Britons used as Saddam's 'human shields' demand inquiry (Gulf War 1)

[Barrett808]

LONDON (AFP) - A group of Britons taken hostage and used as "human shields" by Saddam Hussein before the first Gulf War, have demanded a public inquiry into charges the government knowingly put their lives at risk.

Their demand was triggered after a new book claimed that the flight they were on was being used to transport undercover agents into Kuwait, at the start of Iraq's invasion of its tiny neighbour.

Some 367 passengers and crew were seized by Iraqi troops when British Airways flight 149 landed in Kuwait hours after the invasion of the country on August 2, 1990.

According to passengers and crew who were on board, a group of nine men joined the flight unannounced as it was delayed at London Heathrow Airport shortly before take-off, and disappeared immediately after it landed in Kuwait.

Author Stephen Davis says he has documentary evidence indicating that the men on the plane were on a secret mission to gather intelligence on the movements of Iraqi dictator Saddam's troops.

(more)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061016/wl_mideast_afp/britainiraqkuwait

[ECH1969]

1. Why would Saddam use Britons as human shields

It makes no sense?

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. Why do you think it doesn't make sense?

He did use them as shields - that's undisputed. He had them held at various strategic locations, so if they were bombed, the Britons were likely to be killed. Eventually, Edward Heath, the ex-prime minister, negotiated their release, before Iraq was bombed - see http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/10/newsid_2544000/2544281.stm .

If you're going to use people as human shields, citizens of your enemy are the best of all to choose.

What's in dispute here is whether the British government and/or British Airways knew the invasion of Kuwait was underway, but flew into it anyway, to deposit the undercover soldiers, thus putting the passengers of the plane into the hands of the Iraqis.

[Stella_Artois]

3. That doesn't make a lot of sense either

If they wanted to get people into Kuwait, they could have flown into Saudi and just drove over the border. Its not like BA didn't have flights there too.

Strange story.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. By the time they'd done the drive

the invasion would have been even more likely to have happened. The nearest BA flight would probably be to Riyadh, which looks about 300 miles from the border - and they'd need permission from the Saudis to do military manoeuvres (you can't just drive where you like in Saudi Arabia).

[Stella_Artois]

5. I guess...

The invasion had already happened anyway though, that turned out to be the problem. The Saudis didn't seem to have any problems with UK troops being in the country before during or after the invasion.

Like a say, a strange story.

[rmgarrette64]

6. Please. It makes tons of sense

You're missing the long range aspect. If people begin to believe that planes of human shields carry undercover agents as well, enemy nations will become less likely to allow these human shields in. People will be less likely to volunteer to go in the first place.

The only down side to that theory is that it should have been revealed a long time ago, in order for it to be effective. Still, nice example of long range planning. If it was deliberate, of course...

R. Garrett