What was the British SAS doing in Basra?

Wow! I don't know what to make of this article and others I have come across. The allegations made here are very, very explosive and very serious, which could very well (if true or believed to be true) for the Shi'a majority in the south to actually join the resistance against the Brit/American coalition, which would spell disaster for us in Iraq.

Apparently, many Iraqi Shi'as have already bought into this as 'fact', and they point to arrest of these 'secret agents' that carried around the same bombs used in the attacks on Shi'a civilians, which is in turn blamed on the Sunnis.

It's too disturbing, but it wouldn't be unprecedented (if true) in the case of the British.

What was the British SAS doing in Basra?

By Chris Marsden
28 September 2005

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/sep2005/basr-s28.shtml

The September 19 arrest of two undercover Special Air Service officers in Basra, traveling in an unmarked car containing weapons and explosives, has led to numerous accusations that they were acting as agents provocateurs.

The BBC reported that the SAS men’s car contained “weapons, explosives and communications gear,” before claiming that these were “standard kit for British special forces.”

But in a September 27 article, one of the more serious reporters on the Middle East, Robert Fisk, wrote in the Independent, “Remember how we were told that our immense experience of ‘peace-keeping’ in Northern Ireland had allowed us to get on better with the Iraqis in the south than our American cousins further north?”

Replying to his own question, he wrote, “I don’t actually remember us doing much ‘peacekeeping’ in Belfast after about 1969—the rest, I recall, was about biffing the IRA—but in any case the myth was burned out on the uniforms of British troops this week.

“Indeed, much of the war in Northern Ireland appeared to revolve around the use of covert killings and SAS undercover operatives who blew away IRA men in ambushes.”

After making this correct observation of how British imperialism stirred up sectarian tensions and carried out political assassinations in order to preserve its rule over its oldest colonial possession, Fisk continues, “Which does raise the question, doesn’t it, as to just what our two SAS lads were doing cruising around Basra in Arab dress with itsy-bitsy moustaches and guns? Why did no one ask? How many SAS men are in southern Iraq? Why are they there? What are their duties? What weapons do they carry? Whoops! No one asked.”

Fisk does not say directly what he believes the SAS was up to. However, in the Arab media the accusations of the Mehdi army led by Moqtada al-Sadr and others that the two officers were acting as provocateurs are discussed openly.

Al Jazeera quoted Sheik Hassan al-Zarqani, spokesman for the Mehdi army, stating, “What our police found in their car was very disturbing—weapons, explosives, and a remote control detonator. These are the weapons of terrorists. We believe these soldiers were planning an attack on a market or other civilian targets.”

The news agency continues, “What needs to be given more attention in the wake of recent clashes that broke out in Basra following the arrest of two British soldiers last week is whether those commandos were planning an attack or not, whether their car did have explosives or not. The answer to this question is crucial for the future of Iraq and Bush’s so-called ‘war on terror.’

“If allegations that the soldiers’ car was loaded with explosives were proved, this will strengthen the theory suggesting that the British and American intelligence is involved in the persistent and violent acts of ‘terror’ spreading across Iraq, which means that the current ‘counterinsurgency’ efforts involve the premeditated killing of innocent civilians to achieve the US policy objectives. Isn’t this the very definition of terrorism?”

Regarding the issue of explosives, as well as citing the report by the BBC’s Paul Wood, Al Jazeera also notes a report by the Chinese news service Xinhuanet stating that the SAS “soldiers were using a civilian car packed with explosives.”

It also cites a report by Jonathan Finer of the Washington Post’s foreign office, stating, “Monday’s clashes stemmed from the arrest by Iraqi police on Sunday of two Britons, whom Iraqi police accused of planting bombs.”

Amongst a number of reports from Syrian and Turkish news sources, it singles out a Syrian correspondent in Baghdad, Ziyad al-Munajjid. He writes: “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.”

Al Jazeera also quotes a report in Britain’s Telegraph citing Baghdad Muslim cleric Abdel al-Daraji’s statement that “Britain was plotting to start an ethnic war by carrying out mass-casualty bombings targeting Shiite civilians and then blaming the attacks on Sunni groups.

“Everyone knows the occupiers’ agenda. Their intention is to keep Iraq an unstable battlefield so they can exploit their interests in Iraq.”

The Telegraph article is in fact an attempt to refute such allegations as a “smear campaign” designed to “stoke growing anti-British sentiment in southern Iraq.” But the Telegraph offers no alternative explanation as to why the SAS would be carrying substantial quantities of explosives and makes no attempt to deny such reports.

Similarly the BBC’s claim that high explosives are standard issue for the SAS raises more questions than it provides answers.

Why would explosives be required for any other type of undercover operation than the manufacture and planting of bombs?

The only alternative explanation so far advanced was in the pages of the Sunday Times, which wrote a number of related articles claiming that the SAS was involved in an extensive counterinsurgency operation targeting Iranian-backed militias.

The two officers were “engaged in a ‘secret war’ against insurgents bringing sophisticated bombs into the country from Iran.” The Times cited “a source with knowledge of their activities,” claiming that the captured patrol was bringing “more tools and fire power” to a second patrol.

The Times cites another source stating that “a 24-strong SAS team has been working out of Basra to provide a safety net to stop the bombers getting into the city from Iran. The aim is to identify routes used by insurgents and either capture or kill them.”

There is clearly Iranian involvement in the Iraqi quagmire created by the United States’ and Britain’s illegal war of aggression. But again, why would an operation to prevent the movement of weapons across the Iraqi border involve explosives?

The account by the Times does not mention explosives, but does cite an Iraqi police officer, Khaled Abdul Baqi, stating that “equipment that resembled a large remote control of sorts” was found inside the SAS men’s car.

In any event, Britain’s semi-official denials count for very little in Basra. The response by the two undercover SAS officers to Iraqi police attempts to stop them at a checkpoint suggests that they had something sinister to hide. The two opened fire, reportedly killing a person and wounding several others, including police officers.

The official explanation is that the army is now instructed to treat the local police force as part of the insurgency, because it is so infiltrated by militia groups. This was also the army’s attitude when it mounted a rescue operation of the two officers from the local police facility. Some 10 armoured personnel vehicles and a helicopter were used to storm the building and attack around a thousand demonstrators, incensed by the discovery of the SAS’s activities. The British Army used live fire and baton rounds in its assault, killing several people and injuring many more.

In the immediate aftermath of September 19, British control of Basra is facing mounting popular opposition. There are widespread reports of demonstrations against the British. Local authorities have withdrawn cooperation with the occupation forces and the city’s anti-terrorist judge has issued an arrest warrant for the two SAS officers.

Britain has rejected the legality of the arrest warrant and refused a compensation demand for the victims of the assault on the police facility. Instead, Defence Minister John Reid has said he intends to scrap the 25,000-strong police force in southern Iraq and “replace it with a new military-style unit capable of maintaining law and order.”

Creating the conditions for such increased repression has always been an essential aim of the dirty tricks operations with which the SAS is associated.

 

British "Undercover Soldiers" Caught driving Booby Trapped Car
"They refused to say what their mission was."

September 20, 2005
GlobalResearch.ca
The following Reuters report raises some disturbing questions.

Why were undercover British "soldiers" wearing traditional Arab headscarves firing at Iraqi police?

The incident took place just prior to a major religious event in Basra.

The report suggests that the police thought the British soldiers looked "suspicious". What was the nature of their mission?

Occupation forces are supposed to be collaborating with Iraqi authorities. Why did Britsh Forces have to storm the prison using tanks and armoured vehicles to liberate the British undercover agents?

"British forces used up to 10 tanks " supported by helicopters "to smash through the walls of the jail and free the two British servicemen."

Was there concern that the British "soldiers" who were being held by the Iraqi National Guard would be obliged to reveal the nature and objective of their undercover mission?

A report of Al Jazeera TV, which preceeded the raid on the prison, suggests that the British undercover soldiers were driving a booby trapped car loaded with ammunition. The Al Jazeera report (see below) also suggests that the riots directed against British military presence were motivated because the British undercover soldiers were planning to explode the booby trapped car in the centre of Basra:

[Anchorman Al-Habib al-Ghuraybi] 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?

[Al-Shaykh] 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 [name indistinct] 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 [the two non-Iraqis] 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.

[Al-Ghuraybi] 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)​

Is this an isolated incident or is part of a pattern?

More significantly, have the occupation forces been involved in similar undercover missions? Syrian TV (Sept 19, 2005) reports the following:

Ten Iraqis - seven police commandos, two civilians and a child - were killed and more than 10 others wounded in the explosion of two car bombs near two checkpoints in Al-Mahmudiyah and Al-Latifiyah south of Baghdad while hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were heading towards the city of Karbala to mark the anniversary of a religious event.

And in a significant incident in the city of Basra, which is also marking the same religious event, Iraqi demonstrators set fire to two British tanks near a police station after Iraqi police had arrested two British soldiers disguised in civilian clothes for opening fire on police. Eight armoured British vehicles surrounded the police station before the eruption of the confrontations. A policeman at the scene said the two detained Britons were wearing traditional Iraqi jallabahs [loose cloaks] and wigs.​

An indepth independent inquiry should be ordered by Britain's House of Commons into the circumstances of this event.

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), He is the author of America's "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005.

 

Actually, it was also reported by the BBC, Reuters, and others. Fisk is only one of them, and even Juan Cole commented on it.

As I said, I am not sure what to make of this, but some Shi'a leaders DID actually come out and make comments to Arab TV outlets to the effect of, "We knew the British were doing this but we had no confirmation until now". Moreover, what were those two British SAS agents doing? And more importantly, why did the British feel that it was urgent enough for them to get to that prison and essentially engage the IRaqi police as 'enemy combatants', destorying the jail and killing tens of people and resulting in many injuries? Logic tells me there is something 'fishy' there to say the least. Besides, these tactics WERE in fact used by British SAS agents in the past in the conflict with the IRA.

Regardless, it's a very explosive story with lots of consequences for all sides involved.

If the Shi'as start believing that this is the case, then they will turn against the coalition and will unite with the Sunni insurgency, which would be disasterous.

 

You mean since MSM is always accurate?

As I said, this was also reported by the BBC and one of the articles above is says the report was taken from Reuters, cites the BBC, the Telegraph, the Independent, and the Times of London.

Anyways, don't kill the messenger, I already said I don't know what to make of it, I am not trying to convince you if I am not convinced myself.

 

No it's not. If you have read my threads in the past, I pretty much always use the article title as the thread headline, and didn't make an exception in this case. So it's just a habit.

Anyways, the two SAS agents shooting at the Iraqi police and other bystanders when their vehicle was approached, as well as the consequential British assault of the police station IS a fact, not a 'rumor', and the BBC itself was the one that reported that. So how do you explain that event? If everything else is a 'rumor', then this part is a fact. Do you have any theories regarding this?

 

So that's the British version of the event from the CNN...

It's a known fact that Shi'a militias do operate in Basra and the south along with/instead of the Iraqi police, not as 'terrorists' or to undermine the coalition, but to fill in the security void left by the invasion. In fact, the local police in the south operates in conjunction with the militias (they share intel and the militias at times arrest people and hand them over). So they cooperate with one another, not fight one another.

What the article still doesn't address is what those agents were doing in a car full of explosives and the same type of bombs used in many attacks against civilians across Iraq (including remote-controllers according to the locals).

Thanks for the article, it tells one version of the event.

As for MSM, I already told you in my previous post that this particular incident was reported by the BBC, Telegraph, Independent, and the Times of London, which are considered MSM in Britain, and which the two articles I posted cited as sources.

 

Here is the British government's explanation of these events (notice the contradiction: the first one states that it was to counter Iranian agents operating in the area, while the second report claims that they were spying on the Iraqi police commander who was torturing prisoners).

So, which version should I believe? The one in the Sunday Times (the first explanation by British officials) or the one in the Telegraph?

1) SAS in secret war against Iranian agents
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1796566,00.html

2) Captured SAS men 'spying on drill torturer'
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/16/nsas16.xml

 

Thanks, apparently some people are completely unfamiliar with the British imperial past and the tactics they employed, which are well-chronicled and have become public knowledge.

 

You're probably right, although the Iranian one sounds more convincing. But that's besides the point. The point is this: why did they give two different reasons for why the SAS were operating there? That IS a contradiction in their official story.