http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4262724.stm

Last Updated: Tuesday, 20 September 2005, 07:00 GMT 08:00 UK



Basra violence horrifies UK newspapers



Images of a British soldier, uniform ablaze, leaping from a burning vehicle horrify many papers, prompting fresh calls for withdrawal from Iraq.


The Independent believes the "anarchy" to be a "the most graphic example yet" of how southern Iraq is "descending into turmoil".


The Daily Mirror says it is a "miracle" no one was killed.

It says British servicemen are being needlessly put at risk and it is time

to get them out of this "trap".



Petrol bombs

Max Hastings, writing in the Daily Mail, says those who saw footage of the troops being petrol bombed were left "reeling with shock and humiliation".

He doubts their open-ended presence in Iraq is achieving anything and says planning for withdrawal should begin.

The paper's leader column says it has argued in the past that to "cut and run" would have been "utterly immoral".

But now it says the events in Basra show this "debacle" cannot be allowed to continue.



'Nightmare'

The Daily Express describes Monday's scenes in Iraq's second city as "the stuff of nightmares".

If "our brave boys" are not able to defend themselves, then it is time to pull out of Iraq, it says.


But far from hastening withdrawal, the Daily Telegraph believes the latest violence in Basra is likely to set back plans for a substantial cut in troop numbers.

It quotes unnamed defence sources as saying at least 8,000 troops are likely to stay until the end of next year.

Ferocious crowds

The Sun and the Times focus on what the Sun calls the "dramatic rescue" of two British soldiers held inside the main Basra police station.

The Times quotes a military source saying the "ferocity" of crowds outside meant breaking into the police station to rescue the was the only option.

The Guardian is among several carrying photographs of the captured pair inside the police station.

A "myth of trust" between UK and Iraqi forces has been "shattered" it says.

**************

What the fuck is going on there, christ they kidnap, our troops!!!!!, then hand them over to the local militia!!!!!!!, then they have the audacity to start a riot!!!!!!!!, when we get our boys back from them!!!!!!!!!!


Its time to pack up, and ship out!!!!!
The shias in basra, are not worth protecting, let them fight it out with the sunnis.


Jesus h christ if iraqi police, are handing over our troops now to militia, what is the fucking point in staying there.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The way I read this news item, the British soldiers "rescued" were inciting violence, shooting civilians while posing as Arabs. When they were arrested, UK/US demanded that they be released without charge (after all, Iraq is a UK/US territory). The Iraqi prez agreed (because he's a puppet grateful for his cut of the take), but local officials balked at his order to release, and rightly so. Then British troops endangered more people by destroying the jail to release their comrades. Who knows how many innocents were killed all together. Who knows how many more will be harmed by other freed inmates. Britain will not leave Iraq because there's too much profit to be had. Neither will the US. That is why violence must be commonplace there for decades to come, to give UK/US a reason to stay and secure the flow of oil profits into the coffers of the wealthy supporters of Blair/Bush, who are private servants. That explains why the British soldiers were intentionally shooting civilians in a "security mission."

The way I read this news item, the British soldiers "rescued" were inciting violence, shooting civilians while posing as Arabs.

yeah i also heard, iranian tv were saying we were, shooting at muslims as they left the mosque, no wonder muslims hate us so much, with the bullshit they are fed about us.

No the reason the sas were stopped, and arrested is perhaps they were getting to close to iraqi militia.

"posing as Arabs"
How?
did they have 9 wives a piece with them, or explosives in the car,
did they have flight school lessons, false passports, dual names, did they visit mosques burning the uk or us flag,
because if they did nothing of the above, how on earth can they pose as a arab?

Its time to pack up, and ship out!!!!!

Wow, how French of your "powerful" British Empire.

- N

Wow, how French of your "powerful" British Empire.

- N
At the start, i supported the iraq invasion, but even die hard fanatics, can see the iraq invasion, was a deep mistake, The dumb ass bush started it all, and blair maybe, because he is a fellow christian followed him there.

Because as michael moore said, we know bush is dumb,whats blairs excuse, he is a intelligent guy.

I can only nail it to some shared christian belief, they have, other than that there was no logic for the uk to go there.

Both Blair and Bush got into the war for a logical reason: money. They'll make gobs of it. Bush got re-elected in part due to Iraq, so four more years of an ego trip. When he leaves office he'll make tens of millions in speaking fees / book deals / etc. from Republican friends he showered public money upon, including via Iraqi oil.

The Media are guilty of giving the impression that the British area of responsibility has been a haven of peace whilst the US administered sector is one mass warzone!!!

This is of course not the case and after one incident (which was filmed and photographed) the cry is "troops out". It happened in Vietnam, Tet offensive in 1968, the viet cong and North vietnamese were "hammered" by the US Military and suffered huge casualties, but isolated incidents were filmed and gave the impression that the war was not winnable.

Mind you I have not a clue how we can sort out this mess.

I expect a "bullshit" statement that the insurgents are contained and a "total lie" that the Iraqi government can handle the situation, followed by a rushed withdrawal "with honour!!!)

At the start, i supported the iraq invasion, but even die hard fanatics, can see the iraq invasion, was a deep mistake, The dumb ass bush started it all, and blair maybe, because he is a fellow christian followed him there.

Glad ya came around. I've noticed a couple of your recent threads and it made me wonder if that was really you or if Vincent is a secondary account and you logged into the wrong one when posting those, heh. Let's just hope others will see the light and not continue fighting all for the sake of vanity.

- N

Both Blair and Bush got into the war for a logical reason: money. They'll make gobs of it. Bush got re-elected in part due to Iraq, so four more years of an ego trip. When he leaves office he'll make tens of millions in speaking fees / book deals / etc. from Republican friends he showered public money upon, including via Iraqi oil.

However the Iraq war cost Blair a large amount of his majority

It is somewhat amusing to me that people don't even recognize what war is until they are actually waging it: people getting killed. All of a sudden they have to change their stance instead of sticking through with their initial decision.

It is somewhat amusing to me that people don't even recognize what war is until they are actually waging it: people getting killed. All of a sudden they have to change their stance instead of sticking through with their initial decision.

"sticking through with their initial decision"

Is being stupid, we are all humans, we make mistakes, to see out that mistake, to the bitter end, is stupid beyond belief, the americans, would still be fighting in vietnam today, if they had stuck, with there original commie bashing ideas.

The trouble with bush is, he still thinks the iraq decision was right, even though 5 billion people, think he was wrong.

It is somewhat amusing to me that people don't even recognize what war is until they are actually waging it: people getting killed. All of a sudden they have to change their stance instead of sticking through with their initial decision.

I agree!

I am, however, not so amused about the fact that so few vocal protestors seem to have the ability to change the course of present-day events. That isn't so funny.

In the USA, just a few protestors, loud though they be, seem to be able to change our national policies and our duly elected officials seem to bow to their demands, while at the same time, seeming to ignore those who voted them into office. That ain't so funny to me.

Baron Max

[QUOTE=vincent28uk..., the americans, would still be fighting in vietnam today, if they had stuck, with there original commie bashing ideas.[/quote]

No, if they'd really went to war, then Hanoi and most of North Vietnam would still be a smoking ruin!! We didn't fight a "war" in Vietnam, we just putzed around because the politicians didn't want any of the enemy killed!

And we're doing the same damned thing in Iraq!

Baron Max

No, if they'd really went to war, then Hanoi and most of North Vietnam would still be a smoking ruin!! We didn't fight a "war" in Vietnam, we just putzed around because the politicians didn't want any of the enemy killed!

And we're doing the same damned thing in Iraq!

Baron Max

Baron america, carpet bombed vietnam with thousands of bombs, the vietnamese soldiers hid in underground tunnels, there was no laser guided missile attacks, everybody on the ground got carpet bombed, including american soldiers, on the ground, like iraq it was a farce.

There are still thousands of unexploded bombs in vietnam today, and also in laos.

The reason we are makiing a mess in iraq, is because only a handfull of people, the puppet government are behind us, the minute we go the puppet government is dead, nobody wants us there the shiaas, or the sunnis, its time to pack our bags and go, you can not win a war, when you dont have the support, of the local population, or the police force, which has been infiltrated by 75% with militants.

You don't know shit about Vietnam, Vincent! We weren't allowed to bomb Hanoi, we weren't allowed to bomd Haiphong harbor, we weren't allowed to bomb military airstrips, we weren't allowed to strafe any military targets in the area of Hanoi, .....etc., etc. How can you win a war if you ain't allowed to hit enemy targets??? And we're doing the same idiotic shit in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Baron Max

You don't know shit about Vietnam, Vincent! We weren't allowed to bomb Hanoi, we weren't allowed to bomd Haiphong harbor, we weren't allowed to bomb military airstrips, we weren't allowed to strafe any military targets in the area of Hanoi, .....etc., etc. How can you win a war if you ain't allowed to hit enemy targets??? And we're doing the same idiotic shit in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Baron Max
You are right vietnam, is not my specialised subject, and if there hands were tied there, it would explain the length of the war, but the reasons behind the war, commie bashing are ridiculous, as was rooting out communism in hollywood, charlie chaplain was refused entry in america, after leaving for a holiday, because of his supposed communist views.

communism is a joke, it always was, to take it serious is a joke, communism in countries has to run its course, until the people demand change.

It is somewhat amusing to me that people don't even recognize what war is until they are actually waging it: people getting killed. All of a sudden they have to change their stance instead of sticking through with their initial decision.

Agreed.

It shows that the two great democracies of the planet are capable of telling blatant lies, selecting rumour over fact and feeding on peoples fear and paranoia to justify a war which is probably less about security and more about money.

How many people said this war would create more terrorists and more violence. Violence breeds violence as has been beautifully illustrated over the last couple of years. How many thousands protested in London but were ignored by the lap dog as he danced around his monkey boy master?

When will western society learn to stop starting wars with the niave notion that they are good therefor the war is a good cause were victory will be short and sweet?

How many people said this war would create more terrorists and more violence.

I don't know, do you? Please tell me.

And also, while ye're at it, please explain why anyone should have listened to them without any evidence of the assertions? And please don't use hindsight as a proof!!

When will western society learn to stop starting wars...

Conflict is a normal, natural part of the human animal. If you want proof, just read some of the posts here at the forums ...they're sometimes so "violent" that it's difficult to consider that they're actually only written words on a computer screen. Can you imagine how those people would be if we gave them a few big, military weapons?

Baron Max

I don't know, do you? Please tell me.

And also, while ye're at it, please explain why anyone should have listened to them without any evidence of the assertions? And please don't use hindsight as a proof!!

I'm not saying they had a factual point at the time, it was just the general consensus of the British people over the war before the war started. It was one of the main arguments of the million people who protested in london over the war. Many people predicted it. We are dealing with a religious fanatical section of the world which is still largely living in the dark ages, of course they are going to resist what they don't understand.

Conflict is a normal, natural part of the human animal. If you want proof, just read some of the posts here at the forums ...they're sometimes so "violent" that it's difficult to consider that they're actually only written words on a computer screen. Can you imagine how those people would be if we gave them a few big, military weapons?

That's not really a good justification for the men who run the two biggest economies in the world to start a war without provocation or even justification.

If they had a crystal ball, would they even have started the war in the first place? Or do they still think it is worth it? If they haven't learned from this, then dangerous times are ahead if they think it's ok to start wars that will probably turn out in the mess we have today.

I'm not saying they had a factual point at the time, ...

Then they didn't know any more than anyone else, did they.

Many people predicted it.

So ....should our governments now listen and obey any and all "predictions" of any and all future events? How many people "predict" the end of the world coming soon?

That's not really a good justification for the men who run the two biggest economies in the world to start a war without provocation or even justification.

But why can't you see that they THOUGHT, at the time, that they WERE justified?!? And some even feel that it's still justified, even if it's now a different justification. Just because "some" don't think it was justified, doesn't mean that everyone felt the same way.

And, yes, many still think that it's worth the efforts and the sacrifices. You don't, but does that make you right? And you see, that's exactly how conflicts and wars begin ....with a difference of opinion on some issue ...and it soon escalates into war.

Baron Max

But why can't you see that they THOUGHT, at the time, that they WERE justified?!? And some even feel that it's still justified, even if it's now a different justification. Just because "some" don't think it was justified, doesn't mean that everyone felt the same way.
The problem is just that Max... they thought they were justified to attack a non-provoking Country to procure their natural resources. If you honestly believe that with the intelligence capabilities of both the US and UK (ie Our billions of tax dollars) they thought that Iraq was a threat... that should piss you off more that they misappropriated the funds. Let's face it... they went there for one reason, and one reason only: OIL.

And, yes, many still think that it's worth the efforts and the sacrifices. You don't, but does that make you right? And you see, that's exactly how conflicts and wars begin ....with a difference of opinion on some issue ...and it soon escalates into war.
Max... you make this too easy for me. If a difference of opinion was reason enough for violence... then aren't you worried that posting your differences of opinions on these boards could somehow motivate someone to harm you?... and that it would be justified? That is the problem with our governments as well as a large number of our citizens... we actually accept and condone this type of behavior and rhetoric. Perhaps the view of Bush as a Cowboy holds true... shoot first, justify it later.

leave it to the Americans all they wanted was the oil now they have made a right mess of Iraq.

No, if they'd really went to war, then Hanoi and most of North Vietnam would still be a smoking ruin!! We didn't fight a "war" in Vietnam, we just putzed around because the politicians didn't want any of the enemy killed!
Well, Nixon was threatening North Vietnam and the Soviet Union with nuclear strikes, but this would have instigated the dreaded mutually assurred destruction. Also, Americans were more than a little peaved about all their young men dying, in addition to the lying (sound familiar?).

I'm starting to think that the cons invaded Iraq out of spite, in an attempt to re-fight Vietnam, only this time "the right way". It was a mistake then, and it's a mistake now. The con policy of pre-emptive strikes in the name of promoting democracy will lead to the end of the United States. We barely escaped a revolution in the US over Vietnam.

Well, Nixon was threatening North Vietnam and the Soviet Union with nuclear strikes, but this would have instigated the dreaded mutually assurred destruction.

Who said anything about nuclear strikes??? Or did you just "ass-ume" that from what I'd written? We weren't even allowed to drop ANY fuckin' bombs on Hanoi or the port of Haiphong ...two of the most important targets in the entire war. Pretty damned stupid way to fight a war, huh?

Baron Max

Baron Max:

We weren't even allowed to drop ANY fuckin' bombs on Hanoi or the port of Haiphong ...two of the most important targets in the entire war. Pretty damned stupid way to fight a war, huh?


http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/timeline.htm

VIETNAM WAR TIMELINE:

1972

Nixon Cuts Troop Levels by 70K: Responding to charges by Democratic presidential candidates that he is not moving fast enough to end US involvement in Vietnam, President Nixon orders troop strength reduced by seventy thousand.

Secret Peace Talks Revealed

B-52s Bomb Hanoi and Haiphong: In an attempt to force North Vietnam to make concessions in the ongoing peace talks, the Nixon administration orders heavy bombing of supply dumps and petroleum storage sites in and around Hanoi and Haiphong. The administration makes it clear to the North Vietnamese that no section of Vietnam is off-limits to bombing raids.


Baron Max, is history revisionism a hobby of yours, or is this just a one off instance? One minute of Googling got me the above (as well as half a dozen other web pages describing the B-52 bombing raid).

...describing the B-52 bombing raid).

Yeah, one raid!! Actually, I think there was several small bombing raids, but all were on non-essential targets ...the Haiphong harbor bombing was made to be sure NOT to harm the dock facilities! It was a show ...just to get Hanoi to negotiate. It backfired.

Baron Max

Actually, I think there was several small bombing raids

You'd consider 40,000 tonnes of bombs 'several small bombing raids'?! WTF?
http://members.aol.com/dpoole1272/home/lbdays.htm

You're a funny fellow. First you claim that you weren't allowed to drop bombs on Hanoi or Haiphong, then you say that there were only 'several small bombing raids'. I understand what you are trying to say, but try not to leave out small details.

Can you tell me why it wasn't allowed, BTW? I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I'm curious as to why the U.S didn't want to damage the dock facilities in Haiphong harbour.

You'd consider 40,000 tonnes of bombs 'several small bombing raids'?! WTF?

Depends on what they hit, right? If they just dropped bombs on nothing, would 40,000 tons of bombs make any difference to anything? And that's essentially what they did ....dropped bombs on dirt!

Can you tell me why it wasn't allowed, BTW? I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I'm curious as to why the U.S didn't want to damage the dock facilities in Haiphong harbour.

As I understand it, it was due to two things ...one, public opinion (including the American hippies and the protest bullshit) and, two, in the "peace talks", the Chinese were pissed that some of their ships (loaded with war supplies!) might get damaged.

You'll note also that we weren't "allowed" to bomb the main railroad line from China to Hanoi either! ..presumably for the same reasons.

I wonder how World War II would have gone if we'd been as "political" and as "sensitive" as we were during the Vietnam War?

Baron Max

I wonder how World War II would have gone if we'd been as "political" and as "sensitive" as we were during the Vietnam War?

Baron Max
It would have gone like this - we would all be speaking German