is happening. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Invasion was NOT necessary to remove Saddam from power. Sanctions were working. And if the US/UK were so concerned about loss of Iraqi life, why have they murdered more than 100K of them themselves? Only a dullard would fail to see that it was oil, not injustice towards the Iraqi people that has motivated this sick and greedy invasion. It must be very difficult to realise that your heroes are really the vulgar, comic-strip villains of the piece.

by this is it Wed Sep 21, 2005 15:42

aaahhh...

'If Iraq is left to descend into Islamic fundementalist dictatorship it will become a breeding ground for the global jihad against the western civilisation.'

ummmm aaand what was it BEFORE the US/K invasion???

who got us to this point?

...and where are those WMDs?

by righteous pragmatist Wed Sep 21, 2005 15:09

Some guy ranted at me about me calling the Iraqis "darkies."
The invasion of Iraq was launched to remove Saddam Hussein and his goons from power and give the same freedom that me and other "whities" enjoy to the Iraqi people by giving the chance to vote in democratic elections on January 30 of this year and to allow the elected representatives to take charge and eventually take control of Iraq to govern and rule themselves.

Apparently the anti-war left believes that The Iraqi people prefered life under Saddam and would have preferred to live under his murderous reign than live in a democratic society.

The problem is that at the moment the dictatorships which neighbour Iraq (Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc.) are supplying men, weapons, training and money to keep the former Baathist henchmen and jihadists from a host of nations fighting against both the Coalition forces and most importantly to terrorise the Iraqi people themselves to sumbit to tyranny.

The Iraqis government led by Talabani have almost total control of their country save certain areas which remain lawless and where police collaborate with the insurgency.
The Iraqi Army and police are conducting most of the offensive action themselves and it is they too who are doing the fighting and dying for their own freedom against Al-Qeada and the die-hard Saddamites.

The operation to free the two British commandoes was an operation to put down the forces who have infiltrated the Iraqi police in that area of Basra.

There is nothing "boys own" or "school boy" about this war. This isn't a game. This is a fight for life and death of the Iraqi people.

If Iraq is left to descend into Islamic fundementalist dictatorship it will become a breeding ground for the global jihad against the western civilisation. There will be more bombings and more 9/11 style attacks unless their is a global effort by democratic countries to combine and fight back against those who wish to return us to the Dark Ages.

by grubs Wed Sep 21, 2005 13:49

Blair the cop thought to release the video evidence prior to July 7 of the "dry run" by the bombers.
You saw it on RTE. It came just after the second revindication of the July bombings by Al Q.
3 individuals in the same tube station rehearsing their moment of history. The same video that in late july showed 4 men the day before, the same video with the problem-
"the fourth man wasn't there". This brings you to...

Why was the video released to coincide with Basra?

https://www4.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/319540.html
http://www.legitgov.org/cctv_image_of_uk_suspects_240705.html

& if you are very good, why and on whose authority was the terrorist threat to London reduced ahead of the July 7 G8 summit?

You'll get more answers in London then you will in Basra.

by Geoff Wed Sep 21, 2005 12:23

Every point the Prag made was without definate source or example; deliberate school boy mendaciousness! The naive left can be annoying but it is little sires like yourself that really bug the shit out of me. The difference between you and lefties is that at least lefties actually believe what they are saying; you on the other hand, like the other rightist trolls here, consistently make spurious arguments without refrence points or sources, and deliberatly ignore points made. You are, I am convinced, just interested in rethoric and how best you can score in an argument, like an undergraduate debating society geek, who advocates cannibalism or slavery just to see how irracible he can be!Tally ho, old chap!

by youwha? Wed Sep 21, 2005 12:18

"explosives and automatic weapons for their own protection". Surely you are not suggesting that they would have blown themselves up if cornered?

As for your assertion that "perhaps assassinating trouble makers who are operating beyond the law". You must be a bit "slow" if you do not see the contradiction there.
Seems to me that you are the one who should "Stop talking rubbish"

by Geoff Wed Sep 21, 2005 12:17

You, like your lefty counterparts, don't know for sure that what you are saying is 100% true. Black ops, etc, have been well documented, from the CIA to FRU in N.Ireland.

Who are you, anyway, and why are you so keen to stress the 'official line'?

Are you one of them Freedom Insitute people? And why did you call, in one of your recent articles( i.e. cut and paste), a certain left winger ' a self hating Jew'? Is that not denigrating, using someone's religioos background to cast them in a poor light? A persons religion should not be highlighted just because they hold seemingly naive ( read; contrary to your) political opinions. That is wrong and bad. You should know better, young man.

by Shipsea Wed Sep 21, 2005 12:11

Not sure what sort of boy's own annual world you live in, sir, but you give us a clear-cut example of the sort of racist, prejudiced contempt that drove this invasion in the first place. Suddenly, the Iraqi institutions put in place by the British and the Americans themselves, are being howled down as suspect also. That's not an angle the Brits or the Americans would like to see promoted too loudly, I'd wager, after all their claims about the successful restoration of democracy and their confident faith in the adminsitration they established. So, it's now the British and US appointed, Iraqi police victims of covert British bomb squads who are to blame for their own deaths? Your reasoning is as sick as it is dishonest. We are being asked to believe that because the victims were Iraqi and the perpetrators were British, it must have been double-dealing darkie who was guilty because that's the sort of thing darkie gets up to while 'our' boys - despite all the evidence - can only have been doing something valiant and brave. What utter rubbish. As for the ability of Iraqi insurgents to use the media to their advantage - they have a lot of catching up to do on the art form as perfected by our goverments and their lap dog corporate western press.

by righteous pragmatist Wed Sep 21, 2005 11:43

I would guess that the two British soldiers were working with Iraqi security forces to keep a watch on rebel Shia militia in the Basra area and perhaps assassinating trouble makers who are operating beyond the law.
The Iraqi police for the most part is under the control of the Iraqi government but in some local areas where either Shia or Sunni rebel militia groupings are strong the police has been infiltrated by these insurgents. In other words the two soldiers were double crossed by a renegade Iraqi police unit in Basra and handed over to the Shia militia possibly for torture and once info was abstracted followed by an appearance before a video taped religious court and beheading.
The two Brits were more than likely carrying explosives and automatic weapons for their own protection should they be compromised and they shot the two Iraqi police officers while trying to escape once they realised a trap had been sprung.
The Brits launched this armed task force to srping from the clink to prevent sensitive info from falling into enemy hands.
The crowd that appeared were the usual rent-a-mob that these Muslim fanatics employ before the satelite cameras from Palestine to Iraq in order to protray the "people" rising up against the "oppresser".
These guys aren't fools they know all about imagery from Northern Ireland and know that protraying themselves in the same light goes down well with all the sympathising lefties who read the Guardian and vote Labour.

by Blunder Wed Sep 21, 2005 06:14

To describe the British Army's actions in Basra as 'a blunder' is incredible. As if the bomb and the disguise were an accident. What were the British Army doing? Exactly the same as they always have done: engaging in a lot of dirty, murderous underhand manoeuvers. Nice to see An Garda Siochana have been drafted in as PR representatives for them, though.

by Ned Garvey Wed Sep 21, 2005 06:02

Maybe you can understand this Al , because it isnt very complicated . Those guys were transporting a bomb when they were captured . They were engaged in illegal activity which is why they opened fire and killed Iraqi police officers .

The British moved as they did because the Iraqis were going to ask these guys what they were doing carrying a bomb .( Unlike your force which covers up for them when they bomb innocent citizens ) Britain was terrified they would crack under questioning and got them out of there ASAP , by whatever means necessary . Its fairly obvious Britain had to use these tactics otherwise theyd be in serious trouble .

Do you believe the British are utterly stupid Al ? Do you reckon theyd risk alienating Basras population and police force if there wasnt something major at stake which made it imperative for them to get these guys out of custody and avoid questioning ?

You cant understand Al because you think the sun shines out of the British armys hole .

by Al Wed Sep 21, 2005 03:36

I cannot for the life of me understand teh British actions here.

Considering the satrenght of teh British and American military not too mention the links between them and the current Iraqi government surely they could have retrieved their soldiers without such actions?

And why did they kill a police officer? This only alienates themselves and turns the police against the allied forces.

A huge blunder no matter what angle you take be it military or political.

by Barry Wed Sep 21, 2005 01:34

The British spin machine is now desperately trying to demonise the inhabitants of Basra and the local police for having the cheek to actually arrest undercover soldiers who were apparently transporting primed explosives and shooting Iraqi police officers while disguised as Arabs . Its worth pointing out they arrested 2 of Al Sadrs aides the day before as well . This black operation seems to have been calculated to destabilise the area and turn peoples thoughts away from demanding their freedom and towards sectarian bitterness .

Therell be no enquiry , simply a cover up , just like here .

by TheTroll Wed Sep 21, 2005 01:24

Ordinance like what was found would have been requested and a superior would have been needed to authorize it's use by the 2. If there was no authorization, the 2 could face charges of stealing government property. But since any authorization for the 2 to have the ordinance would lead from the pawns to the king (chess analogy), don't expect any paper work top lead back to the shadow government running these shadow warrior's oporations.

I would really like to see someone investigate who gave them the weapons.

by Barry Wed Sep 21, 2005 01:17

The British army and its covert murder squads have been caught in the act . The inhabitants of Basra now see them in their true colours . Setting brother against brother was always the way of the British occupier .

I truly and sincerely hope the people rise up against them and blow the absolute shite out of them . They are occupiers , thieves and murderers , nothing more and hopefully theyll be taught a lesson they wont forget . Hopefully therell be many more burning British tanks and British soldiers soon as its the only language theyll ever understand .

by .. Tue Sep 20, 2005 23:57

Because you are illegal invaders!