The Iraq thread 3

[ran 0]

my father would say : "here when we do that kind of shit we tend to avoid having cameras around" (and believe me he knows his stuff *algeria anyone ?*)

One thing which always astonished me is that I had never much to contribute to this debate ...

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Acts of a few ?  

Nobody knew  

Have a nice read

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119463,00.html

Quote[/b] ]

Kraehenbuehl said the ICRC regretted the publication and said it would have preferred sticking to its policy of confidential discussions with coalition authorities because the United States had been making progress toward meeting its demands.

ICRC chief spokeswoman Antonella Notari declined to discuss the full report.

[billybob2002 0]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119497,00.html

Quote[/b] ]

Lawyer: Soldier in Abuse Probe Is a Scapegoat

Monday, May 10, 2004

DENVER  — An attorney for an Army reservist shown in photographs smiling and gesturing at naked Iraqi prisoners said Monday that the "20-year-old farm girl from West Virginia" is taking the fall for military shortcomings that include a lack of troops.

Quote[/b] ]

Ra'Shadd accused intelligence operatives of staging many of the scenes in order to scare prisoners into talking.

"That is a standard psychological war method," he said. But when it comes to defending his client, he said, "the spooks from the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and State Department won't show up when we subpoena them. They will go into hiding."

Ra'Shadd has worked on other high-profile military cases, including that of Spc. Simone Holcomb, who refused to return to Iraq so she could care for her seven children. Holcomb was released from active duty in November.

I'm done for the day........

[denoir 0]

That photo is from the AP not coalition press release.

And AP is roaming freely around the coalition jails? OK, my bad. It should have been:

"A picture taken by AP during a coalition tour of the jail."

[denoir 0]

And what do we have now? Tell me what we have in Guantanamo then? Tell me what we know about what is happening in Iraq.

Indeed, but that camp is a violation of international law in most respects. It's also a violation of US law, but that doesn't seem to bother them.

Quote[/b] ]

DEFINING what TORTURE is and to put it down in statues would at least ensure that all terorists would have to be considered as POW and therefore that the RED CROSS would be allowed to access the prisons. What is happening right now in the world is far worse! You are talking about the first step? Well let you remind me that it seems that some secret services engaging in IRAQ have taken more than just a tiny step. They are already half way there! Going back to the first step would actually improve the current situation!.

Actually we have very good definitions of what torture is. The Geneva conventions are quite specific and there are a number of follow-up UN regulations.

The problem with the existing rules is that they were designed with European-style warfare in mind. For a soldier to get any protection by those rules, he must operate under a well-defined chain of command and wear insignia etc

It's not well adjusted for today's type of wars.

[Balschoiw 0]

Wait a sec lads. This is nice. The backing of Rumsfeld get´s a very freaky echo in ME´s press. I bet he has not thought of that

Bush's Backing of Rumsfeld Shocks and Angers Arabs

Quote[/b] ] Arab commentators reacted with shock and disbelief on Monday over President Bush (news - web sites)'s robust backing of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld against calls for his resignation.

...

"After the torture and vile acts by the American army, President Bush goes out and congratulates Rumsfeld. It's just incredible. I am in total shock," said Omar Belhouchet, editor of the influential Algerian national daily El Watan.

"Bush's praise for Rumsfeld will discredit the United States...and further damage its reputation, which is already at a historic low in the Arab world," he added.

...

"After Mr. Bush's decision to keep Rumsfeld, all their apologies seem like lip service," Dubai-based political analyst Jawad al-Anani told Reuters. "Mr. Rumsfeld would have certainly lost his job if the prisoners were American."

"The United States is spending so much money by setting up Alhurra television and Radio Sawa to improve its image in the Arab world...How can it reconcile that with keeping a man who has insulted every Arab through the abuses of Iraqi prisoners," added Anani, a former Jordanian foreign minister.

University of Algiers professor Mahmoud Belhimeur agreed.

"I cannot believe the United States reacts the way an authoritarian regimes would. Bush should have done the honorable thing and fired Rumsfeld," he said.

...

"This has been Rumsfeld's war, and I suppose the political symbolism of trying to get rid of Rumsfeld would be huge."

Cox said he could not entirely rule out that Rumsfeld could go, if U.S. public opinion turned. But he added it would seem out of character for Rumsfeld to go quietly.

"'I want to spend more time with my family' doesn't sound too credible with Mr. Rumsfeld. With Mr. Powell maybe, but not Rumsfeld," he said.

A Saudi businessman, who asked not to be named, said keeping Rusmfeld would be seen as Washington's quiet approval of the abuse.

"This just confirms that what is happening in Iraq (news - web sites) in general, and especially what is happening in Abu Ghraib is sanctioned by the American administration and that is a hell of a position to be in.

"I see no advantage in keeping Rumsfeld. Bush should be building bridges with the outside world."

"Damn it´s not easy being president, hey Powell any WMD reports I could send you to the UN with ? No ? Damnit, Condi stop polishing my shoes and find me something I can make points in. Oh, yes I know terror, terror, terror..."

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Denoir, I fully agree with you but to approach the issue in a pragmatic way -> outdated! not applicable if life-saving information can be gained. Your point is noble and should be our future aim. But you may have observed that our idea of the geneva convention is a bit ahead of its time. Observing the latest retro-trend of suicide bombing, of religious brainwashing and the creation of soldiers that are meant to die in battle, well all that shows that we went too fast with our ideologie. We must create laws that are fit to be respected.

A: A prisoner is a useful source of information

B: Only a "certain" pressure can ensure that the information is unlocked.

If the geneva convention blocks every possibility to get from A to B then it is doomed to fail and be ignored. But if laws would ensure a that the way from A to B can actually be achieved then there would be no more space for apologies, no more reason to search for a niche (Guantanamo) in the statues.

How come soldiers GUARDING A PRISON were never realy shown the geneva convention? Doesnt that proof to you that countries do (maybe not deliberately) ignore them because they are so far away, so unachievable

Hell every soldier should have a little GENEVA CONVENTION booklet in his pocket. Its laws should be printed into every soldiers memory. In large corporations most employees have to carry a little book with the mission statement in their pocket. THE US of A went into Iraq in order to defend western values and to export them. Well those western values are refined in the Geneva Convention. Even if our enemies fight with brutality we should feel obliged to stick to our rules. If we dont then our war is already lost.

But in order to make this clear to the western world and especially the US, we first need to revitalise the idea of a common War-Morale. We need to discuss the issue productively and create a platform of rules that fit even the war against terorists.

A written applicable law in the pocket of every american soldier would finally show them that the being born in the US doesnt mean you are given the fate to always instinctively do the right thing. Then soldiers would have the mean to judge their own doing against the REAL WESTERN VALUES, instead of just following the silly code of honour of the Marine Corps (this is my gun...bla bla bla)

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]And AP is roaming freely around the coalition jails?   OK, my bad. It should have been:

"A picture taken by AP during a coalition tour of the jail."

There was trouble during those tours.

[denoir 0]

Denoir, I fully agree with you but to approach the issue in a pragmatic way -> outdated! not applicable if life-saving information can be gained. Your point is noble and should be our future aim. But you may have observed that our idea of the geneva convention is a bit ahead of its time. Observing the latest retro-trend of suicide bombing, of religious brainwashing and the creation of soldiers that are meant to die in battle, well all that shows that we went too fast with our ideologie. We must create laws that are fit to be respected.

A: A prisoner is a useful source of information

B: Only a "certain" pressure can ensure that the information is unlocked.

If the geneva convention blocks every possibility to get from A to B then it is doomed to fail and be ignored. But if laws would ensure a that the way from A to B can actually be achieved then there would be no more space for apologies, no more reason to search for a niche (Guantanamo) in the statues.

It is too problematic if you make exceptions. For instance if Geneva had provisions for torturing prisoners that had information relevant to the life and death of others, they you could bet that every single prisoner would be characterized as such. There would be no discussions about the Iraqi prisoners. They would all "have" very relevant information.

You have to put absolute limits with no room for interpretation or everybody will use the available loopholes.

Again, it is important to remember what kind of warfare the Geneva conventions were designed for. In a European style combat theatre there is not much of an advantage of allowing torture. If you do it, your enemy will do it to you as well. In a large scale war the relevant information that you extract and that your enemy extracts from your soldiers will average out. In short, there is little to gain.

Another issue with torture is that it is completely unreliable. Everybody talks after a period of torture. Even if they don't know anything, they will talk.

With your idea, how far are you willing to go? Say you have a foreign in custody that you know has planted a bomb somewhere.

Would you beat him? Would you use electric shocks? Would you cut of his limbs one by one? Would you rape his wife and daughter in front of his eyes? Would you kill the members of his family one by one?

How far are you willing to go?

The Geneva conventions really set a minimum of requirements. It allows for quite extensive interrogations. Going beyond it would be plain barbaric.

[Akira 0]

This could be put in the "US Votes" thread or here...so I'll put it here:

Bush At New Low

Quote[/b] ]President Bush holds a single-point lead over Democratic challenger John Kerry in the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of likely voters, but voters' approval of Bush's performance and support for the war in Iraq dropped to new lows in the survey.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Denoir, I fully agree with you but to approach the issue in a pragmatic way -> outdated! not applicable if life-saving information can be gained. Your point is noble and should be our future aim. But you may have observed that our idea of the geneva convention is a bit ahead of its time. Observing the latest retro-trend of suicide bombing, of religious brainwashing and the creation of soldiers that are meant to die in battle, well all that shows that we went too fast with our ideologie. We must create laws that are fit to be respected.

A: A prisoner is a useful source of information

B: Only a "certain" pressure can ensure that the information is unlocked.

If the geneva convention blocks every possibility to get from A to B then it is doomed to fail and be ignored. But if laws would ensure a that the way from A to B can actually be achieved then there would be no more space for apologies, no more reason to search for a niche (Guantanamo) in the statues.

It is too problematic if you make exceptions. For instance if Geneva had provisions for torturing prisoners that had information relevant to the life and death of others, they you could bet that every single prisoner would be characterized as such. There would be no discussions about the Iraqi prisoners. They would all "have" very relevant information.

You have to put absolute limits with no room for interpretation or everybody will use the available loopholes.

Again, it is important to remember what kind of warfare the Geneva conventions were designed for. In a European style combat theatre there is not much of an advantage of allowing torture. If you do it, your enemy will do it to you as well. In a large scale war the relevant information that you extract and that your enemy extracts from your soldiers will average out. In short, there is little to gain.

Another issue with torture is that it is completely unreliable. Everybody talks after a period of torture. Even if they don't know anything, they will talk.

With your idea, how far are you willing to go? Say you have a foreign in custody that you know has planted a bomb somewhere.

Would you beat him? Would you use electric shocks? Would you cut of his limbs one by one? Would you rape his wife and daughter in front of his eyes? Would you kill the members of his family one by one?

How far are you willing to go?

The Geneva conventions really set a minimum of requirements. It allows for quite extensive interrogations. Going beyond it would be plain barbaric.

There we are already at the point that I thought we would never reach in this thread.

Good example, and there are always many constraints.

A: we do not know whether the person keeps informations in his hands

(considering the person held a certain military rank, we may assume that he should know what happens in his field of responsibility

B: Does the prisoner holds an information in his hands that legitimises us to torture him? Whích secret allows torture, which doesnt. Very hard to explain that, isnt it? In that case the geneva convention should not diversify. This is the hot spot especially now in Iraq. I think there we should take into consideration whether a civillian or a military personal is under risk of being attacked. But what exactly is a civillian?

C: what sorts of torture should be allowed? I dont know much about this field. There Denoir is more experienced due to his military past.

Pschology:

Do not threaten to harm their family or relatives

Do not abuse their religion or their sex

Physically: (hmmm... tough one isnt it?)

..maybe someone can help

I gotta think about that! Post interrupted here!

[bn880 5]

Another issue with torture is that it is completely unreliable. Everybody talks after a period of torture. Even if they don't know anything, they will talk.

Bullshit, I plan on talking just before it starts.

Just wanted to lighten up the mood, you guys are getting into some sick stuff here, but basically prolonged sleep depravation will get you a talkative loonatic combined with even mild but constant annoyances... so , but it can also be very harmful, i.e. death.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]This could be put in the "US Votes" thread or here...so I'll put it here:

Bush At New Low

President Bush holds a single-point lead over Democratic challenger John Kerry in the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of likely voters, but voters' approval of Bush's performance and support for the war in Iraq dropped to new lows in the survey.

Taken from that link

Quote[/b] ]

The survey found the country was split over how Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has handled his job, with 46 percent approving and 45 percent disapproving.

But less than a third of those questioned thought Rumsfeld should resign or be fired over the Abu Ghraib scandal.

[denoir 0]

Bush 'disbelief' over new photos [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

US President George W Bush has reacted with "disgust and disbelief" to more images of alleged prisoner abuse by US guards in Iraq, his spokesman said.

Mr Bush viewed the classified images at a meeting with advisers and defence staff at the Pentagon, which is mulling whether to release them to the media.

They included images of a sexual nature, a Pentagon spokesman added. The statement came as the general who wrote a report on prisoner abuses prepares to testify before Congress. Gen Antonio Taguba reported to the Pentagon on mistreatment of inmates at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison.

His testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee - due on Tuesday - could well throw new light on the extent to which the abuse was directed by senior officers, the BBC's Justin Webb reports from Washington.

Our correspondent adds that the prison scandal appears to be having a severe affect on the American public's view of the entire Iraq war.

The latest nationwide opinion poll suggests, for the first time, that a majority now believe it was not worth fighting.

Meanwhile a Red Cross report - which has been leaked to the press - suggests that up to nine out of 10 coalition detainees in Iraq are arrested by mistake.

Citing coalition intelligence officers, the 24-page report passed to the coalition by the International Committee of the Red Cross in February also found evidence of widespread and routine abuse of prisoners.

Video clips

President Bush came to the Pentagon on Monday in a public show of solidarity with Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who has been widely condemned over the allegations of abuse.

Mr Bush described Mr Rumsfeld's work as "superb".

The president then went behind closed doors to view photographs and video clips which officials stressed had not been released to the media. Larry Di Rita, Mr Rumsfeld's spokesman, said the "disturbing" images showed the humiliation of prisoners as well as "inappropriate behaviour of a sexual nature".

"The president's reaction was one of deep disgust and disbelief that anyone who wears our uniform would engage in such shameful and appalling acts," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said later.

No details of the images viewed at the Pentagon were given. But the man who published the first snapshots of prisoners being abused in the New Yorker magazine, Seymour Hersh, has told the BBC's World Today programme that more are on the way.

He said that images he had seen appeared to have been taken by a different unit from that involved in the photos initially published.

"So the notion that was promulgated initially last week or the week before by the American authorities... that this is just a bunch of six or seven bad seeds, that's pretty much shot by these photos," he said.

The reporter said it was clear there was, or had been until recently, a "very systematic problem" in the prison systems in Iraq.

(emphasis added)

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Another issue with torture is that it is completely unreliable. Everybody talks after a period of torture. Even if they don't know anything, they will talk.

Bullshit, I plan on talking just before it starts.  

Just wanted to lighten up the mood, you guys are getting into some sick stuff here, but basically prolonged sleep depravation will get you a talkative loonatic combined with even mild but constant annoyances... so , but it can also be very harmful, i.e. death.  

Well it is better talking about it than hiding what is currently happening. We are getting closer and closer to 1968 MayLay! The US might not have ratified the Geneva Convention but it certainly signed the UN no-torture treaty!

25 prisoners died because of "unknown" reasons

Photos exist of prisoners that were "raped" with a luminous stick.

Other were forced to mass-masturbxxx and to oral-xxx

There are even PHOTOS of the Military Police raping a female iraqi prisoner!

(according to Generalmajor Taguba)

Iraqis were told that their families would suffer if they dont speak

beaten up with the head of rifles

Forced to sit on hot surfaces

"a consistent pattern of abuse in Several prisons (Basra, Bagdad, South, Ramadi) RED CROSS

How come that not the military is mostly in charge for the grilling but a civillian service provider (CACI). What is that? Some kind of outsourcing to a specialised Gestapo, so the military gets no blood on their hands?

Nah, I know it gets nasty when you go into debth. But my "happy-day" attitude in this thread is gone. I wil no longer hesitate to step on someones patritotic foot.  "committed by a few"? Yeah sure! We germans used that excuse already 60 years ago. Wont work!

I am okay with many sides of torture. (sick me). But those photos clearly show that the border has been crosses. This is not meant to break the enemy, its purpose is to put him down and spit into his face. Maybe someone should finally tell your soldiers that those prisoners HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH 911!

[walker 0]

Hi all

For the record sleep deprivation will kill you quicker than not having water to drink.

It leads to massive organ failure. [edit] my bad it leads to loss of body tempreture control a bit like the bad side effects of the drug extasy[end edit]

Kind Regards Walker

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Hi all

For the record sleep deprivation will kill you quicker than not having water to drink.

It leads to massive organ failure.

Kind Regards Walker

Really?

The record for going without sleep (at all) is 7 days. When does the organ failure start? First term at sandhurst means having about 5 hours or less of sleep per night, plus plenty of hard work.

[theavonlady 2]

I wil no longer hesitate to step on someones patritotic foot.  "committed by a few"? Yeah sure! We germans used that excuse already 60 years ago. Wont work!

It has nothing to do with my patriotism but please don't try try to equate Nazi history and current events with your rhetoric.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

AVON. I Dont have to "not to try to" because I simply "wasnt" equating.I dont need that comparison cause the present events can perfectly stand on their own.

Just for the few of you willing to read the Fox perception on that

Fox. No need to excuse!

[walker 0]

Hi Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX

My Bad. I posted inccorect information in my last post. I have noted the error.

My reason for saying that it will kill you quicker than lack of water was program on Channel 4 in the UK that stated that was the case. It examined the effects of sleep deprivation, drugs, lack of water, food and alcohol had on the brain and body. As it was done by a respected UK TV doctor I believed him.

I too thought the record was 7 days but aparently 11 days is the record.

After 2 days you become like a robot. After 3 to 4 days your dreams intrude on reality and you have halucinations.

Quote[/b] ]Not so the brain, however. It's the one organ that really can't cope without sleep. Specifically, it's a region of the brain called the cerebral cortex that suffers the most. The cerebral cortex is arguably what makes us human. It governs what we think, what we say, what we do. "Without that, you become an automaton, a robot," says Horne.

And that is exactly what the acutely sleep-deprived turn into. The transition to human robot can kick in after just two days without sleep. "You end up just staring at things because you don't know what to look at next." Gradually, other symptoms begin to appear, like being easily distracted and unable to take part in conversations. "If you are in a conversation [with a sleep deprived person], they will most likely have stilted speech and speak in a monotone and not about anything at all interesting," adds Horne.  

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life....00.html

As you are unable to take part in conversation I question its usefulness in aquiring information also the fact it takes two days to kick in means that it is not likely to be timely information. An obvious defence is to gable monotone nonsence. The kind of stuff you hear people say when they talk in their sleep.

It is thought; though not proven, you would die in 30 days from loss of tempreture control, stress and your immune sytem would fail.

Kind Regards Walker

[theavonlady 2]

AVON. I Dont have to "not to try to" because I simply "wasnt" equating.I dont need that comparison cause the present events can perfectly stand on their own.

You equated a German fictitious excuse for Nazi genocidal attrocities of "committed by a few" with the factual excuse for the Abu Ghraib inciddents.

Quote[/b] ]

Just for the few of you willing to read the Fox perception on that

Fox. No need to excuse!

That sounds about right to me. So does Senator Joseph Lieberman. From Transcript of the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on Iraq prisoners, May 7, 2004:

Quote[/b] ]LIEBERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, the behavior by Americans at the prison in Iraq is, as we all acknowledge, immoral, intolerable and un-American. It deserves the apology that you have given today and that have been given by others in high positions in our government and our military.

I cannot help but say, however, that those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on September 11th, 2001, never apologized. Those who have killed hundreds of Americans in uniform in Iraq working to liberate Iraq and protect our security have never apologized. And those who murdered and burned and humiliated four Americans in Fallujah a while ago never received an apology from anybody.

So it's part of -- wrongs occurred here, by the people in those pictures and perhaps by people up the chain of command.

But Americans are different. That's why we're outraged by this. That's why the apologies were due.

And that's why I hope as we go about this investigation, we do it in a way that does not dishonor the hundreds of thousands of Americans in uniform who are a lot more like Pat Tillman and Americans that are not know, like Army National Guard Sergeant Felix Del Greco of Simsbury, Connecticut, who was killed in action a few weeks ago; that we not dishonor their service or discredit the cause that brought us to send them to Iraq, because it remains one that is just and necessary.

We've got to get to the whole truth here, and nothing but the truth. We can't be defensive. We've got to be aggressive about it. And as Senator McCain said, we've got to do it quickly so that we and you and most of all our soldiers can get back to fighting and winning the war on terrorism with determination.

As far as I'm concerned, we do have to know how this happened. And we have to know it so we can stop it from happening ever again.

You've said that the behavior of those soldiers was fundamentally un-American. I agree with you. And this goes way back to the first American declaration, the Declaration of Independence, where we said that every human being has those rights as an endowment of our creator.

You can go on reading the transcript, as Lieberman continues on with questions directed to Rumsfeld concerning the US military's abidance to the Geneva Convention and the military's own regulations.

[theavonlady 2]

Looks like Iraqi Shi'ites are not going to remain silent about Sadr:

Quote[/b] ]Iraqi elders see conspiracy behind Najaf standoff

Mon May 10,11:14 AM ET

NAJAF, Iraq (AFP) - Tribal elders and supporters of Iraq's highest Shiite Muslim authority, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, warned of a foreign plot to sow chaos in this holy city by aggravating the standoff between radical militants and US forces.

Sistani follower and influential moderate cleric Sadreddin al-Kubbanji convened a meeting of Najaf's tribal elders and repeated his earlier calls for the militia of firebrand Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr to leave the city.

Speaking to an emotional crowd of Sistani supporters, Kubbanji called for a demonstration on Friday, the Muslim holy day, to protest "chaos, lies and occupation" and warned of a "treacherous plot being hatched in the name of fighting the US-led occupation."

In a veiled criticism of Sadr's Mehdi Army militia, which has taken over the area around the city's holiest shrine, Kubbanji accused "outside elements" of stoking the insurgency in order to drag the Americans into the heart of the sensitive Shiite city.

Najaf is one of the most sacred places in Shiite Islam and a battle involving US troops near its holy shrine could spark an eruption of anger across Iraq's Shiite majority.

Kubbanji said loyalists of jailed former president Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and Wahabis, radical Sunni Muslims such as followers of Al-Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden (news - web sites), were behind the conspiracy.

"The occupation was far away from Najaf and the city was calm, but when they (Sadr's militia) hit them with stones they were forced to come here," said Kubbanji, in reference to the thousands of Sadr's young guerrillas who have barricaded themselves in Najaf's centre after launching a failed uprising last month.

He praised the "good intentions" of Sadr's fighters, who have come from Baghdad and other cities to "defend Najaf," but said they had been "sucked into this conspiracy" and repeated calls for them to leave the city.

He warned that outlaws were taking advantage of the confusion brought on by the presence of militia in Najaf and elsewhere to attack Iraq's symbols of authority.

"A policeman is killed with the excuse that he is an agent of the occupation; Governing Council members are attacked for being so-called traitors and the religious authority is cursed for keeping quiet," he said.

Kubbanji is also the local leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a major Shiite party which is represented on the US-appointed Governing Council.

As he spoke his audience cheered in support of Sistani and the Najaf-based religious authority.

"We would die for Sistani," shouted some of the men, while black-veiled women in the back row chanted: "We follow our religious authority and our learned ones".

After the meeting, a group of Sistani supporters marched to his office in the centre of Najaf, but they were heckled by Sadr's militia.

Sistani has called for a peaceful resolution to the Sadr crisis and the respect of Najaf's sanctity while steering away from endorsing the young cleric or issuing a religious edict to wage jihad (holy war) against the Americans.

US troops have been clashing with Sadr's men over the past two weeks in Najaf and nearby Kufa, since taking over from Spanish troops who pulled out of Iraq last month.

In their deepest thrust into Najaf they moved into the provincial government building on the edge of town at the weekend, after the coalition named a new governor for the area.

Coalition civil administrator Paul Bremer has called on Najaf's religious authority to pressure Sadr to call off his month-old uprising.

The coalition insists that Sadr must disband his militia and answer charges relating to the murder of a rival cleric last year.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Hi Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX

My reason for saying that it will kill you quicker than lack of water was program on Channel 4 in the UK that stated that was the case. It examined the effects of sleep deprivation, drugs, lack of water, food and alcohol had on the brain and body. As it was done by a respected UK TV doctor I believed him.

I too thought the record was 7 days but aparently 11 days is the record.

How long did the programme say humans survive without water? I'm not saying sleep deprivation isn't serious... it's not nice at all....I suppose I'm just nitpicking on the 'kill you faster' thing.

The guiness record for going without sleep is about 7 days, I think. Although there could be other examples of people going longer.

Quote[/b] ]

After 2 days you become like a robot. After 3 to 4 days your dreams intrude on reality and you have halucinations.

Yep. Thats what happened to me (and the rest of my team) during Cambrian Patrol, and on other exercises. It is not a pleasant experience, and trying to think is very difficult.

Quote[/b] ]

As you are unable to take part in conversation I question its usefulness in aquiring information also the fact it takes two days to kick in means that it is not likely to be timely information. An obvious defence is to gable monotone nonsence. The kind of stuff you hear people say when they talk in their sleep.

I agree - sleep deprivation after a couple of days is useless. The first two days, however, you can confuse and disorient subjects in order to break their will and make them submissive... if that's what is deemed necessary. Although personally I don't see how it is in these cases.

Quote[/b] ]

It is thought; though not proven, you would die in 30 days from loss of tempreture control, stress and your immune sytem would fail.

Kind Regards Walker

Yeah... I'm pretty sure many people would die in less than 30 days without water.. that's really all I was saying

[denoir 0]

You equated a German fictitious excuse for Nazi genocidal attrocities of "committed by a few" with the factual excuse for the Abu Ghraib inciddents.

No Avon the difference is only in your position. Just like there are Nazi aplogists, there are coalition apologists and you are one of them.

There is more and more evidence that "commited by a few" is pure bullshit.

1. We have the ICRC report wich outlines evidence of widespread and systematic abuse.

2. We have Seymour Hersh who said that more photos are on the way and videos that were taken by a completely different unit than the one in the pictures.

3. We have the British cases where a number of soldiers have testified under oath that prisoner abuse was very common and that not only did the officers know about it; they ordered it.

[bn880 5]

I like the fact that everyone ignores Amnesty Internatioal's reports which pre-date the red cross.