Cable Forum - View Single Post - MERGED

BBKing · 30-04-2004, 19:55

The US definitely got the troublemaking areas -
predominantly Sunni (upset at losing their dominant position due to democracy as well as being more likely to be sympathetic to al-Qaeda),
the capital, where any action designed for maximum effect would be bound to happen,
Saddam's heartland where the alleged 'old regime elements' still exist (presumably if there are that many of them even after arresting most of the 52 they can issue another pack of cards in time for the Christmas market).

The Brits got Shia areas who were more likely than most to raise three cheers at the exit of the Ba'athists, nowhere particularly sensitive like the religious sites. On the other hand, Iraqis with long memories remember the British turning up and being soundly thrashed 90 or so years ago, plus the British/US air raids of the last ten years. So the Brits evidently had an easier job, but appear to have gone about making the job easier and safer by, perversely, putting themselves more at risk. There have evidently been mass shootings by British troops though, that don't often get reported, and as I'm certain by now that the majority of resistance in Iraq is fuelled by heavy handed coalition action rather than al-Qaeda or Saddam's mates, I'd rather they didn't.

Methods of interrogation - I've said it before, if you don't interrogate people properly you run the danger of getting worthless results. The Birmingham Six were interrogated in a completely improper way, the results were worthless and the real bombers got away with multiple murder. Information obtained under duress is bad not because of some wishy washy liberal concern for the prisoner's welfare, but because it is inherently unreliable evidence.

30-04-2004, 19:55	#45
BBKing R.I.P. Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: London Services: 20Mb VM CM, Virgin TV Posts: 5,983	Re: MERGED - Prisoner Abuse The US definitely got the troublemaking areas - predominantly Sunni (upset at losing their dominant position due to democracy as well as being more likely to be sympathetic to al-Qaeda), the capital, where any action designed for maximum effect would be bound to happen, Saddam's heartland where the alleged 'old regime elements' still exist (presumably if there are that many of them even after arresting most of the 52 they can issue another pack of cards in time for the Christmas market). The Brits got Shia areas who were more likely than most to raise three cheers at the exit of the Ba'athists, nowhere particularly sensitive like the religious sites. On the other hand, Iraqis with long memories remember the British turning up and being soundly thrashed 90 or so years ago, plus the British/US air raids of the last ten years. So the Brits evidently had an easier job, but appear to have gone about making the job easier and safer by, perversely, putting themselves more at risk. There have evidently been mass shootings by British troops though, that don't often get reported, and as I'm certain by now that the majority of resistance in Iraq is fuelled by heavy handed coalition action rather than al-Qaeda or Saddam's mates, I'd rather they didn't. Methods of interrogation - I've said it before, if you don't interrogate people properly you run the danger of getting worthless results. The Birmingham Six were interrogated in a completely improper way, the results were worthless and the real bombers got away with multiple murder. Information obtained under duress is bad not because of some wishy washy liberal concern for the prisoner's welfare, but because it is inherently unreliable evidence.