Dagget,

You say >> “… the indisputed [SIC] 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.”

Once again, Dagget, these are not undisputed facts. This is typical Dagget behaviour. You’re quite happy to add your own interpretation to events without any proof.

These are the undisputed facts.

1) Undercover British soldiers killed an Iraqi policeman and wounded one of his colleagues during a gun battle.
2) Civilians in the area were wounded in the crossfire.
3) The soldiers were arrested by Iraqi police
4) The Iraqi police had no lawful authority to arrest the British soldiers
5) The Iraqi police passed these men on to the local terrorists
6) The Iraqi Police were often involved in terrorist attacks against coalition forces
7) The undercover soldiers could have fought their way out at great cost in Iraqi life, but did not do so
8) The British rescued the soldiers from a terrorist safehouse

Who opened fire first, is in dispute. Who wounded the civilians is in dispute. Whether the Iraqi police were trying to kill British soldiers, knowing full well they were undercover is in dispute.

Dagget says “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 behaviour of the British soldiers (you don’t know they were SAS) was not suspicious in the least. They were undercover. That’s not cause for suspicion. It happens all the time. If the soldiers were really on a black ops type false flag mission, they would not have surrendered to police.

TBC

There's so many glaring holes in Paul's last post, it's hard to know where to begin.

How could imagine that (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8) are undisputed, is beyond me.

Just for starters (5) "The Iraqi police passed these men on to the local terrorists" is disputed in more ways than one by Fatah al-Sheikh, a member of the Iraqi National Assembly:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/CAUGHT_RED__0923.html
"Contrary to British authorities' claims that the soldiers had been immediately handed to local militia, al-Sheikh confirmed that they were "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."

So, if the word 'undisputed' has any meaning at all, then that one falls flat on its face immediately.

If Paul wants to present so many outlandish claims as 'undisputed facts' then he should at least provide the sources.

So, by what law are police not allowed to arrest people dressed as civilians who have shot dead a policeman? If any such law exists it would be an outrage.

Had Paul hadn't even bothered to think through the implications of what he wrote?

Is he really trying to suggest that is likely that the police would have fired first unless the SAS men did something that appeared threatening to them, such as the SAS men reaching for their own weapons?

If the police shot first in an unprovoked premeditated fashion, then why would the police subsequently arrested them and not killed them outright?

In any case, if, for argument's sake, Paul's version is true, the why does he suppose the British apologised to the Basra government instead of demanding an apology from them, since the latter had obviously behaved so outrageously?

At least three corrections are needed to the above post. My apologies:

2nd paragraph should be:

How could [Paul] imagine that (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8) are undisputed, is beyond me.

8th paragraph should have third word omitted to read:

Had Paul even bothered to think through the implications of what he wrote?

In the 11th (last) paragraph , the first 'the' should have been 'then' :

In any case, if, for argument's sake, Paul's version is true, then why does he suppose the British apologised to the Basra government instead of demanding an apology from them, since the latter had obviously behaved so outrageously?

Dagget,

You say >> “"The Iraqi police passed these men on to the local terrorists" is disputed in more ways than one by Fatah al-Sheikh, a member of the Iraqi National Assembly:”

Yet Al Jazeera TV confirms(link beloew) that the two men were taken by the Mahdi army militiamen. Considering how much anti-coalition lying is going on in this article, the fact that they admit that the Brits were held by militiamen is conclusive.
http://www.aljazeerah.info/News%20archives/2005%20News%20Archives/September/22%20n/British%20Occupation%20Forces%20Suspected%20Behind%20Sectarian%20Terrorism%20in%20Southern%20Iraq%20The%20Two%20British%20Soldiers%20Drove%20a%20Car%20Bomb%20in%20Basra.htm

It is confirmed here. http://www.payvand.com/news/05/nov/1047.html
And here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4262336.stm

In fact you yourself directly quote a Mahdi Army militiamen referring to “his” police. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8288#131210

You deny that the Iraqi Police were EVER infiltrated by militiamen loyal to Moqtadr AlSadr.

But the BBC confirm this to be the case The BBC's Paul Wood said >> “none of Basra's 20,000 police officers had helped the UK troops "partly because of reticence by their commanders, partly because, I am afraid, they have been infiltrated by these militants". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4262336.stm

The Iraqi National Police are often reported as being Shiite militia dominated, however there has been extensive reorganizations and purges in the ranks over the past few months. http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2006/07/iraqi_police_take_an.php

“British forces killed seven gunmen and blew up the headquarters of the police serious crimes unit in southern Basra on Monday in a raid to rescue prisoners (Iraqi prisoners) who were about to be killed, the British military said. Calling the police station a centre of "criminal enterprise" and a symbol of oppression for the city's residents, the military said the building was demolished with explosives after a pre-dawn assault by around 1,000 troops backed by tanks.” http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/COL533203.htm

“The signs of the militias are everywhere at the Sholeh police station. Posters celebrating Moqtada al-Sadr, head of the Mahdi Army militia, dot the building's walls. The police chief sometimes remarks that Shiite militias should wipe out all Sunnis. Visitors to this violent neighborhood in the Iraqi capital whisper that nearly all the police officers have split loyalties.”. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/30/AR2006103001323.html

I have more sources if you are interested.

CONT'

You say >> “So, by what law are police not allowed to arrest people dressed as civilians who have shot dead a policeman”

Iraqi Police are not authorized to arrest members of the coalition forces. The reason is simple. It prevents militia posing as police from arresting soldiers and then killing them.

You say >> Is he really trying to suggest that is likely that the police would have fired first unless the SAS men did something that appeared threatening to them, such as the SAS men reaching for their own weapons?

Yes Dagget, that’s exactly what I’m saying. I know you have tremendous difficulty with comprehension but I will put this simply for you. The Iraqi police have a very long tradition of breaking the law, not upholding it. During Saddams time they were an instrument of state oppression. Since the overthrow of Saddam, many Shia police, (who make up virtually ALL of Sothern Iraqs Police) owe their first allegiance to Moqtadr Al Sadr. So yes, I’m saying it is likely that the Iraqi police fired first. Iraqi police KNOW they are not allowed to arrest coalition soldiers, undercover or otherwise.

You say >> if the police shot first in an unprovoked premeditated fashion, then why would the police subsequently arrested them and not killed them outright?”

Firstly, the men were arrested by OTHER Iraqi police. Obviously the dead man and his injured colleague didn't arrest anyone. Secondly, I have never suggested that ALL Iraqi Police are militiamen. It does however seems they were arrested by police who were loyal to the Al Sadr. As evidenced by the handover of the brits.

Paul wrote, "Iraqi Police are not authorized to arrest members of the coalition forces. The reason is simple. It prevents militia posing as police from arresting soldiers and then killing them."

Even disregarding the illegality of the invasion of Iraq in the first place, I would have at least thought that policemen of Basra would not have been under any obligation to submit to the authority of British soldiers unless they were in uniform and certainly under no obligation to submit to the authority of British soldiers disguised to look like arabs.

Anyway, please be assured, I intend to respond, in full to the rest of Paul's unusually bizarre recent posts.
---

In the meantime, I urge everyone to check this brilliant BrassCheck TV broadcast(1) at:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/253.html

... and then afterwards visit:

http://www.newbushcoins.com/

... and order a set of 'coins' (fridge magnets really) for US$9.98 + postage and handling, particularly if you happen to live in North America.

---

CELEBRATING THE AGE OF BUSH

The commemorative coin set

You've probably seen the ads for commemorative coins celebrating Obama's election.

But what about soon to be former president George W. Bush?

Celebrate the president who gave so much (irony alert)

If you need a laugh, this will provide it.

Details:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/253.html

- Brasscheck

P.S. Please share Brasscheck TV e-mails and
videos with friends and colleagues.

That's how we grow. Thanks.

---

1. However, I suspect that some of the humour will be lost on some in our midst, including 9/11 deniers and the politically correct.