I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around what happened in Basra

[WilliamPitt]

The two Brits who were arrested had wigs, wore Muslim garb and were carrying an RPG. 150 British soldiers broke them out of prison. I've read several articles on the subject, but can't get my mind around it.

Why were these guys dressed like Iraqis? What were they doing with a goddam rocket launcher?

Is it possible British soldiers are attacking Iraqis dressed as other Iraqis so as to inspire sectarian violence and justify a continued occupation?

Any explanations and/or links to good stories on this would be appreciated.

[ewagner]

1. I've seen lots of speculation

but my final analysis is :shrug:

[smartvoter]

2. "Like lighting at midnight. We can see... what this war is really about."

Iraq: The Battle of Basra

(snip)
In the Bizarro World universe we've been thrust into ever since 9/11/01 – when the force of the explosion that brought down the World Trade Center pushed us into an alternate and cruelly inverted reality – lies are truth, war is peace, freedom is slavery, and the function of government (and much of our media) is to keep everyone in almost total ignorance of what is really going on. Because, you see, ignorance is strength.

Incidents such as what happened in Basra are like lightning at midnight: the landscape, formerly covered in murk, is illuminated with shocking suddenness, its outline starkly visible if only for a brilliant moment. We can see, all to clearly, what this war is really about.

It isn't about oil, although that was part of the long-range objective. Iraq's wells are not flowing due to sabotage. Wolfowitz promised that oil revenues would cover the cost of the occupation, yet now the Iraqis must bring in refined oil from outside. It isn't about "weapons of mass destruction": that was a lie. It isn't about "democracy," either – that was yet another lie, unless the sinister theocracy emerging out of the rubble is the closest the Iraqis can come, which seems a bit harsh.

The rush to detect the long hand of Tehran in Basra shows the direction we are headed. Increased fighting along the border with Syria and charges emanating from Washington that Damascus is actively aiding the insurgency make the future all too clear. The Middle East escalator is going full speed ahead, and the portents of a regional war are all around us. This war is about provoking the next major war – with Iran, or perhaps Syria. Whichever comes first.


http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7335

Edit: The other thread is dead, may as well post directly...

[WilliamPitt]

4. Thanks

[Z_I_Peevey]

19. A very informative article

that draws information from a number of international sources. Seems legit upon first reading.

[smartvoter]

24. That was my take -- you can go to the sources directly. nt

[eridani]

81. The part of the article that stuck with me--

--There is much talk of how the militias have "infiltrated" the Iraqi police, but this is nonsense. What is really happening is that the politicians who won the much vaunted elections, hailed by Bush and the War Party as a great step forward for "democracy" in Iraq, are not just taking office, they are taking power. They are also hiring their supporters – especially the ones who have military experience – as the local cops on the beat.

SCIRI is the Sistani group. They are pro-Iranian. Sadr's Medhi Army consists of poorer Shi'ites who resent the more well-off who were in Iran or elsewhere abroad during the Saddam years, and are generally anti-Iranian. There might well be serious conflict between these two factions.

[Cha]

93. And who's going to fight in

these next wars? Or are they going to be strickly Bombing them from the sky?

[alarcojon]

3. You and me both, brother

We'll never know the half ot it. Make that the tenth of it.

[Lars39]

5. Interesting thread:

BeHereNow's
SO, WHAT are we to infer about the two British "soldiers?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4823586

[Atman]

6. It has BAD connotations

Apparently the two officers, dressed in Iraqi clothing, were instigating the insurgency. They had shot and killed two local policemen. Why would they do that, dressed as Iraqis? Hmmm. Maybe to help keep Dubya's war raging, and thus, Halliburton's portfolio skyrocketing? If there are no insurgents, we HAVE TO LEAVE. So therefore, it is best for them (us?) to keep 'em whipped up.

Job security.

Only they was busted...that is why it was so imperitive to "rescue" them before they started talking.

Oops.

[true_con]

43. Are you saying

that there is no insurgency and this is proof of it? Wow. I guess I never thought of it that way. Post two and my eyes are really starting to open for my long sleep!

[leftchick]

47. read this and your eyes will water...

with tears....

Rummy's plan...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4832137

[true_con]

109. Amazing

Why are these troops still fighting? You would think that there would be someone with a conscious in that group that would step forward and blow the whistel.

[librechik]

116. !

just sayin, "true_con"

:eyes:

[SoCalDem]

My guess would be that they were trying to "stir the pot"

and provoke a bunch of people into a bigger fight..:shrug:

It does NOT sound like the sort of thing that two soldiers would just cook up on their own..

Perhaps Blair is needing more justification to keep soldiers there.."See how DANGEROUS it there, and how much they really need our soldiers"? or maybe this was intended to be a "Jessica Lynch moment, where the Brits would swoop in and "catch the bad guys..spirit them away with much fanfare..and then have a few yucks in private when they managed to put one over on the locals"...only the LOCALS caught them first :shrug:

who knows anymore.:(

[bleever]

7. Also see this very interesting post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4832137

[Selatius]

8. They appear to be some sort of infiltrators

They obviously would not pass as Iraqis if you talked with them face-to-face, but they would look like Iraqis in passing or from a distance. Unless they dressed that way in order to get just close enough to pick them off with a rifle, I wouldn't see how else they could get even closer, like face-to-face, without being picked off by Iraqis.

[mike_c]

34. they couldn't possibly infiltrate-- agents provocateur maybe....

eom

[Selatius]

50. Yeah, it seems to be the case

Scenario:

Party A hates Party B and the other way around, but they both hate Party C, the US/UK presence, so C sends an agent provocateur to impersonate, say, A and make it appear A attacked B. A and B wage war against each other, and C is spared the casualties.

[Pithy Cherub]

9. The Brits are no slouches at conducting black ops if need be.

Humint gathering is a tough business and the best way to do it is assimilate. So...:shrug:


Your tinfoil stetson looks good on you. :evilgrin:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

67. How were these guys supposed to 'assimilate' among Arabs? (pic)

Pretend to be Arabs killing other Arabs from afar sure. But "assimilate"? Some other DUers have promoted this but I see no logical scenario presented. "Hey how come whenever we meet it's gotta be somewhere dark like this?"

[Pithy Cherub]

69. Black market sales...

to trap the other guys... There are a host of manuevers they could use. For a seriously fictionalized out of this world scenario, read the book "White", by Christopher Whitcomb.

[ForrestGump]

113. Sure, but many Iraqis don't look at all like the 'Arab' stereotype

Don't know how good a grasp of the language they had, if any, but if they're SAS (are they?) they're jolly good at their jobs -- SAS from the UK or other Commonwealth nations are arguably more proficient than any of the US special forces. Of course, now and then they have their little whoopsies....

...this one was a real clanger, and who's the idiot who decided to draw everyone's attention to it by ramming into a jail with tanks?

[ret5hd]

10. MY question is:

what is the difference between an "undercover operative" and an "enemy combatant"?

didn't the u.s. say that a person was an "enemy combatant" (rather than a POW) because they didn't wear an official uniform (which, if i remember correctly, is mandated by the geneva conventions so as to be able to distinguish civilian from soldier).

[wtmusic]

15. Uniform is not mandated by GC

only 'taking an active part in hostilities'.

[ret5hd]

30. maybe i phrased my question poorly:

(and maybe i am muddying up another persons thread with irelevant questions, but...)

what were the grounds for denying pow status to the so-called "enemy combatants"? I thought i remembered that it was based on the fact that they weren't wearing uniforms, therefor they weren't "soldiers", therefor they couldn't be pow's, therefor they were given the status "enemy combatant".

please refresh my memory.

[wtmusic]

33. the uniform idea is a RW talking point

and AFAIK not part of any official position.

The official position is that by calling them "combatants" and not "soldiers" they can't be considered prisoners of war. Strictly semantic, and strictly absurd. Detaining anyone at Guantanamo indefinitely is an undeniable violation of the GC (not to mention torture).

This is a great reference site:

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

[Crunchy Frog]

106. An "undercover operative" has powerful backers

who can get them out of a tight spot. An "enemy combatant" doesn't. Also, an "undercover operative" is usually operating in someone else's country whereas an "enemy combatant is usually fighting in his own country. An "undercover operative" is on the side of goodness and light, which makes anything he does legitimate and makes it imperative that his government rescue him at all costs, even if it explodes the pretense of sovereignty in the country where he is operating. "Enemy combatants" are just plain "evil doers". Furthermore, the definition of "enemy combatant" is elastic and basically means whatever we need it to mean at any given moment. And the Geneva Convention doesn't apply anymore.

There, doesn't that clarify everything now?

[gatorboy]

11. Were the two brits even in the prison?

a report on NPR yesterday seemed to have implied that the British prisoners had already been relocated by the militia and weren't even in their cells during the breakout.

[stillcool]

17. You must have missed the pictures...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4262346.stm

[gatorboy]

52. I saw those...

Which is what confused me about the NPR report.

[stillcool]

78. This story has changed a whole lot....

..since yesterday. The spin is quite good and even the pictures from that link have been altered. I'm afraid i am more confused by more 'information'...funny, eh?

[Crunchy Frog]

107. My guess is

that the initial stories on this are going to be about as accurate as the initial stories concerning Jessical Lynch were. Maybe we'll eventually figure out what the real story is. Maybe not.

My guess is that the truth, whatever it is, is not something the British government is very anxious to have get out. I expect piles of disinformation to be thrown out.

[Voice1]

23. Iraqi interior ministry said that was a lie

The Iraqi interior minister was interviewed on the BBC, it was reported here earlier. He said that the two men were never transferred or relocated from the prison. They were always there.

[FloridaPat]

12. As long as Iraq stays a quagmire, the US stays. Still haven't gotten

the sign on the oil well sales contracts too. There are lots of stories that the US is making a lot of countries unstable because if they ever get their act together & unite - they will put their citizens first and the US corporate concerns last. How much oil does anyone think Iraq will us and Israel if they get united and strong and get an economy going?

[Watchmaker]

13. I can't see why the Brits would want an occupation

---the only possible reason could be the US and UK are secretly planning a war with Iran down the road.

These guys were SAS - that's why the Brits sent the big guns to extract them. They were obviously on a covert op - likely keeping tabs on Iraqi police who are in fact insurgents. SAS like to be well armed all the time. Their faces immediately betray them as being SAS - these guys were no squadies, they didn't even look afraid - they looked focused.

I think it makes no sense to suggest they are deliberatley provoking a civil war. If the Brits and US want an excuse to continue the occupation they can find much easier ways than this.

What's going on in Basra is a complex power struggle between factions of Iraqis and Iran.

[loudsue]

79. "could be the US and UK are secretly planning a war with Iran "

Hi, Watchmaker...and welcome to DU! :hi:

About the part of your post I quoted in the subject line:

It's not a secret. The US & UK are OPENLY planning a war with Iran. Everyone knows it.

:kick:

[Sabriel]

14. Not to mention killing 5 Iraqi citizens in the process

Per this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1796285

[Voice1]

16. Some useful info for you

There's lots of useful information around here at DU, and elsewhere. Some good information for you below:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/After-Saddam/Brit-SAS-man-investigated-over-Iraqi-death/2005/02/27/1109439437705.html

From a Sidney Morning Herald article dated 27th February 2005:

A member of Britain's SAS is under investigation for the alleged murder of an Iraqi civilian, it was reported today.

A leaked Ministry of Defence document obtained by The Sunday Telegraph showed that the SAS man was being investigated over a shooting incident during an operation in Basra last year.

Other documents obtained by the newspaper indicate that nearly 50 British servicemen could face prosecution for murder, assault and other crimes committed in Iraq.

http://logicvoice.blogspot.com/2005/07/journalist-killed-after-investigating.html

Journalist killed after investigating US death squads in Iraq:

Over the past month, Salihee had been gathering evidence that US-backed Iraqi forces have been carrying out extra-judicial killings of alleged members and supporters of the anti-occupation resistance. His investigation followed a feature in the New York Times magazine in May, detailing how the US military had modeled the Iraqi interior ministry police commandos, known as the Wolf Brigade, on the death squads unleashed in the 1980s to crush the left-wing insurgency in El Salvador.

A useful round up on "Operation Phoenix":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Program

Project Pale Horse sidestepped the official U. S., Lao, and GVN military chain of command and had been quietly "open for business", six years prior to the establishment of the "official" GVN Phoenix Kế Hoạch Phụng Hoàng program in Vietnam. The CIA funded covert Black op project name (Pale Horse) was taken from the Bible, Book of Revelations, (The Apocalypse, Rev. 6-8). CIA "Black" programs in South East Asia were "neither confirmed or denied" by the Agency, and paper documentation was typically destroyed.
......
Administrators of the program instituted quotas to be met by provincial offices, in an attempt to increase participation and effectiveness of the Phung Hoang program. In late 1969, the quota was 1800 per province.
....
as an example of human rights atrocities committed by the CIA and the organizations it supports. Indeed, faulty intelligence often led to the murder of innocent civilians, in contravention to the Geneva Conventions. American statistics showed 19,534 members of the Viet Cong “neutralized” during 1969 — 6,187 killed, 8,515 captured, and 4,832 defected to the South Vietnamese side. South Vietnamese government figures were much higher. However, fewer than 10% of the casualties attributed to Phoenix operations were actually targeted by program operatives, with most of the remaining casualties being assigned VCI status after they were killed. Efforts by provincial chiefs to meet quotas also led to manipulation of statistics by counting non-VCI arrests, arresting the same person multiple times, and attributing military casualties to the Phoenix program. It was widely recognized that statistical record keeping during the first few years of Phoenix program operations was subject to distortion, embellishment and was very inaccurate.

Occupation forces engaged in armed operations against Iraqi civilians:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050920&articleId=973

What are the dimensions of this incident in light of the increasing operations against civilians and places of worship to create sedition among the Iraqis?

In fact, Nidal, this incident gave answers to questions and suspicions that were lacking evidence about the participation of the occupation in some armed operations in Iraq. Many analysts and observers here had suspicions that the occupation was involved in some armed operations against civilians and places of worship and in the killing of scientists. But those were only suspicions that lacked proof. The proof came today through the arrest of the two British soldiers while they were planting explosives in one of the Basra streets. This proves, according to observers, that the occupation is not far from many operations that seek to sow sedition and maintain disorder, as this would give the occupation the justification to stay in Iraq for a longer period.


"We believe these soldiers were planning an attack on a market or other civilian target":
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m15958&l=i&size=1&hd=0

“What our police found in their car was very disturbing — weapons, explosives and a remote control detonator,” Sheikh Hassan said. “These are the weapons of terrorists. We believe these soldiers were planning an attack on a market or other civilian targets, and thanks be to god they were stopped and countless lives were saved.”

A reminder on the "Proactive Preemptive Operations Group":

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Proactive_Preemptive_Operations_Group

Part of their whole strategy seemingly is to combat terrorism by causing it. It seems rather a dangerous road to go down to me. How do people know which terrorist acts have been carried out by the so called "good guys", and which by the so called "bad guys"? Who are the "insurgents"? And how many of them are British and American?

[wtmusic]

18. The anti-tank weapon was "standard gear"

"Their weapons, explosives and communications gear are standard kit for British special forces."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4267054.stm

You never know when one of those insurgent tanks is going to show up.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

68. Hey why take a chance?

[leftofthedial]

20. and they were in a civilian car "packed with explosives"

I suppose some sort of "legit" undercover infiltration operation could be spun out of this, but they were too well armed and the rolling car-bomb casts doubt on this.

I think the bushgang and their allies are engaging in black ops to:

target politically troublesome Iraqis
keep the flames of ethnic tension fanned
keep the "terrorists" in the news
extort cooperation and other considerations from various Iraqi factions

It also is possible that some units have "gone native" in their tactics. After all, our military is just one of many groups using violence to further their political aims.

The WORST thing that could happen to the bushgang is for Iraq to stabilize. Carlyle, Halliburton, et al are making Billions, if not Trillions from the continuing violence and instability.

[endarkenment]

31. The two theories being tossed around are

1) they were on a mission to infiltrate insurgents and the weapons were part of the 'legitimating' process;

2) they were on a mission to provoke sectarian strife by posing as insurgents and killing shiites.

I personally find (1) bullshit. I don't think those guys were going to be able to pass themselves off as arabs - they sure didn't fool the police who initially engaged them.

So (2) would be the obvious answer - and it is such a dark evil answer that it sort of sucks the air right out of the room. Naturally the Goebbelized media considers this all to be ho hum.

[KittyWampus]

37. but how can two Brits who are obviously Brits go "undercover"?

it just isn't credible.

[stickdog]

41. The #1 option simply doesn't add up. Anybody espousing it needs

to get his or her bs meter checked.

[WilliamPitt]

48. Do you have a link for that?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

72. Read the stories on the BBC site, they certainly show the 'official' story

per the Brit government:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4267054.stm

Paul Wood (of the BBC) said demonstrators believed Iranian TV reports that the two men were detained after they opened fire on Shia pilgrims on Monday.

He said they were probably on a covert mission to get the intelligence needed to stop further attacks on British troops.

They have some half baked story about the Basra police being "infiltrated" by insurgents but in no way adequately explains what business these soldiers would have playing Arab dress-up.

It is an example of the mask being peeled away. Since the theory "2" of coalition forces sowing acts of terrorism to further the war agenda could bring down the houses of Bush and Blair in short order, that would certainly explain the urgency to get these soldiers back (or dead) right away.

Right now I'm sure there are a lot of people in the UK and US governments who are holding their breath hoping this story fades out of public consciousness as quickly as possible.

"You didn't see NOTHING."

[muriel_volestrangler]

75. Not 'packed', but one or two mainstream source do mention 'explosives'

The Iraqis displayed photographs of the explosives, weaponry and several bags of equipment allegedly found in the boot of the men's unmarked car when they had been stopped at a checkpoint.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16681772%255E31477,00.html

Also mentioned by the BBC correspondant in Basra on Radio 4, at 0635 Wednesday morning (audio link).

The descriptions of it as a 'car bomb' seem unlikely - they were carrying a hell of a lot of other equipment to try to take away from a car bomb. Most descriptions of what was in the car, however, don't seem to mention explosives - but they do include an anti-tank weapon.

[vptpt]

21. Didn't you ever play GTA 2?

You dress up like one gang, then go kill some of their rivals. Thus sparking a war. It's soooo level 2 green phones...

[Waya]

22. Divide and Conquer?

Thinking about it - it never made much sense that Muslims are killing Muslims.
These 'Insurgents' are supposed to be extreme fundamental Muslims - why would they kill Muslims coming out of Mosques, daylaborers, children? We are always told that these 'Insurgents' kill without discrimination, that they are just thugs that spill blood for the sake of spilling blood. But are they?
Why would they kill Iraqis, if it is Iraqis they (Insurgents) want to bring around to their way of thinking? Wouldn't that have the exact opposite effect? Why kill the people you want to attract? Why kill the people you might be able to recruit down the line?
How would the 'Insurgency' benefit from these attacks? And how would the occupiers benefit from it? I think in the case of the latter, it doesn't take a genius to figure it out.

[Voice1]

25. Notice how there are 2 separate groups

There are those who target the occupying forces, and those who support the occupation, then there are those who deliberately target civilians.

[smartvoter]

28. Seriously f***ed up. nt

[Voice1]

39. Certainly is EOM

[nashbridges]

35. Wow.

You don't know anything about the history of the middle east, do you?

[me b zola]

51. Enlighten us

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. ok ok, start doing some readying onm

the hisory of the ME, in particular Shia and Sunni, that is your startiing point ok'

Oh and do look up Iraq and when it was craeted and what its thre main parts were part off before.....

Shakes head...

Tehy don't teach US History, so I don't expect them to teach ME history in them fancy schools either

[WiseButAngrySara]

26. Your post has made me feel somewhat better, as I could not 'wrap my

mind around it' either! I stopped reading the threads, because I thought I was missing some important piece of information that would make sense of it. To know that you are struggling with this in perplexity, like I am, makes me no longer doubt MY lack of understanding so much. I guess the Brithish press is no longer silent on this? :wtf:???

Thanks all for the above links.

[Voice1]

27. British press putting out MoD spin

British press is going with the "Shia infiltrators" story, they're not following the "why were they arrested in the first place?" angle at all.

[WiseButAngrySara]

59. Thank you Voice 1...Still confused!....n/t

[libnnc]

29. Kinda jumps right out at ya doesn't it?

It will be interesting to watch the damage control and spin. Those of us with more common sense than beans have already figured it out.

[mike_c]

32. they sure look like agents provocateur....

Someone on another thread posted what I consider the LEAST likely possible explanation-- that they were infiltrating the insurgency. That's flatly impossible-- *I'd* spot them as Brits except from a distance, so they could NEVER pass for arabs among the Iraqis. I'm especially wondering why no plausible explanation has been forthcoming from the British military.

[petronius]

103. Do they really have to look like Arabs to infiltrate?

Or do they just need to look like sympathetic people with big weapons to sell? They'd never get way inside, but posing as arms dealers could get some data. I don't think it's a likely scenario, but not impossible...

[kenny blankenship]

36. Hey freedom and progress are messy!

Sometimes you just gotta dress head to toe like Arab militiamen and blow up a jail with a rocket.

[Voice1]

38. British defence minister was talking about progress earlier

John Reid, our defence minister was going on about how "progress needs encouragement and nurturing". Before this week, I didn't think his idea of progress was going around planting bombs, as the Washington Post reported.

[mopaul]

40. cowboys, dressed as indians, kill some white settlers, & the war goes on

[radwriter0555]

42. Will, I've said since the Gulf War that US troops were involved in various

tactics like this, and I get screamed at every single god-damned time.

I have read various articles since 1991 that have claimed that US troops or various US signatories have engaged in covert operations like this; back in 1991 it was blowing up the oil wells and pipelines. Today, it's blowing up iraqis and US troops alike in order to stir up the illusion of civil war.

I have lost count of the times since November of 2000 that I've said "I told you so...", I'm always labeled a conspiracy theorist, American traitor, communist, muslim, Saddam lover, etc.

I have that strange and unique ability to know the truth when I see it, and to discern the truth even when obfuscated by propoganda, even from brilliant minds as karl rove. I see the truth. I just know the truth. Shoulda seen my thread the day I (was the first one to call bullshit) on the "Little Baby Jessica Was a POW" story. Man, was I ever bashed in here. Turns out, I was completely right; it was a massive fabrication and a total set-up.

The bottom line is this;
1. The iraqis are not killing each other.
2. There is no al queda in iraq.
3. There are no foreign fighters in iraq, other than US troops.

And to whit;

Like israeli/Mossad targeted their own and then accused the palestinians of roadside bombs, beheadings, bus bombs, suicide bombs, it's mostly all planted and used to stir up the hornets nest.

The iraqis are not, not, not attacking each other. They have indeed actually united as best they can against the US and other occupying forces. Well, this doesn't work for the bush regime; they need to make the current ruling farce er government in iraq believe that the US troops are needed to protect them and keep the peace. As the most important geo-political piece of real estate on the planet for halliburton and oil cos et al it is CRITICAL that the PNAC stays in force and in control of iraq. Not necessarily to get the oil in iraq, but to keep the oil from getting out of iraq. Iraq has the second largest and purest oil fields on the planet. (Peak oil is another myth, by the way).

Al queda is a figment of the imagination.
Zarqawi and bin laden are dead.

Foreign fighters in iraq? For who? If they're targeting iraqis, then they're working for the US, right? Gee, that makes sense.

Who's paying them? Who's providing them with munitions, housing, food, clothing? How are they communicating and with whom? Who's the asshole in charge? What the FUCK are they doing there? Come on, if there was a civil war in mexico, would you drop everything and go fight for nothing?

Nope.

The wild and hairy notion of foreign fighters is completely illogical and insane. It makes no sense.

That being said, lemme break down what happened with those brits.

They were on their way to commit more terrorist actions against iraqis. When they were spotted and the iraqi police attempted to stop them, they opened fire. Then, they got caught and taken into custody.

Having them interrogated by the iraqi police would have caused a LOT of problems.

First, they'd possibly eventually disclose whom they worked for and what their intent was.

Second, their intent wasn't doing anyone a favor, but the US and the brits. That puts the brits in a bad, bad light; killing iraqis is a no no, when you're an iraqi.

Third, it exposes the nasty, vile, secretive, covert operations that are indeed going on in iraq, suddenly, this isn't a civil war, now is it? If the brits are killing iraqis, who else is killing iraqis and why?

It was far more sensible to break and enter the jail to get these guys out and leave everyone guessing, than for the truth to be completely exposed.

The problem is, the iraqis ARE PISSED.

[donkeyotay]

77. Just a theory here as to why

Third, it exposes the nasty, vile, secretive, covert operations that are indeed going on in iraq, suddenly, this isn't a civil war, now is it? If the brits are killing iraqis, who else is killing iraqis and why?

Consider that because the war isn't going well, the neocons are in a tight spot. They can't increase troop strength easily. Many of them have a long history in nuclear weapons, weapons production and sales, and, oddly, nuclear weapons strategy and nonproliferation. They really, really like nuclear weapons and are disappointed they can't use them. So they want tactical nuclear weapons, which could be used to solve the manpower problem. The only sticking point is getting people to accept them. By making the insurgents subhuman in their cruelty, you can justify using tactical nuclear weapons against the terrorists.

Will the neocons escalate to achieve as much as they can or just forget the whole ME war and let Bush be impeached and the whole nest of ratbastards exposed? I think they will escalate until they are stopped. Just a theory.

[Junkdrawer]

44. Here's NPR's semi-official version of the story...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4855581

Seems the "radical militias" have infiltrated the police and those "undercover" Brits were in a fire fight with militia-members-dressed-as-police when the Brits were captured. :eyes:

Translation: This Black Op has gone so far south that the Brits are going to have to wipe out and replace the whole police structure of Basra.

[LeftHander]

45. if 911 was LIHOP....why not some manfactured insurgents

Shoot a Iraqi policemane or two every couple of days....

In WWII the Brits had to play dirty to defeat the Nazis. Now the The Western Military Industrial complex has made profit a goal and the military is the tool to achieve profits.

War is required.

Too many people want war. They will do anything to get it.

[RBHam]

86. 9-11 was MIHOP.

Cheney leaves nothing to chance.

[radwriter0555]

89. Yes, it was. Those hijackers were hired by the PNAC, via the ISI, plain

and simple.

I don't believe that bin laden attacked the USA, I beleive he knew about it and was brought into the picture on July 17, 2001, while at the American Hospital in Dubai.

[Tower]

46. Almost seems like an Iraq version of the Vietnam-era Phoenix program.

You know- political assassinations. I can imagine they might want to do their dirty work using the insurgents' own methods, to shift blame away from the western forces.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. and we have a winner

it is called head hunting and the same shit that people are saying now was said back then. The VC all of a sudden became a figment of people's imaginations and we were doing all

Ok, did AQ blow up the Intnernational Red Cross HQ? Yes, they have been killing ICRC personnel in Afghanistan for almost twenty years, they see the Red Cross as a crusader army.

Did they blow up the HQ for the UN? Yes, they had no cause really, just the secuirty contril declaring them a target after 9.11.. oh and they do take the eye for an eye quite literally and getting the UN in NYC was a little harder, though boltom might secretly have sung hossanahs.

is the civil war real? Yes

Is the resistance real? Absolutely.

But in an incredibly racist and imperialist view of the world we are all doing all because them brownies cannot be doing it, we have proof... been over this for the last three days... and I am done... the answer is quite simople, what the SAS were doing is part of a shadow war that is ongoing on top of everything else... the two troopers blew it, some people will die who otherwise might not, and some military careers might get ruined... but they were head hunting.

[Nihil]

108. I wish people would read your posts

> the answer is quite simple, what the SAS were doing is part of a
> shadow war that is ongoing on top of everything else... the two
> troopers blew it, some people will die who otherwise might not, and
> some military careers might get ruined... but they were head hunting.

You have posted this and various amounts of supporting information
quite a bit over the last few days but no-one seems to notice ...
no-one seems to actually *get* this message ... you have more patience
than I do but thanks for the effort anyway.

[Ellipsis]

49. We have done this as well.

A friend's nephew (a marine) was snipng in garb over six months ago...

[suffragette]

54. curiouser and curiouser

Can't quite get my mind around this either.

To your questions, I would only add: What about the reports that the British soldiers' car contained explosives?

I read an article this morning which had mostly the same info as the others I had read. One sentence stood out for me: "British officials backtracked from earlier claims that the men were not freed using force."
source:http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apmideast_story.asp?category=1107&slug=Iraq%20Basra%20Turmoil&searchdiff=&searchpagefrom=

It will be interesting to note how much more "backtracking" occurs in the days to come.

[1932]

56. More likely they were trying to infiltrate an insurgent group in order to

sabotage insurgent violence.

[Minstrel Boy]

57. They were shooting at civilians and police.

That's why they were in custody.

"Sabotage insurgent violence" doesn't mesh with reality.

[1932]

58. Maybe their covern was blown.

Where are the accounts of what happened?

[endarkenment]

60. Take a look at the pictures.

These guys wouldn't pass as arabs. Heck they couldn't pass as germans at a football game. They were engaged by the Iraqi police because they 'didn't look right' and were 'acting suspciously'.

They were undercover in the sense that if you didn't look closely you might think they were arabs. No way were they going to infiltrate squat. As I said elsewhere - the undercover infiltration explanation is bullshit.

[kath]

94. *** They were wearing WIGS***, which are shown lying on the table in one

of the photos. That would make them look quite a bit different - maybe not real authentic as Arabs, but at least not so British-looking.

[Dover]

105. CIA - Revolutions R Us. They've been provoking unrest in several

locations in the "Stans", in Georgia and other parts of Eastern Europe. The Brits too. They've been accused of it by the Russians and others.
Why is it so hard to wrap one's mind around? They WANT to create unrest and topple regimes from within. They've always done it. Iran Contra and the recent attempt at a coup in Venezuela....on and on....

It's their specialty.

[radwriter0555]

90. Not a chance. The insurgents are barely kicking.

The stories about the insurgency are largely mythical.

[rman]

61. It wouldn't be the first time

that the enemy is (at least in part) manufactured.

It certainly is part of the dark philosophy of the neocons:
"A political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat, if no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured." - Leo Strauss

The most glaring and well documented examples of a "false-flag" operation is the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion

[nomatrix]

62. Here's a link for you Will.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1574819,00.html
-snip-

"The scenes broadcast yesterday from Basra show how far authority in southern Iraq has collapsed. This is tragic. When I was there two years ago the south was, in its own terms, a success. While the Americans were unleashing mayhem to the north, the British were methodically applying Lugard-style colonialism in Basra. They formed alliances with sheikhs, bribed warlords and won hearts and minds by going unarmoured. There was optimism in the air.

British policy demanded one thing, momentum towards local sovereignty and early withdrawal. There was no such momentum. An ever more confident insurrection was allowed first to impede and then dictate the timetable of withdrawal. Sunni terrorists now hold American and British policy in their grip. The result has been an inevitable civil collapse. We do not even know on which side are the Basra police."

-snip-


"Infrastructure is not being restored. Baghdad's water, electricity and sewers are in worse shape than a decade ago. Huge sums - such as the alleged $1bn for military supplies - are being stolen and stashed in Jordanian banks. The new constitution is a dead letter except the clauses that are blatantly sharia. These are already being enforced de facto in Shia areas."

-snip-

"British soldiers are in a war over whose course, conduct and outcome their leaders have no control. Their government's exit strategy is no longer realistic, indeed is dishonest. Talk of reducing troop levels from 8,000 to 3,000 next year has been abandoned. Everyone seems on the wrong planet. Meanwhile daily groping for good news and the sickening litany of the bad is reminiscent of Vietnam. Nobody reads Barbara Tuchman on folly."



The whole article is on target, limited to the 4 paragraph DU rule.

[newspeak]

63. how about the Philippines

maybe someone can remember the soldiers in the Philippines who had taken over a building? and were claiming that the US was in collaboration with certain Filipinos government officials in creating attacks in the Philippines, blaming on muslim terrorists. I remember reading about it, it did make the news. And for people to believe these men couldn't pass for Arabs-Iraqis are not Arabs; and in the Middle East there are people with red hair, blue and green eyes, and light colored skin. I mean back in the seventies I saw a Palestinian with red hair and green eyes.

[Minstrel Boy]

84. some links here about the Philippines

the first mentions the mutiny and they're all about Michael Meiring, the US citizen and CIA asset who was wisked out of the country by an FBI team after injuring himself when his bomb exploded prematurely in his hotel room.

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/10/michael-meiring-blast-from-past.html

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/12/davao-city-bomber-michael-meiring.html

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/01/you-will-find-my-power-then.html

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/03/person-of-non-interest.html

[newspeak]

100. thank you!

thank you for the info

[MojoXN]

64. "Is it possible British soldiers are attacking Iraqis..."

Yes. Who benefits if Iraq is in chaos? Why would Iraqis kill other innocent Iraqis on a daily basis? Who benefits from killing civilians, thereby fomenting civil war and continued unrest? I'm not going to answer the question for you, but seriously ask yourself, "Who benefits?"

MojoXN

[newspeak]

66. hmmm let me guess

who makes profits off of death, destruction, and chaos? hmmm.......The filipinos believed that the attacks were to curb civilian liberties. Anybody out there, do you remember the report?

[Fight_n_back]

65. Why can't we say we don't know?

There is not enough information to make any of these hyposhteses.

[newspeak]

70. your right

we don't know--but, it's time the truth about whatever they were up to is exposed if it's dirty dirty black op deeds. Let's say police and civilians are being blown away and the actions are being blamed on the Iraqi insurgency, but their not the culprits. doesn't it dilute their legitimacy as fighters for their country, when their murdering their own countrymen? Yes, I know that the Sunni and Shiite have no great love for one another, but does one of the group have a greater love for the US?

[Fight_n_back]

71. That would certainly be bad

I just remeber DU when the Jenin massacre was happening and thousands of bodies were being taken out in refrigerator trucks and it all turned out to be incorrect because the immediate information was chaotic.

We don't know enough yet. Its been two days.

[mopaul]

73. could the same troubling scenario be applied to 9/11?....naaahhh

or could it?

[fedsron2us]

74. Apparently they were dressed up for a concert party

to entertain British troops with an episode of 'It Ain't Half Hot Mum'.

[ForrestGump]

114. That would explain the wigs, at least

Land of hope and glory
Mother of the free...

SHUT UPPPPPP!!!!

[althecat]

76. UK "Undercover Soldiers" Caught Driving Booby Trapped Car

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0509/S00329.htm
Michel Chossudovsky....

includes...

We have with us on the telephone from Baghdad Fattah al-Shaykh, member of the Iraqi National Assembly. What are the details of and the facts surrounding this incident?

In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate. There have been continuous provocative acts since the day before yesterday by the British forces against the peaceful sons of Basra. There have been indiscriminate arrests, the most recent of which was the arrest of Shaykh Ahmad al-Farqusi and two Basra citizens on the pretext that they had carried out terrorist operations to kill US soldiers. This is a baseless claim.

This was confirmed to us by the second secretary at the British Embassy in Baghdad, when we met with him a short while ago. He said that there is evidence on this. We say: You should come up with this evidence or forget about this issue. If you really want to look for truth, then we should resort to the Iraqi justice away from the British provocations against the sons of Basra, particularly what happened today when the sons of Basra caught two non-Iraqis, who seem to be Britons and were in a car of the Cressida type. It was a booby-trapped car laden with ammunition and was meant to explode in the centre of the city of Basra in the popular market.

However, the sons of the city of Basra arrested them. They then fired at the people there and killed some of them. The two arrested persons are now at the Intelligence Department in Basra, and they were held by the National Guard force, but the British occupation forces are still surrounding this department in an attempt to absolve them of the crime.
Thank you Fattah al-Shaykh, member of the National Assembly and deputy for Basra.

- Text of report by Qatari Al-Jazeera satellite TV on 19 September (emphasis added)

[applegrove]

80. Don't the Brits always go undercover to disrupt "guerrilla groups"

and weaken them with fear of infiltration? Haven't the Brits done that in every justified or unjustified war? Wouldn't it be wrong of them to not use a tried & true tactic like that - to weaken trust within a network that uses suicide bombers? We know the Sunni leadership are not blowing themselves up - they use peons to do that. The leadership of the suicide bombers want to protect their assess. So weakening the Sunni leadership (or al Qaeda) might bring Sunnis to the table faster?

I could see how if the Brits were undercover a fire-fight could break out between them and a police station. Even if those police were not themselves involved in the insurgency.

That would be my guess.

And then - to protect the mission & the two soldiers - the tanks were sent in.

[eridani]

82. How would that work if they couldn't fool anybody close up?

Whatever they were up to, they could only expect to fool natives at a distance.

[applegrove]

83. Well - the police station didn't know who they were until they were

captured.

[eridani]

99. And they got captured because the police thought they looked funny n/t

[RBHam]

85. I've been SCREAMING this over and over...

Just WHAT do you think Americam and British special forces have been doing the last 2 years?

Fomenting a civil war gives the "coalition of the willing" an EXCUSE to stay in Iraq and concentrate on consolidating their 14 new PERMANENT bases, while they set their sights on Iran and Syria.

Now you know who bombed the UN building. When the UN head was dying he said, "Don't let THEM close it down..."

Who do you suppose he meant by THEM???

I know.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

87. I've been screaming with you. I've been screaming that there is no

Al Zarqawi. He was killed at the beginning of the war in the north. Why don't people get it through their heads that we are building Permanent Bases in Iraq, and have no intention of leaving. Iraq is our colony now, and the more that is destroyed, the more Halliburton gets to be rebuild.

Nick Berg was not killed by Iraqis.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

88. Remember Nick Berg. The orange jumpsuit, the Caucasian looking

captors, the same chairs used at Abu Ghraib.....

[Lydia Leftcoast]

92. Right, and it has never made sense to me that factions fighting for the

"liberation" of Iraq from foreign occupation would kill random Iraqis instead of foreigners.

Having random Iraqi civilians killed does two things;

1) Makes Sunni and Shia Iraqis suspicious of each other

2) Provides propaganda backing for U.S./British claims that the invasion of Iraq was about "fighting terrorism," because look at those "terrorists" blowing up marketplaces.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

101. The minute that the UN building was blown up I knew that we

were stirring up trouble. I never for a moment doubted that the US and as it appears, the UK are behind the "insurgency". See this post of mine in this thread

Post #87
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4837870&mesg_id=4844274

[annabanana]

91. Well, Will...

THAT ought to keep you busy for a couple of days!

[Just Me]

95. I have no trouble wrapping my mind around it.

Intentional instigation of civil disruption is an OBVIOUS tool utilized by Sp Ops,...and ESPECIALLY by our own regime. I mean, DAMN, they merely utilize the psych/emotional tool on our own country and have had spectacular success.

In the "theatre" of perception management, these people are skilled.

The question is why,...why would the "coalition" be bent upon creating chaos and havoc in a nation they INSIST they want to plant democracy?

PNAC! PNAC! PNAC! PNAC! PNAC! PNAC!

Their quest is the WHOLE Middle East and SE Asia, in addition to other members of OPEC (excepting, of course, SA).

Why are people still in denial about this shit? Even after the last four years, people are STILL sticking their heads in the sand about how far these bastards are willing to go to EXECUTE THEIR "VISION"?

Fuck!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

102. PNAC...protecting American (stolen) interests.. follow the money. That's

all one has to do.

[izzybeans]

96. I've been trying to explain this one away and am having a hard time.

I keep coming back to the "inciting violence" theory. The only other theory that I can come up with to contradict it would be if they happened to be infiltrating a cell. However, that would entail working with the Iraqi security forces and police and thus the jail break would have been unnecessary, as would the two shooting up the checkpoint. When I first read about this I assumed they had "flipped" and were supporting the insurgency until they were busted out by the Brits. None of it makes any sense. Via elimination it appears that "coalition forces" have been caught doing something that appears to make these gentlemen illegal combatents. It looks mighty suspicious as to what that something is.



I see no stories on this other than the descriptions, explanationless descriptions. The memoryhole is creeping up very quickly on this one. What is Juan Cole saying on this? I'm headed over there AWS.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

97. An extremely revelatory story.

[Laurab]

98. Actually, Will

I've been kind of waiting for your take on it, to be honest. For many reasons, some of which are: I know you don't hop on conspiracy theories, I know you probably have many sources who have access to information not everyone has, you are (mostly) level headed, you check your facts, and when you post your opinions, it often helps me with things I can't "wrap my mind around". This one has got me, but whatever it is, it just doesn't SMELL good.

[Wizard777]

104. It's simple. Illegal offensive operations.

Part of the agreement in granting Iraq it's sovereignty. Is that the coalition would be able to defend it's self from attacks. But they would not mount any offensives without the Iraqi governments permission. Henceforth the disguises. They were mounting an unapproved offense that they would blame on insurgents. Possibly even trying to spark the civil war. The jail break violates this treaty as well if it was not done with permission.

[Nihil]

110. Straightforward dirty tricks

> Why were these guys dressed like Iraqis?

British & US Army uniforms tend to stick out in the crowd.

> What were they doing with a goddam rocket launcher?

Driving around with it in the back of their car along with the
serious guns, the explosives and the detonators. It's called
keeping your options open.

> Is it possible British soldiers are attacking Iraqis dressed as
> other Iraqis ...

Yes (i.e., attacking *specific* Iraqis)

> so as to inspire sectarian violence ...

Yes (or, rather, keep it simmering - it's been there for centuries)

> ... and justify a continued occupation?

No

The SAS are (part of) the stiletto, the silenced sniper of the UK's
military forces. They are not the US Marines, guns blazing from the
hip for a "Jessica Lynch" event. Most of the time they simply take
out their target and deflect the blame onto a rival faction. That's
their job and one they do (on the whole) very successfully.

The SAS also pay a *lot* of attention to civilians - as "collateral
damage" used to be known - so would rely on a diplomatic retrieval
from an Iraqi police station rather than just shooting their way out
of trouble.

Consider for a moment the weapons in that car.

Consider the training & experience of those guys.

Do you think a few Iraqi policemen could actually arrest them if
they decided to "resist"? They knew their operation was blown so
they took one of the planned escape routes.

If the Iraqi police had "played by the rules", the whole event would
have been brushed under the carpet with the appropriate political and
financial bribes in place. It's worked before, it will work again.

Unfortunately, it appears that they didn't count on the apparent
penetration of the Iraqi police force - "apparent" as it might simply
have been one desk clerk phoning up his brother-in-law or something.
This led to the "less diplomatic retrieval" that we saw the other day.

You can argue about whether the "rules" are right or wrong, whether
assassinating a leader is better or worse than a set-piece battle,
whether the strategy of keeping two rival groups of militant fighters
at each other's throats is more or less "civilized" than letting them
have free rein at whoever they feel like.

This event was a standard dirty op that went wrong - always a chance
of that - but instead of the planned recovery, something else went
wrong on top ... hence the 135mm persuasion for the release of the
prisoners. Not a conspiracy, just the way it's done at times.

[eridani]

111. Another anti-Brit demonstration

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/092205L.shtml

Waving pistols and assault rifles, Iraqi police officers led an angry anti-British demonstration in the southern city of Basra on Wednesday, and the provincial council voted unanimously to stop cooperating with British forces in the area until Britain apologized for storming a police station to free two of its soldiers.

At least 200 people, mostly officers who work in the police station that was damaged in the raid, rallied outside Basra's police headquarters, demanding an official apology from Britain and the resignation of Basra's police chief, Hassan Sawadi, Iraqi officials said.

Later, Basra's 41-member provincial council voted unanimously to "stop dealing with the British forces working in Basra" until it received an apology for the raid on Monday, The Associated Press reported. In the raid, British tanks crashed through the police station's outer wall and freed two officers who had been detained by the Iraqi police.

To help ease tensions, the Iraqi prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, made a joint appearance in London with Britain's defense secretary, declaring that the incident was being investigated and "will not affect relations" between the countries.

[wiggs]

112. More reasons to think adminsitration wants chaos and disruption

Not disarming army after invasion, not securing arms depots after invasion, disbanding trained military, allowing looting, using Kurdish forces in non-Kurdish areas, leveling Fallujia, very slow training of troops, sticking with military force too small for job, Abu Ghraib, ensuring split elections that result in fragmented government, making sure UN was not involved early on when it could have helped, not using Iraq companies in contracting, not rebuilding Iraq or meeting daily basic needs, not securing borders building permanent bases, etc

When you look at it, almost everything they've done causes animosity, polarization, insecurity, chaos.

Incompetence or planning?

[Postman]

115. Maybe spec ops to eliminate infiltrators inside Iraqi Police Force

n/t

[wiggs]

117. In a related story....

From Rawstory (link to Guardian article):

Report attacks 'myth' of foreign fighters

Brian Whitaker and Ewen MacAskill
Friday September 23, 2005
The Guardian

The US and the Iraqi government have overstated the number of foreign fighters in Iraq, "feeding the myth" that they are the backbone of the insurgency, an American thinktank says in a new report.

Foreign militants - mainly from Algeria, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia - account for less than 10% of the estimated 30,000 insurgents, according to the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)

snip

The CSIS report says: "The vast majority of Saudi militants who have entered Iraq were not terrorist sympathisers before the war; and were radicalised almost exclusively by the coalition invasion."

snip