The Salvador Option exposed.
Who’s Blowing Up Iraq? New evidence shows that bombs are being planted by British in Basra.
The British Bombers – British bombs in Basra – Fake Terrorism Is a Coalition’s Best Friend – Who’s Blowing Up Iraq? New evidence that bombs are being planted by British – British Special Forces Caught Carrying Out Staged Terror In Iraq? – Were the British Soldiers Engaged in Counter-Insurgency Operation in Basra? – FLASHBACK: Sick strategies for senseless slaughter – British “Pseudo-Gang? Terrorists Exposed in Basra – Carry on Killing – Middle East Press: "Suspicions occupation involved in armed operations against civilians and places of worship" – Further on arrest of two British soldiers in Basra – The day that Iraqi anger exploded in the face of the British occupiers – More Blatant Lies From CNN! – Five Iraqi civilians killed’ in SAS rescue operation – Double Standards in Iraq; British Agents in Local Drag Saved by Cavalry – Agents Provocateurs? – Media Shifts Attention from SAS Screw Up to Iran – Where The Neocon Job Unraveled – What is Covert Action? – Flashback: Phoenix Rising ($ 3 billion for a new paramilitary unit) (01 Jan 2004) – Phoenix and the Salvador Option – Non-transparent CIA ‘precedents’ in Iraq’s torrent of bloodshed (16 Sept 2005)
The British Bombers
September 20, 2005
More details emerge on the most outrageous story from the Iraq occupation since Abu Ghraib.
The last remaining public justification for the U.S./U.K. occupation of Iraq is terrorism: The foreign forces cannot leave until Iraq is somewhat peaceful and the terrorists have been defeated.
That threadbare reasoning was ripped apart on Monday as the world — other than the United States, where broadcast media avoided the story — was shown two agents provocateurs employed by the British government. Their exact mission will never be proven. The evidence, however, is damning.
The two commandoes — alternately identified as members of Britian’s notorious SAS or a newer offshoot, the SRR — were driving around a demonstration in Basra when their suspicious behavior attracted the attention of Basra police.
The Scotsman now reports that the men are members of the SRR, or Special Reconnaissance Regiment. The insignia shows a Greek helmet with a sword thrust through the mouth and up through the back of the skull.
The police attempted to stop the men, who were disguised as Arabs in local garb over their T-shirts and trousers. The men wore black-hair wigs and, according to some reports, typical headresses.
And they also carried a whole lot of weapons, including explosives and other bomb-making materials. They began firing at the police and passers-by.
At least one Basra policeman was shot dead. At least one person in the crowd was shot dead. An undetermined number of others were injured in the gunfight.
The British pair was jailed. Arab television showed the beaten men with bandages on their heads, and their huge collection of weaponry. Basra — a relatively peaceful city compared to the rest of bloodsoaked Iraq — had suddenly lost patience with the British occupiers, caught red-handed with all the tools necessary to launch "suicide bombs" against the people.
And then the British tanks rolled in … and destroyed the jail, releasing 150 "terrorists" in the process. Whether the British commandoes were inside the jail is now disputed, as are most parts of the story, with Britian in damage-control mode and Iraq officials universally condeming the "barbaric" destruction of the jail and the suspected terrorist goals of the captured duo.
The city rioted against the tanks and troops, setting fire to at least one of the tanks.
U.K. media is now desperately backpedaling from the version of events reported by at least a dozen independent reporters working in Iraq, after reporting the same general events as other world media on Monday.
* * *
A spokesman for rebel Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said the British commandoes were trying to pass themselves off as members of Sadr’s rebel militia.
Sheikh Hassan told Socialist Worker that the two undercover soldiers seized by Iraqi police last Monday were armed with explosives and a remote control detonator. The soldiers were disguised as members of Sadr’s militia, the Mehdi Army.
The trouble started when a senior Sadr official was arrested on Sunday. "We called a protest outside the mayor’s office on Monday demanding the Sheikh be released," Sheikh Hassan said. "This protest was peaceful."
"But events in our city took a sinister turn when the police tried to stop two men dressed as members of the Mehdi Army driving near the protest. The men opened fire on the police and passers-by. After a car chase they were arrested."
"What our police found in their car was very disturbing ? weapons, explosives and a remote control detonator," Sheikh Hassan said. "These are the weapons of terrorists. We believe these soldiers were planning an attack on a market or other civilian targets, and thanks be to God they were stopped and countless lives were saved."
There are about 8,500 British troops in and around Basra. Four Iraqis died in the riots against the jailbreak mission. Also, a local reporter who wrote for the New York Times and The Guardian was found murdered after being abducted by mysterious gunmen.
Following the lead of its American partners, the British Ministry of Defense denied all wrongdoing, called the destruction of the jail "absolutely right," and blamed everything on a "civil war" developing (or Iran, depending on the mouthpiece) in southern Iraq.
British bombs in Basra
September 21, 2005
I find myself increasingly becoming the old fogey of the conspiracy field. While the youngsters continue to come up with new and exciting conspiracies, xymphora slowly deteriorates into a lousy debunking blog. Witness the latest revelations from Basra. To summarize, two British soldiers, disguised as Arabs and with a car full of explosives, somehow find themselves in a contretemps with an Iraqi policeman, shoot him dead, are arrested by local authorities, refuse to explain what they were doing, end up in detention, and finally become the subject of negotiations between the British and Iraqis concerning their release, ‘negotiations’ apparently meaning to the British driving up to the prison with tanks and knocking the walls down (a fact which the British finally, but grudgingly, admitted), causing a riot which results in civilian deaths and the escape of other prisoners (and the soldiers weren’t even in the prison!). Everybody has come to the obvious conclusion that this is the first documented proof of the fact that much of the sectarian violence in Iraq is the work of coalition agents provocateurs, attempting to cause a civil war in Iraq. While I have no doubt that this intentional process is going on elsewhere in Iraq (and largely to fit the Israeli agenda, described here many times before, of breaking the country up into small, unthreatening statelets, with the additional motive of leading to the new Israeli ally, the Shi’ite Empire, to counter the largely Sunni opposition to Israeli imperial plans), I doubt that the Basra case is an example of it. There seems to be another conspiracy afoot.
The British have made a big deal of how much better they are than the Americans at shouldering the ‘white man’s burden’ of policing their portion of Iraq. Of course, the Americans are so arrogant, culturally insensitive, and generally stupid, it is not difficult to do a better job. As well, the South is easier to police just because it is majority Shi’ite, and not interested in causing trouble for the central government. Nevertheless, it is true that the British have done a much better job than the Americans, and have some right to feel superior. And yet, just recently, everything has gone sideways. Here is the timeline:
1. In the early Spring, British officials anticipated that British troops would soon be withdrawing from Iraq.
2. In July, plans are leaked of a British plan to withdraw almost all British troops from Iraq (sending some of them to Afghanistan). This withdrawal would have started next month. Almost immediately, the deaths of British contractors is said to ‘threaten’ these plans.
3. In early August, journalist Steven Vincent, who worked for the New York Times, is found murdered outside of Basra. He had been shot and was found with his hands bound. Days before his death, he "had written an Op-Ed piece for The Times in which he criticized British security forces for failing to act against the Shiite militias’ growing power in the local police force." It’s unlikely, even given the ubiquity of the internet, that local militias would be on top of very recently published New York Times Op-Eds (although Vincent had written previously on the matter).
4. Normally quiescent Basra starts to become dangerous for British troops, and three are actually killed. While there has been a constant series of British deaths in Iraq, these most recent deaths seem to cause a new type of overreaction. On Sunday, September 18, the British arrest local leaders Sheik Ahmed Majid Farttusi and Sayyid Sajjad, arrests that almost certainly will lead to more trouble (Juan Cole has the timeline).
5. The British plans to withdraw are indefinitely cancelled, as conditions have worsened.
6. The two British soldiers are arrested near a protest arranged against the arrest of Sheik Ahmed Majid Farttusi, and rescued with a completely unnecessary, show of lethal violence.
7. Journalist Fakher Haider, who also worked for the New York Times, is found murdered on the same day as the British soldiers were arrested. He also had his hands bound and was shot. He had been taken away for ‘questioning’ by people claiming to be Iraqi police, a claim backed up by the fact they arrived in a police car (!). He "had recently reported on the growing friction and violence among Basra’s rival Shiite militias, which are widely believed to have infiltrated the police." Now there are two murdered journalists in Basra, each of whom wrote about the growing power of Shi’ite militias in Basra (scuttlebutt that Steven Vincent’s murder was related to his relationship with his Iraqi female translator seems to be disproved by the nature of the second murder). Local militia leaders would almost certainly have been unaware of the writings of these journalists (and you have to wonder why they would care if they did know). Somebody wants to remove Western journalists with good local contacts from Basra.
What I see here is an attempt to sabotage the British withdrawal, and the murders of both journalists may well be associated with this.
Creating sectarian violence doesn’t really make sense in Basra, as the Zionist planners intend to keep the South whole, and part of the Shi’ite Empire. Causing trouble in Basra will only mess up those plans. On the other hand, setting a bomb off in Basra would have continued the campaign, started right after the announcement of withdrawal was made, to ensure that the British troops cannot be withdrawn from the South. Who benefits from non-withdrawal?:
1. the Americans, who would have been all alone in their battle against Islam once the British left;
2. elements in the British military, who so rarely get to be in a real war these days, are probably loathe having to go back to more endless marching drills in the rain (or, at best, in Afghanistan);
3. the international cadre of war financiers, who still derive considerable income from the British presence in Iraq; and
4. Tony Blair, who works for the financiers and has this extremely weird relationship with the United States (he seems to be under the misapprehension that he is Prime Minister of the United States).
I think there is a conspiracy here, but not necessarily the obvious one.
Fake Terrorism Is a Coalition’s Best Friend
September 20, 2005
Iraqi police recently caught two terrorists with a car full of explosives. Would it surprise you to learn they were British Special Forces?
The story sounds amazing, almost fantastical.
A car driving through the outskirts of a besieged city opens fire on a police checkpoint, killing one. In pursuit, the police surround and detain the drivers and find the vehicle packed with explosives ? perhaps part of an insurgent’s plan to destroy lives and cripple property. If that isn’t enough, when the suspects are thrown in prison their allies drive right up to the walls of the jail, break through them and brave petroleum bombs and burning clothes to rescue their comrades. 150 other prisoners break free in the ensuing melee.
Incredible, no? Yet this story took place in the southern Iraqi city of Basra recently. Violence continues to escalate in the breakout’s aftermath… just not for the reasons you think.
You see, the drivers of the explosive-laden car were not members of an insurgency group ? they were British Special Forces. Their rescuers? British soldiers driving British tanks.
That’s right ? two members of the British Armed forces disguised as Arab civilians killed a member of the Iraqi police while evading capture. When the people of Basra rightfully refused to turn the murderers over to the British government, per Coalition "mandate," they sent their own men in and released over 100 prisoners in the process.
Winning the hearts and minds, aren’t we?
Sadly, this story is really not all that surprising. After hearing countless accounts of using napalm and torture against innocent civilians in addition to the other daily abuses dished out by American overseers, the thought of British scheming seems perfectly reasonable.
So what we have here is a clear instance of a foreign power attempting to fabricate a terrorist attack. Why else would the soldiers be dressed as Arabs if not to frame them? Why have a car laden with explosives if you don’t plan to use them for destructive purposes? Iraq is headed towards civil war, and this operation was meant to accelerate the process by killing people and blaming others. Nothing more, nothing less. That the British army staged an over-the-top escape when it could rely on normal diplomatic channels to recover its people proves that.
Such extreme methods highlight the need to keep secrets.
There have been a number of insurgent bombings in Iraq recently. Who really is responsible for the bloodshed and destruction? The only tangible benefit of the bombings is justification for Coalition forces maintaining the peace in Iraq. Who benefits from that? Certainly not the Iraqis ? they already believe most suicide bombings are done by the United States to prompt religious war. After reading about this incident, I’m not inclined to disagree.
Even though this false-flag operation was blown wide open, I’m afraid it might still be used in the mainstream media to incite further violence in the Middle East. Judging by the coverage that has emerged after the incident, my fears seem warranted.
Several articles have already turned the story against the angry Iraqis who fought the British tanks as they demolished the jail wall, painting them as aggressive Shia militia attacking the doe-eyed, innocent troops responding to the concern that their comrades were held by religious fanatics. A photograph of a troop on fire comes complete with commentary that the vehicles were under attack during a "bid to recover arrested servicemen" that were possibly undercover. All criminal elements of British treachery are downplayed, the car’s explosive cache is never mentioned and the soldiers who instigated the affair are made victims of an unstable country they are defending.
Hilariously, all of this spin has already landed Iran at the top of the blame game. Because when the war combine botches its own clandestine terrorist acts, what better way to recover than by painting the soulless, freedom-hating country you’d love to invade next as the culprit? In a way, I almost admire the nerve of officials who are able to infer that Basra’s riots have nothing to do with fake insurgent bombing raids and everything to do with religious ties to a foreign country. It’s a sheer unmitigated gall that flies in the face of logic and reason.
"The Iranians are careful not to be caught," a British official said as the UK threatened to refer Iran to the UN Security Council for sanctions. Too bad the British aren’t! Maybe then they’d be able to complete their black-ops mission without looking like complete fools in the process!
Make no mistake ? any and all violence to erupt from Basra over this incident lands squarely on the shoulders of the British army and its special forces. Instead of stoking the flames of propaganda against a nation it has no hope of ever conquering, maybe Britain should quit trying to intimidate the Iraqis with fear and torture and start focusing on fixing its mistakes and getting out of the Middle East.
These actions are inexcusable and embarrassing; however, they should make you think. If a country like the United Kingdom is willing to commit acts of terror, what kind of false-flag operations do you think the United States is capable of?
If you thought the U.S. wouldn’t blow up people it claims to support in the hopes of advancing its agenda, think again. Use this incident as your first reference point.
Canon Fodder is a weekly analysis of politics and society.
Who’s Blowing Up Iraq? New evidence that bombs are being planted by British
September 20, 2005
"The Iraqi security officials on Monday variously accused two Britons they detained of shooting at Iraqi forces or TRYING TO PLANT EXPLOSIVES." Washington Post, Ellen Knickmeyer, 9-20-05; "British Smash into Jail to Free Two Detained Soldiers"
In more than two years since the United States initiated hostilities against Iraq, there has never been a positive identification of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
That doesn’t mean that he doesn’t exist; it simply suggests that prudent people will challenge the official version until his whereabouts and significance in the conflict can be verified.
At present, much of the rationale for maintaining the occupation depends on this elusive and, perhaps, illusory figure. It’s odd how Al-Zarqawi appears at the precise coordinates of America’s bombing-raids, and then, miraculously vanishes unscathed from the scene of the wreckage. This would be a remarkable feat for anyone, but especially for someone who only has one leg.
Al-Zarqawi may simply be a fantasy dreamed up by Pentagon planners to put a threatening face on the Iraqi resistance. The Defense Dept has been aggressive in its effort to shape information in a way that serves the overall objectives of the occupation. The primary aim of the Pentagon’s "Strategic Information" program is to distort the truth in a way that controls the storyline created by the media. Al-Zarqawi fits perfectly within this paradigm of intentional deception.
The manipulation of information factors heavily in the steady increase of Iraqi casualties, too. Although the military refuses "to do body counts"; many people take considerable interest in the daily death toll.
Last week, over 200 civilians were killed in seemingly random acts of violence purportedly caused by al-Zarqawi. But, were they?
Were these massive attacks the work of al-Zarqawi as the western media reports or some other "more shadowy" force?
One member of the Iraqi National Assembly. Fatah al-Sheikh, stated, "It seems that the American forces are trying to escalate the situation in order to make the Iraqi people suffer.. There is a huge campaign for the agents of the foreign occupation to enter and plant hatred between the sons of the Iraqi people, and spread rumors in order to scare the one from the other. The occupiers are trying to start religious incitement and if it does not happen, then they will try to start an internal Shiite incitement."
Al-Sheikh’s feelings are shared by a great many Iraqis. They can see that everything the US has done, from the forming a government made up predominantly of Shi’ites and Kurds, to creating a constitution that allows the breaking up to the country (federalism), to using the Peshmerga and Badr militia in their attacks on Sunni cities, to building an Interior Ministry entirely comprised of Shi’ites, suggests that the Pentagon’s strategy is to fuel the sectarian divisions that will lead to civil war. Al-Zarqawi is an integral facet of this broader plan. Rumsfeld has cast the Jordanian as the agent-provocateur; the driving force behind religious partition and antagonism.
But, al-Zarqawi has nothing to gain by killing innocent civilians, and everything to lose. If he does actually operate in Iraq, he needs logistical supporting all his movements; including help with safe-houses, assistants, and the assurance of invisibility in the community. ("The ocean in which he swims") These would disappear instantly if he recklessly killed and maimed innocent women and children.
Last week the Imam of Baghdad’s al-Kazimeya mosque, Jawad al-Kalesi said, that "al-Zarqawi is dead but Washington continues to use him as a bogeyman to justify a prolonged military occupation. He’s simply an invention by the occupiers to divide the people." Al-Kalesi added that al-Zarqawi was killed in the beginning of the war in the Kurdish north and that "His family in Jordan even held a ceremony after his death." (AFP)
Most Iraqis probably agree with al-Kalesi, but that hasn’t deterred the Pentagon from continuing with the charade. This is understandable given that al-Zarqawi is the last tattered justification for the initial invasion. It’s doubtful that the Pentagon will ditch their final threadbare apology for the war. But the reality is vastly different from the spin coming from the military. In fact, foreign fighters play a very small role in Iraq with or without al-Zarqawi. As the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) revealed this week in their report, "Analysts and government officials in the US and Iraq overstated the size of the foreign element in the Iraqi insurgency.. Iraqi fighters made up less than 10% of the armed groups’ ranks, perhaps, even half of that." The report poignantly notes that most of the foreign fighters were not previously militants at all, but were motivated by, "revulsion at the idea of an Arab land being occupied by a non-Arab country."
The report concludes that the invasion of Iraq has added thousands of "fresh recruits to Osama bin Laden’s network;" a fact that is no longer in dispute among those who have studied the data on the topic.
The al-Zarqawi phantasm is a particularly weak-link in the Pentagon’s muddled narrative. The facts neither support the allegations of his participation nor prove that foreigners are a major contributor to the ongoing violence. Instead, the information points to a Defense establishment that cannot be trusted in anything it says and that may be directly involved in the terrorist-bombings that have killed countless thousands of Iraqi civilians.
Regrettably, that is prospect that can’t be ignored. After all, no one else benefits from the slaughter.
(Note: Since this article was written, the Washington Post has added to our suspicions. In an Ellen Knickmeyer article "British Smash into Iraqi Jail to free 2 detained Soldiers" 9-20-05, Knickmeyer chronicles the fighting between British forces and Iraqi police who were detaining 2 British commandos. "THE IRAQI SECURITY OFFICIALS ON MONDAY VARIOUSLY ACCUSED THE TWO BRITONS THEY DETAINED OF SHOOTING AT IRAQI FORCES or TRYING TO PLANT EXPLOSIVES."
Is this why the British army was ordered to "burst through the walls of an Iraqi jail Monday in the southern city of Basra".followed by "British armored vehicles backed by helicopter gun-ships" ending in "hours of gun battles and rioting in Basra’s streets"? (Washington Post)
Reuters reported that "half a dozen armored vehicles had smashed into the jail" and the provincial governor, Mohammed Walli, told news agencies that the British assault was "barbaric, savage and irresponsible."
So, why were the British so afraid to go through the normal channels to get their men released?
Could it be that the two commandos were "trying to plant explosives" as the article suggests?
An interview on Syrian TV last night also alleges that the British commandos "were planting explosives in one of the Basra streets".
"Al-Munajjid] In fact, Nidal, this incident gave answers to questions and suspicions that were lacking evidence about the participation of the occupation in some armed operations in Iraq. Many analysts and observers here had suspicions that the occupation was involved in some armed operations against civilians and places of worship and in the killing of scientists. But those were only suspicions that lacked proof. The proof came today through the arrest of the two British soldiers while they were planting explosives in one of the Basra streets. This proves, according to observers, that the occupation is not far from many operations that seek to sow sedition and maintain disorder, as this would give the occupation the justification to stay in Iraq for a longer period. [Zaghbur] Ziyad al-Munajjaid in Baghdad, thank you very much. Copyright Syrian Arab TV and BBC Monitoring, 2005"
And then there was this on Al-Jazeera TV, Doha, 9-19-05; Interview with Fattah al-Shayk, member of the National Assembly and deputy for Basra.
."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."<
Copyright Al Jazeera TV and BBC Monitoring, 2005 (Thanks to Michel Chossudovsky at Global Research for the quotes from Al Jazeera and Syrian TV)
Does this solve the al-Zarqawi mystery? Are the bombs that are killing so many Iraqi civilians are being planted by British and American Intelligence?
We’ll have to see if this damning story can be corroborated by other sources.)
Courtesy and Copyright