Britons caught fighting for the Insurgents in Iraq

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Bravo_Bravo, Jan 6, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. From the Times Online.......

    Britons in Iraqi jails accused of fighting with rebels
    By Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor




    TWO Britons have been detained in Iraq on suspicion of joining the insurgency against American and British forces.
    The Foreign and Commonwealth Office confirmed yesterday that the two British citizens — and possibly a third whose identity is still being checked — had been captured last year and were being held as suspects under military detention.



    The first was arrested by British troops in November in southern Iraq and is being held at the Shaibah military camp near Basra on the ground that he poses “an imperative threat to security”.

    The second suspect was seized by US Marines last month and is being held at Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad. The men are part of a growing number of more than 300 foreigners captured in Iraq and suspected of volunteering to fight for the insurgency. Most come from Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen but Muslims from Britain, France and other Western countries have also been caught up the conflict. Foreign fighters, in some cases working for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian terrorist mastermind, have often been used for the daily suicide attacks in Iraq.

    The Foreign Office refused to release the Britons’ names or where they came from, saying that their families did not want their identities revealed. Both are believed to be British Muslims of Asian origin.

    The detainee held by the Americans is thought to be 25 years old, born in Pakistan but with a British passport. His American captors said that he spoke with a British accent.

    He was arrested on December 7 in the rebel stronghold of Ramadi by a patrol of US Marines who allegedly surprised a group of insurgents passing Kalashnikov rifles over a wall between two houses.

    A brief gunfight is said to have broken out and the Americans then arrested several suspects, including the young Briton. He told his captors that he was a peace worker and had come to Iraq to help the civilian population. He denied that he was involved in the violence directed at American forces and the US-backed Government in Baghdad.

    Although he was unarmed when captured, the Americans said that a test on his hands revealed traces of explosives.

    When questioned about this, he allegedly explained that he had found a pile of weapons on his bed where he was staying. He had moved them in order to get to sleep and his hands had probably been contaminated with residue. He was held for several days at the base in Ramadi, where a correspondent for The Economist reported that US troops were glad to find a prisoner who spoke English so that they could taunt him.

    The Americans did not believe his alibi and he was sent to Abu Ghraib, where last year US forces were accused of torturing Iraqi prisoners. The British Embassy in Baghdad has been in touch with the US military authorities over the case and a consular official is expected to visit the prisoner “very shortly”.

    Lieutenant-Colonel Barry Johnson, the US deputy responsible for detainees in Iraq, said yesterday that the Briton’s case would be reviewed within 90 days when he would either be released or kept in custody if he continued to pose a security risk. “He will be given exactly the same procedure as other detainees, whether Iraqi citi-zens or third-country nationals,” Colonel Johnson said.

    A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence in London refused to give any details about the British suspect being held in southern Iraq, other than to confirm that he was detained in November.
     
  2. they should release his name, tough luck for the family, but then they shouldn't have let him go if they were that worried. muppets!

    so there, pah
     
  3. Not entirely surprising. I met quite a number of Iraqi 'Brits' when I was there; mostly refugees who had gone back to see what it was like or people taking the opportunity following the removal of Saddam to visit long, lost relatives. These included an old boy who ran a corner shop in Leeds and his Yorkshire-speaking kids who were all hanging out with one of the more 'interesting' Shia groups.
     
  4. If caught fighting "against" us, then revoke their citizenship and leave them there, of course after a lenghty prison sentence.

    Better still bring back in capital punishment for treason
     
  5. Might be worth bringing out a "taunts" language card to fit in their equivalent of TAMs? :wink:
     
  6. Surely they should be charged with treason?
     
  7. Treason:

    [n] an act of deliberate betrayal
    [n] a crime that undermines the offender's government
    [n] disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior
     
  8. I LIKE this idea....
     
  9. Look at it another way:-

    There is little doubt that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, immoral, unjustified and indefensible at the outset. It remains so.
    Those fighting the forces of a beligerent foreign army to oust them from their own land, or on behalf of a cause they believe in strongly are surely in the right.

    The Bush/Bliar coalition is in the wrong. It's as simple as that.

    You/we/us are involved in an evil immoral conflict being fought for purely for political reasons, and to, in this country, save the political life/face of Bliar and New Labour. This is not a concern of 'ours'.

    It is extremely hard to wish 'our boys' well at the same time as nursing a wish to see the political failure of TB. If 'we' do well I'm cheered because I revell in military success but I'm saddened at the same time because 'they' will use it to their political advantage, and vice versa. It is not easy to live with.

    Never has a reason for being a concientious objector been more real and defensible.

    The blue touch paper has been lit.....I'm standing well back, but this is NOT a wind-up. This is how I feel.
     
  10. How about we revoke thier Citizenship, then charge with treason and as for taunts my I suggest "TRAITOR"? 8)
     
  11. No, no people. Be realistic, hit them where it hurts. Stop all the benefits their families claim over here. That'll make any more scumbags think twice.

    Quick Question. Does anyone remember the "Tipton Taliban" British national fighters caught in Da Stan who were taken to camp X Ray?? Where are they now? Free to roam the streets of the West Midlands calling for the release of Abu Hamza. Oh if only the SA80 was more reliable in dusty conditions, maybe they would be with all the other "blessed ones".

    :evil:
     
  12. better in iraq with 5.56 ventilation holes than sponging off the govt in the UK.


    :twisted:
     
  13. They are British Citizens, taking up arms against HM Armed Forces. They are not there to oust forces from their own land.

    Without sounding churlish, can you confirm you are serving / ex UK military?
     
  14. As an ex squaddie....

    Its got to be Treason so Hang Them, we a working Hanging system in Plymouth on the Docks I belive.... Make it Public say after the News at 2100 Hrs on a Wednesday (People go out on a Friday and Saturday and we will all be watching 24 on a Sunday soon)

    Make it live, and let the world see what happends when you fight against British Interests?

    Then Deport the Families.....

    But this is what will happen (ish) They will be arrested by the US, taken away for Questioning - Certain British NewsPapers (Gar*****) will take up their cause, TB will get them sent home, they will be realeased, do the chat shows, then sue the British Forces / MOD for being shot at (Health and Safety you know).

    Then take there money, go back to Iraq and start all over again.

    Oh yea, if they end up in a British Jail - The familys will be moved nice and close to them, and have all their benifits upped to help?
     
  15. Yes tango.
    The old rules should apply. Same same as for Pirates in days of old.
    Senior officer on the spot has authority to just string em up on the spot, no debate no cumback, swift justice, means ta say why should Cherry and her gang make loads of cash defending the indefensible ?
    john