Blackwater Security Banned From Iraq

[Aimster]

They fired at anyone who was moving because they didn't know who was firing at them.

 

[poohbear]

strange, many different accounts it seems. i read a mortar landed near their vehicle and they started firing indiscriminately, but mortars land all over the place in baghdad.

anyways, i thought VIPs and diplomats would be guarded by american military? i mean, when these blackwater "bodyguards" are motivated by money, why would they decline somebody bribing them to disappear for a few minutes so their VIP can be wacked? its all about the money for them yea? that's what merceneries do, they get paid.

i recall when i was in the canadian army, our special forces (called JTF here in canada)always provided security for generals and diplomats in war zones. can't america do the same? u guys have 1000x more soldiers than us, so i can't imagine it'd be a problem.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Aimster
They fired at anyone who was moving because they didn't know who was firing at them.

oh, really? you were there? I had no idea you worked for the State Dept. or Blackwater...

 

[Lemon law]

Can we spell it out to you palehorse74. Two wrongs don't make a right and many of those dying are innocent. Somehow you seem to think donning a uniform automatically makes you the good guy. Sadly, in a conventional war, the other guy donning the uniform also think they are the good guys. Both of you can't be right.

But you talk like these blackwater guys are highly trained and have rules of engagement. Highly trained killers maybe, rules of engagement, I think not. And the bad guys got away, get a clue, thats how insurgencies usually work out most of the time. All this does is to drag the US military and blackwater to the same moral footing as terrorists.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Aimster
They fired at anyone who was moving because they didn't know who was firing at them.

oh, really? you were there? I had no idea you worked for the State Dept. or Blackwater...

Yes I was there.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Can we spell it out to you palehorse74. Two wrongs don't make a right and many of those dying are innocent. Somehow you seem to think donning a uniform automatically makes you the good guy. Sadly, in a conventional war, the other guy donning the uniform also think they are the good guys. Both of you can't be right.

But you talk like these blackwater guys are highly trained and have rules of engagement. Highly trained killers maybe, rules of engagement, I think not. And the bad guys got away, get a clue, thats how insurgencies usually work out most of the time. All this does is to drag the US military and blackwater to the same moral footing as terrorists.

Respectfully disagree. I loathe the idea of armed merc groups operating anywhere, especially in areas densely populated with civilians. But you have to realize that most of BlackWater operative positions are filled with ex-military, heavily experienced, and they sure don't want to kill innocent people if it's avoidable. Unfortunately, when they're fired upon in a dense area and are forced to return fire, bad things are going to happen in addition to the extremely negative event that they were attacked in the first place.

I am of the mind that the US military should not and should never be a police force. Anyway, this is off the subject. I could agree if you would accuse the sychophantic jerkoff politicians of sharing the same moral footing as terrorists (money and power are far more important than anyone's lives to them, men, women, children, americans, iraqis, it doesn't matter to them whatsoever). But our troops, whether wearing our nation's uniform or working for 3rd parties like Blackwater, are not the same as terrorists. Thanks.

 

[palehorse]

Did any of you, even for a second, consider the possibility that it was the insurgents' bullets that killed the bystanders, or that their intent was to draw fire on the civilians?

Incidents, such as this one, are very similar to the tactics used by Hezbollah against Israel, and the Taliban against NATO in Afghanistan. They choose their ambush locations for this very reason!

In this case, by immediately condemning Blackwater, you are essentially encouraging our enemies to continue using the same tactics!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
palehorse74 said:

Remember, a "dead civilian" is sometimes nothing more than a dead terrorist whose friends were quick enough to hide the weapon...

Translation:

People died. We don't care very much. We're not going to do anything about it. We'll talk to some lawyers so we can make sure our ass is covered. It's too important to make sure these contractors get a boatload of taxpayer funds to go out and play weekend warrior with the Iraqi people.

you, and several others, completely missed my point.

I'll spell it out: many times, when the press reports on an incident in Iraq, or the Iraqi government discusses an incident, the "civilians" they describe are actually dead bad guys. But, since they ALL wear civilian clothes, they are often counted as "innocent civilians."

That was my fvckin point, and anyone who has been there knows what I'm talking about.

I'll try to use smaller words to make it easier for you do keep up from now on...

Now, does anyone here actually care about catching and prosecuting the ACTUAL BAD GUYS WHO AMBUSHED OUR AMERICAN BRETHREN?! I didn't think so... you're all too busy gloating about Blackwater getting pie in their faces!

And many times a "dead terrorist" is a dead civilian who someone sees a gun nearby. (or in some cases places a gun nearby)

Why are you even trying to pull out the whole "you hate the valiant fighting men" crap again? Of course people want whoever is shooting at our people to be killed/captured. The fact that I even need to mention this shows how delusional the war enablers really are. (although I view the "why do you hate the troops" argument as extremely cynical.. I think you people know what you're doing.)

The problem with Blackwater doing what they did is not only it morally reprehensible, it's really really really damaging to our overall strategy in Iraq. Killing civilians is probably the single worst thing we can possibly do to damage our chances of success... and so we need to vigorously work to stop it. The security companies operate in a regulatory environment that seems to be very light on enforcement of this critical military objective, and there is frequently no recourse for it.

In short, I'm really glad that Iraq is finally stepping up to do what our government has chosen not to... to reign in the unaccountable private security forces.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
palehorse74 said:

Remember, a "dead civilian" is sometimes nothing more than a dead terrorist whose friends were quick enough to hide the weapon...

Translation:

People died. We don't care very much. We're not going to do anything about it. We'll talk to some lawyers so we can make sure our ass is covered. It's too important to make sure these contractors get a boatload of taxpayer funds to go out and play weekend warrior with the Iraqi people.

you, and several others, completely missed my point.

I'll spell it out: many times, when the press reports on an incident in Iraq, or the Iraqi government discusses an incident, the "civilians" they describe are actually dead bad guys. But, since they ALL wear civilian clothes, they are often counted as "innocent civilians."

That was my fvckin point, and anyone who has been there knows what I'm talking about.

I'll try to use smaller words to make it easier for you do keep up from now on...

Now, does anyone here actually care about catching and prosecuting the ACTUAL BAD GUYS WHO AMBUSHED OUR AMERICAN BRETHREN?! I didn't think so... you're all too busy gloating about Blackwater getting pie in their faces!

Why are grasping at shaky excuses? Oh look, palehorse! There's a straw over there! Oh, damn, you just missed it. HOLY CRAP, THERE'S ANOTHER ONE! Oh, there it goes...

Keep on trying, one of these days you'll collect enough of them to build your own little straw-Whitehouse of lies. Then you too can kill people for no reason, use mercenaries to skew statistics during false-wars, and smear the image of any dissenters as "evil god-less terrorist sympathisers".

It's like a wet-dream for you, amirite?

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Aimster
They fired at anyone who was moving because they didn't know who was firing at them.

oh, really? you were there? I had no idea you worked for the State Dept. or Blackwater...

No, none of us were. Which is why you are getting so much flak for insisting with absolute certitude that nothing wrong occurred here. We don't know.

If this were an isolated incident then we wouldn't be having this discussion. But due to their prior history of these types of problems, and the obvious unwillingness of the Pentagon or whoever to bring them under some sort of accountability review is exactly why the Iraqi government had to act in their citizens best interest and forbid from operating there any longer.

It's as simple as that.

 

[palehorse]

Like I said in my last post, one of the primary reasons our enemies conduct ambushes such as this one is to purposely draw fire on innocent civilians - or even shoot some themselves to make it look like we did it. They know that the PR they receive afterwards is worth the little risk they take in doing so. After all, everyone here is talking about the dead civilians and the evil mercenaries, while almost completely ignoring the insurgents or terrorists who actually initiated the incident!

I'm basically disgusted by what, at the very least, appears to be an eagerness to condemn Blackwater in this incident. Of course we need a lot more information to accurately assess this specific incident, but that hasn't stopped many of you from immediately and eagerly condemning Blackwater. Someone here needed to be play the devil's advocate and actually consider other possibilities - if for no other reason than to reign in all of you who are gloating like kids on Christmas morning at the possible harm this could do to Blackwater's existence.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Like I said in my last post, one of the primary reasons our enemies conduct ambushes such as this one is to purposely draw fire on innocent civilians. They know that the PR is worth the little risk they take in doing so. After all, everyone is talking about the dead civilians and the evil mercenaries, while almost ignoring the insurgents or terrorists themselves.

I'm basically disgusted by what, at the very least, appears to be an eagerness to condemn Blackwater in this incident. Of course we need a lot more information to accurately assess this specific incident, but that hasn't stopped many of you from immediately and eagerly condemning Blackwater. Someone here needed to be play the devil's advocate and actually consider other possibilities - if for no other reason than to reign in all of you who are gloating like kids on Christmas morning at the possible harm this could do to Blackwater's existence.

Uhmm, you know there are videos out there of (if it's not Blackwater then its another security company that is very similar) taking potshots at Iraqi civilians for fun, right? If that does not indicate to you a situation in which these firms are out of control... I don't know what to tell you. What this situation is, is something where a specific incident has again brought to light a problem that has been festering for a long time.

 

[Lemon law]

Get a clue palehorse74----when you say--if for no other reason than to reign in all of you who are gloating like kids on Christmas morning at the possible harm this could do to Blackwater's existence.

We are not gloating like kids, as responsible adults we want blackwater disbanded and for the USA to dissolve all ties with blackwater. Happily the Iraqi government has taken the needed step.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Like I said in my last post, one of the primary reasons our enemies conduct ambushes such as this one is to purposely draw fire on innocent civilians. They know that the PR is worth the little risk they take in doing so. After all, everyone is talking about the dead civilians and the evil mercenaries, while almost ignoring the insurgents or terrorists themselves.

I'm basically disgusted by what, at the very least, appears to be an eagerness to condemn Blackwater in this incident. Of course we need a lot more information to accurately assess this specific incident, but that hasn't stopped many of you from immediately and eagerly condemning Blackwater. Someone here needed to be play the devil's advocate and actually consider other possibilities - if for no other reason than to reign in all of you who are gloating like kids on Christmas morning at the possible harm this could do to Blackwater's existence.

Uhmm, you know there are videos out there of (if it's not Blackwater then its another security company that is very similar) taking potshots at Iraqi civilians for fun, right? If that does not indicate to you a situation in which these firms are out of control... I don't know what to tell you. What this situation is, is something where a specific incident has again brought to light a problem that has been festering for a long time.

I do not believe those videos you mentioned are Blackwater. And, more importantly, in all of my posts here, I have addressed this single ambush specifically.

Those videos disgust me as well, and the perps doing the random shooting should be tried and executed. However, I refuse to allow the criminal actions of others to effect my assessment of this Blackwater incident.

Every engagement needs to be assessed separately. Unless you can prove that any of the agents involved in this incident were also involved in prior crimes, those older examples become irrelevant and inadmissible.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I do not believe those videos you mentioned are Blackwater. And, more importantly, in all of my posts here, I have addressed this single ambush specifically.

Those videos disgust me as well, and the perps doing the random shooting should be tried and executed. However, I refuse to allow the criminal actions of others to effect my assessment of this Blackwater incident.

Every engagement needs to be assessed separately. Unless you can prove that any of the agents involved in this incident were also involved in prior crimes, those older examples become irrelevant and inadmissible.

Inadmissable to what? Are we in the people's court?

There have been no changes to the statutory or regulatory climate since they were made, so in what way do they no longer apply? There are plenty of members of Al-Qaeda who haven't ever killed anyone or even helped kill anyone I'm sure...but it doesn't mean that I can't hold the sins of their buddies against them. It's called organizational attitude. (no, of course I'm not saying that the security contractors are morally equivalent to AQ. It was just an example)

And no, your logic is wrong anyway. My entire point was that there currently exists a situation in which contractors can do things such as take potshots at Iraqi civilians for fun without punishment. That means that the actions of similar people in similar situations in the same kinds of firms is directly relevant. My point is that these guys are out of control and should have been reigned in a long time ago. If these guys didn't do anything wrong, then by all means I hope they get off scot free.

Even if Blackwater acted 100% correctly in this situation, the manner in which security firms currently operate in Iraq is completely unacceptable. A move to put them under some sort of control is long overdue... and so I completely support the action taken regardless of the circumstances in this one particular incident.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

palehorse74 said:

I'll spell it out: many times, when the press reports on an incident in Iraq, or the Iraqi government discusses an incident, the "civilians" they describe are actually dead bad guys. But, since they ALL wear civilian clothes, they are often counted as "innocent civilians."

Semantics?

What actually constitutes an "unlawful combatant"? Do the criteria for "terrorists" and "insurgents" apply to mercenaries? Does a large group of armed individuals, with no clearly distinguishable uniforms or identifiable national insignia, in a "war" zone differ from groups of indigenous people wielding Kalashnikovs?