The mall example was a bad one...I wasn't thinking about the "mall ninja" connotations. What I was trying to point out is that the job title and description are not based on location.
If an executive protection specialist accompanies his executive to NYC he will be concerned with safety (traffic, fire, medical), crime and the clients reputation. Low risk. If the same EP goes to Bogata, Columbia the risks go through the roof including from forces hostile to America. Is he now a mercenary? If the executives' company pursues a construction contract in Iraq and the EP goes is he now a mercenary? He is doing the same job, just in different places with different threat levels.
The definitions of words are very important and shouldn't be changed based on situations or for political reasons. Lets define our terms: (from dictionary.com)
mer·ce·nar·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrs-nr)
adj.
1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2. Hired for service in a foreign army.
Definition 1 applies to anyone who works solely for $$$. I'm a mercenary right now in the US 'cause my current job is no career and I just need to pay the bills.
Defenition 2 addresses the context in question. Security contractors in Iraq work for civilian security companies. These companies are most often contracted by other civilian companies. In no case is a contractor working for any military, foreign or not.
They are either mercinaries or murders, have it your way.
Wow, lots of logical errors in that statement...where to begin? 1st, the statement implies an "either/or" situation which does not exist. It is easily possible to be both a mercenary and a murderer. It is easily possible to be a soldier and a murderer by not following the ROE/ laws of land warfare.
Next, the statement assumes conclusions from facts not in evidence, namely that someone died and that it was murder. In many, if not most, cases of similar shootings no one is killed. We couldn't know from the video if anyone died. Yes, sometimes Iraqi civilians are killed in these circumsrtances.
Finally, the statement assumes there are only 2 possible answers (merc or murderer). If someone was killed it could be; a. self defence, b. negligent homocide, c. manslaughter or d. murder.
What you can't see in the vid are any actions of the tail gunner. The sign is just the first warning. If a vehicle fails to heed that, the tail gunner will signal the vehicle to back off, often using a bright light, or brightly colored paddle. If this is ignored they will point the weapon at the car to be quickly followed by warning shots in front of the vehicle. You can tell some of those were warning shots in the vid. Finally, if the car is still coming, then you fire to stop the threat. These procedures vary by company and/or military-police unit but are similar and followed/approved by US military, Iraqi gov't and Iraqi police.
Sometimes things happen fast. Sometimes mistakes are made. Friendly fire incidents are common (Military at security, security at other security, military/security at Iraqi police and vice versa) As stated above most incidents don't result in casualties and stop at the warning shot phase.
Bottom line: Security contractors as a whole are not mercenaries by definition. If a contractor is there solely for the $$$, then he would be under def. 1 above, but so would the cashier at Wendy's unless they really like it.
The vid does not show enough to judge whether these cases were self defense, reckless endagerment, negligent homicide or murder. To be murder the gunner would have had to decide to kill someone not because they thought they were a threat, but merely because they could.
