British Special Forces Caught Carrying Out Staged Terror In Iraq?

[ShiningPlain]

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

http://www.infowars.com/articles/iraq/basr...aged_terror.htm

[Green Chemist]

Damm!! if that story has any truth to it, then that is pretty scary. Makes me wonder if some of those execution vids were done by spec ops guys under the guise of terroists. Unfortunetly that is what happen in the shadowy world of special forces and the operations they carry out. Still very frighting stuff.

One of the guys at uni was saying how here in Australia with the new anti terror laws, how the ASIO and such can simply pick you up if they want and hold you with out arrest for several days. I did say to him that they need probbile cause to do that and there are checks and balances to stop such power being abused.

[ShiningPlain]

it's true man. and yes, australia is going to turn into a police state.

[nabraxas]

*sigh* truth is totally elusive in any event & in wartime more so.

Australia has fucking thousands ov miles to go before it even resembles a police state. a heavily policed state maybe, but as long as politicians rather than generals run the country, it's a cop-out & an offence to genuine police states like Chile & Guatamala to even suggest that Australia is comparable.

[apothecary]

Despite the fact that I've been going through each of your last few threads and putting something negative in there, this isn't a personal attack, so please don't take offence.

Just from now on, can you hold off on the leftist propaganda "editorials/opinions presented as news" bullcrap, there's already enough floating around

Unbiased, clear and objective articles are always preferred, instead of

 

quote:

---

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.

---

[ShiningPlain]

without reason you can be strip searched, held from contacting anybody you know, and locked up indefinitely... any questions?

apothecary - most journalism is subjective, so you're just going to have to deal with it.

Meaning of POLICE STATE

Pronunciation: pu'lees steyt

WordNet Dictionary

Definition: [n] a country that maintains repressive control over the people by means of police (especially secret police)

See Also: absolutism, authoritarianism, Caesarism, despotism, dictatorship, monocracy, one-man rule, shogunate, Stalinism, totalitarianism, tyranny

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx...e=police+state+

maybe you guys think that they're only going to target muslims, and because of this, you don't care. ha ha, only muslims, yeah right...

[ 01. October 2005, 14:39: Message edited by: ShiningPlain ]

[narayan]

Apparently when the tank rammed through the walls of the prison over 100 prisoners where able to escape, nice work team USA

[mr toodly]

nature boy:

See Also: absolutism, authoritarianism, Caesarism, despotism, dictatorship, monocracy, one-man rule, shogunate, Stalinism, totalitarianism, tyranny

I don't think these connotations pair well with Australia.

And in any case, repressive police measures are just one condition of what we normally call a police state. The law enforcement measures you have listed have been very common in the past during military conflicts.

[mr toodly]

nature boy:

apothecary - most journalism is subjective, so you're just going to have to deal with it, cry baby.

You're equivocating. Most journalism is subjective in the sense that it is produced by subjects (persons). What apothecary means is that most journalists do not explicitly editorialize outside of the opinion section

[ShiningPlain]

maybe once cops are searching your houses without warrants (or what have you) your perceptions will change.

[ 01. October 2005, 14:40: Message edited by: ShiningPlain ]

[nabraxas]

john howard isn't a despot ---as long as he can be un-elected, he isn't a despot.

 

quote:

---

des·pot (dĕs'pət)

 

n.

 

A ruler with absolute power.

 

A person who wields power oppressively; a tyrant.

 

---

[ 27. September 2005, 22:06: Message edited by: nabraxas ]

[mr toodly]

nature boy:

and i did mean that most journalists speak their own opinions in news reports.

There is also a difference between speaking one's opinion about verifiable facts- e.g. I just experienced a rocket falling out of the sky and I say, "Sahib, I think a rocket just fell out of the sky"- and opinion in the sense that I've proceeded from the experience to some evaluation of it.

One doesn't come upon conjecture like this in the reputable press very often. If it's present at all, it is usually restricted to the editorial section, but it's clear that you do not have the normal journalistic standards.

[ 27. September 2005, 22:24: Message edited by: r. Jackson ]

[Darklight]

r. Jackson:

 

r. Jackson:

and i did mean that most journalists speak their own opinions in news reports.

One doesn't come upon conjecture like this in the reputable press very often. If it's present at all, it is usually restricted to the editorial section, but it's clear that you do not have the normal journalistic standards. Talking to a couple of journo buddies a while back and they said that even our best and brightest papers are only aimed at a reading age of 12-14. Not sure how this translates to overseas newspapers.

But where is the line between bias, which is inherent in most communication ( the recent looters vs starving survivors reports re. cyclones is a good example )- and conjecture? A distinction is valuable but unlikely to be universally applicable. And is a place where semantics meets politics.

As long as people are willing to identify that beyond such a point a potential conflict of interest exists within a piece of writing then at least they're thinking about what is written. I just don't think most readers go that far.

[apothecary]

nature boy:

pfft, whatever. maybe once australia has become a police state; and you're getting your arses kicked by police, you'll stop pissing around with semantics. you're saying that john howard isn't a despot? whatever! and i did mean that most journalists speak their own opinions in news reports.

pfft, whatever. maybe once you have become more than a regurgitator of useless information and you're not kicking the rights you think you are standing up for in the teeth then you'll stop pissing around and people will actually listen to what you have to say. you're saying you aren't a troll? whatever!

[ 28. September 2005, 00:21: Message edited by: apothecary ]

[ShiningPlain]

nabraxas - bloody semantics hey? it can be good and bad. well then, who's to say that he's ever gonna get voted out? he lied about wmd and all of that, and people still voted him back in. and as far as i'm concerned, he does have absolute power (for the time he's prime minister), because he has total power of the senate. also, you now have what appears to be the majority of australia backing his new terrorism laws. it's like all of these sheep are actually begging for enslavement.

sorry, but if you can't see that howard is a hardcore right winger that is using fake terrorist attacks (9/11 and 7/7), in order to turn australia into a police state; you're blind. howard has always been a tyrant, and if you don't know this, you; haven't done your research, and/or support him.

[ 01. October 2005, 15:02: Message edited by: ShiningPlain ]

[occidentalis]

nature boy:

sorry, but if you can't see that howard is a hardcore right winger that is using fake terrorist attacks (9/11 and 7/7), in order to turn australia into a police state; you're blind. howard has always been a tyrant, and if you don't know this, you either; haven't done your research, or support him.

I don't think many people here would deny that Howard is a hardcore right winger - he probably wouldn't himself. There are also probably not many here who support him politically or would suggest that his truth-telling record is spotless, or that he is a particularly nice guy generally. However this is a far cry from being a 'despot' and a 'tyrant' - we still have something resembling a democratic political system and while it isn't ideal or even particularly good, there are many countries in the world who are under the control of tyrants and despots and I reckon they are probably much less happy places to live.

[Rev]

Howard isnt a despot or a tyrant

but he wants to be

i can see it in his beady little eyes

The road to a police state is a slippery slope

any moves towards one should be strongly opposed

give them an inch and theyll take a mile

[ShiningPlain]

okay, by definition then, he's BECOMING a despot. he has the heart of a dictator, and he has made some dictatorial actions, but those alone aren't enough to call him another jong, hussein or bush. one thing we can call him for sure though, is a FASCIST.

[Darklight]

nature boy:

apothecary - all i've got to say to you is this: enjoy the new world order arsehole.

It's a bit early to be slagging off at longer term respected forum members, don't you think matey?

[ShiningPlain]

i guess so.

[ 01. October 2005, 14:41: Message edited by: ShiningPlain ]

[Torsten]

nature boy - if you want respect around here you have to earn it. Apothecary has. You haven't. We also don't tolerate insults. If you want to stick around then I suggest you adjust your style (and immediately edit your post).

As for the politics, the majority of folks here have an open mind and more than a few are quite left leaning (incl myself). We even have some communists here and various other left activists. They usually present some information and provide their opinion, which usually leads to stimulating discussion. They don't ram it down everyone throat though and do not pretend they are the bringers of absolute truth. Most also have a lot more experience and much better perspective than you. If you have only come here to preach leftist and conspiracy politics then I think you are in the wrong place.

Trolls are very short lived here, so if you aren't one then stop acting like one.

[Darklight]

nature boy:

not to that cynic.

OK let me remind you of one of the very basic forum rules you agreed to when you signed up so very recently. No abuse.

You can get as creative as you like when it comes to dismissing an argument- that's just part of the fun. Abusing people outright isn't on, and as someone who has recently walked into the room, so to speak, the tack you're taking is rude and silly.

Obviously you're passionate about your beliefs and fair enough. If you'd spent time taking a good look around you'd in fact realise you are mostly preaching to the converted, many of whom get their political incormation directly at similar sources to yourself.

As this site contains a diverse mixture of political opinions I'd hope you would have the consideration to embark on civil debate rather than dismissive ejaculations, in order that others can get their views fairly across as well.

[ShiningPlain]

with politics, i'm neither a leftist or a rightist. and that being so, i'm not trying to convert people to leftism or anything like that!

[ 01. October 2005, 14:43: Message edited by: ShiningPlain ]

[Darklight]

nature boy:

Darklight - good, now PM apothecary that exact same message.

I think your message has been more than adequately conveyed

[Torsten]

Originally posted by nature boy:

what do you want?

For you to edit your insult. It would also be nice if you engaged into discussions rather than just posting all your own topics. For a newbie you are coming on real strong. It's not against the rules, but it's bloody irritating.

you didn't even reply to my PM

Funny thing about PMs is that they don't get lost like emails can. So I wonder who hacked your account and replied to my reply.

Man, you are losing it. You should maybe see someone about that. Post 3 of our exchange was you thanking me for my reply:

great. and no worries man. cheers!

I also presume that the content of this message does not warrant a further reply.

i respect that insults aren't tolerated here

The main problem we have is the fact that you don't respect this, so don't pretend.

but isn't it more like free expression isn't tolerated here? i mean, it's okay for you and apothecary to call me a troll, but i can't call apothecary a cynic or an arsehole??

A troll is an internet term that describes a set of actions. Similarly calling someone a spammer could be seen as an insult, but is merely a descriptor of that persons actions. Give me a term that is equal to troll and I will happily use that instead.

And who criticised you for using the word cynic? Not me.

as for politics, i'm not a leftist, and aren't trying to convert people to leftism or anything like that! and you're way out of line for saying that i could be. all i've done is put NEWS stories in the NEWS forum; assuming that people hadn't heard about them.

I get my news from all sorts of sources, including al jazeera, the christian news network, and various mainstream agencies. The truth rarely lies with one of the extreme sources, but rather somewhere in the middle. You are posting 'news' from extreme sources. Your claim that what you are posting is truth is about as credible as al jazeera or Bush inc. But the act of posting this itself isn't the problem. The problem is that you are intolerant of other people's criticism and opinions and that your deep beliefs blind you to the finer points (which you call semantics).

so chill mr. MODERATOR.

LOL, maybe you should read this thread again to see who needs chilling.

[ 28. September 2005, 16:39: Message edited by: Torsten ]