CONT'

You say >> “The fact that the British are apparently operating in Basra against the wishes of the local population ... “

I see. You did a straw poll did you? How do you know this? Or, if just one of Basra’s residents opposes the Brits presence, that’s enough for you?

You say >> “Why that doesn't seem extremely suspicious to Paul, I don't understand.”

I don’t leap to conclusions that terrorists and their sympathisers hand to me on a plate. I know that Britain has operated undercover soldiers effectively during the Northern Ireland conflict and since. They go undercover to do surveillance and they are heavily armed because if they are compromised they may have to fight their way out without help. The informant who suggested that the Brits had a bomb and a detonator and were intending to blow up a religious festival, just COINCIDENTLY happens to be an armed combatant at war with the British. Furthermore, Al Jazeera TV filmed the equipment that the Brits were arrested with, and did not mention bombs or detonators. And Al Jazeera can hardly be charged with Pro-British bias.

Why that doesn’t seem suspicious to YOU, I don’t understand.

Do you really profess surprise that in a country at war, soldiers would be armed?

I notice you are still avoiding the simple question " Why did the Bush adminstration tell the truth about the lack of WMD in Iraq"?

You know its a good question, which is why you regularly avoid it. I cannot see why they would do such a thing after they had just carried out the biggest/worst covert operation against their own people in US history in order to legitemise the Iraq invasion. And then they shoot it down, by simply telling the truth?

I don't think so.

Finally, still spruiking for an audience for the 9/11 debate? Face the fact that no-one wants to read your drivel if they can help it. Anyway, the case that Aliens built the pyramids has more compelling evidence than the case for a false flag operation on 9/11.

Paul wrote, "You have been caught out being 'careless' with the truth at least half dozen times in the last month."

If Paul must lead this discussion off on such a tangent, then at least show others what he is talking about by, for example, providing links so that others can judge for themselves.

It's interesting that Paul, rather than I, is the one who seems embarrassed about the discussion in which he claims I have been caught out lying, "shown up", etc, etc.

If anyone is interested in the discussion on 9/11 Truth and I think they should be, because it is the central justification for the whole fraudulent "war on terror", they should look at the discussion at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=74#53689

---

Paul has not acknowledged the central point of my last post, that is, that he admits that he doesn't know what happened but excuses the British Government for neither bringing the SAS men to trial for the murder of the Iraqi policeman nor for conducting a proper inquiry into the incident

Paul wrote, "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?".

The Mahdi Army was a militia which operated legally in the area. It had popular support and had cooperated with the British before September 2005.

As such, I think that they would have a legitimate interest in the matter.

Whatever protocols should have been applied in dealing with the suspected terrorists, that issue should surely pale into insignificance beside the issue of the crime committed and waht looks like an even greater crime that was foiled.

Paul wrote, "... Al Jazeera TV filmed the equipment that the Brits were arrested with, and did not mention bombs or detonators. And Al Jazeera can hardly be charged with Pro-British bias."

Well, where's your source?

Let's see for ourselves if the Al Jazeera report precludes any possibility of explosives. Did they at least report the allegations that bombs were found? If those allegations were made, then why shouldn't they have been investigated?

Paul wants us to only believe what is reported in the mainstream media and automatically discount anything that is not. In fact, it is clear that the mainstream media's reporting has been misleading and if we are to learn the truth, we have to go other sources.

Note, for example, this SMH story, which also fails to mention the allegations of explosives:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/petrol-bombs-fly-as-tanks-free-sas-men/2005/09/20/1126982027612.html

Dagget,

You continually ignore any question you have difficulty answering or which doesn’t fit with your preconceived world view.

I will again list the questions you have evaded from my last post

1) Where are all the reams of evidence you claim to have presented proving that “MOST” of the Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq was actually carried out by the coalition?
2) What is my preposterous case?
3) Why did the Bush administration tell the truth about the lack of WMD in Iraq"?

Your complete lack of understanding of the subject matter, which you have been forced to admit dozens of times, together with your sweeping generalisations, and complete absence of actual “evidence” for your BIZARRE claims is well known now.

All the evidence points to there being no bombs or detonators in the Brits car. All we have is the word of an organisation which has the most to gain from making such an accusation. YOU have produced NO evidence that there was a bomb in the car besides the word of the people who kidnapped the British Soldiers.

In any case, it’s not my job to prove to you that there were no bombs. Nor is it the British Gov’ts. When you make an allegation like this, you have to substantiate it. You have FAILED to do this.

I'm not surprised that you would believe the terrorists over EVERYONE else. However normal, thinking people will find it rather difficult to believe the group responsible for MOST of the roadside bombs in southern Iraq when they accuse the British of carrying out such an act. After all, what possible motive could they have for lying? (note heavy sarcasm)

I suppose you believe Iran’s Ahmedinejhad when he says there was no such thing as the holocaust?

Dagget says >> “The Mahdi Army was a militia which operated legally in the area. It had popular support and had cooperated with the British before September 2005.’

What planet do you come from? The Mahdi Army may have infiltrated the Police Force but they were by no means a legal force.

TBC

CONT'

They were involved in attacks on British and Coalition soldiers starting in 2004 with the Shia uprising and continuing on through 2005. There is NOTHING legitimate about the Mahdi Army militia, certainly not in 2005. You're clearly prepared to say anything.

I simply cannot believe that you are denying that the Mahdi Army were involved in terrorism in Southern Iraq. Maybe you've been reading the Mahdi Armies promotional literature.

The BBC article you posted as evidence of the “booby-trapped” british car, states .. “al-Jazeera news channel footage, purportedly of the equipment carried in the men's car, showed 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. “

Don’t you even read the articles you quote?

You say >> “Paul wants us to only believe what is reported in the mainstream media and automatically discount anything that is not. In fact, it is clear that the mainstream media's reporting has been misleading and if we are to learn the truth, we have to go other sources.”

Again you feel the need to make stuff up rather than quote me. You seem pathologically incapable of telling the truth. Don’t paraphrase me anymore because EVERY time you do, YOU LIE. And it seems clear that you simply don’t care. You are happy to lie if it helps make your case. SAD

So let’s just summarize your claim. You have presented claims by terrorists whose main enemy is British Forces, that the British soldiers arrested had a bomb and a detonator etc. You have produced no other evidence at all, except for the BBC article which you LIED about. You then had the gall to suggest that this was proof that MOST of the terrorist attacks and bombing carried out in Iraq were actually false flag operations carried out by undercover Brits. You don’t mind a tall tale do you Dagget? Lack of evidence is obviously no sticking point for you as only non-westerners or loony-leftists tell the truth.

Once again, here are some of the indisputed facts:

Two British SAS men, dressed as Arabs opened fire on Iraqi policeman and a crowd of civilians at a roadblock. They killed one policeman, wounded another and wounding several civilians.

They fled in their car and were subsequently captured.

Why won't Paul acknowledge that:

1. a gravely serious crime had been committed

2. that by the behaviour the SAS was extremely suspicious and warranted further investigation by the police

?

The fact Paul fails to address these salient facts and, instead, attempts to lead this discussion into tangents, indicates to me, that once again, he is not here to help us understand the question at hand.

---

Paul wrote, " will again list the questions you have evaded from my last post ...

"3) Why did the Bush administration tell the truth about the lack of WMD in Iraq?"

The fact that Paul chooses to drag such a preposterous and irrelevant argument, which has already been put (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#46642 #48438 #48471 #48488 #48513) elsewhere and answered by me (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#48483 #48489), into this forum seems to be a sign of sheer desperation on his part.

This seems to me to be a curious definition of "tell(ing) the truth".

Both Bush and Blair knowingly lied to the world about Iraq's alleged WMD program. We know this from leaked minutes of a meeting between the two on 21 January 2003 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/03/iraq.usa).

Paul has seriously attempted to suggest that, if, after the invasion, the US had planted evidence of a WMD program, no-one -- no journalist and no UN weapons inspector -- would have seen through it, and that the invasion would have been fully vindicated in the eyes of world public opinion.

The only possible motive Paul imagines for Bush deciding not to go to the enormous trouble and expense of constructing a fake Iraqi WMD facility was ... honesty!

---

I trust that others will understand why I don't immediately attempt to respond to each and every one of Paul's 'arguments', least of all those I have already responded to.