British forces demolish Iraqi jail to free fellow soldiers

The detachment draws 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.
OMG not Aden , there were never British forces in Aden after the withdrawel from east of Suez , honestly , it is on record in the House of Commons , they were never there and they certainly wouldn't have done any thing nasty if they had of been there .
Send them back to London so they can shoot a few more South American electricians instead . It causes less trouble .

Hey I wonder if those two murderers from the Scots Guards got transfered to this crowd after they were released from prison and promoted , they might fit in very well .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Hey I wonder if those two murderers from the Scots Guards got transfered to this crowd after they were released from prison and promoted , they might fit in very well .

---

The McBride killers, of course! [Do I know my Northern Irish history or not?]

In response to Tribesman's second to last post: I agree that the arrest of the local leader started the trouble in the region, though I still need to catch up on that a little; however I was referring to the situation after the alleged shooting of an Iraqi policeman, to which King Malcolm's post was referring (I think).

Edit: damn, you two posted before me. Just clarifying what I was responding to.

The McBride killers, of course! [Do I know my Northern Irish history or not?]
No no , that was the Germans . Poor Willie McBride , who joined the great fallen in 1916 . (Green Fields of France , great song) ~D ~D ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The flash point prior to the alledged shooting was the refusal of the police to arrest a local leader, the leader is part of a party whose militia make up part of the police force.

---

Hmmmno. That is what we are constantly being fed: Shiites have infiltrated the police force, that explains it all!

Let us take a closer look. The local police is effectively controlled by the Badr Corps, which is the armed branch of SCIRI, which is the political ally of Iran. The arrested gentlemen were from the domestic Madhi Army headed by the radical Shia cleric Muqtadaal-Sadr. The arrested men included Sheikh Ahmad Majid al-Fartusi, the Basra area commander, and his aide Sajjat al-Basri.

Now the Badr Corps and Madhi Army are fighting each other. The Mahdi is a maverick movement, in direct competition with the SCIRI for the eventual control of Basra as soon as the Coalition withdraws.

So tell me, Mr President: why would the Basra police, controlled by SCIRI, attack or kidnap British soldiers because they are holding their opponents from the Mahdi Army prisoner?

why would the Basra police, controlled by SCIRI, attack or kidnap British soldiers because they are holding their opponents from the Mahdi Army prisoner?
Maybe al-Fartusi and al-Basri are really Iranian backed double agents working for SCIRI all along ~;) Or maybe the Badr were aiming to dispose of them without the problems that arresting them might entail .

I don't want to be too technical of course, but there are some slight discrepancies between the latest official British version of the incidents and reports in the Washington Post. It seems that the situation is not under control as suggested by Brigadier John Lorimer, Commander of 12 Mechanized Brigade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorimer

I should put the scale of yesterday's disorder into context. British armoured vehicles being attacked by a violent crowd, including with petrol bombs, makes graphic television viewing. But this was a small unrepresentative crowd (200-300) in a city of 1.5 million. The vast majority of Iraqi people in MND(SE) are law abiding and value the contribution made by coalition forces to maintaining stability and security.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Washington Post

When British officials apparently sought to secure their release, riots erupted. Iraqi police cars circulated downtown, calling through loudspeakers for the public to help stop British forces from releasing the two. Heavy gunfire broke out and fighting raged for hours, as crowds swarmed British forces and set at least one armored vehicle on fire. Witnesses said they saw Basra police exchanging fire with British forces. Sadr's Mahdi Army militia joined in the fighting late in the day, witnesses said. A British military spokesman, Darren Moss, denied that British troops were fighting Basra police.

Link

---

[QUOTE=AdrianII]Well, it is no use arguing with people who admit they automatically believe the official British version of events.[QUOTE]

Or with people that would'nt even believe the official British version if it said they were on fire and they could smell the burning, pot and kettle my friend.

I've no doubt that the story will come out in time, at least I'm sure I'll hear it ~;)

[QUOTE=Ja'chyra]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

(..) pot and kettle my friend.

---

You believe the second official version, but you refuse to say why. I doubt certain statements and I give you the reasons why. That is quite different.

I'd still like to know why soldiers were moving about in civilian clothing. Isn't that a violation of the codes that they should follow? Or is it a violation only when the other side does it?

Good point Spethulu , ship them off to Gitmo ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spetulhu

I'd still like to know why soldiers were moving about in civilian clothing. Isn't that a violation of the codes that they should follow? Or is it a violation only when the other side does it?

---

They were in civilian clothing because they were undercover special forces, and they're not really violating any codes concerning uniform because they only really apply when in enemy territory or in a battlefield, which they are not (they are authorised to go dressed as civilians).

Really?

So you can act as an undercover commando and shoot weapons but not be considered out of uniform?

Two rules...

If you are in enemy territory in civillian clothes you are considered a spy and can be shot (some people may remember the infamous vietnam video)but they are in Allied and supossidly friendly territory so really they should be alright as long as the goverment knows

Has the world gone mad? I dont often follow the right wing example of events - but like English Assasin Im all caught up in our ressurection of imperial affairs.

The 2 Soliders captured according to Iraqi law should have been immeditedltly turned over to the co-alition forces. They weren't. Instead they were turned over to a hard core millita group, all I can say is thank god the british army turned up in time.

(And storming A prison with AFV's is bad ass indeed!!!)

The Iraqi government ordered the police to hand the troops over (under the legal terms of the coalition), and this order was ignored, disobeyed, flaunted. The Iraqi government is a non-government and the country will descend into civil war as soon as the coalition pulls out.

I knew I was right about the hostage swap, it makes sense, but we must pull our lads out of there. We got rid of Saddam, now the Iraqis must do the best they can but with moral and economic support.

As for fools believing that the 'undercover' British troops just drive around gunning people down when 'undercover' -repeat for emphasis 'undercover'- well, you guys have a wacky understanding of 'undercover'. The very last thing these lads would have wanted was a shoot-out confrontation. They were compromised and must have considered it to be a life or death situation.

At least they weren't ripped apart by a frenzied mob like the two lads were in Northern Ireland years ago (and they weren't 'special forces', just two support troops). The Iraqis are more civilized than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcellus

They were in civilian clothing because they were undercover special forces, and they're not really violating any codes concerning uniform because they only really apply when in enemy territory or in a battlefield, which they are not (they are authorised to go dressed as civilians).

---

Sorry, but no, if they were engaging in covert actions without uniforms, then according to the Bush government's very own, new rules for war, they no longer enjoy the protections of the Geneva Conventions or Laws of Land Warfare. You can't have it both ways: denying POW status to the Taleban abducted in Afghanistan when they were still the government there but arguing that when the exact same thing happens to Americans, that they're not 'really' breaking the rules. That's a double standard.

And only those with heads stuck as firmly in the sand as Bush could deny that Iraq remains a war zone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Peasant

The Iraqi government ordered the police to hand the troops over (..)

---

That is what the Brits say. The Iraqi Prime Minister's office denied it yesterday throughout the day.

Quote:

---

The very last thing these lads would have wanted was a shoot-out confrontation. They were compromised and must have considered it to be a life or death situation.

---

They must have, simply because their commander says so? There is no need to refer to Northern Ireland. In this Iraq war alone many British army communiques have turned out to be wrong. Gulllibility has a certain charm, Red Peasant, but it has no place in military matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

That is what the Brits say. The Iraqi Prime Minister's office denied it yesterday throughout the day.They must have, simply because their commander says so? There is no need to refer to Northern Ireland. In this Iraq war alone many British army communiques have turned out to be wrong. Gulllibility has a certain charm, Red Peasant, but it has no place in military matters.

---

And yet you have referred to NI a few times in this thread.

If people choose to believe what their government tells them then they are no more gullible then those who believe what the media say.

Unfortunately all the media has to say on the matter right now is what they're getting from the army; until there are more sources it would be unwise to jump to any conclusions, particularly since it has been shown that governments aren't at their most reliable when it comes to actions by troops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ja'chyra

And yet you have referred to NI a few times in this thread.

---

Yes, one could refer to NI, but it isn't necessary because in Iraq alone, there have been sufficient examples of mistaken military statements.

Quote:

---

If people choose to believe what their government tells them then they are no more gullible then those who believe what the media say.

---

Belief in any one source is extremely naive. Free media are the most important check on any government. News about a conflict from one source - in this case a government - is really no news at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Belief in any one source is extremely naive.

---

So is disbelief in that source for the only reason is that it is the only source.

However this turns out the scaremongering and half stories by the media won't help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ja'chyra

However this turns out the scaremongering and half stories by the media won't help.

---

Whatever you say. Today The Times has some interesting tidbits from military sources. It seems the attack on the police station may have been a deliberate diversion to conceal the swift liberation of the two SAS men by their own squad from the nearby bungalow. It also says 'the two soldiers are believed to have been investigating a corrupt police unit in Basra who were colluding with Shia militia leaders. Some of the men who later interrogated them are believed to be part of this same unit.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

It also says 'the two soldiers are believed to have been investigating a corrupt police unit in Basra who were colluding with Shia militia leaders. Some of the men who later interrogated them are believed to be part of this same unit.'

---

Interesting - weren't two American reporters recently killed in Basra while investigating, inter alia, militia infilitration of the police? There may be no connection, but there is a certain schadenfreude in visualising their murderers (or associates) biting off rather more than they can chew on this occasion. It's a shame that New York Times reporters can't call on the SAS, Warrior APCs and helicopters for backup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No no , that was the Germans . Poor Willie McBride , who joined the great fallen in 1916 .

---

Ahhem..

• 4 September 1992. Peter Mc Bride, 18-year-old father of two young daughters, is stopped and searched, then shot dead minutes later by members of a patrol of Scots Guards in the New Lodge area of Belfast. Two soldiers, Mark Wright and James Fisher, are taken to Girdwood Army Barracks, where the RUC are denied access to the men for at least 10 hours. The next day Guardsmen Wright and Fisher are charged with murder.
• 10 February 1995. The two are convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
• 2 September 1998. The soldiers were released from Maghaberry Prison, Co Antrim, 2 days before the sixth anniversary of Peter's murder, in advance of other prisoner releases and outside the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.
• 3 November 1998. The Army Board decides that Wright and Fisher may continue their careers in the services under an 'exceptional circumstances' clause.

However, I admit defeat on the Basra police issue. It appears (from all sorts of news outlets and official reports) that the Mahdi Army after its lost fight with U.S. troops last April withdrew to Basra and the British sector in general, where they infiltrated the police to the point of replacing the Badr.

The Christian Science Monitor has an interesting take on the rise of the Mahdi Army.

While the British Army's strategy of appeasement has brought quiet to the Shiite-dominated south for some time, it has allowed militias such as Sadr's Mahdi Army to quietly regroup and flourish. Consequently, Sadr's followers - who have close ties to the city police - have more control of Basra's streets than British troops.

This control has also created a climate of fear among many residents not unlike that under Saddam Hussein. There are whispers that Sadr has established his own sharia courts, which issue rulings based on Islamic law. The Mahdi Army enforces its decisions, Basra residents say.

To build his network of loyal followers, Sadr offers payments to the families of his militia members who died in the fighting in August. Some 3,000 families are dependent on money or other help from the Sadr movement.

When an Iraqi is in poor health in Baghdad, more often than not it's a Sadr movement member who provides aid. Sadr movement officials run the Health Ministry, extending influence from the hospitals to the ambulance service. Posters, stickers, and other memorabilia of Sadr are plastered on Ministry of Health checkpoints, hospitals, and the walls of Baghdad's main ambulance center.

At least they weren't ripped apart by a frenzied mob like the two lads were in Northern Ireland years ago (and they weren't 'special forces', just two support troops).
Would those be the two armed soldiers , out of uniform ,who were carrying out "routine technical maintainance of surveilance facilities" in a staunchly republican area at a time of heightened tension .
Who "mistakenly" drove into the path of a funeral cortege of a terrorist who had been killed while attending the funeral of three other terrorists (unarmed BTW) , who had been shot in the head while lying on the ground in the middle of the road by Special forces .
Or would these be just two unfortunate signals specialists that didn't realise that they were in a bloody war zone .
I do not condone the killings Red Peasant , but what would two "support troops" be doing driving round the area when the rest of the military was keeping itself a safe distance away ?

An interesting titbit of information for you , the person who was one of my lecturers on my apprenticeship used to be a signals specialist in the Corps of Signals in Borneo , he was also a sergeant in the SAS .
Damn , those support troops seem to get everywhere don't they ~;)

Ahhem..
I know , have you seen the campaign at the Finnucanne centre , against having convicted murderers serving in Iraq , as well as having them back in the army in the first place ?
But The Green Fields of France is my second favourite anti war song so I thought I would slip in a mention of a different McBride ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Sorry, but no, if they were engaging in covert actions without uniforms, then according to the Bush government's very own, new rules for war, they no longer enjoy the protections of the Geneva Conventions or Laws of Land Warfare.

---

Well its even more of a good thing that we went and got them back then, no?

The thread seems to be moving peacefully into a discussion of the Basra situation generally, which is no doubt good. With apologies for briefly going back over old ground, I would just add to the comment above that not only does Iraqi law require that the soliders were handed back, but that we have already put some of our soldiers on trial for war crimes so it is not as if handing them over was tantamount to them escaping justice. If they murdered an iraqi they will be tried.

Now to save AII the bother I will be the first to admit British justice has been known to be fallible, but as the alternative here was god knows what at the hands of a shadowy militia I still fail to see how anyone can see the events that started the thread, namely the rescue of the two soldiers, as anything other than an unequivocally good thing.

I still fail to see how anyone can see the events that started the thread, namely the rescue of the two soldiers, as anything other than an unequivocally good thing.
Possibly , but I doubt the local police , militia and citizens see it that way , so it isn't unequivocal is it .
edit ; Actually the militia and other groups may see it as a very good thing , propoganda wise .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

(..) does Iraqi law require that the soliders were handed back (..)

---

There is no Iraqi law to that effect. There is only a CPA order that is upheld by the multinational force. I don't know exactly what (international) legal status it has, but it certainly leaves no room for 'sovereignty rubbish'.

Quote:

---

Hansard 4 October 2004

Mr. Ingram: There are no plans at the present time to make a separate status of forces agreement with the Iraqi Government. Under Article 59 of the Transitional Administrative Law (the law for the administration of Iraq during the transition period—promulgated by the Iraqi Governing Council in March 2004) the Iraqi Interim Government has no powers to conclude any binding international agreements, which would include status of forces agreements. This power will belong to the elected Transitional Government. Until the Transitional Government is in place, Coalition Provisional Authority Order 17 covers the terms of the MNF presence in Iraq, and includes those areas which would normally be covered in a status of forces agreement.

Link

---

This Coalition Provisional Authority Order 17 grants all MNF soldiers complete legal immunity (Section 2.3) on Iraqi soil and stipulates (Section 14) that they may wear civilian clothes and yet carry arms if the force commander authorises it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

Sorry, but no, if they were engaging in covert actions without uniforms, then according to the Bush government's very own, new rules for war, they no longer enjoy the protections of the Geneva Conventions or Laws of Land Warfare. You can't have it both ways: denying POW status to the Taleban abducted in Afghanistan when they were still the government there but arguing that when the exact same thing happens to Americans, that they're not 'really' breaking the rules. That's a double standard.

---

Bush doesn't quite control all our policies quite yet. What the US administration did with the Taleban in Afghanistan is wrong, but that policy doesn't apply to Britain. The soldiers were undercover in an area that they have responsibility for. They were authorised to go undercover. In the same way that an undercover policeman helps to maintain order when authorised to in a more peaceful country, soldiers help to maintain order when authorised to in less stable countries.