| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Iraq | |
| Git or die, interpreters for British Army told | |
| 2007-09-15 | |
“All the interpreters have to leave Basra because these militia will never let them rest. They will kill everybody they know [who worked for the British],” Colonel Saleem Agaa Alzabon, who leads Basra’s special forces, said. “The interpreters have to leave. They have no choice.” Colonel Saleem and the two targeted interpreters told The Times that the militiamen – almost certainly members of the Shia al-Mahdi Army – had stepped up their pursuit of so-called collaborators since the British withdrew from Basra city 11 days ago. The latest attacks are further evidence of the extreme danger that the 91 interpreters for the British military face now, let alone when the troops leave Iraq for good. They will intensify the pressure on Britain to reverse its refusal to grant them asylum. Gordon Brown ordered a review of that policy after The Times highlighted the interpreters’ plight last month. The target of the first attack was Ahmed, 25, a student who has been working for the British Army for three years, first in a base in the Shatt al-Arab hotel and now at the al-Shaibah base outside Basra, where the Irish Guards are training Iraqi troops. Ahmed (not his real name) said that last Friday his 22-year-old cousin borrowed his car to fetch his sister, who lives near the al-Shaibah base. The cousin used the route Ahmed normally takes to work. He was stopped by four masked men at a makeshift checkpoint and whisked away. When the kidnappers realised that they had the wrong man they telephoned the cousin’s family to say that he would be killed if Ahmed did not give himself up. The family lied, saying that Ahmed had left Iraq. The kidnappers then demanded a $15,000 (£7,500) ransom. Ahmed handed over all the money that he had saved over three years. The family asked a tribal leader to give it to the kidnappers and bring back the cousin so that they would not be cheated. The cousin returned home with a message for Ahmed: “If we find you anywhere in Basra we will kill you, but if you come to us and give us information we will let you live.” Ahmed has now sent his wife and one-year-old daughter to a relative’s house far from Basra and intends to stay on the al-Shaibah base. He said that if the Government did not grant him asylum in Britain he would have to seek refuge in another country. “I’m very frightened,” he said. “The militias know all the interpreters in Basra. They waited for the British to leave so they could attack us . . . If the British don’t give me asylum I will have big problems because if I stay in Iraq I will be killed.” A British officer, who declined to be named, confirmed Ahmed’s identity, and saw no reason to doubt his story. “It would not be the first time something like this has happened,” he said. The second attack came late on Sunday night. Mohammed Motlag, who has worked as an interpreter since 2003, told The Times that he was working at the British base at Basra airport when his wife telephoned to say their house was being attacked by about 40 militiamen. They were shouting: “We have come to kill your husband. He’s a spy for the British forces.” Mr Motlag, 46, said that his two children, aged 6 and 3, were also in the house. He could hear the militiamen trying to break down the door. Weeping at his helplessness, he told his wife to get his gun and start firing. He then called Colonel Saleem, an old friend, who rushed a police detachment to rescue the family. The militiamen later blew up the house with grenades. Mr Motlag said that his family were now in hiding. Colonel Saleem corroborated Mohammed’s story when contacted by The Times. “That's right,” he said, and then repeated it himself. The Ministry of Defence said it was aware of the interpreters’ claims, took the safety of its Iraqi employees very seriously, and was reviewing the assistance it provides to them. It continued: “The total number of Iraqis who have worked for us since 2003 with a claim to assistance could be at least 15,000. We therefore need to consider the options carefully.” Senior politicians, diplomats and army officers have urged the Government to grant the interpreters asylum. The Times has learnt that the Government privately accepts that it has a moral obligation to help them, but ministers are still debating how many of the thousands of other Iraqis – and their dependents – who have assisted the British should be allowed in. | |
| Posted by: |
| #19 These guys (background check) should be given somewhere safe to stay! Their military brothers. |
| Posted by: Boss Craising2882 2007-09-15 23:59 |
| #18 PS: SR-71, I'll also ask that you please accept this a distinct appreciation for your own sense of fundamentalism. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-15 23:55 |
| #17 How will you tell whether they are fanatics or not? One cannot and that is why my support for twobyfour's position contained so many qualifications. the kind of intelligence that 2X4 is talking about would have been valuable in past wars, but will not be so valuable in the kind of war that is coming with Islam. Damn fine point, SR-71, and one that pretty much obliges me to withdraw my previous position. I have come to the conclusion that separation and containment is the only answer to Islam short of its total destruction. The longer we equivocate, the closer we come to a war to the death. You have so closely elucidated my own stance that I refuse to nit pick. I'd rather things were your way than substantially otherwise. Thank you very much for taking exception to my post. Sometimes I, too, need some realignment. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-15 23:53 |
| #16 An additional comment: the kind of intelligence that 2X4 is talking about would have been valuable in past wars, but will not be so valuable in the kind of war that is coming with Islam. I refuse to tolerate the intolerant. We have a culture and nation worth defending. I have come to the conclusion that separation and containment is the only answer to Islam short of its total destruction. The longer we equivocate, the closer we come to a war to the death. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2007-09-15 23:16 |
| #15 How will you tell whether they are fanatics or not? Muslims will not assimilate. They will remain quiet until they reach about 10% of the population. Even now we see outbreaks of sudden jihad syndrome: LAX El Al shootings, Seattle Jewish Community Center, University of NC, the SC "fireworks" boys. How much of that will you tolerate? Heartless? I love our people more that I love theirs. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2007-09-15 23:02 |
| #14 the media no longer seemed interested in exploring charges of genocide by Communist forces. And when—in modern times—has the MSM given a rusty phuque about communist genocide? SR-71—however inclined I am to agree with you—twobyfour makes an important point. Those few Iraqis who sought to assist our intelligence operations represent some of the best—and most deserving—candidates for authentic assimilation here in America. Even though just the simple act of typing these words sets my If anything, temporary residency along with a well-paying job at the NSA would probably go a long way towards guaranteeing total societal integration. One concession I will make towards your own valid skepticism, SR-71, is that one—just one single—fart sideways gets these same people deported before the devil can get his shoes on. I refuse to discount just how poisonous taqiyya is, not in regard to any living Muslim on this entire stinking earth. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-15 22:59 |
| #13 Given their culture, I couldn't imagine a better way for them to prove themselves. In any case, they're more good than harm. We're idiots if we don't take them in, and heartless if we leave them there. Assuming they aren't fanatics, of course! :-) |
| Posted by: gorb 2007-09-15 18:59 |
| #12 SR-71, true. However, consider some aspects that may not be so obvious on the first look. 1) If it was only income that a translator was after, he/she'd quit some time ago, as the danger outweighted income considerations right off the bat. There had to be another incentive keeping one doing the job. 2) I would surmise that for many of them, the hold of Islam on them is rather tenuous and imposed, rather than elected. The chances that given a conductive environment they would leave Islam are rather positive than the opposite. 3) They know Arabic and the mind set and could be employed in intel jobs, covering both enemies foreign and domestic (infiltrating mosques an Islamic orgs), provided that they pass through set of barriers that would weed out those not suitable and through a thorough training. Of course, trust but verify is a must throughout their involment. |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2007-09-15 18:24 |
| #11 The US should take them in even if Britain won't. Wrong. No more Muslims should be allowed to immigrate into the USA. Period. Islam contains within itself the seeds of violence and extremism. Just because one seems friendly now is no guarantee. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2007-09-15 16:55 |
| #10 Plan d |
| Posted by: rhodesiafever 2007-09-15 15:32 |
| #9 Best solution: Kill the Killers. |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2007-09-15 12:54 |
| #8 Wonder how much funding they could free up if they got serious about deporting hate preachers and their groupies? |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-09-15 10:40 |
| #7 The Brits have a long history of sticking it to anyone whom they owe: (Kipling: Last of the Light Brigade) There were thirty million English who talked of England's might, There were twenty broken troopers who lacked a bed for the night. They had neither food nor money, they had neither service nor trade; They were only shiftless soldiers, the last of the Light Brigade. They felt that life was fleeting; they kuew not that art was long, That though they were dying of famine, they lived in deathless song. They asked for a little money to keep the wolf from the door; And the thirty million English sent twenty pounds and four!.... |
| Posted by: RWV 2007-09-15 10:21 |
| #6 Canada should take them. But we are no better. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-09-15 10:01 |
| #5 The British have long had a bad reputation for sticking it to those who helped them, especially when a large amount of money was due in payment. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-09-15 08:18 |
| #4 We'll take unlimited Mexicans and they'll take unlimited Paks but not those who helped us in battle yesterday? Can't expect more help if that's how you treat them. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-09-15 06:16 |
| #3 Some things never change: After taking over Laos in 1975, the Pathet Lao Communists stated that they would wipe out the Hmong. A Vietnamese broadcast apparently called for genocide against them. From 1976 to 1979, there were credible reports of chemical warfare used against Hmong villages. The world tried to ignore these reports, and some influential voices in the United States tried to discredit the evidence, claiming that the "yellow rain" that had been used to kill Hmong people was just natural bee feces, not a chemical toxin. By the time overwhelming evidence had been gathered to shatter the "bee feces" theory, the media no longer seemed interested in exploring charges of genocide by Communist forces. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2007-09-15 03:32 |
| #2 The US should take them in even if Britain won't. |
| Posted by: gorb 2007-09-15 02:56 |
| #1 A Appears Ambassador Crocker's recent analysis regarding a US withdrawl may indeed be correct. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2007-09-15 01:36 |