Troops crack down on cops

[Walsingham]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6209249.stm

 

Look like British troops bulldozed the 'Serious Crimes Unit' in Basra this morning, freeing more than 100 prisoners, who they feared were going to be summarily shot. The prisoners appeared to have been tortured, according to initial medical examinations.

[213374U]

They did it for the oil.

[metadigital]

Is that like the human oil for soap and stuff?

[Krookie]

I did a current event recently on the American troops shooting up 24 Iraqi civillians.

[Walsingham]

I did a current event recently on the American troops shooting up 24 Iraqi civillians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I assume there's a link.

[Hildegard]

They did it for the oil.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your sarcasm sucks as usual

[213374U]

You suck as usual.

[Hildegard]

You suck as usual. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

:">

[Colrom]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6209249.stm

 

Look like British troops bulldozed the 'Serious Crimes Unit' in Basra this morning, freeing more than 100 prisoners, who they feared were going to be summarily shot. The prisoners appeared to have been tortured, according to initial medical examinations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It is hard to know what to believe.

 

Didn't the Brits have an undercover team dressed as arabs with explosives and detonators get caught - which they busted out of jail and destroyed the jail (did they kill anybody in that operation?) - in that town. The same town where they sevrved ham sandwiches to the leadership on a train ride.

 

Seems like the saga continues.

 

Seems to me that sometime after the US was caught torturing prizoners in Iraq all the news stories about Iraqis killed by other Iraqis started to include statements to the effect that their bodies showed signs of having been tortured.

 

It would be interesting to do back search on news stories to see if there really was an increase in torture reports.

 

Of course, even if there was, it is always possible that the incidence of torture really did increase.

 

My gut feeling though is that at least half of the effect reflects a conscious propaganda strategy - to normalize torture of Iraqis.

 

Why, killing Iraqis may seem almost benign if they are believed to be monstrous thieves, torturers and terrorists.

 

Whatever the truth - I doubt there is any real honor to be rescued by anyone from the mess in Iraq.

Edited December 27, 2006 by Colrom

[Walsingham]

Colrom, I'm a wee bit confused. Are you saying they shouldn't have bothered?

[Colrom]

The way it is described it seems like a good op.

 

But my approval is tempered by lingering doubts about the veracity of the sources of the story and the fullness of the reporting.

 

I suspect there are other aspects which we are not getting which might color the action differently.

 

The story suggests that agreements with the local government were broken.

 

This unfortunately suggests that the local government is a puppet or phoney government - with the real government being provided by the occupation forces.

 

There is no way to know if agents may have been captured who were viewed as needing to be released immediately before embarrasing information could be uncovered. Certainly this type of thing has happened before.

 

It is not unthinkable that seizing records or destroying records may have been major goals as well.

 

Comments about torture can provide nice cover rationalization as well as a legitamate basis for action.

 

Since the occupation forces have dirtied themselves in the past it is worth considering such things for a story like this.

 

With those serious caveats it seems like a good action and a good result.

Edited December 27, 2006 by Colrom

[metadigital]

That is an amazing prism you use to interpret events with.

[Colrom]

By the way, here is the New York Times version ofthe story. Note that the incident involving the SAS soldiers is given a completely different spin - basically making it seem they were arrested for no reason.

 

This is what I mean about us not getting the whole story.

 

British Soldiers Storm Iraqi Jail, Citing Torture

By Marc Santora

The New York Times

Monday 26 December 2006

 

Baghdad - Hundreds of British and Iraqi soldiers assaulted a police station in the southern city of Basra on Monday, killing seven gunmen, rescuing 127 prisoners from what the British said was almost certain execution and ultimately reducing the facility to rubble.

A police station in Basra, Iraq, was destroyed Monday after British and Iraqi forces swept through it.

The military action was one of the most significant undertaken by British troops since the 2003 invasion, British officials said, adding that it was an essential step in any plan to re-establish security in Basra.

When the combined British and Iraqi force of 1,400 troops gained control of the station, it found the prisoners being held in conditions that a British military spokesman, Maj. Charlie Burbridge, described as "appalling." More than 100 men were crowded into a single cell, 30 feet by 40 feet, he said, with two open toilets, two sinks and just a few blankets spread over the concrete floor.

A significant number showed signs of torture. Some had crushed hands and feet, Major Burbridge said, while others had cigarette and electrical burns and a significant number had gunshot wounds to their legs and knees.

The fetid dungeon was another example of abuses by the Iraqi security forces. The discovery highlighted the continuing struggle to combat the infiltration of the police and army by militias and criminal elements - even in a Shiite city like Basra, where there has been no sectarian violence.

As recently as October, the Iraqi government suspended an entire police brigade in Baghdad on suspicion of participation in death squads. The raid on Monday also raised echoes of the infamous Baghdad prison run by the Interior Ministry, known as Site 4, where more than 1,400 prisoners were subjected to systematic abuse and torture.

The focus of the attack was an arm of the local police called the serious crimes unit, which British officials said had been thoroughly infiltrated by criminals and militias who used it to terrorize local residents and violently settle scores with political or tribal rivals.

"The serious crimes unit was at the center of death squad activity," Major Burbridge said.

A little over a year ago, British troops stormed the same building seeking to rescue two British special forces soldiers who had been captured by militants. A mob of 1,000 to 2,000 people gathered in protest, and a widely circulated video showed boys throwing stones at a burning British armored fighting vehicle parked outside the station. The soldiers, who were being held in a nearby building, were eventually freed.

Although some local officials, including Basra's police chief, publicly condemned the action, local residents privately said they were grateful, and described what they said was an organization widely feared for its brutality.

"They are like savage dogs that bite when they are hungry," said one resident, who spoke anonymously for fear of retribution. "Their evaluation of guilt or innocence is how much money you can pay."

Residents said that people were afraid to challenge the officers because they were backed by powerful militia groups, including the Mahdi Army, which is led by the rebel cleric Moktada al-Sadr, though the extent of his control is unclear.

"Everyone wants to avoid the mouth of the lion," one resident said. "From this, they became stronger and stronger."

Major Burbridge said that the dismantling of the serious crimes unit had been planned for months.

As far back as 2004, he said, there was a growing realization that the police had been widely infiltrated by members of various militias and elements of organized crime. To combat their influence, the British have been trying to cull them from the forces in a campaign that began in September.

After trying to determine who was fit to serve in the police, the British began outfitting trusted officers with sophisticated identification cards meant to limit the access of impostors to police intelligence, weapons and vehicles.

In late October, gunmen - believed by the British to have been connected to the serious crimes unit - ambushed a minibus carrying 17 employees of a new police academy and killed them all. Their mutilated remains were dumped in the Shuaiba area of the city in an effort to intimidate the local population.

"It had simply gone beyond the pale and it was clear it was time for the serious crimes unit to go," Major Burbridge said in an interview.

While they had planned to take over the station on Monday, British forces had to speed up the operation by several hours. "We received information late last night," Major Burbridge said Monday, "that the crimes unit was aware this was going to take place and we received information that the prisoners' lives were in danger."

More than 800 British soldiers, supported by five Challenger tanks and roughly 40 Warrior fighting vehicles, began their assault at 2 a.m. on Monday. They were aided by 600 Iraqi soldiers.

The British force faced the heaviest fighting as it made its way through the city, coming under sporadic attacks by rocket-propelled grenades and small-arms fire. Of the seven guerrillas killed, six were gunned down as the unit made its way to the police station.

Upon reaching the station, British troops killed a guard in a watchtower who had fired on the approaching forces, but there was little other resistance.

The members of the serious crimes unit who had been occupying the building, several dozen, according to the British military, fled and were not caught. The British forces turned over the prisoners to the regular Iraqi police, who put them in a new detention facility.

The two-story building, once used by Saddam Hussein's security forces, was then demolished, in an attempt to remove all traces of the serious crimes unit, Major Burbridge said.

The battle lasted nearly three hours. There were no British casualties, but the streets around the station were littered with bombed-out cars and rubble.

The violence in Basra, Iraq's second largest city, is different from that in Baghdad to the north or Anbar Province to the west, Major Burbridge said.

The killing in Baghdad in recent months has primarily been the result of sectarian violence, as Shiites have sought to drive Sunnis from mixed neighborhoods and Sunnis have retaliated. On Monday, at least 10 civilians were killed and 15 were wounded when a car bomb exploded in the mixed neighborhood of Jadida.

In northeastern Baghdad, a suicide bomber with explosives tied to his body blew himself up on a crowded bus, killing 2 people and wounding 20 others.

An American soldier also died Monday in Baghdad in a roadside bomb attack.

In Sunni-controlled Anbar Province, where the fighting is mainly between insurgents and American troops, two American soldiers were killed in fighting on Sunday.

In southern cities like Basra, dominated by Shiites, the fighting is a combination of battles between rival militias vying for power, warring tribes and organized crime, Major Burbridge said.

"In northern Basra, the fighting is mainly between three warring tribes," he said. "The death squads are typically related to political maneuvering and tribal gain. Then there are rogue elements of militias aiming attacks on the multinational forces. You throw all those elements into a melting pot and you get a picture of the complexity of what we are facing."

[Colrom]

Here's another interesting article from the past:

 

Sinister Events in a Cynical War

By John Pilger

t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Thursday 29 September 2005

Here are questions that are not being asked about the latest twist of a cynical war. Were explosives and a remote-control detonator found in the car of the two SAS special forces men "rescued" from prison in Basra on 19 September? If true, what were they planning to do with them? Why did the British military authorities in Iraq put out an unbelievable version of the circumstances that led up to armoured vehicles smashing down the wall of a prison?

According to the head of Basra's Governing Council, which has co-operated with the British, five civilians were killed by British soldiers. A judge says nine. How much is an Iraqi life worth? Is there to be no honest accounting in Britain for this sinister event, or do we simply accept Defence Secretary John Reid's customary arrogance? "Iraqi law is very clear," he said. "British personnel are immune from Iraqi legal process." He omitted to say that this fake immunity was invented by Iraq's occupiers.

Watching "embedded" journalists in Iraq and London, attempting to protect the British line was like watching a satire of the whole atrocity in Iraq. First, there was feigned shock that the Iraqi regime's "writ" did not run outside its American fortifications in Baghdad and the "British trained" police in Basra might be "infiltrated". An outraged Jeremy Paxman wanted to know how two of our boys - in fact, highly suspicious foreigners dressed as Arabs and carrying a small armoury - could possibly be arrested by police in a "democratic" society. "Aren't they supposed to be on our side?" he demanded.

Although reported initially by the Times and the Mail, all mention of the explosives allegedly found in the SAS men's unmarked Cressida vanished from the news. Instead, the story was the danger the men faced if they were handed over to the militia run by the "radical" cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. "Radical" is a gratuitous embedded term; al-Sadr has actually co-operated with the British. What did he have to say about the "rescue"? Quite a lot, none of which was reported in this country. His spokesman, Sheikh Hassan al-Zarqani, said the SAS men, disguised as al-Sadr's followers, were planning an attack on Basra ahead of an important religious festival. "When the police tried to stop them," he said, "[they] opened fire on the police and passers-by. After a car chase, they were arrested. What our police found in the car was very disturbing - weapons, explosives and a remote control detonator. These are the weapons of terrorists."

The episode illuminates the most enduring lie of the Anglo-American adventure. This says the "coalition" is not to blame for the bloodbath in Iraq - which it is, overwhelmingly - and that foreign terrorists orchestrated by al-Qaeda are the real culprits. The conductor of the orchestra, goes this line, is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian. The demonry of Al-Zarqawi is central to the Pentagon's "Strategic Information Program" set up to shape news coverage of the occupation. It has been the Americans' single unqualified success. Turn on any news in the US and Britain, and the embedded reporter standing inside an American (or British) fortress will repeat unsubstantiated claims about al-Zarqawi.

Two impressions are the result: that Iraqis' right to resist an illegal invasion - a right enshrined in international law - has been usurped and de-legitimised by callous foreign terrorists, and that a civil war is under way between the Shi'ites and the Sunni. A member of the Iraqi National Assembly, Fatah al-Sheikh said this week, "There is a huge campaign for the agents of the foreign occupiers to enter and plant hatred between the sons of the Iraqi people and spread rumours in order to scare the one from the other . . . The occupiers are trying to start religious incitement and if it does not happen, then they will start an internal Shi-ite incitement."

The Anglo-American goal of "federalism" for Iraq is part of an imperial strategy of provoking divisions in a country where traditionally the communities have overlapped, even inter-married. The Osama-like promotion of al-Zarqawi is integral to this. Like the Scarlet Pimpernel, he is everywhere but nowhere. When the Americans crushed the city of Fallujah last year, the justification for their atrocious behaviour was "getting those guys loyal to al-Zarqawi". But the city's civil and religious authorities denied he was ever there or had anything to do with the resistance.

"He is simply an invention." said the Imam of Baghdad's al-Kazimeya mosque. "Al-Zarqawi was killed in the beginning of the war in the Kurdish north. His family even held a ceremony after his death." Whether or not this is true, al-Zaqawi's "foreign invasion" serves as Bush's and Blair's last veil for their "war on terror" and botched attempt to control the world's second biggest source of oil.

On 23 September, the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, an establishment body, published a report that accused the US of "feeding the myth" of foreign fighters in Iraqi who account for less than 10 per cent of a resistance estimated at 30,000. Of the eight comprehensive studies into the number of Iraqi civilians killed by the "coalition", four put the figure at more than 100,000. Until the British army is withdrawn from where it has no right to be, and those responsible for this monumental act of terrorism are indicted by the International Criminal Court, Britain is shamed.

--------

Originally published in The New Statesman, London.

[Colrom]

By the way, I post the whole text because links and such sometimes fail to work and stories sometimes change over time.

[metadigital]

The New Statesman is equally as biased as Fox News (just for the left), so I would take their spin with a pinch of salt.

 

I'm not sure what your point is, though, still.

 

That there might be some other information that isn't released to the public domain, in the time of war?

 

Not a big surprise, really.

 

That the coalition is some sort of evil invasion force trying to kill Iraqis just because they have a surplus of munitions?

[Colrom]

I was just adding additional media input and opinion to the thread.

 

People need to take it all with a grain of salt.

 

By the way, it is rediculous to put absurd nonsense like - "That the coalition is some sort of evil invasion force trying to kill Iraqis just because they have a surplus of munitions?" - in other people's mouths. :crazy:

 

I suppose I could do the same to you but we would then just wind up weaving a fairy tale of hateful nonsense. :crazy:

 

Which may suit your purposes - but won't suit mine. :D

Edited December 29, 2006 by Colrom

[thepixiesrock]

He wasn't putting words in your mouth

 

He was asking a question

 

There is a difference.

 

I think YOU're the one putting words in HIS mouth.

 

It's just better to have a point instead of just positng a bunch of articles just for the sake of it.

[Colrom]

He wasn't putting words in your mouth

 

He was asking a question

 

There is a difference.

 

I think YOU're the one putting words in HIS mouth.

 

It's just better to have a point instead of just positng a bunch of articles just for the sake of it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nonsense. Why in world would he believe I thought "That the coalition is some sort of evil invasion force trying to kill Iraqis just because they have a surplus of munitions?" :crazy:

 

Bah.

Edited December 29, 2006 by Colrom

[Walsingham]

I for one appreciate the articles being posted. However, having recently read the New Stateman on the train I can't say I've been impressed. Firstly John Reid is the Home Secretary, not the Secretary of State for Defence. Secondly, I don't think it is at ALL inflammatory or inaccurate to describe Moqtada Sadr as a radical. I seem to recall his mehdi army launching a war in the streets some time ago.

 

I confess after spotting these two flaws I felt disinclined to continue reading someone's gratuitous ranting. I get enough of that on my own account.

[thepixiesrock]

He wasn't putting words in your mouth

 

He was asking a question

 

There is a difference.

 

I think YOU're the one putting words in HIS mouth.

 

It's just better to have a point instead of just positng a bunch of articles just for the sake of it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nonsense. Why in world would he believe I thought "That the coalition is some sort of evil invasion force trying to kill Iraqis just because they have a surplus of munitions?" :crazy:

 

Bah.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't know why he'd think that.

 

It's irrelevent though.

 

The point is that he didn't put words in your mouth

 

Because he didn't say you said that.

 

He was asking if that's what you were saying.

 

Hence

 

no words were put in your mouth.

[metadigital]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6209249.stm

 

Look like British troops bulldozed the 'Serious Crimes Unit' in Basra this morning, freeing more than 100 prisoners, who they feared were going to be summarily shot. The prisoners appeared to have been tortured, according to initial medical examinations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is hard to know what to believe.

 

Didn't the Brits have an undercover team dressed as arabs with explosives and detonators get caught - which they busted out of jail and destroyed the jail (did they kill anybody in that operation?) - in that town. The same town where they sevrved ham sandwiches to the leadership on a train ride.

 

Seems like the saga continues.

 

Seems to me that sometime after the US was caught torturing prizoners in Iraq all the news stories about Iraqis killed by other Iraqis started to include statements to the effect that their bodies showed signs of having been tortured.

 

It would be interesting to do back search on news stories to see if there really was an increase in torture reports.

 

Of course, even if there was, it is always possible that the incidence of torture really did increase.

 

My gut feeling though is that at least half of the effect reflects a conscious propaganda strategy - to normalize torture of Iraqis.

 

Why, killing Iraqis may seem almost benign if they are believed to be monstrous thieves, torturers and terrorists.

 

Whatever the truth - I doubt there is any real honor to be rescued by anyone from the mess in Iraq.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm struggling to understand this interpretation, especially considering you have said:

You cannot kill evil.

 

Evil is the absence of good. Nothing more.

 

It cannot be perfected.

 

Good can be perfected = God.

 

Killing people is wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

SO, I guess what you are saying is that everyone needs to put down their arms and "have a good talk" to solve all the world's problems.

 

I'm making that sound as ridiculous as it is.

 

You seem to be proceeding from a dangerous supposition (i.e. "Evil is the absence of good.")

 

There are evil people in this world. These people do not "respect" anything except force, and force of arms is the best and only way to prevent them from killing other people. (If you haven't met any, then I am pleased for you.) It may even be necessary to fulfill the promise and kill them, if not to provide a deterrent than at least to nullify their negative effects.

[Colrom]

We have been here before.

 

evil = evil +1

 

Will you soon be going out into the world to attempt to kill all those (evil) people who don't understand anything but force (looked in a mirror lately)?

 

Trixy Pixie says its OK for me to suggest you might do such a thing.

 

Anyway, if you go, please write regularly to tell us how it is going.

 

:D

Edited December 30, 2006 by Colrom

[213374U]

Will you soon be going out into the world to attempt to kill all those (evil) people who don't understand anything but force (looked in a mirror lately)?

Realizing that there are people that only understand (or at least, respect) force does not make you one of them.

 

But thanks for the fallacy, anyway.

[Colrom]

Will you soon be going out into the world to attempt to kill all those (evil) people who don't understand anything but force (looked in a mirror lately)?

Realizing that there are people that only understand (or at least, respect) force does not make you one of them.

 

But thanks for the fallacy, anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Characterizing people as evil and predicting their future behavior under all circumstances (don't (Didn't? Won't?) understand anything (Really? Anything?) but force) is an interesting combination of fantasies which you do not seem to have any problem with.

 

How about .

 

Is that better?