Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

*IRAQ: latest news and developments

If Saddam does have Sarin there is a 99% chance it is harmless by now anyway. His capability to manufacture it was destroyed by Scott Ritter and his team before 1998 and there is no way he will have been able to re-start the programme because it would require him to obtain bits of machinery and so on that are not available on the open market, banned under sanctions and he would have been detected trying to obtain them. He could have hidden some from the inspectors, of course, but it has a shelf life of five years and would be useless by now.

It is cehmically very close to a pesticide, though - hence yesterday's "find" of sarin.
 
US tank shell hits media hotel

The Palestine hotel, the building where much of the foreign media in Baghdad is based, then came under tank fire and the balconyon the 14th floor was hit.
David Chater of Sky News, who was in the hotel, said he saw a tank barrel aiming in his direction just before the blast hit.
"A lot of us feel very vulnerable now. How can we continue doing this if US tanks are targeting western journalists," he said.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,932173,00.html
 
CIA death squads operating in Iraq

Revealing cover-up at Pentagon briefing

'At an April 4 Pentagon media briefing, Army Major General Stanley McChrystal boasted that the contribution of special forces to the US operation had been “unprecedented.” Another senior official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said more than 10,000 special operations troops were involved in Iraq—the largest number for any US war since Vietnam.

'There was a revealing exchange when a journalist asked the following question:

“Can you help us to understand one of the points—one of the arguments made by the administration on the ‘war criminals’ tag? Obviously, the administration has seen a number of irregular practices on the part of the Iraqis. One of them in particular puzzles me. When they take off their uniforms and fight in civilian clothes, why is that a war crime? Because US Special Forces do it and did it in Afghanistan—they didn’t behave in the same way, but why is the act of fighting without a uniform considered a war crime?”

'McChrystal could not answer the question, becoming flummoxed as he tried unsuccessfully to draw a distinction between the tasks being performed by US personnel and Iraqi civilians. Victoria Clarke, spokeswoman for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, quickly stepped in to shut down the line of questioning.

“I’d actually like to take that question, because I don’t think you’re right about that,” she told the journalist. After a pause, Clarke said the Pentagon would respond later.

'Another journalist asked if US forces were under any “special instructions” if they found Saddam Hussein or other senior Iraqi leader. Clarke immediately told McChrystal, “You don’t need to answer his question.”

'After the press conference, officials said US special forces in Iraq “are wearing uniforms,” but declined to say if they were full uniforms or modified. Clarke’s abrupt intervention at the briefing suggests acute awareness in the administration that its officials and military commanders are the ones committing war crimes in Iraq.

'The methods being used in Iraq will soon become as notorious as the CIA-backed coup in Iran in 1953 to install the cruel regime of the Shah, the “Operation Phoenix” killing program in Vietnam, and the 1973 overthrow of the Allende government in Chile, to name but a few of US imperialism’s crimes.'

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/cia-a08.shtml
 
Nice post bigfish.

What happens with the SAS/SBS is that they wear the uniforms with the insignia of their original regiments on when they go into combat.

If the same is true of Delta force, it might make sense for Clarke to try not to reveal it, as it might lead to US troops receiving more hostile treatment from captors than they might otherwise receive.

Although having said that, it's bloody obvious that special services must wear civvy clothes for extended periods of time. Otherwise how the hell have they been in Basra for the past 3 months, as we have been led to believe by the MoD.
 
Regardless of uniforms or not, all combatants are entitled to the protection of the Geneva conventions and international humanitarian law.
 
Al jazera office in baghdad hit by missile. 1 killed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2927527.stm

its an accident of course.

nothing to do with the fierce criticism of the channel by the USuk for not being pro coalition enough for their tastes.

The al jazera office in Kabul was also 'accidently' destroyed during the afghan war.
In that case the staff were tipped off that such an 'accident' was about to occur and managed to evacuate the building.

edited to add -
supriosingly the bbc website report does seem to imply this was deliberate.
 
Zenskar, that last statement of yours has left me a little confused. In time of war I thought it was legal for combatants not in military uniform behind the lines to be shot as spies. Is this not the case?

If so we must have broken the Geneva convention hundreds of times during the second world war and not tried to excuse our actions.:confused:
 
its an accident of course.
I'm just waiting for them to hit the Chinese Embassy..:rolleyes:

Radio 4 pm...A US officer declares" We've told journalists that they put themselves an a great deal of danger reporting outside of the coalition embedded"..

Obviously not from the Iraqi forces..:rolleyes:

Open season on honest reporting?
 
Cheers for that Zenskar, you actually inspired me to read the thing.

It reads as though Iraqis wearing ordinary clothes would qualify to be treated as POWs, whereas special forces wearing the same might not.


From Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, entered into force Oct. 21, 1950.

Part 1, Article 4


A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
...

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
...

This appears to me to make it clear that there are circumstances in which combatants are not affored POW status, or protection by the Geneva Convention.

Link
 
Originally posted by meurig
...This appears to me to make it clear that there are circumstances in which combatants are not affored POW status, or protection by the Geneva Convention.
Case closed. Good work.

How hard will people work to try to make the USUK look bad? If the facts alone are not enough then it might be time to reconsider the agenda.
 
Wizard it's as well to remember that applies to our special forces as well as fedayeen.

That's why special forces are volunteer groups I guess. You can't expect the same level of protection if you're caught.
 
Originally posted by bruise
they do that for themselves
No doubt, every large entity makes themselves look foolish. But when people employ a fasehood in the attempt to make a point, one of the first possibilities to consider is if said people might be slaves to their agendas.
 
Originally posted by meurig
Wizard it's as well to remember that applies to our special forces as well as fedayeen.

That's why special forces are volunteer groups I guess. You can't expect the same level of protection if you're caught.
To a degree, but those forces do not kill while disguised as civilians... Still a good point, however.
 
Originally posted by wizard61
To a degree, but those forces do not kill while disguised as civilians... Still a good point, however.

No? I think you may be wrong there. The whole point of 'special forces' is to operate covertly behind enemy lines. To be identified as anything other than an ordinary member of the population, (ie. as a civilian), is both dangerous and counter-productive.

john x
 
It depends where they're operating JohnX. My girlfriend's making a four part documentary about the SAS, and as a result I've heard more about them than I care to know.

In the field they generally wear the uniform of their original regiment, or uniform which is obviously military while not displaying insignia.

In undercover work, as in Basra, it would be naive to think that they do not occasionally 'slot' (as they put it) people who are about to blow their cover, or that they pop upstairs to change into uniform before they do it.
 
A new audio tape which claims to be of Osama Bin Laden has surfaced. The tape concentrated mostly on jihad, condemning Muslim governments who have supported the U.S.-led coalition's war on Iraq and the global war that has targeted bin Laden. In the audio tape, bin Laden's supposed voice urges the faithful to attack the governments of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Unlike previous such tapes, this one had a single theme - suicide attacks.

ABC
 
Originally posted by john x
No? I think you may be wrong there. The whole point of 'special forces' is to operate covertly behind enemy lines. To be identified as anything other than an ordinary member of the population, (ie. as a civilian), is both dangerous and counter-productive.
Well said, but check out my quote:

"those forces do not kill while disguised as civilians"

They do OPERATE but I don't think the KILL while disguised as civilians. Of course, they might not tell me about it if they did...
 
Wizard, imagine the situation.

You are a special forces operative in Baghdad a month before the war started.

You are in your usual four man team.

You're being put up by a friendly and identifying potential target sites for allied bombing raids if a war kicks off.

A friend of the family who happens to be a Ba'ath party official discovers what's going on and moves to go and get the local heavies/ring the police.

Do you

a) Get changed into a uniform you don't have with you for very good reasons;

b) Take him hostage, leaving yourself with a potential ongoing threat; or

c) Slot him before he can tell anyone?

They might not set out to kill while dressed as civilians, but it does happen.

Read General Sir Peter de la Billiére's autobiography if you don't believe me. There are accounts of it happening in there. And he was trying to make special forces look good.

And don't imagine Delta Force is any different. They might operate in larger patrols, but they were set up with the aforementioned General's help and advice.

PS
For the record I'm in favour of the war, and I have no problem with special forces doing what they do. I do believe howerver that we shouldn't resort to specious demonisation of the enemy to justify our actions.
 
Originally posted by meurig
...They might not set out to kill while dressed as civilians, but it does happen..... I do believe howerver that we shouldn't resort to specious demonisation of the enemy to justify our actions.
Great post. I realised as I was digging that I needed to stop... clearly there would be times when special ops use their "00" license...

As I tell my kids- when you make a mistake, admit it as quickly as possible. :)
 
I believe that someone, in the far and distant past, accused me of adding too much comment to this thread.

In fact vimto even went so far as to call me a troll. Some idiots then agreed with him.

Who should I now call a troll?
 
Originally posted by wizard61
Well said, but check out my quote:

"those forces do not kill while disguised as civilians"

I did check out your quote. When I used the word operate I used it in it's military sense. This means everything they are likely to do while they are operational. This includes both killing the enemy or even civilians if it prevents them being compromised while operating covertly.

john x
 
Back
Top Bottom