How about a pause and let's review the year 2008 in satire. The news by Uncle Jay Is spot on!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWiXy55OHyY

Dagget,

You really are a terrible LIAR aren’t you.

You post a link to an article claiming the British were in a booby trapped car. But whoops, the article doesn’t say that. The article says the soldiers were arrested after a shooting incident which killed an Iraqi policeman. Al Jazeera news showed footage of the car that the brits were in. >> “It purportedly [showed] the equipment carried in the men's car, 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 theatre of operations, he said. “ Where is the bit about the booby-trapped car?

You clearly have become so comfortable with lying it no longer matters to you what you say. I will expect ANOTHER apology.

You say >> “Paul, if you want us to automatically disregard anything written by Global Research, how about showing us where they have got their facts wrong?

Again, nowhere have I said this. What I am pointing out is that you seem to have no critical thinking ability of your own. “If it’s published in Global Research, well then it must be true”, is the attitude you seem to take. I certainly am not suggesting they are always wrong, merely that they are not ALWAYS right, which is what you unfortunately believe.

You take a global research article, which without any proof accuses coalition soldiers of being behind all of the violence in Iraq. There was no such thing as Sunni-Shia civil unrest, just squaddies dressed in dish-dashas delivering booby trapped cars. The article further claims that there is no such thing as AlQaeda in Iraq or Abu Musab Al Zarqawi.

Whos this guy then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=U68igQqLbVY

Frankly you should read David Irving’s propaganda about the non-holocaust as it seems you will believe ANYTHING and pro Nazi propoganda is right up Elias Akleh's alley.

TBC

Paul has a small point. Although the term "booby-trap" was used in one of the articles I cited (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=KEE20050925&articleId=994) in relation to another incident, it appears that there is no evidence that the car the SAS were driving was literally "booby-trapped".

However, in the same article, according to Sheik Hassan al-Zarqani, a spokesman for Al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia:

"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..." This is backed up by a photograph.

Of course, Paul will insist that we cannot consider any of that evidence reliable.

However, lets consider all the extraordinary facts and contradictions and the overall context. The SAS men claimed to be on a reconnaissance mission, so what were they doing with such a deadly arsenal in their car if that was the case?

Why did they kill a policeman and wound another as well as civilians if they were doing nothing suspicious? Why did the local British Commander resort to such extraordinary measures to prevent the Basra police from questioning them in order to establish what they were doing?

After this outrage the British 'apologised', but never conducted any investigation nor brought the SAS men to justice for the murder of the Iraqi policeman.

As I pointed out elsewhere, Paul has formed the habit of blaming the Iraqis for violence to excuse crimes such as Abu Ghraib and the invasion itself.

He has repeatedly made the claim that Iraqis are responsible for more deaths than the occupying British and Americans, when the evidence I have pointed to shows that this may not be the case. The Iraqis are entitled to have that evidence seriously considered.

---

I have no idea who that idiot in the video at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=U68igQqLbVY is.

For further evidence that Abu Musab Al Zarqawi is a fictitious creation of the US occupiers, read "More Holes in the Official Story on Zarqawi's Death" at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20060611&articleId=2630

Dagget,

cont' from above

AGAIN you’ve had to admit you were, at best, careless with the truth.

Did you even bother to check out who Elias Akleh is, and whether perhaps he is a Hamas sympathiser?

He believes

1) The Iraqi constitution was designed to allow Israeli Jews who emigrated from Iraq to return and create a Jewish state.

2) Americans are responsible for the roadside bombs in Iraq

3) After 1948 Terrorist acts were perpetrated by Zionists against Jewish communities in the Arab World, as well as throughout European countries to coerce the Jews to immigrate … The Jews weren’t forced out of their homes by Arabs.

4) The Israelis were behind the Amman bombings and not militant Islamists. But then he doesn’t believe the militant Islamists exist so I suppose you have to blame somebody.

Akleh is NUTS. He is a worse conspiracy nut than you. He is one of those Arabs who believe that Israeli intelligence is behind EVERYTHING.

You say >> “So what do you think the British SAS soldiers were doing dressed as Arabs in a booby-trapped car? “

Working undercover moron. Covert surveillance maybe, or direct action, I don’t know. You certainly don’t know. All we do know is what was contained in the BBC article, and even that is no doubt debatable. Shia militias had thoroughly infiltrated the Police in Basra.

This is clearly demonstrated by the Al Sadr militia leader reffering to “OUR” police. And the fact that the undercover Brits ended up being held by a Shia Militia group speaks volumes as to the relationship between the police in Basra and the Shia militias. Or did you miss that as well?

You say >> “He has repeatedly made the claim that Iraqis are responsible for more deaths than the occupying British and Americans, when the evidence I have pointed to shows that this may not be the case”

That’s just the point Dagget. You have produced no such evidence. All you’ve done is mangle 1 story about undercover British soldiers. How you extrapolate from that is anyone’s guess

Of course it is to be expected Paul will crow triumphantly because I have committed a careless error of fact. I would suggest that if he were to back up his preposterous case with anywhere near as much evidence as I use that he would have committed at least as many errors as I had.

---

Whilst one detail I provided may be wrong, the essential facts remain: British SAS men dressed as Arabs were caught with a deadly arsenal by police in Basra, just before a religious ceremony was to be held. They killed a policeman and wounded other Iraqis, were arrested, but the Iraqi police were prevented from questioning these men because the local British Army attacked the police station and freed the SAS men.

Why that doesn't seem extremely suspicious to Paul, I don't understand.

The fact that the British are apparently operating in Basra against the wishes of the local population appears to have gone right over Paul's head.

---

Paul wrote, "... I don’t know. You certainly don’t know."

And as with the 9/11 atrocity (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=75#53689), Paul doesn't want to know and doesn't want anyone else to know.

He is happy to accept the assurances of governments, and excuses them for not conducting a proper enquiries.

Dagget,

You say >> “Of course it is to be expected Paul will crow triumphantly because I have committed a careless error of fact. I would suggest that if he were to back up his preposterous case with anywhere near as much evidence as I use that he would have committed at least as many errors as I had.”

You have been caught out being “careless” with the truth at least half dozen times in the last month. It seems to me you have decided the truth is no longer enough to make your case and you are resorting to flat out LYING.

Where are all these reams of evidence? And what is my preposterous case? That there was a sectarian conflict between the Sunni and the Shia? Because that’s what happened according to EVERY reputable news agency on the planet.

But not according to one Hamas sympathiser writing on Global Research’s website. Well heck, I’m convinced. I mean why would HE lie? Of course every Reputable newspaper in the world, with real journalists who check facts and cite sources, must be wrong. Hope you didn’t miss the SARCASM.

You said >> “ … MUCH of the conflict, particularly the sectarian conflict between Shiites and Sunnis appears to have been a consequence of 'false flag' terrorism either directly carried out by the occupying forces or sponsored by them.

Is this another careless error of fact? Or do you expect us to believe that your one mangled case of undercover British soldiers, is in fact how the WHOLE CONFLICT played out?

You say >> “Whilst one detail I provided may be wrong, the essential facts remain: “

No they don’t Dagget. It seems clear that you have avoided the fact that the undercover Brits were rescued after being held captive by a SHIA MILITIA group. The police passed these soldiers on to a terrorist organisation and you’re wondering why the Brits wanted to rescue them? Are you seriously retarded or is it just an act?

Did you know that the Basra Police were acting unlawfully by holding the British soldiers?

TBC