---

Mange tror fejlagtigt, at hele balladen i Basra handlede om den
voldsomme befrielsesaktion og dennes brutale karakter alene.

Langt fra - det var kun ét af de kristiske forhold i hele forløbet.
Men det korte af det lange er, at disse britere var i besiddelse af
udstyr som bestyrker eller lad os hellere stadfæster mistanken om, at
de selvsamme britere (og amerikanere) selv står bag en stor del af de
daglige terrorbombinger i Irak.

Enhver kan se, at hensigten med disse horrible bombninger er at sprede
terror, usikkerhed og ulykke. Mange glemmer, at de sidst men ike mindst
har bidraget som en af de vigtigste faktorer for at legitimere en
fortsat besættelse af Irak.

Her er 2 interessante artikler som giver os en anden vinkel at betragte
hele sagen på og dens fatale følger.

Det vil sige, at lægge lidt mere fokus på omstændighederne omkring
selve anholdelsen af de 2 britere. Noget som har været forbavsende
undertrykt i stort set samtlige vestlige medier. Men ikke alle -
heldigvis. Af de daglige aviser, som Politiken, JP's side har der ikke
været det store journalistikarbejde - for man skjulte eller
bagatelliserede simplethen ting, som kunne interessante for de, som
oprigtigt prøvede at sætte sig ind i forholdene i Irak. F.eks. så er
nogle gledet hen over det faktum, briterne skød og dræbte 1
politiofficer og 2 civile og sårede flere andre forinden pågribelsen.
Dernæst, at der blevt dræbt mindst 5 andre civile, som protesterede
under befrielsesaktionen.

Mvh

TheCom

Men læs selv:
(1) http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10376.htm

(2) http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7366

------------------------------------------

A policy of absolute barbarism?

Basra; another milestone in war on terror

"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." Sheik Hassan al-Zarqani, spokesman
for the Mehdi Army

By Mike Whitney

09/24/05 "ICH" -- -- We are only interested in one thing regarding the
melee that broke out in Basra following the arrest of two British
commandoes on September 20: whether or not the car they were driving
contained explosives? The answer to that question could decide the
future of Iraq as well as the fate of Bush's war on terror. Nothing
should deter us from getting to the bottom of this crucial question and
no extraneous fact or fiction should divert our attention from
uncovering the answer.

If it can be clearly established that there were explosives in that
vehicle then we can say with some degree of certainty that the wave of
terrorism that is spreading across Iraq is, at least, in part the work
of British and American Intelligence. That would imply that current
counterinsurgency efforts now involve the premeditated killing of
innocent people to achieve the stated policy objectives. This is the
very definition of terrorism.

Early news reports from both the BBC and the Washington Post confirmed
allegations that bomb-making material was discovered in the captured
vehicle. The Post's Ellen Knickmeyer stated, "The Iraqi security
officials on Monday variously accused two Britons they detained of
shooting at Iraqi forces or TRYING TO PLANT EXPLOSIVES." (Washington
Post, 9-20-05; "British Smash into Jail to Free Two Detained Soldiers)
Neither the Post nor the BBC have printed retractions or clarifications
on this story even though it has swept across the internet with a fury
not seen since the Downing Street memo. In fact, this story is
significantly more important. The entire war on terror is predicated on
the belief that the murdering of innocent people cannot be
rationalized. The incident in Basra puts all that into question.

Bush has marshaled the public fear from 9-11 into a rallying cry for
his global-onslaught. He has waved the bloody-shirt of terror to
enhance his power as executive and declare a permanent state of war.
Terror has provided the foundation for savaging civil liberties,
imprisoning American citizens, and acting with complete impunity.

"The deliberate and deadly attacks which were carried out on September
11 were more than acts of terror. They were acts of war", Bush boomed.
The powers of the "war president" depend entirely on his nebulous war
on terror.

The same is true for Tony Blair. The British PM has acted-out the same
rituals as Bush; railing against the "evil ideology" of Muslim
fanaticism saying, "We must confront and deal head on with the
extremism that is based on a perversion of the true faith of Islam."

Blair's fulminations have resulted in the most extraordinary attack on
civil liberties in the last 100 years. His pretentious rhetoric has
produced a de facto state of martial law for Muslims living in England.


Now his muddled justification for endless war and butchery is facing
its greatest challenge; a Ford Cressida packed with a trunk-load of
explosives on the streets of Basra. If proof emerges that the car
contained bombs then Bush's war of terror will fall apart like a mobile
home in a Texas hurricane.

The Chinese news service Xinhuanet reported that, "A police patrol
followed the attackers and captured them to discover that they were two
British soldiers. The soldiers were using a civilian car packed with
explosives." (Xinhuanet 9-20-05) The same basic story appeared on
Syrian and Turkish TV, and in other news reports in the Gulf States

The Washington Post's foreign office filed a similar report by Jonathan
Finer stating that, "Monday's clashes stemmed from the arrest by Iraqi
police on Sunday of two Britons, WHOM IRAQI POLICE ACCUSED OF PLANTING
BOMBS".

And then there was this from Syrian correspondent in Baghdad Ziyad
al-Munajjid:

"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." Abdel al-Daraji,
Muslim cleric in Baghdad told the UK Telegraph that "Britain was
plotting to start an ethnic war by carrying out mass-casualty bombings
targeting Shia civilians and then blaming the attacks on Sunni groups."


"Everyone knows the occupiers agenda, said al-Daraji. "Their intention
is to keep Iraq an unstable battlefield so they can exploit their
interests in Iraq."

Whether the reports are accurate or not is almost irrelevant. They feed
the widespread dissatisfaction with the occupation and contribute to
the conspiracy theories that animate the national discourse. The belief
that the British and American black-ops are behind the violence has
captured the popular imagination and will be impossible to dispel. The
damage to the occupation is incalculable.

As the story spreads through Iraq, support for the al-Jaafari
government is certain to wane and the Shi'ites will increasingly drift
towards the resistance. The occupation leaders will have to devise a
strategy to restore confidence in their legitimacy or face the steady
erosion of support. If that proves to be impossible, then we're bound
to see more radicalized Shi'ites entering the rival camp. A massive
movement of Shi'ites into the resistance would pose a serious challenge
to the ongoing American-British presence.

The Basra incident is a fatal blow to the Pentagon's narrative of
foreign terrorists stirring up trouble in Iraq. The military depends
heavily on the al-Zarqawi myth to feed public fears and divert
attention from a brutish occupation. From this point forward every
terrorist bombing and random act of violence will be scrutinized as
(potentially) the work of British or American agents.

How can Bush and Blair hope to allay the suspicions of Iraqi people
after Basra?

What can they possibly do to rebuild faith in the stated goals of the
occupation?

The Basra incident is another milestone in the faltering war on terror.
The questions that emerge are fundamental to understanding whether we
are engaged in a noble effort to liberate and democratize the Iraqi
people, or complicit in the deliberate murder of innocent civilians.

If the car driven by the two commandos was loaded with explosives, then
we can assume that it would have been used to kill civilians.

Why does this surprise us?

We've already seen the "Shock and Awe" invasion that cost tens of
thousands of lives. We've already seen the horrific photos of tortured
and sadistically abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib. We've already heard
the news of the 200 prisoners at Guantanamo who are starving themselves
to death under the Pentagon's watchful eye. We've already chronicled
the calculated destruction of Iraqi society and the daily assault on
their main cities. We've already read of the use of napalm,
cluster-bombs, unidentified chemicals and other banned weapons on
civilian enclaves. And, we've already noted the growing number of young
Sunni men who bob-along the Euphrates River after being shot in the
back of the head by the CIA-trained goons at the Interior Ministry.

Is it so hard to believe that Special Forces are now directly involved
in attacks on civilians?

Aren't we seeing the logical extension of a policy that rejects all
ethical and moral constraints? A policy of absolute barbarism?

Basra will tell.

------------------------------------------

September 23, 2005
Bizarro Basra
Two special-ops Brits in wigs, 'traditional Arab dress' - and a car
full of explosives?
by Justin Raimondo

The closer we look at what happened in Basra the other day, the murkier
and more suspicious the picture gets. Two British undercover operatives
fired at the Iraqi police, killing one and injuring another, and were
taken into custody, then "rescued" as British tanks laid siege to
police headquarters. The incident culminated in a pitched battle
between Iraqi and British forces, and in its aftermath a war of words
is heating up that threatens to expose a widening chasm between these
two ostensible "allies."

We are told that our enemy in Iraq is a shadowy network of
al-Qaeda-affiliated suicide bombers who will do anything to disrupt
that country's march toward "democracy," but instead we find coalition
troops shooting at the very Iraqi police we are investing so much
money, effort, and hope into.

What in blazes is going on?

The two sides do not agree on even the most basic facts. The Brits aver
that the two arrested special ops soldiers - members of the Special
Reconnaissance Regiment - were moved from the Basra jail to a private
home during the negotiations for their release. After British tanks
knocked down a wall, troops busted into the jail, held the Iraqi police
at gunpoint until they revealed the soldiers' whereabouts, and the pair
were freed.

The Iraqis, in the person of Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr, say
the soldiers never left the jail, were not handed over to a militia
group, and that the whole incident was provoked by a "rumor" that the
pair were about to be executed. The Iraqis, for their part, have their
own version of what went down, as the Washington Postreports:

"Iraqi security officials on Monday variously accused the two Britons
they detained of shooting at Iraqi forces or trying to plant
explosives."

Of course, the two are not mutually exclusive: they could have been
shooting at Iraqi forces - indeed, they killed at least one
policemen, when he approached the pair - and trying to plant
explosives. But never mind...

At any rate, the disagreements continue over what was found in the
pair's possession. In spite of initial BBC Radio reports that the car
the Brits were cruising around in was packed full of explosives, the
BBC News site now avers that the Iraqis found nothing more untoward
than "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 theater of operations."


An antitank weapon - standard operating equipment? That sounds rather
doubtful. Look at this photo of what was recovered from the car, and
you tell me if that haul seems rather a lot more than just your Spooks'
Standard Issue spying kit. On the question of what was found in the
car, Sheik Hassan al-Zarqani, a spokesman for the Mahdi Army, the
organization headed up by firebrand Shi'ite leader Moqtada Sadr, had
this to say:

"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, and thanks be to god they were
stopped and countless lives were saved."

Furthermore, Sheik al-Zarqani says, the two Brits were not just in
"traditional Arab dress," as several news reports aver, but were
disguised in the uniform worn by members of the Mahdi Army. The Brits,
says the Sheik, have some 'splaining to do:

"Why were these men dressed as Mahdi Army? Why were they carrying
explosives and where were they planning to detonate their bomb?"

Good questions, all - and perhaps some context will give us at least
a direction to go in for some answers. The Washington Post reports the
latest attacks, attributed either to Sunni insurgents or to al-Qaeda
and the network associated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi:

"In continuing violence elsewhere in Iraq Monday, a car bomb exploded
amid Shi'ite pilgrims marching and driving to the holy city of Karbala,
killing five and wounding 12, said Capt. Muthanna Ahmed, a spokesman
for Babil province police. Iraq's Shi'ites head to the holy city at
this time in an annual ritual to mark the birthday of the Imam Mahdi.

"The car bombing occurred in Latifiya, an insurgent stronghold 25 miles
south of Baghdad, and was followed 10 minutes later by mortar shells
that wounded four more people, Ahmed said. One of those killed and four
of the wounded belonged to the Mahdi Army, the Shi'ite militia led by
Sadr, said Sahib Amiri, one of Sadr's aides in Najaf."

Okay, let's look at this timeline: On Sunday, a cleric associated with
the local Sadrist group is arrested by the British, along with two
others. On Monday a Mahdi Army militant is killed in a "terrorist"
bombing, leaving four others injured. That same day, a Sadrist
demonstration demanding the release of the cleric and his associates is
held in the vicinity of the mayor's office: a white car containing two
individuals who are "acting suspiciously," as one Iraqi police officer
put it, turns out to be undercover British soldiers who fire on police
when approached.

All very suspicious - almost comically so, given the context. Because
suspicions of British involvement in terrorist attacks routinely
attributed to Sunni militants and the Zarqawi network are nothing new
for this area. In April of last year, Basra was the scene of a
Sadrist-led demonstration in which hundreds were out in the streets
blaming the British for a recent spate of bombings:

"'We have evidence that the British were involved in the attacks,' said
Sadr spokesman Sheik Abdul Satar al-Bahadli. He did not elaborate.

"'You [British occupation troops] have failed to provide security, so
leave it to the Iraqi police and militia to sort it out,' he told
Agence France-Presse.

"Some 800 supporters of Sadr meanwhile gathered outside his office here
to protest Wednesday's attacks.

"At least 68 people, including 20 children, were killed and about 100
others were wounded in the deadly series of coordinated suicide bomb
attacks. Most of the dead were from almost simultaneous suicide car
bombings outside three police stations in Basra, causing carnage in the
busy streets as people headed to work."

The Sadrist demonstrators carried banners whose slogans sketched the
general outlines of a tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory that attributes all
the evils befalling them to "foreign occupiers":

"'The people and the police are hand in hand with our religious leaders
and they will not bow to the occupiers.' 'The Iraqi people say that
Al-Qaeda is not involved in the attacks, which must be blamed on the
criminal Tony Blair,' or 'Al-Qaeda is a US deception to justify the
occupation of Islamic countries,' others said."

With the discovery of two British spies decked out in dark wigs and
trying to look like just a couple of ordinary jihadis, the Sadrists
have been given plenty of grist for their mill: no wonder they are
often described as gaining in popularity. Not without a little help
from the Brits - and could that be what is really going on?

The followers of Moqtada al-Sadr are by no means pro-occupation, but
they are equally anti-Iranian - militant nationalists who oppose the
decentralism advocated by other Shi'ite factions, which would
essentially create an autonomous region in the solid Shi'ite south of
the country. Such a semi-independent republic in a loose federation
would soon come under the dominating influence of Iran - which
already is extending its influence at the federal as well as the local
level via its sock-puppets in SCIRI, the Badr Organization, and the
Da'wa Party. The only nationalistic counterweight to the pro-Iranian
Shi'ite secessionists is Sadr and his Mahdi Army. By deliberately
creating an incident that strengthens the Sadrist hand, the balance of
power in the south is maintained, however precariously and momentarily.

This is, admittedly, far-fetched: but then so are the invasion of Iraq
and the subsequent meltdown of the occupation, both of which strain the
boundaries of probability, at least in a rational world. But we aren't
living in a rational world anymore, not since the 9/11 terrorist
attacks ripped a hole in the space-time continuum and we slipped into
the Bizarro universe, where up is down, logic is illogic, and British
authorities charged with keeping order in occupied Iraq deliberately
provoke their charges into paroxysms of paranoia.

Alternatively, it could be that the Brits were targeting the Mahdi
Army, which has fought occupation troops and is constantly causing
trouble as far away as Baghdad. Perhaps, after all, they were just
handing out candy to children...

It doesn't matter much in the end whether or not the Brits were engaged
in some funny business in Basra: what matters is that they appear to
have done so. That may be enough to plunge a heretofore relatively
quiet region of Iraq into civil war and chaos.

A British contingent that was widely believed to have been on its way
home will be indefinitely delayed: the rumoredwithdrawal canceled,
because, you see, to leave now would just make things worse. Or so the
story goes...

There is a lot of nonsense floating around about the circumstances
surrounding this incident, not the least of which is the canard that
the Iraqi police have been "infiltrated" by "insurgents" and that's why
the two Brit spies were supposedly in danger and had to be "rescued."
The reality is that the Mahdi Army, SCIRI, and all the other Muslim
party-backed militias are part of the elected government of Iraq: their
representatives sit in the National Assembly, where they have a
majority when they vote as a bloc. They aren't "insurgents" - they're
supposed to be our allies! As they stand up, George W. Bush tells us,
America will stand down. So how are they suddenly "insurgents"?

The spectacle of Britain's defense minister, John Reid, calling on the
Iraqi authorities demanding "answers" reflects a breathtaking
arrogance. It is the Brits who have to come up with some answers, and
quickly, before the situation on the ground degenerates any further.
Already, the local government authorities in Basra, including the
governor, have unanimously voted to cease all cooperation with the
British occupiers.

No amount of spinning and outright lying - the British government
initially denied there was even a confrontation, and claimed that the
two were released as a result of "negotiations" - is going to let
them wriggle out of this one. London has a full-scale rebellion on its
hands, and if the Iraqis aren't sufficiently appeased, the revolt could
soon spread northward, to the American sector, in which case it would
become Washington's problem, too.

As I wrote in January 2004, when the U.S. was holding out in support of
its "caucus" plan, which would have forbidden the Iraqis direct
elections and instead imposed a system in which America's favored sock
puppets would come out on top, a giant awakens in the form of rising
Shi'ite political power:

"So far, the Shi'ites have stood on the sidelines, waiting for the
chance to take advantage of their majority status and impose an Islamic
'republic' on the rest of the country. Centered in the south, which has
not seen, up until now, the kind of guerrilla violence that regularly
erupts in the infamous 'Sunni Triangle,' such groups as the pro-Iranian
Badr Brigade and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq
(SCIRI), have been patient, and so far refrained from violence -
except against Christian merchants who sell alcohol and other
un-Islamic consumer items. The occupiers, up to this point, have had no
serious trouble from SCIRI and allied groups. That could change
rapidly, and dramatically, as the Ayatollah Sistani has pointed out, if
the Americans insist on their caucus plan."

The Ayatollah Sistani - who still refuses to meet with the Americans,
by the way - swept away the caucus plan with a single fatwa. Now the
Americans are drawing another line in the sand and daring the Shi'ites
to cross it. If they do - if they demand the return of real
sovereignty - the occupiers will have to either back down or fight.
The consequences of this are not hard to foresee, but may have been a
bit less discernible over a year and a half ago, when I described this
looming confrontation:

"So far, the Americans have come up against those they call
'Saddamists' - by which term is meant followers of Saddam Hussein,
not Oscar Wilde. These 'holdouts' and 'dead enders' are the 'remnants'
of the Ba'athist Party, we are confidently assured, as if the
insurgency is petering out along with the effects of Saddam's reign.
Yet attacks on occupation forces, in terms of ferocity, numbers, and
geographical reach, are increasing. It hardly takes a strategic genius
to see that the fuel of Shi'ite fury spread over this smoldering
rebellion will stoke the fires of resistance - and quite possibly
flare up into a regional conflagration that could bring in Iran, and
possibly others."

A regional war, dragging Iran and quite possibly Syria into the Iraqi
maelstrom, is precisely what some elements in the administration are
hoping for. The seeds of a Middle Eastern conflagration were planted
the moment U.S. and British troops set foot on Iraqi soil. Today, in
Basra, we are reaping the whirlwind.

-Justin Raimondo