There could be a few goals gained from that if I were the British government: 1) Fostering civil unrest/civil war/civil instability and thereby legitimizing the continued presence of foreign occupying troops. 2) The 'Divide and conquer' rule: making sure the country is divided along ethnic lines and thereby ensuring that they could never pose any legitimate threat to Western interests anymore, because they will be busy eyeing each other and even possibly fighting each other (alas the former Yugoslavia). The Divide and Conquer strategy was employed throughout the history of British colonialism (in short, they never left a region before making sure that the conditions of instability/hostility would exist between their former colonies). In fact, and ironically, the current state of Iraq was an artificial creation of the British that intentionally grouped warring/hostile factions together in one state. In fact, in case the country is divided in three states along ethnic lines, one could make the argument that the British are 'correcting' a previous mistake. I am not saying this is the case here, but I am just giving you possible benefits for doing such a thing (long-term benefits that is).
I think you're reaching. The question you should be asking is who is the "they" you are referring to? Both articles were based largely on unattributed sources, who almost certainly were different individuals with access to different information at different times, or were possibly drawing different conclusions from the same data. The nature of reporting is that you get can get very different information based on when you write your story and who you talk to. And as pointed out by HayesStreet, it's very possible, and in fact likely, that the SAS would be running more than one operation at a given time.
Giving two separate reasons is only a contradiction if they could not be doing both. Many times different government agencies or officials within agencies will give different statements because they're not coordinated or asked in different contexts or at different times. This doesn't mean there's a secret op conspiracy. In this case you don't even have that. You have two newspapers accounts of what happened. Neither are government statements - hence no contradiction is possible. In fact, one of the papers you quote is a tabloid rag.
I never denied that it was possible, but the reason why I believe it's a contradiction is simple: the individuals who were willing to speak about the mission of the SAS agents in Iraq had to actually have access/knowledge of such a mission, and therefore spoke accordingly. If those officials were given different 'reasons' for the mission of the SAS agents that were arrested (we're talking about a specific incident here) by the Iraqi police, then someone is either lying to them, or they failed to coordinate their answers to the media. In either case, there IS a contradiction.
I don't what you're talking about! The two articles CLEARLY cite sources: From the Telegraph article: Military sources said that the operation was ordered by senior officers after the body of an Iraqi, who had been arrested by the police for smuggling and gun-running, was found on the outskirts of the city in April. An examination of his body had revealed that an electric drill had been used to penetrate his skull, hands and legs..."The finger of suspicion started to point in the direction of a senior officer inside the Jamiyat," said a senior Army source. "We believe victims were strapped into a chair and then the torture would begin. We think it was more to do with inter-tribal warfare than clamping down on terrorist activity. This is a very corrupt society." From the Sunday Times: The men had left their base near the southern Iraqi city of Basra to carry out reconnaissance and supply a second patrol with “more tools and fire power”, said a source with knowledge of their activities. They had been in Basra for seven weeks on an operation prompted by intelligence that a new type of roadside bomb which has been used against British troops was among weapons being smuggled over the Iranian border. So in both cases, government/military sources were clearly cited. Moreover, I am not talking about all SAS agents operating in Iraq, I am talking about these two agents in question.
First that CNN article was a joke. They didn't even tell the story all they did was say that "terrorists have infiltrated the Iraqi police”. They didn't say that "Terrorist which had infiltrated the police force illegally arrested two British soldiers". If that had been the case they would have said it. Second, there are many reasons the SAS could want to keep a division between the two groups, but I think the most likely is that if the two groups were to unite against the "coalition of the willing", we would be out, powerless. Then the whole point of the invasion, which of course was to seize the oil reserves and install a puppet government, would be lost. Third, anyone who only trusts mass media is completely limiting their view of the world to just homogenized propaganda.
C'mon - you insinuate that the claim the SAS guys were planting bombs might be true because the British gave two different accounts of what had happened. My argument in return is that NEITHER of these claims came from the British government - rather they came from the always reliable 'anonymous.' Further, you're talking about a tabloid rag in the case of the telegraph. You take two unattributed and unverifiable claims, put them together, and then claim that their differences show a conspiracy. That's a joke, right? Remember - your claim is that 'That IS a contradiction in their official story.' Neither of these papers make these claims from an OFFICIAL statement but rather from 'unnamed sources.'
Yeah, its much better to continue the instability which would lead to the 'coalition of the willing' being 'out' - and then the whole point of the invasion would be lost. Either path involves the exit of the coalition. Hence your claim is silly at best.
I am not claiming a 'conspiracy', I am merely saying that it seems like from the two articles (and there are many others btw that carried these two articles) there are 'inconsistencies' in the claims made by the anonymous sources, but you are right, we don't know who they are, so I guess it's either having faith in their honesty (since they do claim that the comments came from sources familiar with the operation) or dismiss them for the fact that they are using anonymous sources. Anyways, I am debating you for the sake of debate, but I highly doubt that any of these claims can be verified. Probably the only thing that matters in this case is whether or not the Shi'as buy into this, because from what I have heard/read, they seem to see this as 'proof' of previous allegations by Iraqis that coalition forces (as well as outside elements such as the Mossad, etc.) were planting bombs and blaming them on the Sunni insurgency/terrorists. As you know, in many cases, perception trumps reality. I, too, think that this is unlikely (although I won't outright dismiss it, for there is a pattern of past behavior suffecient enough to not outright dismiss the possibility of the British 'playing dirty'). Why do I think it's unlikely? Because I refuse to believe that the coalition troops have such incompetent (and evil) people running the show in Iraq, and I always try to give the benefit of the doubt unless there is suffecient evidence to the contrary. So I agree with you there isn't sufficient evidence to indicate that the Brits are fomenting civil war in Iraq.
I don't know why the British with, presumably, American approval, would want to foment a civil war in Iraq. Heck, what is happening today is damned close to a civil war. Just sitting back and doing nothing would almost insure it. Why anyone would think that the oppressed majority Shi'a, the oppressed Kurds, and the Sunni, who today are yet another oppressed group, would join together and sing kumbaya is beyond me. The Bush Administration clearly thought that would be the case, pre-invasion. I'm not sure what the British government really believes is going to play out in Iraq. I expect they keep their cards close to their vest. I don't believe that the overly optimistic tripe coming from either their government, or ours, is more than a political line for public consumption. I certainly do believe that Iran is raising as much quiet hell as they can manage in Iraq, and are especially positioning themselves to take advantage of turmoil in southern Iraq, where they have the greatest potential influence and reward (the oil, a tighter grip on a vital part of the Gulf, neutering Iraq for the foreseeable future, and conceivably frightening Kuwait and the Kingdom into becoming part of their sphere of influence... all things we cannot allow) I would hope that the SAS and other clandestine forces of our allies, and "former allies" of this country, most of whom were against this mad adventure and are not participating in any meaningful way, are doing what they can to prevent it... that being in their vital national interest, regardless of what they think of the bloody, incompetent Bush Administration's foreign policy disaster that created this invasion and occupation of Iraq. The British, being the primary occupying power in the Basra region, would be extremely active trying to deny Iran what they desire. I can't believe that they are as asleep at the switch as the Bush Administration. What choice do they have? To watch Iran grab a chunk of Iraq's most vital territory under the guise of "Islamic brotherhood?" To create a Islamic super-state, with nuclear weapons, a gigantic chunk of the world's oil, and undue influence on the Kingdom and Kuwait? All of this chaos, brought to you by the simple mind of George W. Bush, and his tight coterie of incompetent advisors. What madness that fool has brought upon the world, playing into the hands of the very people he claims to be doing all of this to defeat. He should be impeached for criminal incompetence, in my opinion. Fat chance, unless the Republican leadership in Congress is indicted and brought to trail, the Vice President plea bargains and resigns, as Agnew did, and the GOP suffers a catastrophic defeat in '06. Not an impossibility, but a long shot. Keep D&D Civil.
Remember Dr. David Kelly, the British Ministry of Defence employee and whistleblower who allegedly *committed suicide* for *not being able to cope with pressure*, after he uncovered Downing Street "sexed up" Iraq dossier to help Blair's case for war? Well, another mysterious death happened to a Briton who had been investigating high profile prison abuse scandals involving British military in Iraq. He also *could not handle job pressue*. History repeating itself? Military police investigator found dead in Iraq 'felt job pressures' http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article320344.ece By Kim Sengupta in Basra and Ian Herbert Published: 18 October 2005 The British military investigator who was found dead in his quarters at Basra had examined almost every single serious allegation of abuse of Iraqi civilians by British troops Captain Ken Masters' workload had been immense and involved some of the most high-profile abuse allegations against soldiers in Iraq. They include the cases of the fusiliers convicted of abusing prisoners at Camp Breadbasket near Basra and a paratrooper who has been charged in connection with the death of Baha Mousa, a hotel receptionist. Many felt he had an advantage in dealing with soldiers because he had risen through the ranks and could thus empathise with the rank and file. However, former associates of Captain Masters, the 96th British serviceman to die in Iraq since the start of hostilities in March 2003, described yesterday how his role placed him in an invidious position - seeking to see fair play, yet attempting to prevent individual soldiers being used as scapegoats. The publicity that accompanied his cases may also have unsettled him, said the sources in England. Captain Masters was acutely aware of the sentiment within the military that indicted soldiers are taking the blame for an increasingly unpopular war. Some soldiers have openly expressed anxiety that actions they chose to take may leave them exposed to criminal charges in the future. The pressures in Basra reached a new intensity in the last weeks of Captain Masters' life, when British forces found themselves increasingly engaged in action against Shia militias. Just a few weeks ago, troops faced local police heavily infiltrated by the militia and a violent crowd which, according to the British military, was also orchestrated by the militia. A further indication of the pressures that Captain Masters may have been under came last week with the unexpected warning by Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, that senior British officers had made a "concerted attempt" to block an investigation into the killing of Sergeant Steven Roberts, a tank commander from Shipley, West Yorkshire, who was shot dead days after he was told to hand back his body armour due to a shortage of equipment. Lord Goldsmith revealed that he felt it necessary to move the case to the civilian jurisdiction and said Sgt Roberts' case was one example of why top commanders might not be trusted to handle murder investigations. Cases which were settled within the aegis of military courts also proved controversial. Although the allegations of abuses at Camp Breadbasket resulted in convictions, the process was tainted by accusations that relatively junior soldiers had been made scapegoats, while senior military officers escaped without censure. "Many senior officers have been saved from the same fate only by their rank," said a solicitor for Daniel Kenyon and Mark Cooley, two of the convicted soldiers. General Sir Michael Jackson, Chief of the General Staff, denied the claims. The other serving British soldier to have died in similar circumstances was also a member of the Royal Military Police Special Investigations Branch (SIB). Denise Rose, from Liverpool, joined the Royal Military Police in 1989, trained as an SIB investigator in 1995 and investigated serious incidents within the military in the UK and Cyprus before serving in Iraq. Captain Masters, who was married with two children, was commissioned from the ranks in 2001 and served most of his career with the SIB. His family is believed to be living in Northern Ireland. He was not receiving any medical or psychological treatment and no suicide notes were found when his body was discovered at the main British military base in Basra. The Ministry of Defence has stated that Captain Masters, the commander of the 61 Section of the SIB, "did not die from hostile action and no one else was being sought over the death". The British military investigator who was found dead in his quarters at Basra had examined almost every single serious allegation of abuse of Iraqi civilians by British troops Captain Ken Masters' workload had been immense and involved some of the most high-profile abuse allegations against soldiers in Iraq. They include the cases of the fusiliers convicted of abusing prisoners at Camp Breadbasket near Basra and a paratrooper who has been charged in connection with the death of Baha Mousa, a hotel receptionist. Many felt he had an advantage in dealing with soldiers because he had risen through the ranks and could thus empathise with the rank and file. However, former associates of Captain Masters, the 96th British serviceman to die in Iraq since the start of hostilities in March 2003, described yesterday how his role placed him in an invidious position - seeking to see fair play, yet attempting to prevent individual soldiers being used as scapegoats. The publicity that accompanied his cases may also have unsettled him, said the sources in England. Captain Masters was acutely aware of the sentiment within the military that indicted soldiers are taking the blame for an increasingly unpopular war. Some soldiers have openly expressed anxiety that actions they chose to take may leave them exposed to criminal charges in the future. The pressures in Basra reached a new intensity in the last weeks of Captain Masters' life, when British forces found themselves increasingly engaged in action against Shia militias. Just a few weeks ago, troops faced local police heavily infiltrated by the militia and a violent crowd which, according to the British military, was also orchestrated by the militia. A further indication of the pressures that Captain Masters may have been under came last week with the unexpected warning by Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, that senior British officers had made a "concerted attempt" to block an investigation into the killing of Sergeant Steven Roberts, a tank commander from Shipley, West Yorkshire, who was shot dead days after he was told to hand back his body armour due to a shortage of equipment. Lord Goldsmith revealed that he felt it necessary to move the case to the civilian jurisdiction and said Sgt Roberts' case was one example of why top commanders might not be trusted to handle murder investigations. Cases which were settled within the aegis of military courts also proved controversial. Although the allegations of abuses at Camp Breadbasket resulted in convictions, the process was tainted by accusations that relatively junior soldiers had been made scapegoats, while senior military officers escaped without censure. "Many senior officers have been saved from the same fate only by their rank," said a solicitor for Daniel Kenyon and Mark Cooley, two of the convicted soldiers. General Sir Michael Jackson, Chief of the General Staff, denied the claims. The other serving British soldier to have died in similar circumstances was also a member of the Royal Military Police Special Investigations Branch (SIB). Denise Rose, from Liverpool, joined the Royal Military Police in 1989, trained as an SIB investigator in 1995 and investigated serious incidents within the military in the UK and Cyprus before serving in Iraq. Captain Masters, who was married with two children, was commissioned from the ranks in 2001 and served most of his career with the SIB. His family is believed to be living in Northern Ireland. He was not receiving any medical or psychological treatment and no suicide notes were found when his body was discovered at the main British military base in Basra. The Ministry of Defence has stated that Captain Masters, the commander of the 61 Section of the SIB, "did not die from hostile action and no one else was being sought over the death".
Hayestreet, Yes continued instability would / will lead to us leaving, but you need to think a little deeper. If the Shi'a and Sunni's were about to unite, which would be difficult manage since they historically don't get along to say the least, it would be a fragile alliance. It would not take much, ooo say a bomb in a Shi'a cafe that could be blamed on Sunni’s that could cause the alliance to collapse. The Sunni's would consider other options. Please think things through and decide if you have a point or are just swinging blindly, I usually don't respond to replies such as yours but you need to THINK and not just respond for it's own sake.
It's difficult to understand what point you're trying to make. Why wouldn't we want them to unite? Isn't that the whole point? Who wants a bloody civil war, which as Deckard pointed out is almost where the situation is?
i personally think that it's no big deal if those agents were doing what those articles say they were doing...i mean when they put sanctions on Iraq, the biggest effect was on the general public. They were the ones dying ….and knowing Saddam it probably didn't really affect him in any way (he probably got even more powerful)....more people died from those sanction than the two gulf wars…..so who cares if you kill someone indirectly or directly when you know the end result is the same.
So let me get this straight. Two undercover SAS soldiers were caught with weapons and explosives in their car. Where is the surprise in that? What exactly to do people think undercover SAS soldiers carry around, flowers? The conclusions inferred from this sketchy information are:- - The British are targeting civilians - It is part of concerted effort to cause instability and ethnic unrest Talk about reaching.
Lobo A united Iraq would be a great if they could agree to get behind the government we are trying to set up. What if they were to become united in setting up a theocracy? We would never allow that and try to divide the alliance that put that together. This is just an example. There are many other possible reasons why the uniting of difference groups Iraqi's could be bad for us. And it's not like there are just three groups in Iraq. There are many factions within each of those groups. Not to mention, tribal factions. .
Hmmm....gee thanks. I'll try and THINK next time. Its funny to see a conspiracy advocate talk about 'deep' thinking. Since Al Queda is already blowing stuff up, what is the impetus for the SAS to do so? Since it won't take much to keep the Sunnis and Shiites apart - why would more than one group working toward that goal be necessary? While an Sunni/Shiite alliance would NOT ensure a 'theocracy' an exposed SAS operation to plant bombs WOULD ensure a united insurgency. As such it would make no sense to do so. Or maybe you believe, as the Iranian media has reported, that AQ is actually a CIA front, lol. Further, admitting that continued instability also equates to our exit denies your initial claim - that it was done so we could stay. Oops.
I'm surprised, Hayes. You know how I feel about George W. Bush and how he handled this fiasco, and so much else. Frankly, I assumed you would see my post as yet more justification for being in Iraq. Glad you took it a different way. Keep D&D Civil.
