• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

British Soldiers Fighting . . .

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
There's more than one ham sandwithch that ain't Kosher here.

Who were the 'British Agents' and why was it so important to bust & run.
There's more substance to the silence - than in the press released words.
Click to expand...
And something tells me we'll never know.

I still feel the worst: Negroponte's influence leftover.
 
I don't think that 'Blackpoint' can deal that much control over the Brits, although he does have a rather checkered past.

This whole 'Brits in Rags - Shoot 'Em Up', is like a bad Laurence of Arabia sequel.
 
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
I don't think that 'Blackpoint' can deal that much control over the Brits, although he does have a rather checkered past.

This whole 'Brits in Rags - Shoot 'Em Up', is like a bad Laurence of Arabia sequel.
Click to expand...
Well, not so much as direct control but an overall policy to follow. Blair being the poodle he was, ya know? Maybe turning a blind eye to the US's ways but some of it seeping into the Brits' actions.
 
Yeah it seems "ODD" - It seems plain and simple that these guys dressed up like "insurgents" and then went and killed some cops. THIS TIME they got caught.
-Who benefits from the insurgents attacks on civilians and cops?
-Why would the british want YOU to think that "insurgents" are attacking police and civilians.

The goal of Cointelpro is to make the ordinary citizens not support or even dispise the resistance fighters, insurgents that are fighting for them. If the resistance fighters/ insurgents are killing civilians and cops then the goal is accomplished. If british army is dressed up like resistance fighters/insurgents killing civilians and cops then the goal is accomplished.
Click to expand...
beyoku
 
As I understand it, the Brits were just undercover . . . doing surveillance.

The Iraqi police "noticed" them and decided to arrest them since they basically looked like they were up to no good. Naturally, that "rule of law" stuff is for the birds so the Brits decided to shoot up the street.

Despite the fact they killed an Iraqi policeman . . . just doing his job . . . the Interior Ministry still ordered the release of the captured Brits.

We may never know if the operatives were just "looking" or actually "doing."

It will be interesting to see what turns up in the investigation of the place the Brits razed after taking out the jail.
 
Why were the British troops handed over to a "militia". Maybe it was to make a new peaceful beheading video. Who knows.
 
NPR is funded by oil corporations. And you think these corporations pay NPR to tell you the whole truth about anything?
Better go to http://www.infowars.com for example, to find an independant analysis of what went on in Basra:
Here is one article, but there are others just as interesting:
http://infowars.com/articles/iraq/basra_uk_special_forces_staged_terror.htm

<< British Special Forces Caught Carrying Out Staged Terror In Iraq?
Media blackout shadows why black op soldiers were arrested

Paul Joseph Watson | September 20 2005


In another example of how the Iraqi quagmire is deliberately designed to degenerate into a chaotic abyss, British SAS were caught attempting to stage a terror attack and the media have dutifully shut up about the real questions surrounding the incident.

What is admitted is that two British soldiers in Arab garb and head dress drove a car towards a group of Iraq police and began firing. According to the Basra governor Mohammed al-Waili, one policeman was shot dead and another was injured. Pictured below are the wigs and clothing that the soldiers were wearing.

The Arab garb is obviously undeniable proof that the operation, whatever its ultimate intention, was staged so that any eyewitnesses would believe it had been carried out by Iraqis.

This has all the indications of a frame up.

This is made all the more interesting by the fact that early reports cited as originating from BBC World Service radio stated that the car used contained explosives.




Was this another staged car bombing intended to keep tensions high? As you will discover later, the plan to keep Iraq divided and in turmoil is an actual policy directive that spans back over two decades.

The BBC reports that the car did contain, "assault rifles, a light machine gun, an anti-tank weapon, radio gear and medical kit. This is thought to be standard kit for the SAS operating in such a theatre of operations."

And are fake bushy black wigs and turbans standard kit for the SAS?

What happened to the early reports of explosives? Why has the media relentlessly reported on the subsequent rescue effort and failed to address these key questions?

The soldiers were arrested and taken to a nearby jail where they were confronted and interrogated by an Iraqi judge.

The initial demand from the puppet authorities that the soldiers be released was rejected by the Basra government. At that point tanks were sent in to 'rescue' the terrorists and the 'liberated' Iraqis started to riot, firebombing and pelting stones at the vehicles injuring British troops as was depicted in this dramatic Reuters photo.


As the SAS were being rescued 150 prisoners escaped from the jail. Was this intentional or just a result of another botched black op?

From this point on media coverage was monopolized by accounts of the rescue and the giant marauding pink elephant in the living room, namely why the soldiers were arrested in the first place, was routinely ignored.

The only outlet to ask any serious questions was Australian TV news which according to one viewer gave, "credibility to the 'conspiracy theorists' who have long claimed many terrorist acts in Iraq are, in fact, being initiated and carried out by US, British and Israeli forces."

Iran's top military commander Brigadier General Mohammad-Baqer Zolqadr pointed the finger at the occupational government last week by publicly stating,

?The Americans blame weak and feeble groups in Iraq for insecurity in this country. We do not believe this and we have information that the insecurity has its roots in the activities of American and Israeli spies,? Zolqadr said.

?Insecurity in Iraq is a deeply-rooted phenomenon. The root of insecurity in Iraq lies in the occupation of this country by foreigners?.

?If Iraq is to become secure, there will be no room for the occupiers?.

That explanation has a lot of currency amongst ordinary Iraqis who have been direct witnesses to these bombings.

In the past we?ve asked questions about why so-called car bombings leave giant craters, in addition with eyewitness reports that helicopters were carrying out the attacks.

Throughout history we see the tactic of divide and conquer being used to enslave populations and swallow formerly sovereign countries by piecemeal. From the British stirring up aggression between different Indian tribes in order to foment division, to modern day Yugoslavia where the country was rejecting the IMF and world bank takeover before the Globalists broke it up and took the country piece by piece by arming and empowering extremists.


And so to Iraq, New York Times November 25th 2003, Leslie Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations writes,

"To put most of its money and troops where they would do the most good quickly - with the Kurds and Shiites. The United States could extricate most of its forces from the so-called Sunni Triangle, north and west of Baghdad.... American officials could then wait for the troublesome and domineering Sunnis, without oil or oil revenues, to moderate their ambitions or suffer the consequences."

Gelb argues for allowing the rebellion to escalate in order to create a divided Iraq.

And in 1982, Oded Yinon, an official from the Israeli Foreign Affairs office, wrote: "To dissolve Iraq is even more important for us than dissolving Syria. In the short term, it's Iraqi power that constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. The Iran-Iraq war tore Iraq apart and provoked its downfall. All manner of inter-Arab conflict help us and accelerate our goal of breaking up Iraq into small, diverse pieces."

So if the plan is to keep the different sects at each others' throats then who benefits from the chaos created by the endless bombings? President Bush's slip of the tongue when he stated, "it'll take time to restore chaos and order -- order out of chaos, but we will" seems less farcical in this light.

Plans for 4,000 NATO troops to replace US troops in Afghanistan will likely be mirrored in Iraq and the country will be used as a launch pad for the coming invasions of Syria and Iran.

It is certain that any reports coming out of Iraq accusing occupational forces of being behind car bombings will be brutally censored.

The Pentagon admitted before the war that independent journalists would be military targets and since then we've seen more journalists killed in Iraq over two and a half years than the entire seven year stretch of US involvement in Vietnam.

In many cases, such as that of Mazen Dana, an acclaimed hero who was killed after filming secret US mass graves, journalists are hunted down and executed because they record something that the occupational government doesn't want to reach the wider world.
Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena's car was fired upon and an Italian secret service agent killed after Sgrena was told by the group that kidnapped her that a threat to kill her if Italian troops didn't pull out of Iraq wasn't made by them. This means that Rumsfeld's Ministry of Truth in Iraq is putting out false statements by fake Jihad groups to try and maintain the facade that the resistance is run by brutal terrorists under the direction of Al-Qaeda/Iran/Syria or whoever else they want to bomb next.

Every high profile kidnapping brings with it eyewitness reports of white men in suits and police carrying out the abductions.

Many will find it hard to believe that ordinary soldiers would have it in them to carry out such brutal atrocities. The people carrying out these acts are not ordinary soldiers, they are SAS thugs who have been told that they have to be 'more evil than the terrorists' to defeat the terrorists. This is how they morally justify to themselves engaging in this criminal behavior.

We will update this story as and when new developments take place. >>
 
Caught red-handed
Nafeez Ahmed

BRITISH UNDERCOVER OPERATIVES IN IRAQ
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/CAUGHT_RED__0923.html
Zarqawi Eat Your Heart Out

Basra is relatively stable compared to central Iraq where violence involving insurgents, civilians and coalition forces is a daily routine. The city has rarely been a site of clashes between insurgents and coalition troops, nor is it a victim of regular terrorist attacks. This week, however, things changed, but not thanks to Zarqawi and his al-Qaeda ilk.

On Monday, two British soldiers were arrested and detained by Iraqi police in Basra. Within a matter of hours, the British military responded with overwhelming force, despite subsequent denials by the Ministry of Defence, which insisted that the two men had been retrieved solely through "negotiations."

British military officials, including Brigadier John Lorimer, told BBC News (9/20/05) that the British Army had stormed an Iraqi police station to locate the detainees. Ministry of Defence sources confirmed that "British vehicles" had attempted to "maintain a cordon" outside the police station.

After British Army tanks "flattened the wall" of the station, UK troops "broke into the police station to confirm the men were not there" and then "staged a rescue from a house in Basra", according a commanding officer familiar with the operation. Both men, British defence sources told the BBC's Richard Galpin in Baghdad, were "members of the SAS elite special forces." After their arrest, the soldiers were over to the local militia.

What had prompted this bizarre turn of events? Why had the Iraqi police forces, which normally work in close cooperation with coalition military forces, arrested two British SAS soldiers, and then handed them over to the local militia? A review of the initial on-the-ground reports leads to a clearer picture.

Fancy Dress and Big Guns Don't Mix

According to the BBC's Galpin, reporting for BBC Radio 4 (9/20/05, 18 hrs news script), Iraqi police sources in Basra told the BBC the "two British men were arrested after failing to stop at a checkpoint. There was an exchange of gunfire. The men were wearing traditional Arab clothing, and when the police eventually stopped them, they said they found explosives and weapons in their car?It's widely believed the two British servicemen were operating undercover."

Undercover? Dressed as Arabs? What were they trying to do that had caught the attention of their colleagues, the Iraqi police?

According to the Washington Post (9/20/05), "Iraqi security officials on Monday variously accused the two Britons they detained of shooting at Iraqi forces or trying to plant explosives." Reuters (9/19/05) cited police, local officials and other witnesses who confirmed that "the two undercover soldiers were arrested after opening fire on Iraqi police who approached them." Officials said that "the men were wearing traditional Arab headscarves and sitting in an unmarked car."

According to Mohammed al-Abadi, an official in the Basra governorate, ?A policeman approached them and then one of these guys fired at him. Then the police managed to capture them.?

Booby-trapped Brits?

In an interview with Al Jazeerah TV, the popular Iraqi leader Fattah al-Sheikh, a member of the Iraqi National Assembly and deputy official in the Basra governorate, said that police had "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." Contrary to British authorities' claims that the soldiers had been immediately handed to local militia, al-Sheikh confirmed that they were "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."

The Special Reconnaissance Regiment and British Covert Operations

British defence sources told the Scotsman (9/20/05) that the soldiers were part of an "undercover special forces detachment" set up this year to "bridge the intelligence void? in Basra, drawing on 'special forces' experience in Northern Ireland and Aden, where British troops went 'deep' undercover in local communities to try to break the code of silence against foreign forces."

These elite forces operate under the Special Reconnaissance Regiment and were formed last year by then defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, "to gather human intelligence during counter-terrorist missions."

The question, of course, is how does firing at Iraqi police while dressed as Arabs and carrying explosives constitute "countering terrorism" or even gathering "intelligence"?

The admission by British defence officials is revealing. A glance at the Special Reconnaissance Regiment gives a more concrete idea of the sort of operations these two British soldiers were involved in.

The Regiment, formed recently, is "modelled on an undercover unit that operated in Northern Ireland" according to Whitehall sources. The Regiment had "absorbed the 14th Intelligence Company, known as '14 Int,' a plainclothes unit set up to gather intelligence covertly on suspect terrorists in Northern Ireland. Its recruits are trained by the SAS."

This is the same Regiment that was involved in the unlawful July 22 execution - multiple head-shots - of the innocent Brazilian, Mr. Jean Charles de Menezes, after he boarded a tube train in Stockwell Underground station.

According to Detective Sergeant Nicholas Benwell, member of the Scotland Yard team that had been investigating the activities of an ultra-secret wing of British military intelligence, the Force Research Unit (FRU), the team found that "military intelligence was colluding with terrorists to help them kill so-called 'legitimate targets' such as active republicans... many of the victims of these government-backed hit squads were innocent civilians."

Benwell's revelations were corroborated in detail by British double agent Kevin Fulton, who was recruited to the FRU in 1981, when he began to infiltrate the ranks of IRA. In his role as a British FRU agent inside the IRA, he was told by his military intelligence handlers to "do anything" to win the confidence of the terrorist group.

"I mixed explosive and I helped develop new types of bombs," he told Scotland's Sunday Herald (6/23/02). "I moved weapons? if you ask me if the materials I handled killed anyone, then I will have to say that some of the things I helped develop did kill? my handlers knew everything I did. I was never told not to do something that was discussed. How can you pretend to be a terrorist and not act like one? You can't. You?ve got to do what they do? They did a lot of murders? I broke the law seven days a week and my handlers knew that. They knew that I was making bombs and giving them to other members of the IRA and they did nothing about it? The idea was that the only way to beat the enemy was to penetrate the enemy and be the enemy."

Most startlingly, Fulton said that his handlers told him his operations were "sanctioned right at the top? this goes the whole way to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister knows what you are doing."

Zarqawi, Ba'athists and the Seeds of Discord

So, based on the methodology of their Regiment, the two British SAS operatives were in Iraq to "penetrate the enemy and be the enemy," in order of course to "beat the enemy." Instead of beating the enemy, however, they ended up fomenting massive chaos and killing innocent people, a familiar pattern for critical students of the British role in the Northern Ireland conflict.

In November 2004, a joint statement was released on several Islamist websites on behalf of al-Qaeda's man in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and Saddam Hussein's old Ba'ath Party loyalists. Zarqawi?s network had "joined other extremist Islamists and Saddam Hussein's old Baath party to threaten increased attacks on US-led forces." Zarqawi's group said they signed "the statement written by the Iraqi Baath party, not because we support the party or Saddam, but because it expresses the demands of resistance groups in Iraq."

The statement formalized what had been known for a year already ? that, as post-Saddam Iraqi intelligence and US military officials told the London Times (8/9/2003), "Al Qaeda terrorists who have infiltrated Iraq from Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries have formed an alliance with former intelligence agents of Saddam Hussein to fight their common enemy, the American forces." Al Qaeda leaders "recruit from the pool" of Saddam's former "security and intelligence officers who are unemployed and embittered by their loss of status." After vetting, "they begin Al-Qaeda-style training, such as how to make remote-controlled bombs."

Yet Pakistani military sources revealed in February 2005 that the US has "resolved to arm small militias backed by US troops and entrenched in the population," consisting of "former members of the Ba'ath Party" ? the same people already teamed up with Zarqawi's al-Qaeda network.

In a highly clandestine operation, the US procured ?Pakistan-manufactured weapons, including rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, ammunition, rockets and other light weaponry.? A Pakistani military analyst noted that the ?arms could not be destined for the Iraqi security forces because US arms would be given to them.? Rather, the US is playing a double-game to ?head off? the threat of a ?Shi?ite clergy-driven religious movement? ? in other words, to exacerbate the deterioration of security by penetrating, manipulating and arming the terrorist insurgency.

What could be the end-game of such a covert strategy? The view on-the-ground in Iraq, among both Sunnis and Shi'ites, is worth noting. Sheikh Jawad al-Kalesi, the Shi'ite Imam of the al-Kadhimiyah mosque in Baghdad, told Le Monde: "I don?t think that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi exists as such. He?s simply an invention by the occupiers to divide the people."

Iraq?s most powerful Sunni Arab religious authority, the Association of Muslim Scholars, concurs, condemning the call to arms against Shi?ites as a ?very dangerous? phenomenon that ?plays into the hands of the occupier who wants to split up the country and spark a sectarian war.? In colonial terms, the strategy is known as ?divide and rule.?

Whether or not Zarqawi can be said to exist, it is indeed difficult to avoid the conclusion that this interpretation is plausible. It seems the only ones who don?t understand the clandestine dynamics of Anglo-American covert strategy in Iraq are we, the people, in the west. It?s high time we got informed.

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development, London. He teaches courses in political theory, international relations and contemporary history at the School of Social Sciences and Cultural Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton.

Ahmed is the author of The War on Freedom: How & Why America was Attacked, September 11, 2001 and Behind the War on Terror: Western Secret Strategy and the Struggle for Iraq.

His latest book is The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism.

Reuters photos of weapons found by Iraqi police on the arrested operatives are viewable here.
Click to expand...
That's some pretty heavy "negotiations".

But, this is looking like the Brits have picked up where Negroponte left off and the US is playing a game of "massage the 'democracy'".


So much for sovereignty.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Caught red-handed
Nafeez Ahmed

BRITISH UNDERCOVER OPERATIVES IN IRAQ
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/CAUGHT_RED__0923.html
Zarqawi Eat Your Heart Out

Basra is relatively stable compared to central Iraq where violence involving insurgents, civilians and coalition forces is a daily routine. The city has rarely been a site of clashes between insurgents and coalition troops, nor is it a victim of regular terrorist attacks. This week, however, things changed, but not thanks to Zarqawi and his al-Qaeda ilk.

On Monday, two British soldiers were arrested and detained by Iraqi police in Basra. Within a matter of hours, the British military responded with overwhelming force, despite subsequent denials by the Ministry of Defence, which insisted that the two men had been retrieved solely through "negotiations."

British military officials, including Brigadier John Lorimer, told BBC News (9/20/05) that the British Army had stormed an Iraqi police station to locate the detainees. Ministry of Defence sources confirmed that "British vehicles" had attempted to "maintain a cordon" outside the police station.

After British Army tanks "flattened the wall" of the station, UK troops "broke into the police station to confirm the men were not there" and then "staged a rescue from a house in Basra", according a commanding officer familiar with the operation. Both men, British defence sources told the BBC's Richard Galpin in Baghdad, were "members of the SAS elite special forces." After their arrest, the soldiers were over to the local militia.

What had prompted this bizarre turn of events? Why had the Iraqi police forces, which normally work in close cooperation with coalition military forces, arrested two British SAS soldiers, and then handed them over to the local militia? A review of the initial on-the-ground reports leads to a clearer picture.

Fancy Dress and Big Guns Don't Mix

According to the BBC's Galpin, reporting for BBC Radio 4 (9/20/05, 18 hrs news script), Iraqi police sources in Basra told the BBC the "two British men were arrested after failing to stop at a checkpoint. There was an exchange of gunfire. The men were wearing traditional Arab clothing, and when the police eventually stopped them, they said they found explosives and weapons in their car?It's widely believed the two British servicemen were operating undercover."

Undercover? Dressed as Arabs? What were they trying to do that had caught the attention of their colleagues, the Iraqi police?

According to the Washington Post (9/20/05), "Iraqi security officials on Monday variously accused the two Britons they detained of shooting at Iraqi forces or trying to plant explosives." Reuters (9/19/05) cited police, local officials and other witnesses who confirmed that "the two undercover soldiers were arrested after opening fire on Iraqi police who approached them." Officials said that "the men were wearing traditional Arab headscarves and sitting in an unmarked car."

According to Mohammed al-Abadi, an official in the Basra governorate, ?A policeman approached them and then one of these guys fired at him. Then the police managed to capture them.?

Booby-trapped Brits?

In an interview with Al Jazeerah TV, the popular Iraqi leader Fattah al-Sheikh, a member of the Iraqi National Assembly and deputy official in the Basra governorate, said that police had "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." Contrary to British authorities' claims that the soldiers had been immediately handed to local militia, al-Sheikh confirmed that they were "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."

The Special Reconnaissance Regiment and British Covert Operations

British defence sources told the Scotsman (9/20/05) that the soldiers were part of an "undercover special forces detachment" set up this year to "bridge the intelligence void? in Basra, drawing on 'special forces' experience in Northern Ireland and Aden, where British troops went 'deep' undercover in local communities to try to break the code of silence against foreign forces."

These elite forces operate under the Special Reconnaissance Regiment and were formed last year by then defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, "to gather human intelligence during counter-terrorist missions."

The question, of course, is how does firing at Iraqi police while dressed as Arabs and carrying explosives constitute "countering terrorism" or even gathering "intelligence"?

The admission by British defence officials is revealing. A glance at the Special Reconnaissance Regiment gives a more concrete idea of the sort of operations these two British soldiers were involved in.

The Regiment, formed recently, is "modelled on an undercover unit that operated in Northern Ireland" according to Whitehall sources. The Regiment had "absorbed the 14th Intelligence Company, known as '14 Int,' a plainclothes unit set up to gather intelligence covertly on suspect terrorists in Northern Ireland. Its recruits are trained by the SAS."

This is the same Regiment that was involved in the unlawful July 22 execution - multiple head-shots - of the innocent Brazilian, Mr. Jean Charles de Menezes, after he boarded a tube train in Stockwell Underground station.

According to Detective Sergeant Nicholas Benwell, member of the Scotland Yard team that had been investigating the activities of an ultra-secret wing of British military intelligence, the Force Research Unit (FRU), the team found that "military intelligence was colluding with terrorists to help them kill so-called 'legitimate targets' such as active republicans... many of the victims of these government-backed hit squads were innocent civilians."

Benwell's revelations were corroborated in detail by British double agent Kevin Fulton, who was recruited to the FRU in 1981, when he began to infiltrate the ranks of IRA. In his role as a British FRU agent inside the IRA, he was told by his military intelligence handlers to "do anything" to win the confidence of the terrorist group.

"I mixed explosive and I helped develop new types of bombs," he told Scotland's Sunday Herald (6/23/02). "I moved weapons? if you ask me if the materials I handled killed anyone, then I will have to say that some of the things I helped develop did kill? my handlers knew everything I did. I was never told not to do something that was discussed. How can you pretend to be a terrorist and not act like one? You can't. You?ve got to do what they do? They did a lot of murders? I broke the law seven days a week and my handlers knew that. They knew that I was making bombs and giving them to other members of the IRA and they did nothing about it? The idea was that the only way to beat the enemy was to penetrate the enemy and be the enemy."

Most startlingly, Fulton said that his handlers told him his operations were "sanctioned right at the top? this goes the whole way to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister knows what you are doing."

Zarqawi, Ba'athists and the Seeds of Discord

So, based on the methodology of their Regiment, the two British SAS operatives were in Iraq to "penetrate the enemy and be the enemy," in order of course to "beat the enemy." Instead of beating the enemy, however, they ended up fomenting massive chaos and killing innocent people, a familiar pattern for critical students of the British role in the Northern Ireland conflict.

In November 2004, a joint statement was released on several Islamist websites on behalf of al-Qaeda's man in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and Saddam Hussein's old Ba'ath Party loyalists. Zarqawi?s network had "joined other extremist Islamists and Saddam Hussein's old Baath party to threaten increased attacks on US-led forces." Zarqawi's group said they signed "the statement written by the Iraqi Baath party, not because we support the party or Saddam, but because it expresses the demands of resistance groups in Iraq."

The statement formalized what had been known for a year already ? that, as post-Saddam Iraqi intelligence and US military officials told the London Times (8/9/2003), "Al Qaeda terrorists who have infiltrated Iraq from Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries have formed an alliance with former intelligence agents of Saddam Hussein to fight their common enemy, the American forces." Al Qaeda leaders "recruit from the pool" of Saddam's former "security and intelligence officers who are unemployed and embittered by their loss of status." After vetting, "they begin Al-Qaeda-style training, such as how to make remote-controlled bombs."

Yet Pakistani military sources revealed in February 2005 that the US has "resolved to arm small militias backed by US troops and entrenched in the population," consisting of "former members of the Ba'ath Party" ? the same people already teamed up with Zarqawi's al-Qaeda network.

In a highly clandestine operation, the US procured ?Pakistan-manufactured weapons, including rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, ammunition, rockets and other light weaponry.? A Pakistani military analyst noted that the ?arms could not be destined for the Iraqi security forces because US arms would be given to them.? Rather, the US is playing a double-game to ?head off? the threat of a ?Shi?ite clergy-driven religious movement? ? in other words, to exacerbate the deterioration of security by penetrating, manipulating and arming the terrorist insurgency.

What could be the end-game of such a covert strategy? The view on-the-ground in Iraq, among both Sunnis and Shi'ites, is worth noting. Sheikh Jawad al-Kalesi, the Shi'ite Imam of the al-Kadhimiyah mosque in Baghdad, told Le Monde: "I don?t think that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi exists as such. He?s simply an invention by the occupiers to divide the people."

Iraq?s most powerful Sunni Arab religious authority, the Association of Muslim Scholars, concurs, condemning the call to arms against Shi?ites as a ?very dangerous? phenomenon that ?plays into the hands of the occupier who wants to split up the country and spark a sectarian war.? In colonial terms, the strategy is known as ?divide and rule.?

Whether or not Zarqawi can be said to exist, it is indeed difficult to avoid the conclusion that this interpretation is plausible. It seems the only ones who don?t understand the clandestine dynamics of Anglo-American covert strategy in Iraq are we, the people, in the west. It?s high time we got informed.

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development, London. He teaches courses in political theory, international relations and contemporary history at the School of Social Sciences and Cultural Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton.

Ahmed is the author of The War on Freedom: How & Why America was Attacked, September 11, 2001 and Behind the War on Terror: Western Secret Strategy and the Struggle for Iraq.

His latest book is The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism.

Reuters photos of weapons found by Iraqi police on the arrested operatives are viewable here.
Click to expand...
That's some pretty heavy "negotiations".

But, this is looking like the Brits have picked up where Negroponte left off and the US is playing a game of "massage the 'democracy'".


So much for sovereignty.
Click to expand...


I'm glad you're keeping up w/ this one conjur; people don't seem to appreciate just how bizzare and potentially forboding this is. I've met no one in my daily life who's given this event a cursory glance.
 
It would appear that the British operatives, together with US undercover agents, are part of what our and the British government call "the Al Zarqawi terror network". Several well-placed sources have said that Al Zarqawi died more than a year ago. Observers have suspected for a long time that a many of the bombings are carried out by the Coalition of the Willing (to kill and maim), but we have never been caught red-handed. Now the British behave like nothing unusual has happened. I wonder what their reaction would be if a couple of Iraqi undercover agents are caught with explosives in London, while killing a few Bobbies. No doubt we'll see and hear government officials whailing to high heaven, gnashing their teeth, and condemning "muslim terrorists" . It seems that the British, just like us after 9/11, are quickly squandering whatever good will and sympathy the world had after the London bombings.
 
Originally posted by: jjzelinski
Originally posted by: conjur
Caught red-handed
Nafeez Ahmed

BRITISH UNDERCOVER OPERATIVES IN IRAQ
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/CAUGHT_RED__0923.html
Zarqawi Eat Your Heart Out

Basra is relatively stable compared to central Iraq where violence involving insurgents, civilians and coalition forces is a daily routine. The city has rarely been a site of clashes between insurgents and coalition troops, nor is it a victim of regular terrorist attacks. This week, however, things changed, but not thanks to Zarqawi and his al-Qaeda ilk.

On Monday, two British soldiers were arrested and detained by Iraqi police in Basra. Within a matter of hours, the British military responded with overwhelming force, despite subsequent denials by the Ministry of Defence, which insisted that the two men had been retrieved solely through "negotiations."

British military officials, including Brigadier John Lorimer, told BBC News (9/20/05) that the British Army had stormed an Iraqi police station to locate the detainees. Ministry of Defence sources confirmed that "British vehicles" had attempted to "maintain a cordon" outside the police station.

After British Army tanks "flattened the wall" of the station, UK troops "broke into the police station to confirm the men were not there" and then "staged a rescue from a house in Basra", according a commanding officer familiar with the operation. Both men, British defence sources told the BBC's Richard Galpin in Baghdad, were "members of the SAS elite special forces." After their arrest, the soldiers were over to the local militia.

What had prompted this bizarre turn of events? Why had the Iraqi police forces, which normally work in close cooperation with coalition military forces, arrested two British SAS soldiers, and then handed them over to the local militia? A review of the initial on-the-ground reports leads to a clearer picture.

Fancy Dress and Big Guns Don't Mix

According to the BBC's Galpin, reporting for BBC Radio 4 (9/20/05, 18 hrs news script), Iraqi police sources in Basra told the BBC the "two British men were arrested after failing to stop at a checkpoint. There was an exchange of gunfire. The men were wearing traditional Arab clothing, and when the police eventually stopped them, they said they found explosives and weapons in their car?It's widely believed the two British servicemen were operating undercover."

Undercover? Dressed as Arabs? What were they trying to do that had caught the attention of their colleagues, the Iraqi police?

According to the Washington Post (9/20/05), "Iraqi security officials on Monday variously accused the two Britons they detained of shooting at Iraqi forces or trying to plant explosives." Reuters (9/19/05) cited police, local officials and other witnesses who confirmed that "the two undercover soldiers were arrested after opening fire on Iraqi police who approached them." Officials said that "the men were wearing traditional Arab headscarves and sitting in an unmarked car."

According to Mohammed al-Abadi, an official in the Basra governorate, ?A policeman approached them and then one of these guys fired at him. Then the police managed to capture them.?

Booby-trapped Brits?

In an interview with Al Jazeerah TV, the popular Iraqi leader Fattah al-Sheikh, a member of the Iraqi National Assembly and deputy official in the Basra governorate, said that police had "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." Contrary to British authorities' claims that the soldiers had been immediately handed to local militia, al-Sheikh confirmed that they were "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."

The Special Reconnaissance Regiment and British Covert Operations

British defence sources told the Scotsman (9/20/05) that the soldiers were part of an "undercover special forces detachment" set up this year to "bridge the intelligence void? in Basra, drawing on 'special forces' experience in Northern Ireland and Aden, where British troops went 'deep' undercover in local communities to try to break the code of silence against foreign forces."

These elite forces operate under the Special Reconnaissance Regiment and were formed last year by then defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, "to gather human intelligence during counter-terrorist missions."

The question, of course, is how does firing at Iraqi police while dressed as Arabs and carrying explosives constitute "countering terrorism" or even gathering "intelligence"?

The admission by British defence officials is revealing. A glance at the Special Reconnaissance Regiment gives a more concrete idea of the sort of operations these two British soldiers were involved in.

The Regiment, formed recently, is "modelled on an undercover unit that operated in Northern Ireland" according to Whitehall sources. The Regiment had "absorbed the 14th Intelligence Company, known as '14 Int,' a plainclothes unit set up to gather intelligence covertly on suspect terrorists in Northern Ireland. Its recruits are trained by the SAS."

This is the same Regiment that was involved in the unlawful July 22 execution - multiple head-shots - of the innocent Brazilian, Mr. Jean Charles de Menezes, after he boarded a tube train in Stockwell Underground station.

According to Detective Sergeant Nicholas Benwell, member of the Scotland Yard team that had been investigating the activities of an ultra-secret wing of British military intelligence, the Force Research Unit (FRU), the team found that "military intelligence was colluding with terrorists to help them kill so-called 'legitimate targets' such as active republicans... many of the victims of these government-backed hit squads were innocent civilians."

Benwell's revelations were corroborated in detail by British double agent Kevin Fulton, who was recruited to the FRU in 1981, when he began to infiltrate the ranks of IRA. In his role as a British FRU agent inside the IRA, he was told by his military intelligence handlers to "do anything" to win the confidence of the terrorist group.

"I mixed explosive and I helped develop new types of bombs," he told Scotland's Sunday Herald (6/23/02). "I moved weapons? if you ask me if the materials I handled killed anyone, then I will have to say that some of the things I helped develop did kill? my handlers knew everything I did. I was never told not to do something that was discussed. How can you pretend to be a terrorist and not act like one? You can't. You?ve got to do what they do? They did a lot of murders? I broke the law seven days a week and my handlers knew that. They knew that I was making bombs and giving them to other members of the IRA and they did nothing about it? The idea was that the only way to beat the enemy was to penetrate the enemy and be the enemy."

Most startlingly, Fulton said that his handlers told him his operations were "sanctioned right at the top? this goes the whole way to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister knows what you are doing."

Zarqawi, Ba'athists and the Seeds of Discord

So, based on the methodology of their Regiment, the two British SAS operatives were in Iraq to "penetrate the enemy and be the enemy," in order of course to "beat the enemy." Instead of beating the enemy, however, they ended up fomenting massive chaos and killing innocent people, a familiar pattern for critical students of the British role in the Northern Ireland conflict.

In November 2004, a joint statement was released on several Islamist websites on behalf of al-Qaeda's man in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and Saddam Hussein's old Ba'ath Party loyalists. Zarqawi?s network had "joined other extremist Islamists and Saddam Hussein's old Baath party to threaten increased attacks on US-led forces." Zarqawi's group said they signed "the statement written by the Iraqi Baath party, not because we support the party or Saddam, but because it expresses the demands of resistance groups in Iraq."

The statement formalized what had been known for a year already ? that, as post-Saddam Iraqi intelligence and US military officials told the London Times (8/9/2003), "Al Qaeda terrorists who have infiltrated Iraq from Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries have formed an alliance with former intelligence agents of Saddam Hussein to fight their common enemy, the American forces." Al Qaeda leaders "recruit from the pool" of Saddam's former "security and intelligence officers who are unemployed and embittered by their loss of status." After vetting, "they begin Al-Qaeda-style training, such as how to make remote-controlled bombs."

Yet Pakistani military sources revealed in February 2005 that the US has "resolved to arm small militias backed by US troops and entrenched in the population," consisting of "former members of the Ba'ath Party" ? the same people already teamed up with Zarqawi's al-Qaeda network.

In a highly clandestine operation, the US procured ?Pakistan-manufactured weapons, including rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, ammunition, rockets and other light weaponry.? A Pakistani military analyst noted that the ?arms could not be destined for the Iraqi security forces because US arms would be given to them.? Rather, the US is playing a double-game to ?head off? the threat of a ?Shi?ite clergy-driven religious movement? ? in other words, to exacerbate the deterioration of security by penetrating, manipulating and arming the terrorist insurgency.

What could be the end-game of such a covert strategy? The view on-the-ground in Iraq, among both Sunnis and Shi'ites, is worth noting. Sheikh Jawad al-Kalesi, the Shi'ite Imam of the al-Kadhimiyah mosque in Baghdad, told Le Monde: "I don?t think that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi exists as such. He?s simply an invention by the occupiers to divide the people."

Iraq?s most powerful Sunni Arab religious authority, the Association of Muslim Scholars, concurs, condemning the call to arms against Shi?ites as a ?very dangerous? phenomenon that ?plays into the hands of the occupier who wants to split up the country and spark a sectarian war.? In colonial terms, the strategy is known as ?divide and rule.?

Whether or not Zarqawi can be said to exist, it is indeed difficult to avoid the conclusion that this interpretation is plausible. It seems the only ones who don?t understand the clandestine dynamics of Anglo-American covert strategy in Iraq are we, the people, in the west. It?s high time we got informed.

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development, London. He teaches courses in political theory, international relations and contemporary history at the School of Social Sciences and Cultural Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton.

Ahmed is the author of The War on Freedom: How & Why America was Attacked, September 11, 2001 and Behind the War on Terror: Western Secret Strategy and the Struggle for Iraq.

His latest book is The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism.

Reuters photos of weapons found by Iraqi police on the arrested operatives are viewable here.
Click to expand...
That's some pretty heavy "negotiations".

But, this is looking like the Brits have picked up where Negroponte left off and the US is playing a game of "massage the 'democracy'".


So much for sovereignty.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you're keeping up w/ this one conjur; people don't seem to appreciate just how bizzare and potentially forboding this is. I've met no one in my daily life who's given this event a cursory glance.
Click to expand...
That "liberal" media is so concerned about it. :roll:
 
Originally posted by: fornax
It would appear that the British operatives, together with US undercover agents, are part of what our and the British government call "the Al Zarqawi terror network". Several well-placed sources have said that Al Zarqawi died more than a year ago. Observers have suspected for a long time that a many of the bombings are carried out by the Coalition of the Willing (to kill and maim), but we have never been caught red-handed. Now the British behave like nothing unusual has happened. I wonder what their reaction would be if a couple of Iraqi undercover agents are caught with explosives in London, while killing a few Bobbies. No doubt we'll see and hear government officials whailing to high heaven, gnashing their teeth, and condemning "muslim terrorists" . It seems that the British, just like us after 9/11, are quickly squandering whatever good will and sympathy the world had after the London bombings.
Click to expand...


I had a feeling something suspicious was going on. Clearly, some of these terrorist organizations are fictional to keep the American public in fear. I would not be surprised if some of those tapes that Al-Jazeer runs were produced by the CIA to keep the sheep scared at home. We don't know whats real and whats fake.
 
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Originally posted by: fornax
It would appear that the British operatives, together with US undercover agents, are part of what our and the British government call "the Al Zarqawi terror network". Several well-placed sources have said that Al Zarqawi died more than a year ago. Observers have suspected for a long time that a many of the bombings are carried out by the Coalition of the Willing (to kill and maim), but we have never been caught red-handed. Now the British behave like nothing unusual has happened. I wonder what their reaction would be if a couple of Iraqi undercover agents are caught with explosives in London, while killing a few Bobbies. No doubt we'll see and hear government officials whailing to high heaven, gnashing their teeth, and condemning "muslim terrorists" . It seems that the British, just like us after 9/11, are quickly squandering whatever good will and sympathy the world had after the London bombings.
Click to expand...
I had a feeling something suspicious was going on. Clearly, some of these terrorist organizations are fictional to keep the American public in fear. I would not be surprised if some of those tapes that Al-Jazeer runs were produced by the CIA to keep the sheep scared at home. We don't know whats real and whats fake.
Click to expand...
It's more than keeping the U.S. sheeple in fear. It's about keeping the U.S. troops in Iraq. Gotta be sure to protect the oil and setup those permanent military bases and help "direct" Iraq toward "democracy". And how are they doing that? By helping to create some job security.
 
Not to be outdone by the Brits...


Deputy mayor, 2 police officers killed in Iraq
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-09/23/content_3534621.htm
TIKRIT, Iraq, Sept. 23 (Xinhuanet) -- A deputy mayor of the Iraqi town of Dhuluiyah, some 100 km north of Baghdad, and two police officers were killed by US forces there on Friday, local policeand witnesses said.

"A group of US soldiers stormed the house of Brigadier Jabar Atiyah Saud, the deputy mayor of Dhuluiyah and dragged him out of his house before they shot him several bullets in his head," asource from the Joint Coordination Center in Tikrit told Xinhua on condition of anonymity.

Meanwhile, the US soldiers also killed two local police officers, Captain Amir Yousif and the 1st Lt. Jasim Khalaf, the source added.

The US troops have sealed off the town of Dhuluiyah since Tuesday, imposing curfew and preventing people from leaving their homes as US snipers deployed on roofs of high buildings, local residents told Xinhua by telephone.

"The US soldiers shot the drinking water containers above houses and many families are suffering from shortage in watersupplies," a local resident, Ammar al-Jubouri said. The wounded people or even deaths were not allowed to shift to the medical center outside the town, Jubouri said. On Wednesday, the US troops had detained the police chief of the town and hundreds of people, including dozens of policemen, after insurgents in Dhuluiyah attacked a convoy of trucks carrying military supplies for the US troops.

The attack damaged three trucks in the convoy guarded by the US troops and killed their three drivers, probably Turkish nationals, According to the source. Enditem
Click to expand...
Fvcking insanity. Chaos seems to be the rule of order.
 
OK, I don't get it.

What's the purpose of US or British operatives funding/executing assaults on the civilian Iraqi infrastructure or population?

It doesn't make any sense. Sunnis and Shias already don't like each other. There's clearly foreign elements eager to do harm to American troops and Iraqi civilians alike.

I certainly understand the need for intelligence operations but this "black ops" crap seems far-fetched.
 
Special forces are often sent into areas to scout and destroy enemy infrastructure. What that infrastructure is would be unlikely to be revealed unless a regular army operation was necessary.

If it was SAS, the Iraqis who stopped them were probably lucky to get away with their lives. Rules of engagement would have prevented civilian casualties.
 
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
OK, I don't get it.

What's the purpose of US or British operatives funding/executing assaults on the civilian Iraqi infrastructure or population?

It doesn't make any sense. Sunnis and Shias already don't like each other. There's clearly foreign elements eager to do harm to American troops and Iraqi civilians alike.

I certainly understand the need for intelligence operations but this "black ops" crap seems far-fetched.
Click to expand...

To create an environment where staying is neccessary or at least arguably neccessary, you need chaos (and in this case, create chaos), this fits the bill quite nicely. Why? There's a lot of money to be made in Iraq and they wouldn't what that cash cow ending too early, would they?
 
This reads like a bad Japanese Spy Movie - where three different secret agencies all infiltrate the criminal underground &
have all the kung-Foo fightouts, and in the end find out that there were no insurgents, just rival agencies trying to 'One-Up' each other.
 
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
This reads like a bad Japanese Spy Movie - where three different secret agencies all infiltrate the criminal underground &
have all the kung-Foo fightouts, and in the end find out that there were no insurgents, just rival agencies trying to 'One-Up' each other.
Click to expand...
Feels a lot more sinister than that, to me.
 
My reference is to covert operatives where in their perceived efforts to infiltrate they become the driving mechanism to sustain & expand the rebellion.
They're in such a frenzy to get inside the bad guy's organizations that they become the strike force for the bad guy's - as they show thier dedication to infiltrate.
There are most likely multiple agencies trying this, and running into each other and not knowing that they are in contact with rival agencies.

Now put yourself in the place of an Arab . . . and these Brits in Costume show up, all prim and proper in their Shiekdom dress.
You think you'd fall for them being 'Locals' ?
 
Invaded based on lies and now doing even *worse* things in order to keep up appearances of fighting a "war on terror".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top