NationStates Jolt Archive

British army: attacks down 90% since our troops left Basra

November 16 2007 -- The British army says violence in Basra has fallen by 90% since it withdrew from the southern Iraqi city earlier this year.

Around 500 British soldiers left one of Saddam Hussein's palaces in the heart of the city in early September and stopped conducting regular foot patrols.

A spokesman says the Iraqi security forces still come under attack from militants in Basra, but the overall level of violence is down 90% since the British troops left.

Britain is scheduled to return control of Basra province to Iraqi officials next month, officially ending Britain's combat role in Iraq.
http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/world-news/middle-east/basra-attacks-down-90-since-british-troops-left-1221511.html

Thumbs up to the British Army for being honest here.

OK, that's pretty good, but before any suggests a total pullout of all troops, the issue with Basra is an almost completely different one to the problems in most of the American bits - pretty much everyone in Basra is Shi'ite and the reason they were fighting there is to try to get the British out.

Not really the same as the areas where the violence is generally Iraqi-on-Iraqi and spontaneous, where it seems that more troops are helping the situation quite a lot.

Yeah, at least they finally faced the truth and admitted it. Instead of covering it up with some lie. Now only if the USA would admit it.

I'm sure that the British public are pleased that their combat role is coming to an end.

I'm sure that the British public are pleased that their combat role is coming to an end.
We're not really that fussed, since they're basically just getting redeployed to Afghanistan, where instead of acting like military police, they're basically just killing a whole bunch of Afghanis for no real reason.

We're not really that fussed, since they're basically just getting redeployed to Afghanistan, where instead of acting like military police, they're basically just killing a whole bunch of Afghanis for no real reason.

:( That sucks

they must of discovered the BBC ;)

We're not really that fussed, since they're basically just getting redeployed to Afghanistan, where instead of acting like military police, they're basically just killing a whole bunch of Afghanis for no real reason.

:confused:

:( That sucks
Yeah, it kind of does.
:confused:
Troops numbers in Iraq down, troop numbers in Afghanistan up. This is because Iraq is mostly sorted for us, and Afghanistan is the precise opposite, and we don't want rookies in Afghanistan, we're mostly sending people that've already been in Iraq over to Afghanistan, so they don't get killed, and have some experience of telling friend in civilian clothes from foe in civilian clothes.

they must of discovered the BBC

of != have.

of != have.



It's er.. "must've" but since most british people pronounce the "'ve" as "of" and generally treat it as a different word it's perfectly fine.. That's the thing with language.. It changes over time..

It's er.. "must've" but since most british people pronounce the "'ve" as "of" and generally treat it as a different word it's perfectly fine.. That's the thing with language.. It changes over time..
It's not perfectly fine, on the other hand, most people do it. But there you go. The retardation of the English language continues :(

It's not perfectly fine, on the other hand, most people do it. But there you go. The retardation of the English language continues :(

Many words today are formed from corruptions from their original meanings. Language evolves.

Too bad Basra has turned into a bastion of Islamic radicalism funded by Iran.:eek:

Too bad Basra has turned into a bastion of Islamic radicalism funded by Iran.:eek:
Turned into?

I wonder why that is...maybe we should all withdraw?

Ahem. Back to the OP...

This could suggest that either:
1. British troops were just causing more violence
or
2. The insurgents have left now to blow up things elsewhere.

Too bad Basra has turned into a bastion of Islamic radicalism funded by Iran.:eek:

AHHHH*!!!! SOURCE**!1!!1

*Where is my yelling smilie

**not that I don't beleive you I just don't feel like looking things up

On-topic point, followed by reactionary rant.

It's good, albeit predictable, that attacks are decreasing. Hopefully they'll have been nullified following the defeat of the common enemy. 'course, it's unlikely that that'll remain so into peace-time, but we may live in hope.

It's er.. "must've" but since most british people pronounce the "'ve" as "of" and generally treat it as a different word it's perfectly fine.. That's the thing with language.. It changes over time..
I found this post infinitely more annoying than the original error.

"Must of X" is not valid past tense construction. I know what is meant because of the context, but it is incorrect to say that it is therefore an accurate way of saying things within the protocol of English communication.

I am immediately led to draw from your attempt to frame it as such that you are changing it for the simple reason that you want to accommodate those who are ignorant of the difference. Yet why, if you adopt this approach to language, do we bother learning language at all? Why bother agreeing on a way to communicate with one another if we'll expect other people to yield to completely arbitrary changes at not a moment's notice? The answer is, of course, that it is a grossly unfair demand on other people to put on them the burden of going out of their way to have to interpret what we want to say to them because of our own inability to learn their language.

Language structures exist to facilitate communication. If you're going to change it at will just to compensate for your own shortcomings then you're expressing a subtle but deeply seated disrespect for the people you're talking to.

I wonder why that is...maybe we should all withdraw?
Nope. As I explained earlier, the problem in Basra was is that the militia are pretty much all fighting the British and not just killing each other because they're Sunni / Shi'ite etc.

Troops actually help keep inter-sectal tension down, as has been shown via the surge's pretty much immediate and large success.
Ahem. Back to the OP...

This could suggest that either:
1. British troops were just causing more violence
More their presence than the troops themselves, but yes.
2. The insurgents have left now to blow up things elsewhere.
Not really, they've mostly just gone home. Or to hunt down collaborators, which seems to be the current trend.
Click Stand;13223204']AHHHH*!!!! SOURCE**!1!!1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2212585,00.html

There's one from earlier today - enjoy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2212585,00.html

There's one from earlier today - enjoy.

Aww, I was hoping for a smilie but I guess this will do.

Yeah, its good we're on our way out of Iraq. The lads will probably be redeployed to Afghanistan, but we know we can win there!

Click Stand;13223223']Aww, I was hoping for a smilie but I guess this will do.
http://forum.readingfestivalonline.co.uk/images/smilies/spacecraft.gif

Enjoy!
Yeah, its good we're on our way out of Iraq. The lads will probably be redeployed to Afghanistan, but we know we can win there!
Yeah, we totally can't. Afghanistan is the worst kind of pointless sinkhole for soldiers in the history of the world.

While I'm not sure that Basra necessarily compares to the rest of the country, this does weaken the argument (which I have upheld) that leaving Iraq=bloodbath.

Though isn't Basra majority Shiite? If this kind of thing happened in an Iraqi city with more Sunnis, that would be something.

While I'm not sure that Basra necessarily compares to the rest of the country, this does weaken the argument (which I have upheld) that leaving Iraq=bloodbath.
Basra's a bit different to everywhere else.
Though isn't Basra majority Shiite? If this kind of thing happened in an Iraqi city with more Sunnis, that would be something.
Whatever sect the majority believes in makes no real odds - the problems north of Basra are mainly caused by militia of various different sects. The fact that Basra is almost entirely Shi'ite is the reason why it's been fairly peaceful outside of attacks of British troops.

On-topic point, followed by reactionary rant.



I found this post infinitely more annoying than the original error.

"Must of X" is not valid past tense construction. I know what is meant because of the context, but it is incorrect to say that it is therefore an accurate way of saying things within the protocol of English communication.

I am immediately led to draw from your attempt to frame it as such that you are changing it for the simple reason that you want to accommodate those who are ignorant of the difference. Yet why, if you adopt this approach to language, do we bother learning language at all? Why bother agreeing on a way to communicate with one another if we'll expect other people to yield to completely arbitrary changes at not a moment's notice? The answer is, of course, that it is a grossly unfair demand on other people to put on them the burden of going out of their way to have to interpret what we want to say to them because of our own inability to learn their language.

Language structures exist to facilitate communication. If you're going to change it at will just to compensate for your own shortcomings then you're expressing a subtle but deeply seated disrespect for the people you're talking to.

Jezuz, it's just words, honey! I'm sorry for winding you up so much but I was only pointing out that no mistake was made. It's our language and if we want to pointlessly expand contractions into completely different words it will happen. It's not like I changed the meaning or that this is some conspiracy to confuse and alienate those who aren't familiar with british english. If Fassitude hadn't been such a grammar nazi it wouldn't had been an issue. If it makes you feel any better, it would be proper to write "must have" or "must've" in a formal situation. As this is quite an informal situation and the difference is so very minor it is assumed you would get what was being said.

As for language structures and rules, I don't believe the british actually agreed to keep it the same for the sake of those learning it nor has any other nationality. It's a shame, I know.

Anyway.. That's all the derailing finished now I hope. On with praising our boys for.. er.. leaving..

What?
I mean....NO REALLY.

If there is no one to attack, it is obvious attacks will go down.
Writing an article on that was a waste of time.

I'm sorry for winding you up so much but I was only pointing out that no mistake was made. It's our language and if we want to pointlessly expand contractions into completely different words it will happen...
I don't apologise for getting worked up about this, though I do apologise for doing so in an unrelated thread. I do not allow casual disrespect for others to go unnoticed by its perpetrators, which is what this is, whether or not you see it.

What you're speaking is not just your language. You do not decide what happens to make it grow. It belongs to the collective of all who speak it, and you can't declare your version of how things work better than or a replacement to ours simply because "Language Changes". Until we (meaning the collective of language speakers) agree that using "of" in place of the " 've" contraction is a valid use of the language, you are being rude by putting words in our mouths when you say that it is. Understand?

Anyway, I've made my point. I'll back out now.

I don't apologise for getting worked up about this, though I do apologise for doing so in an unrelated thread. I do not allow casual disrespect for others to go unnoticed by its perpetrators, which is what this is, whether or not you see it.

What you're speaking is not just your language. You do not decide what happens to make it grow. It belongs to the collective of all who speak it, and you can't declare your version of how things work better than or a replacement to ours simply because "Language Changes". Until we (meaning the collective of language speakers) agree that using "of" in place of the " 've" contraction is a valid use of the language, you are being rude by putting words in our mouths when you say that it is. Understand?

Anyway, I've made my point. I'll back out now.

I don't understand your point. Are you saying that there is a version that is correct and that everybody else is wrong for changing it without permission? I didn't say it was better. I'm not demanding everyone speak the same english as me. I simply stated it was wrong to correct it when no mistake has been made. If anything it is you who is claiming to have a monopoly on deciding how the english language should be spoken, not I.

I meant no disrespect unlike Fassitude who's only interest was bringing to attention someone's percieved error. I didn't mean to imply that all english belonged to the english, I apologise, only that the brand we speak belongs to us and that just because it doesn't conform to what you've been taught doesn't make it wrong. I think you're taking this far too personally. Sometimes people forget this is an international and use what language is normal to them. There's nothing malicious about it and were it not for Fassitude's pedantry we'd not be hijacking this thread about it.

Too bad Basra has turned into a bastion of Islamic radicalism funded by Iran.:eek:

Proof?
Sorry the only evidence I have seen of Iran supporting insurgents in Iran is from Faux news.

Proof?
Sorry the only evidence I have seen of Iran supporting insurgents in Iran is from Faux news.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2209036,00.html

There you go - it's mostly about the US' efforts to try and link in Iran, but on the other hand it makes a note of the fact that EFP (basically HC IEDs) numbers have dropped off pretty quickly as soon as Iran pledged to stop arms going across the border, which shows some degree of linkage, to say the least.

And don't try to tell me that the Guardian is reactionary, or anything like that, it's pretty left as newpapers go.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2209036,00.html

There you go - it's mostly about the US' efforts to try and link in Iran, but on the other hand it makes a note of the fact that EFP (basically HC IEDs) numbers have dropped off pretty quickly as soon as Iran pledged to stop arms going across the border, which shows some degree of linkage, to say the least.

And don't try to tell me that the Guardian is reactionary, or anything like that, it's pretty left as newpapers go.
It's still total speculation, and I don't buy it.

Ahem. Back to the OP...

This could suggest that either:
1. British troops were just causing more violence
or
2. The insurgents have left now to blow up things elsewhere.

Or,
3. Attacks are now underreported.

It's still total speculation, and I don't buy it.
Any articles from decent sources, with any proof that Iran isn't helping Iraqi militia?
Or,
3. Attacks are now underreported.
They're still reported inside the Iraqi military, which is now stationed inside the city, it's just that attacks have dropped off a lot since the Brits pulled out. That said, they're supposedly a bit sloppy about reporting such things, but really, I think that it's quite plain to see why attacks are dropping off.

Getting the Brits to pull out was pretty much a prestige thing. "We beat the oppressors" was the goal, which they've basically met, so attacks should drop off in general.

It's quite likely that attacks will pick up a bit on collaborators with the Brits, such as interpreters and contractors, but I think that after a while, the militia will actually realise that they could use those people much better to get Basra back on its feet.

with any proof that..the burden of Proof is on the side making accusations

the burden of Proof is on the side making accusations
Yes, and I gave proof from an anti-US source, which still stated that after Iran tightened up its borders, shaped-charge IED usage had fallen very quickly...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2209036,00.htmlYes, and I gave proof from an anti-US source, which still stated that after Iran tightened up its borders, shaped-charge IED usage had fallen very quickly...the Guardian in not anti US.. It is anti-neocon.. But anyone with a brain is.

and your article does mention what amounts to speculation about the possibility of a link.. and it show the desperate effort of the Bush Gov to "find" some Iranian links.. Just like this very same Gov was desperate to find Nigerian Cake.. not so long ago.

the Guardian in not anti US.. If is anti-neocon.. But anyone with a brain is.
Erm, it really is quite anti-US, you'd know that if you actually read it.
and your article does mention what amounts to speculation about the possibility of a link.. and it show the desperate effort of the Bush Gov to "find" some Iranian links.. Just like this very same Gov was desperate to find Nigerian Cake.. not so long ago.
Err...

You obviously haven't read the whole article, or simply haven't understood the last section.

Last week in Baghdad the US military showed journalists a recently discovered cache of mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and bomb-making materials it claims are of Iranian origin. Rear Admiral Gregory Smith, spokesman for Multi-National Force Iraq, said it was possible they crossed the border before a recent promise by Iran to stop the flow of munitions into Iraq.

He said: 'Iran has had a historic malign influence here in Iraq. They have financed many of the activities of Shia extremist groups. In many cases they have done training, they have actually deployed some of their personnel here in theatre. The Qods Force (Iranian Revolutionary Guards) have come here - we know that, we've got some in detention. They have said in many cases they were not here and intend to support a more peaceful outcome in Iraq and we look for their excellence in achieving that.'

Among the weapons Washington has accused Iran of supplying to Iraqi insurgents are EFPs, or explosively formed projectiles, which fire a slug of molten metal capable of penetrating even the most heavily armoured military vehicle. The number two US commander in Iraq, Lt Gen Ray Odierno, said there has been a sharp decline in the number of EFPs found in Iraq in the last three months.

Iran promises to secure its border... EFP numbers decline sharply. Pretty respectable as links go, no?

It's er.. "must've" but since most british people pronounce the "'ve" as "of" and generally treat it as a different word it's perfectly fine.. That's the thing with language.. It changes over time..

It's more that the "ve" and the "of" are both pronounced as "uhv." But still, I've pronounced both the same my whole life but I've never seen why people have a hard time telling the difference between the two on paper. That and the whole "then/than" mix up.

I mean, they both get used a lot in writing. That should be sorted out when you're 5 or 6.

British army: attacks down 90% since our troops left Basra


http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/world-news/middle-east/basra-attacks-down-90-since-british-troops-left-1221511.html

Thumbs up to the British Army for being honest here.
Wow, I guess insurgents don't like British people.

of != have.

You say !=, I say ≠

:D

Wait wait wait... attacks, primarily against occupation forces, are down when those forces leave? That really is news. Never mind that the attackers are still there and will probably go elsewhere to fight when the realize there's nothing keeping them in one place. I wish people would use a little logic before saying things like this.

it's perfectly fine

It's nothing of the sort. It is an error and not an accepted one. The words are not related, do not mean the same thing and are not pronounced the same way.

Never mind that the attackers are still there and will probably go elsewhere to fight when the realize there's nothing keeping them in one place. I wish people would use a little logic before saying things like this.hmm..
inside you mind/logic: If all occupation soldiers leave.. the -thousands of- Insurgents will go where?

hmm..
inside you mind/logic: If all occupation soldiers leave.. the -thousands of- Insurgents will go where?

Israel possibly. There are lots of places they could go, even if they stay in Iraq, the fact that they wouldn't have nearby targets doesn't mean that they'd stop being violent or contributing to worldwide violence. Some of them would probably settle back into relative peace, but only those who were fighting solely because of the presence of occupation forces. Our leaving would do nothing to soothe those elements who were already angry at us.

How the fuck can you possibly say that fighting in Afghanistan is a bad thing? Firstly, our troops take the greatest pains possible to avoid hitting Afghani civilians, even putting their own lives on the line to minimise civilian casualties. Do you honestly want to condemn 20 million Afghanis, who already despise the Taliban, to a life of chains and slavery? What is it about liberals that they despise people who aren't Africans getting a chance to prosper?

Hiawatha! Hiawatha!

And the number of terror attacks was at it lowest before the passing of the Iraqi constitution. Your point?

Considering how much of a powder keg that region is and the number of British troops in Iraq altogether, this news should get placed in the Recycling bin, not on Jolt.

How the fuck can you possibly say that fighting in Afghanistan is a bad thing?

Do you honestly want to condemn 20 million Afghanis... to a life of chains and slavery?

What is it about liberals that they despise people who aren't Africans getting a chance to prosper?Questers and the other NeoCons are going to save the poor Afghani Africans from those brutal pinko Liberals.. Neocons doing the Christian thing -6 years on a roll- all over the World..

:D

Disclaimer: Questers -and the ones who elected Bush- definition of "Christian deed" is -quite- different that the definition for most Christian living outside the US.

And the number of terror attacks was at it lowest before the passing of the Iraqi constitution.what terror attacks is your data about?
the attacks by our terrorists or the attacks by the their terrorists?

We're not really that fussed, since they're basically just getting redeployed to Afghanistan, where instead of acting like military police, they're basically just killing a whole bunch of Afghanis for no real reason.

Oh, come on, stop bullshitting.

Unlike Iraq, there is genuine effort by the Afghani's to rebuild their land, they want troops in there. Heck, New Zealand has a large force in there rebuilding and working with the locals.

Afghanistan needs to be stabilised, the problem is that the 'big powers' are unwilling to hand over the cash to improve the situation.

Questers and the other NeoCons are going to save the poor Afghani Africans from those brutal pinko Liberals.. Neocons doing the Christian thing -6 years on a roll- all over the World..

:D

Disclaimer: Questers -and the ones who elected Bush- definition of "Christian deed" is -quite- different that the definition for most Christian living outside the US.

I'm not a 'NeoCon' and I'm Agnostic. Fail. It was nice of you not to address any of my points, though.

Oh, come on, stop bullshitting.

Unlike Iraq, there is genuine effort by the Afghani's to rebuild their land, they want troops in there. Heck, New Zealand has a large force in there rebuilding and working with the locals.

Afghanistan needs to be stabilised, the problem is that the 'big powers' are unwilling to hand over the cash to improve the situation.
Dunno what the New Zealanders are up to, but my mate's dad is in 3.Para and deployed in Afghanistan, and that, although they're improving the situation by giving villagers tips on farming non-opium crops, handing out generators etc., the majority of the stuff they're doing is basically trapping the Taliban and firing as much artillery and dropping as many bombs as possible on that general area regardless of who's under it.