Random Iraqi Civilians killed by Contractors?

Status
Not open for further replies.
That video was cool...way cool. :cool: Catchy tune,too. Man after that I need a cigerette.

I bet you could turn that into a cool-as-hell video game. Call it Smokin' Hadjis in Eye-Rack.

No wonder nearly half of Iraqis are willing to admit to pollsters that they support attacks against coalition forces.

Next time the locals there throw a Fallujah-style bar-b-que and pinata party for the visiting mercs, I don't think I'll be all that surprised.
 
Borachon said:
Ah great! Now I'm going to have to look thru all those insurgent video sites until I find the Blackwater security guys sniping at Iraqis.
Rhetorical question: When 20+ guys are shooting at your building from close, moderate, and long distance, and it is known they have access to RPGs and mortars, could "sniping" them be legitimate self defense?
 
GoRon said:

Immediately assuming the worst about the US and its allies could also be considered intellectual sloth.

Yep. Sure could. The comments that I made prior to the article in no way indicate that I am taking anything found within at face value. I called the article and video "interesting", mentioned what I thought would be the most likely counter-argument that would be used to dismiss the story, and acknowledged that regardless of whether the counter argument was used, or if the story and video were valid...it still makes taking the moral highground a hard road to hoe.

Just not is so many words. :p

If the video is true it means that the US has (directly or indirectly) hired men who have opened fire on Iraqi civies for no good reason other than to kill them. If it isn't true...and it is just a highlight reel of some private security folks "lighting up" bad-guys...then the status quo will remain.

It certainly isn't the only reported instance of the aforementioned activity, just the first one I have seen on video and set to a soundtrack by Elvis. The suicidal West Point Ethics professor (mentioned above) seems an interesting tie-in...

In addition...more news regarding this video is developing. Several of the sources online (admittedly slanted against the expedition in Iraq) are repeating the following:
that the man who is seen shooting vehicles on this video in Iraq was a South African employee of Aegis Victory team named Danny Heydenreycher. He served in the British military for 6 years. After the incident the Regional Director for Victory ROC tried to fire Heydenreycher, but the team threatened to resign if he did. Aegis held an "inquiry" into it.

...which goes to the "bad apple" argument.
 
You know, if the "insurgents" didn't disguise themselves as civilians and hide behind civilians, there would be a lot fewer civilian casualties. Your average non-sociopathic human doesn't go around lighting up innocent people for fun...

But hey, if it scores some political points against Bush to make America look like the Great Satan, why not? :banghead:
 
It's the nature of the Beast. In a G war, you can't tell the insurgents from the civys and the G can't operate without at least the tacit approval of the civys.
I'm amazed that we haven't learned this simple fact yet.
What's that old saying about repeating history?
Biker
 
But hey, if it scores some political points against Bush to make America look like the Great Satan, why not?
Well, it was Bush after all who decided this was a necessary war, first for regime change, then for WMD's and now for democratization. And it is Bush who is hiring all the 'contractors' in the first place. So I think this is a situation of his own making. It ya can't stand the heat get outta the kitchen dontcha know..............
 
javafiend said:
That video was cool...way cool. :cool: Catchy tune,too. Man after that I need a cigerette.

I bet you could turn that into a cool-as-hell video game. Call it Smokin' Hadjis in Eye-Rack.

No wonder nearly half of Iraqis are willing to admit to pollsters that they support attacks against coalition forces.

Next time the locals there throw a Fallujah-style bar-b-que and pinata party for the visiting mercs, I don't think I'll be all that surprised.

I guess you refer this: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/31/iraq.main/
I wonder why you take such joy in the murder of men guarding a convoy of food for the "Eye-Rack" people you seem to love over your own countrymen.
Again with the racist comments...:rolleyes:
 
Lysander said:
If the video is true it means that the US has (directly or indirectly) hired men who have opened fire on Iraqi civies for no good reason other than to kill them. If it isn't true...and it is just a highlight reel of some private security folks "lighting up" bad-guys...then the status quo will remain.
Fair enough. Both points are reasonable. Many of our guys have been killed and maimed by carbombs approaching convoys and checkpoints, so I would suggest that this video is perhaps a fireing upon a potential threat. What may seem damning out of context may be a reasonable, although unpleasant, reality.
If found to be either deliberate or random, then the perp should be crucified as he is only helping the enemy in their recruiting efforts.
I'm not as ready to condemn as some here that believe the US can do no right and would rather hold judgement at this time.
 
I'm not as ready to condemn as some here that believe the US can do no right and would rather hold judgement at this time.
And this is exactly the kind of thing the America haters feed on. It's supposed to be a military mission, 'armed contractors' have no business there in the first place, not during wartime. Let the military win the war first, then rebuild the country if necessary. Somebody didn't think this through before getting involved.
 
The military can't "win the war first". It's an insurgency which takes a long time to fight. If you don't build the infrastructure and create jobs it would be kinda hard for the starving people living in the stone age to support your "war" effort. Quiz: What happens when the people don't support your war effort? Answer= more insurgents (or Leftists).

Since we need to build infrastructure and creat jobs to stabalize the country they need protection. Contractors are 1. cheaper than military and 2. can do the job better by specializing in that mission and 3. be a combat multiplier by freeing up troops for the fight.
 
Those are George Bush's political considerations, they're not military objectives. The purpose of the military is to defeat an enemy with overwhelming force. The problem here is that Iraq (starving people living in the stone age) is not/was not a credible enemy. Therefore the use of the military is inappropriate. That's why this administration and its apologists are facing so much opposition and are forced into contortions to justify the mess they've created.
 
Saddam's army was the enemy...we defeated them quite handily. In the aftermath, the terrorists, Saddam loyalists, radical Sunnis and criminals (our new enemies) took advantage of the situation all for their own reasons. If we leave, the Iraq people will live short, terrible, miserable lives and the US will be more at risk.

We aren't in a war, it is classified as an "Operation Other Than War" (OOTW). These operations are the type that involve working with host nation govts and civilian populations securing infrastructure, peacekeeping, fighting insurgencies, etc...

Thw US military has had OOTW doctine in place for a long time and conducted many such operations. To say there is no enemy and the use of the military is innappropriate shows a lack of understanding of military doctrine and how the US military is used as an instrument to carry out US foreign policy and protect US interests.

(starving people living in the stone age) is not/was not a credible enemy.
-that's why we're fighting terrorists instead. ;)
 
I guess you refer this: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/31/iraq.main/
I wonder why you take such joy in the murder of men guarding a convoy of food for the "Eye-Rack" people you seem to love over your own countrymen.
Again with the racist comments...

"The four American civilians killed were employees of Blackwater Security Consulting, a U.S. government contractor providing security for food deliveries in Fallujah, the company said."

That's the cover story. Who knows what the truth is...

Did you see that the Pentagon is secretly paying Iraqi papers to print positive coverage?

They just can't stop lying about Iraq.

Our troops should be out. As for the mercs and war profiteers who see the Iraq war as one big opporuntity for profit...screw 'em.
 
Well, it was Bush after all who decided this was a necessary war, first for regime change, then for WMD's and now for democratization.

Just a correction, all three reasons have been on the table all along.

REGIME CHANGE

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

WMD's

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

DEMOCRATIZATION

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

The inference often is that our soldiers and contracters are blood thirsty and no better than those that blow up innocents.:barf:
 
Did you see that the Pentagon is secretly paying Iraqi papers to print positive coverage?
What, only George Soros can buy newspaper time? :rolleyes:

CNN (Ted Turner's outfit...not necessarily an organ of the Bush Whitehouse) called 'em guards of a food convoy.

As usual you only believe the news that fits your ideology....
 
GoRon said:
Just a correction, all three reasons have been on the table all along.

REGIME CHANGE



WMD's



DEMOCRATIZATION



IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

The inference often is that our soldiers and contracters are blood thirsty and no better than those that blow up innocents.:barf:

Actually, some here believe that our troops are worse...

Even flipped us all the bird IIR...
 
The Iraqi people can thank the terrorist/insurgents for that one. The only real way to protect yourself against a car bomb is distance.
 

Attachments

  • auy.sized.jpg
    auy.sized.jpg
    79.1 KB · Views: 48
I copied this post from AR15.com and it is the best explanation for the actions in the video that I have seen.

I'm not sure who else here has experience running motorcades in Iraq, but I'll pass on a few points:

1) We NEVER took video of our motorcade operations for the simple reason that videos like this only show a very narrow slice of events, and that slice is never enough to show the totality of circumstances involved in your actions. It can only hurt, never help.

2) There didn't seem to be anything at all random about the shooting in the four strung-together clips I just watched. Individual vehicles were addressed, not whole landscapes or fields of fire. Those vehicles all had something in common: they all approached the motorcade follow car. When I was running motorcade ops and driving the follow car, great pains were taken to ensure that everyone on the road understood that we would not be passed and that a close approach was not allowed. I'm not going to go into methods here, but suffice it to say that everyone driving in our AO knew what three Suburbans in a tight package meant, and knew what the rules of engagement were.

3) In the first segment of the video, notice how the white van is going noticeably faster than the rest of traffic, and is passing everyone else on the road precipitously before being engaged by the follow car gunner. This is what they call "a clue." An Iraqi's vehicle represents a significant percentage of their family's assets and is not hazarded lightly. Also, after a few generations of living in a police state, where state violence is essentially unappealable and random and the upraised nail gets hammered down, people just don't drive that erratically or fast. They tend to stay in their lane and drive with blinders on with their heads down.

The white van also does not start reacting to the incoming fire for about fifteen or eighteen seconds. Another clue. Iraqis are survivors, and can spot a rifle muzzle a long way off when it's trained in their direction. Ignoring incoming full-auto fire is not SOP for Ma and Pa Hadji.

4) In the second segment, with the Mercedes sedan, what appears to be an initial burst of warning fire is again ignored. The second burst is more likely trained into the grille or engine compartment, but the resolution of the video is not good enough to tell. Of course, the most reliable target to stop an oncoming vehicle is the driver's face, but I don't see the windshield coming apart in this clip.

Expensive, late model --reliable-- German sedans were known to be the delivery method of choice for suicide bombers while I was there.

5) In the third segment, notice that a smoke grenade is the first attempt at a warning given. The target vehicle drives straight through the smoke and closes with the follow car when it slows down. At this point a few bursts are fired and the target vehicle swerves to driver's right and stops, at which point the fire ceases.

6) In the final segment, the target vehicle enters the roadway behind the motorcade from an on-ramp --standard practice for suicide bombers and small arms fire ambushes-- and approaches pretty quickly, even though the follow car is stopped. Iraqis generally don't approach stopped traffic at a high rate of speed without ill intent in mind. The initial bursts of fire don't show in the windshield, so they're apparently directed at the engine compartment. As the vehicle fails to react to initial fire, the fire is trained on the windshield. Once the vehicle stops, so does the fire.
 
Thw US military has had OOTW doctine in place for a long time and conducted many such operations.
And if GWB would study Theodore Roosevelt, probably the first promoter of this policy, he would understand that nationalists in these so-called 'host nations' inevitably resent U.S. dominion, and you admit as much when you refer to the 'enemy' as 'insurgents'. Iraq was not an unstable country before the invasion, and we have come to learn it was not even a threat to our own security. That's why the objective has changed from WMD's to 'democratization'.

If there is a compelling U.S. national security interest for a military presence in Iraq, the administration has utterly failed to articulate it. Instead, GWB and his apologists use the rhetoric of patriotism and war when, in fact, neither condition applies. What is happening here is a huge transfer of wealth from the U.S. taxpayer to a few wealthy corporations via no bid open ended funding. That's why we see 'armed contractors', unaccountable to anyone, committing possibly criminal acts. It will stop when the American people see through the ruse, and hopefully, that day is fast approaching.
 
That's why the objective has changed from WMD's to 'democratization'.

f there is a compelling U.S. national security interest for a military presence in Iraq, the administration has utterly failed to articulate it. Instead, GWB and his apologists use the rhetoric of patriotism and war when, in fact, neither condition applies. What is happening here is a huge transfer of wealth from the U.S. taxpayer to a few wealthy corporations via no bid open ended funding. That's why we see 'armed contractors', unaccountable to anyone, committing possibly criminal acts. It will stop when the American people see through the ruse, and hopefully, that day is fast approaching.

You can repeat your talking points ad infinitum and it will not change the FACT that all reasons for the war were layed out long before the 14 month "rush" to war.
 
It's been said dozens of times here already - you can't expect success when you go to war with the entire civilian population of a country.

Sure, you can say, soldiers have to protect themselves. They never know which car will blow up. But on the same note, it would be tough to let anyone else have the same standards. In reality might really does make right. If the British behaved like this in Boston opinions might be different.

Last to first, last clip the car approaches at exactly the same speed at the hmmwv beside it (which does not appear concerned), and the car is two lanes over in traffic. It appears fast because there is a vehicle parked on the highway. Clean shoot? Sure. Righteous? Maybe not so much.

Second last, the cars stop when the warning grenade is released. Traffic comes to a halt, and then the shooting SUV stops to let them catch up. Now, it's possible that the entire lane of traffic behind the SUV was terrorists, traveling in the same direction at the same speed with regular spacing between them. Or it's possible it's just traffic. Again, clean? maybe. Righteous? maybe not so much. There's no-where to go on that road but forward. And forward = death.

Middle? Looks pretty straight-forward, lone car on empty highway, and driver holds up something looks like a radio with left hand. Bomber, or distracted fool on cell phone? Either way it's probably oneofthe most legit of the bunch. Notice half a mile back a vehicle high-tails it away to their 3 o clock the instant the car crashes instead of exploding.

First one - that's a persistent van, too persistent to be just stupid.

Results: apparantly a 2-2 tie, legit vs not so much. Result? 2+ enemies neutralized, 2+ dozen new ones created.


The rest of the 'filler' seems to be BS. Not hazarding their vehicles lightly? In reality they are on average much worse drivers, speeding and crashing is extremely commonplace.

Expensive late model highly reliable German sedans are the vehicle of choice for Iraqis terrorists? Hate to burst antoher bubble, but the best equivalent of Mercedes over there is a Ford over here. Bombers drive Mercedes, ergo mercedes are driven by bombers. Simple as that.
 
GoRon said:
You can repeat your talking points ad infinitum and it will not change the FACT that all reasons for the war were layed out long before the 14 month "rush" to war.

And have any of those reasons have held true? And if they have, what's the cost/benefit ratio look like?

And do any of those reasons:
a) Justify giving billions of my (and your) tax dollars away willy-nilly with no checks or balances on who gets paid or how much?
b) Justify the deaths and injuries (on both sides) that have occurred?

The men in those videos may be 100% justified in their actions... that doesn't change the fact that they have no business being there in the first place.
 
Want to hear the wacky crazy thing? There is actually a branch of the armed forces that is specifically designed to win the current war in Iraq. It's the Special Forces command. They're specifically designed to make the locals like them, set the locals up to fight their own battles, and in doing so deprive the enemy of it's habitat.

But instead of A teams they use Air strikes. If stupidity weren't such an obvious answer one would have to assume that certain leaders are gluttons for punishment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top