Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/11/2007 5:47:00 PM EDT
Seems to me like they are playing up the automatic rifles, body armour, and bullet proof trucks.

Iraq contractors accused in shootings By DEBORAH HASTINGS, AP National Writer
Sat Aug 11, 2:10 PM ET



There are now nearly as many private contractors in Iraq as there are U.S. soldiers — and a large percentage of them are private security guards equipped with automatic weapons, body armor, helicopters and bullet-proof trucks.

ADVERTISEMENT

They operate with little or no supervision, accountable only to the firms employing them. And as the country has plummeted toward anarchy and civil war, this private army has been accused of indiscriminately firing at American and Iraqi troops, and of shooting to death an unknown number of Iraqi citizens who got too close to their heavily armed convoys.

Not one has faced charges or prosecution.

There is great confusion among legal experts and military officials about what laws — if any — apply to Americans in this force of at least 48,000.

They operate in a decidedly gray legal area. Unlike soldiers, they are not bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Under a special provision secured by American-occupying forces, they are exempt from prosecution by Iraqis for crimes committed there.

The security firms insist their employees are governed by internal conduct rules and by use-of-force protocols established by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S. occupation government that ruled Iraq for 14 months following the invasion.

But many soldiers on the ground — who earn in a year what private guards can earn in just one month — say their private counterparts should answer to a higher authority, just as they do. More than 60 U.S. soldiers in Iraq have been court-martialed on murder-related charges involving Iraqi citizens.

Some military analysts and government officials say the contractors could be tried under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, which covers crimes committed abroad. But so far, that law has not been applied to them.

Security firms earn more than $4 billion in government contracts, but the government doesn't know how many private soldiers it has hired, or where all of them are, according to the Government Accountability Office. And the companies are not required to report violent incidents involving their employees.

Security guards now constitute nearly 50 percent of all private contractors in Iraq — a number that has skyrocketed since the 2003 invasion, when then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said rebuilding Iraq was the top priority. But an unforeseen insurgency, and hundreds of terrorist attacks have pushed the country into chaos. Security is now Iraq's greatest need.

The wartime numbers of private guards are unprecedented — as are their duties, many of which have traditionally been done by soldiers. They protect U.S. military operations and have guarded high-ranking officials including Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Baghdad. They also protect visiting foreign officials and thousands of construction projects.

At times, they are better equipped than military units.

Their presence has also pushed the war's direction. The 2004 battle of Fallujah — an unsuccessful military assault in which an estimated 27 U.S. Marines were killed, along with an unknown number of civilians — was retaliation for the killing, maiming and burning of four Blackwater guards in that city by a mob of insurgents.

"I understand this is war," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., whose efforts for greater contractor accountability led to an amendment in next year's Pentagon spending bill. "But that's absolutely no excuse for letting this very large force of armed private employees, dare I say mercenaries, run around without any accountability to anyone."

___

Blackwater has an estimated 1,000 employees in Iraq, and at least $800 million in government contracts. It is one of the most high-profile security firms in Iraq, with its fleet of "Little Bird" helicopters and armed door gunners swarming Baghdad and beyond.

The secretive company, run by a former Navy SEAL, is based at a massive, swampland complex in North Carolina. Until 9-11, it had few security contracts.

Since then, Blackwater profits have soared. And it has become the focus of numerous contractor controversies in Iraq, including the May 30 shooting death of an Iraqi deemed to be driving too close to a Blackwater security detail.

"The shooting of that Iraqi driver has intensified tensions," Schakowsky said. "The Iraqis are very angry."

Company spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell, in an e-mail to The Associated Press, said the shooting was justified. "Based on incident reports and witness accounts, the Blackwater professional acted lawfully and appropriately," she wrote. There was no response to AP inquiries seeking further details.

Other alleged shootings involving private contractors include:

• An incident in which a supervisor for a Virginia-based security company said he was "going to kill somebody today" and then shot at Iraqi civilians for amusement, possibly killing one, according to two employees.

The two, former Army Ranger Charles L. Sheppard III and former Marine Corps sniper Shane B. Schmidt, were fired by the company, Triple Canopy, and responded with a wrongful termination lawsuit. Their suit did not identify the shift leader they said deliberately opened fire on civilians in at least two incidents while their team was driving in Baghdad. He was described only as a former serviceman from Oklahoma.

On its Internet site, the company said all three were fired for failing to immediately report incidents involving gunfire. Triple Canopy, after an initial investigation, reported no one had been hurt and handed its information to the U.S. government.

Patricia Smith, a lawyer representing Sheppard and Schmidt, said the U.S. Justice Department declined to investigate. The Justice Department declined comment on the case.

On Aug. 1, a Fairfax County, Va., jury ruled that Triple Canopy did not wrongly fire the two men. But jury forewoman Lea Overby also issued a scathing note on behalf of the panel, saying the company displayed "poor conduct, lack of standard reporting procedures, bad investigation methods and unfair double standards."

The judge's jury instructions, Overby said, left no choice but ruling against the former employees. "But we do not agree with the Triple Canopy's treatment of (them)," she wrote.

• Disgruntled employees of London-based Aegis Defence Services, holder of one of the biggest U.S. security contracts in Iraq — valued at more than $430 million — posted videos on the Internet in 2005 showing company guards firing automatic weapons at civilians from the back of a moving security vehicle.

In one sequence, a civilian car is fired on, causing the driver to lose control and slam into a taxi. Another clip shows a white car being hit by automatic weapons fire and then coming slowly to a stop.

In the videos, the security vehicle doesn't stop. It speeds on, leaving the civilians and their shot-up vehicles behind.

After initially denying involvement, Aegis, run by former Scots Guard Lt. Col. Tim Spicer, issued a statement saying the shootings were legal and within rules-of-force protocols established by the now-defunct CPA. Those guidelines allow security guards to fire on vehicles that approach too close or too quickly. U.S. Army auditors, in their own investigation, agreed with Aegis.

In the chaos of Iraq, where car bombings and suicide attacks occur over and over on any given day, such contractor shootings are commonplace, military officials say. The numbers of Iraqis wounded or killed by private guards is not known.

• Sixteen American security guards were arrested and jailed by U.S. Marines in battle-scarred Fallujah in 2005 following a day of shooting incidents in which they allegedly fired on a Marine observation post, a combat patrol and civilians walking and driving in the city, about 40 miles west of Baghdad.

The guards, employed by Zapata Engineering of North Carolina, were imprisoned for three days. "They were detained because their actions posed a threat to coalition forces. I would say that constitutes a serious event," Marine spokesman Lt. Col. Dave Lapan said at the time.

The contractors were released and returned to the U.S., where they claimed the Marines humiliated and taunted them in prison, calling them "mercenaries" and intimidating them with dogs. The private guards denied taking part in the shootings.

Last year, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service closed its criminal investigation of the case "for lack of prosecutive merit," a spokesman said. None of the 16 men where charged.

But days after the shootings, Marine Maj. Gen. Stephen T. Johnson, commander of western Iraq, banned the 16 contractors from every military installation in the area.

In letters to each man, the general wrote: "Your convoy was speeding through the city and firing shots indiscriminately, some of which impacted positions manned by U.S. Marines.

"Your actions endangered the lives of innocent Iraqis and U.S. service members in the area."

___

Since American contractors first swarmed into Iraq, animosity has run high between soldiers and private security guards. Many of the latter are highly trained ex-members of elite military groups including Navy SEALS, Green Berets and Army Rangers.

"Most military guys resent them," said former Marine Lt. Col. Mike Zacchea, who spent two years in Iraq training and building the Iraqi army. "There's an attitude that if these guys really wanted to do the right thing, they would have stayed in the military."

Zacchea, now retired in Long Island, N.Y., said that as a senior battalion adviser, he was offered jobs by several security companies, with average salaries of $1,000 a day. He wasn't interested. "I didn't want to go to Iraq as a mercenary. I don't believe in it. I don't think what they're doing is right.

"Really, these guys are free agents on the battlefield. They're not bound by any law. They're non-uniformed combatants. No one keeps track of them."

In late 2004, the Reconstruction Operations Center (ROC) opened in Baghdad. Its purpose was to track movement of contractors and military troops around the country and to keep records of violent incidents.

Participation, however, is voluntary.

Military leaders say the government should demand that contractors report their movements and use of weapons. Last year, officials of the 3rd Infantry Division in Baghdad told visiting GAO auditors that lack of coordination continued to endanger the lives soldiers and contractors. Private security details continued to enter battle zones without warning, the military leaders said. In some cases, military officers complained they had no way of communicating with private security details.

Many large contractors say their guards coordinate with the ROC, and file "after-incident reports" of shooting episodes. But government auditors in Iraq reported last year that some contractors said they stopped detailing such shootings because they occurred so often it wasn't possible to file reports for each one.
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 5:50:54 PM EDT
There are legitimate worries about having large private armies. The fact that they make any civilian worker in a theatre fair-game not withstanding, what does it say about our military if we need private orgs there to do the job?
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 5:52:56 PM EDT
OH MY GAWD THE MERCENARIES HAVE COME! THEY HAVE FULLY AUTO PUPPY KILLING SCHOOLYARD SPRAYING MEAT TENDERIZING HOLLOW POINT COP KILLING HIGH CAPACITY CLIP TAKING GUNS!
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 5:55:31 PM EDT

They operate with little or no supervision, accountable only to the firms employing them. And as the country has plummeted toward anarchy and civil war, this private army has been accused of indiscriminately firing at American and Iraqi troops, and of shooting to death an unknown number of Iraqi citizens who got too close to their heavily armed convoys.




That is complete and utter bullshit. I can 100% guarentee you any company operating there that indiscrimantly fires on US troops would get booted the fuck out with some serious haste.

As far as the "citizens" who get too close, well, our troops do that too. Thats why they have those warning signs on the back of the trucks that say do not come within 100m. That is to protect the convoy from getting a VBIED inbetween trucks.

Also when it comes to protecting VIP's the ROE tends to get a bit more relaxed be it contractors or military. Your only mission is to protect the principle, and it doesnt really matter if Mohammed was stupid and got too close. He gets waxed.

Just another liberal anti-Iraq war drivel with no factual basis or understanding of ops over there....
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 5:59:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Belmont31R:

They operate with little or no supervision, accountable only to the firms employing them. And as the country has plummeted toward anarchy and civil war, this private army has been accused of indiscriminately firing at American and Iraqi troops, and of shooting to death an unknown number of Iraqi citizens who got too close to their heavily armed convoys.




That is complete and utter bullshit. I can 100% guarentee you any company operating there that indiscrimantly fires on US troops would get booted the fuck out with some serious haste.

As far as the "citizens" who get too close, well, our troops do that too. Thats why they have those warning signs on the back of the trucks that say do not come within 100m. That is to protect the convoy from getting a VBIED inbetween trucks.

Also when it comes to protecting VIP's the ROE tends to get a bit more relaxed be it contractors or military. Your only mission is to protect the principle, and it doesnt really matter if Mohammed was stupid and got too close. He gets waxed.

Just another liberal anti-Iraq war drivel with no factual basis or understanding of ops over there....


On a principled level there are legitimate complaints here. I'll recognize the necessity of the military to do convoys. But if Wal-Mart did an armed convoy through the middle of YOUR town and threatened to shoot you if you got to close you might be a bit peeved.
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 5:59:54 PM EDT
OH NOES ITS THE BLACK WATTERZ
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 6:02:35 PM EDT

They operate in a decidedly gray legal area. Unlike soldiers, they are not bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Under a special provision secured by American-occupying forces, they are exempt from prosecution by Iraqis for crimes committed there.



Contractors can now be punished under UCMJ. Some contracts have it in them that you are eligible to be punished and jailed by local law as well. Would that actually happen? Unlikely.
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 6:04:00 PM EDT
height=8
Originally Posted By fadedsun:


Their presence has also pushed the war's direction. The 2004 battle of Fallujah — an unsuccessful military assault in which an estimated 27 U.S. Marines were killed, along with an unknown number of civilians — was retaliation for the killing, maiming and burning of four Blackwater guards in that city by a mob of insurgents.




WTF!

Link Posted: 8/11/2007 6:07:11 PM EDT

Their presence has also pushed the war's direction. The 2004 battle of Fallujah — an unsuccessful military assault in which an estimated 27 U.S. Marines were killed, along with an unknown number of civilians — was retaliation for the killing, maiming and burning of four Blackwater guards in that city by a mob of insurgents.



WTF?????????

Unsucc­essful??? Why and How??? I believe that my Marines wiped out half the male population before pussy ass politicians stopped us from taking the rest of the city. I fucking hate liberals I guess the bitch is trying to re-write history.

Fucking whore
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 6:08:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By shooter0311:

Their presence has also pushed the war's direction. The 2004 battle of Fallujah — an unsuccessful military assault in which an estimated 27 U.S. Marines were killed, along with an unknown number of civilians — was retaliation for the killing, maiming and burning of four Blackwater guards in that city by a mob of insurgents.



WTF?????????

Unsucc­essful??? Why and How??? I believe that my Marines wiped out half the male population before pussy ass politicians stopped us from taking the rest of the city. I fucking hate liberals I guess the bitch is trying to re-write history.

Fucking whore


The first battle was largely unsuccessful. The second battle was.
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 6:10:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/11/2007 6:13:31 PM EDT by sharky30]
shooting at American troops

yeah, right. Maybe if they want to die

the shooting civilians I believe as I have seen the videos on youtube. in one they;re blasting away at everyone on the road, until a couple Army humvees pull up on the side. the video stopped about 5 seconds after that
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 6:13:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By shooter0311:

Their presence has also pushed the war's direction. The 2004 battle of Fallujah — an unsuccessful military assault in which an estimated 27 U.S. Marines were killed, along with an unknown number of civilians — was retaliation for the killing, maiming and burning of four Blackwater guards in that city by a mob of insurgents.



WTF?????????

Unsucc­essful??? Why and How??? I believe that my Marines wiped out half the male population before pussy ass politicians stopped us from taking the rest of the city. I fucking hate liberals I guess the bitch is trying to re-write history.

Fucking whore


The first battle was largely unsuccessful. The second battle was.


Guess it depends on how you measure success....

Link Posted: 8/11/2007 6:15:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
On a principled level there are legitimate complaints here. I'll recognize the necessity of the military to do convoys. But if Wal-Mart did an armed convoy through the middle of YOUR town and threatened to shoot you if you got to close you might be a bit peeved.


WoW

"Wal-Mart" and "Blackwater" in the same thread.

Astrological forces have aligned... Karnak the Great foresees a moon-bat spamfest.

popcorn (check)
Beer (check)
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 6:16:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By shooter0311:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By shooter0311:

Their presence has also pushed the war's direction. The 2004 battle of Fallujah — an unsuccessful military assault in which an estimated 27 U.S. Marines were killed, along with an unknown number of civilians — was retaliation for the killing, maiming and burning of four Blackwater guards in that city by a mob of insurgents.



WTF?????????

Unsucc­essful??? Why and How??? I believe that my Marines wiped out half the male population before pussy ass politicians stopped us from taking the rest of the city. I fucking hate liberals I guess the bitch is trying to re-write history.

Fucking whore


The first battle was largely unsuccessful. The second battle was.


Guess it depends on how you measure success....



Being that they had to do it again I'd say the first attempt left something to be desired.
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 6:18:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sub-MOA:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
On a principled level there are legitimate complaints here. I'll recognize the necessity of the military to do convoys. But if Wal-Mart did an armed convoy through the middle of YOUR town and threatened to shoot you if you got to close you might be a bit peeved.


WoW

"Wal-Mart" and "Blackwater" in the same thread.

Astrological forces have aligned... Karnak the Great foresees a moon-bat spamfest.

popcorn (check)
Beer (check)


The point is to illustrate that people might realistically resent a non-military, non-government entity threatening them in their own town. Don't cloud the example as a way to avoid the point.
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 6:22:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By Sub-MOA:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
On a principled level there are legitimate complaints here. I'll recognize the necessity of the military to do convoys. But if Wal-Mart did an armed convoy through the middle of YOUR town and threatened to shoot you if you got to close you might be a bit peeved.


WoW

"Wal-Mart" and "Blackwater" in the same thread.

Astrological forces have aligned... Karnak the Great foresees a moon-bat spamfest.

popcorn (check)
Beer (check)


The point is to illustrate that people might realistically resent a non-military, non-government entity threatening them in their own town. Don't cloud the example as a way to avoid the point.


Sure they resent it. So what? They resent the military on the road just as much.
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 6:23:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By shooter0311:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By shooter0311:

Their presence has also pushed the war's direction. The 2004 battle of Fallujah — an unsuccessful military assault in which an estimated 27 U.S. Marines were killed, along with an unknown number of civilians — was retaliation for the killing, maiming and burning of four Blackwater guards in that city by a mob of insurgents.



WTF?????????

Unsucc­essful??? Why and How??? I believe that my Marines wiped out half the male population before pussy ass politicians stopped us from taking the rest of the city. I fucking hate liberals I guess the bitch is trying to re-write history.

Fucking whore


The first battle was largely unsuccessful. The second battle was.


Guess it depends on how you measure success....



Being that they had to do it again I'd say the first attempt left something to be desired.


Meh, every shitbird for 500 miles went to Fallujah after the first dustup.

Then the town was turned into a smoking hole in the ground.

I believe the term is "Set them up before you knock them down."

Whatever you choose to call it won't change the fact that about 25,000 fuckheads collected their virgins during that period.
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 6:25:30 PM EDT
Anybody remember the Hessians?
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 6:26:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
There are legitimate worries about having large private armies. The fact that they make any civilian worker in a theatre fair-game not withstanding, what does it say about our military if we need private orgs there to do the job?


It doesn't say anything about our military, per se. It has to do with the jobs we're asking our military to do, the restrictions we place upon them, and the tools and supplies we give them to do the job.
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 6:28:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jnojr:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
There are legitimate worries about having large private armies. The fact that they make any civilian worker in a theatre fair-game not withstanding, what does it say about our military if we need private orgs there to do the job?


It doesn't say anything about our military, per se. It has to do with the jobs we're asking our military to do, the restrictions we place upon them, and the tools and supplies we give them to do the job.


+1

Most of the people the contractors get paid to protect have little to do with the US Government. Do you think its the job of the US Mil to protect anyone who wants to go over there?


Link Posted: 8/11/2007 6:30:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

The point is to illustrate that people might realistically resent a non-military, non-government entity threatening them in their own town. Don't cloud the example as a way to avoid the point.


Of course they would. Just as they'd resent a foreign miltary entity threatening them in their own streets. This is part of the reason why we will face an unending succession of "insurgents" in Iraq... Al Quaeda doesn't have tens of thousands of trained terrorists to throw at us, but all they have to do is go into remote villages and say, "The enemy is here!" What would half of ARFcom at least claim to be ready to do if we started getting reports of UN "peacekeepers" patrolling major streets? How many of us would pick up rifles and become "insurgents", and set of IEDs as their convoys went by?
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 6:32:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jnojr:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

The point is to illustrate that people might realistically resent a non-military, non-government entity threatening them in their own town. Don't cloud the example as a way to avoid the point.


Of course they would. Just as they'd resent a foreign miltary entity threatening them in their own streets. This is part of the reason why we will face an unending succession of "insurgents" in Iraq... Al Quaeda doesn't have tens of thousands of trained terrorists to throw at us, but all they have to do is go into remote villages and say, "The enemy is here!" What would half of ARFcom at least claim to be ready to do if we started getting reports of UN "peacekeepers" patrolling major streets? How many of us would pick up rifles and become "insurgents", and set of IEDs as their convoys went by?


Right right... we are all "insurgents" waiting to go off to allah.

You first.
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 6:33:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By shooter0311:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By shooter0311:

Their presence has also pushed the war's direction. The 2004 battle of Fallujah — an unsuccessful military assault in which an estimated 27 U.S. Marines were killed, along with an unknown number of civilians — was retaliation for the killing, maiming and burning of four Blackwater guards in that city by a mob of insurgents.



WTF?????????

Unsucc­essful??? Why and How??? I believe that my Marines wiped out half the male population before pussy ass politicians stopped us from taking the rest of the city. I fucking hate liberals I guess the bitch is trying to re-write history.

Fucking whore


The first battle was largely unsuccessful. The second battle was.


Guess it depends on how you measure success....



Being that they had to do it again I'd say the first attempt left something to be desired.


The only reason we had to do it again is because the politicians stopped us, If they would have left us alone there would not have been a second Fallujah.
Militarily it was a huge success. The book on urban warfare was re-written again by Marines (the last time was Hue City). The fear was that the Marines would have killed everyone in the city. Guess you forgot about that huh? At the speed the Marines were advancing, And the amount of bodies that filled the streets the politicians once again pussed out. I call it very, very 'successful'.
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 6:38:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By shooter0311:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By shooter0311:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By shooter0311:

Their presence has also pushed the war's direction. The 2004 battle of Fallujah — an unsuccessful military assault in which an estimated 27 U.S. Marines were killed, along with an unknown number of civilians — was retaliation for the killing, maiming and burning of four Blackwater guards in that city by a mob of insurgents.



WTF?????????

Unsucc­essful??? Why and How??? I believe that my Marines wiped out half the male population before pussy ass politicians stopped us from taking the rest of the city. I fucking hate liberals I guess the bitch is trying to re-write history.

Fucking whore


The first battle was largely unsuccessful. The second battle was.


Guess it depends on how you measure success....



Being that they had to do it again I'd say the first attempt left something to be desired.


The only reason we had to do it again is because the politicians stopped us, If they would have left us alone there would not have been a second Fallujah.
Militarily it was a huge success. The book on urban warfare was re-written again by Marines (the last time was Hue City). The fear was that the Marines would have killed everyone in the city. Guess you forgot about that huh? At the speed the Marines were advancing, And the amount of bodies that filled the streets the politicians once again pussed out. I call it very, very 'successful'.


It doesn't matter why it went wrong. The original was point that the first one didn't work, and that the Marines had to make a second attempt to clear the city. Which is accurate.
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 6:46:14 PM EDT
I read about the first few sentences and it was already so inaccurate I stopped.
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 6:48:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By Belmont31R:

They operate with little or no supervision, accountable only to the firms employing them. And as the country has plummeted toward anarchy and civil war, this private army has been accused of indiscriminately firing at American and Iraqi troops, and of shooting to death an unknown number of Iraqi citizens who got too close to their heavily armed convoys.




That is complete and utter bullshit. I can 100% guarentee you any company operating there that indiscrimantly fires on US troops would get booted the fuck out with some serious haste.

As far as the "citizens" who get too close, well, our troops do that too. Thats why they have those warning signs on the back of the trucks that say do not come within 100m. That is to protect the convoy from getting a VBIED inbetween trucks.

Also when it comes to protecting VIP's the ROE tends to get a bit more relaxed be it contractors or military. Your only mission is to protect the principle, and it doesnt really matter if Mohammed was stupid and got too close. He gets waxed.

Just another liberal anti-Iraq war drivel with no factual basis or understanding of ops over there....


On a principled level there are legitimate complaints here. I'll recognize the necessity of the military to do convoys. But if Wal-Mart did an armed convoy through the middle of YOUR town and threatened to shoot you if you got to close you might be a bit peeved.


And if people in my town were blowing up and shooting at Walmart convoys, I would understand why they want a 100m bubble around their convoy.

Link Posted: 8/11/2007 6:53:17 PM EDT
Damn. Tag.
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 6:54:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tyman:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By Belmont31R:

They operate with little or no supervision, accountable only to the firms employing them. And as the country has plummeted toward anarchy and civil war, this private army has been accused of indiscriminately firing at American and Iraqi troops, and of shooting to death an unknown number of Iraqi citizens who got too close to their heavily armed convoys.




That is complete and utter bullshit. I can 100% guarentee you any company operating there that indiscrimantly fires on US troops would get booted the fuck out with some serious haste.

As far as the "citizens" who get too close, well, our troops do that too. Thats why they have those warning signs on the back of the trucks that say do not come within 100m. That is to protect the convoy from getting a VBIED inbetween trucks.

Also when it comes to protecting VIP's the ROE tends to get a bit more relaxed be it contractors or military. Your only mission is to protect the principle, and it doesnt really matter if Mohammed was stupid and got too close. He gets waxed.

Just another liberal anti-Iraq war drivel with no factual basis or understanding of ops over there....


On a principled level there are legitimate complaints here. I'll recognize the necessity of the military to do convoys. But if Wal-Mart did an armed convoy through the middle of YOUR town and threatened to shoot you if you got to close you might be a bit peeved.


And if people in my town were blowing up and shooting at Walmart convoys, I would understand why they want a 100m bubble around their convoy.



So you would support the right of Wal-Mart to overrule the laws of the your city?
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 6:54:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sharky30:
shooting at American troops

yeah, right. Maybe if they want to die

the shooting civilians I believe as I have seen the videos on youtube. in one they;re blasting away at everyone on the road, until a couple Army humvees pull up on the side. the video stopped about 5 seconds after that


Those vehicles were rapidly closing from the rear.

VBIEDs are a real danger there. He was operating properly.
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 6:57:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ThatGuy91K:

Originally Posted By fadedsun:


Their presence has also pushed the war's direction. The 2004 battle of Fallujah — an unsuccessful military assault in which an estimated 27 U.S. Marines were killed, along with an unknown number of civilians — was retaliation for the killing, maiming and burning of four Blackwater guards in that city by a mob of insurgents.




WTF!



Trying to belittle accomplishments and play up "failures".

Each questionable civilian death is viewed as an utter failure of collosal magnitudes by the liberals.
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 6:57:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By tyman:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By Belmont31R:

They operate with little or no supervision, accountable only to the firms employing them. And as the country has plummeted toward anarchy and civil war, this private army has been accused of indiscriminately firing at American and Iraqi troops, and of shooting to death an unknown number of Iraqi citizens who got too close to their heavily armed convoys.




That is complete and utter bullshit. I can 100% guarentee you any company operating there that indiscrimantly fires on US troops would get booted the fuck out with some serious haste.

As far as the "citizens" who get too close, well, our troops do that too. Thats why they have those warning signs on the back of the trucks that say do not come within 100m. That is to protect the convoy from getting a VBIED inbetween trucks.

Also when it comes to protecting VIP's the ROE tends to get a bit more relaxed be it contractors or military. Your only mission is to protect the principle, and it doesnt really matter if Mohammed was stupid and got too close. He gets waxed.

Just another liberal anti-Iraq war drivel with no factual basis or understanding of ops over there....


On a principled level there are legitimate complaints here. I'll recognize the necessity of the military to do convoys. But if Wal-Mart did an armed convoy through the middle of YOUR town and threatened to shoot you if you got to close you might be a bit peeved.


And if people in my town were blowing up and shooting at Walmart convoys, I would understand why they want a 100m bubble around their convoy.



So you would support the right of Wal-Mart to overrule the laws of the your city?


If it were the same situation but reversed with the US and Iraq, I would understand Walmarts position on protecting their convoys.

Why do you think Route Irish was the most dangerous highway in the world for 3 years? Because they let the on and off ramps be unprotected so people would drive their VBIED's into convoys and blow them up.
We now have 100m bubbles where NO ONE gets inside of to protect the convoy.

Once again, I would understand why Walmart has this bubble to protect themselves from people blowing them up.

Its not really that hard to understand. Or so I thought.


Link Posted: 8/11/2007 7:12:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ScoutOut:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
So you would support the right of Wal-Mart to overrule the laws of the your city?



Out on the road the private convoys/PSD teams are treated the same as the military by the locals. Should the military be there?


Don't throw out straw man arguments. This isn't about the military, this is about for profit operations performing military actions.

I've lived around military bases for a long time. I don't treat military convoys the same as I treat civilian convoys. Do you?
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 7:16:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By ScoutOut:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
So you would support the right of Wal-Mart to overrule the laws of the your city?



Out on the road the private convoys/PSD teams are treated the same as the military by the locals. Should the military be there?


Don't throw out straw man arguments. This isn't about the military, this is about for profit operations performing military actions.

I've lived around military bases for a long time. I don't treat military convoys the same as I treat civilian convoys. Do you?


Dude.....you're not in a war zone either....apple meet orange
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 7:18:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By ScoutOut:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
So you would support the right of Wal-Mart to overrule the laws of the your city?



Out on the road the private convoys/PSD teams are treated the same as the military by the locals. Should the military be there?


Don't throw out straw man arguments. This isn't about the military, this is about for profit operations performing military actions.

I've lived around military bases for a long time. I don't treat military convoys the same as I treat civilian convoys. Do you?


They aren't performing military operations. They are performing security operations for companies and agencies supporting the burgeoning government and the recuperating infrastructure of the newly liberated Iraq. They are required to act in a paramilitary manner because of the threat and the heavily armed enemy they are faced with daily.
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 7:22:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By shooter0311:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By ScoutOut:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
So you would support the right of Wal-Mart to overrule the laws of the your city?



Out on the road the private convoys/PSD teams are treated the same as the military by the locals. Should the military be there?


Don't throw out straw man arguments. This isn't about the military, this is about for profit operations performing military actions.

I've lived around military bases for a long time. I don't treat military convoys the same as I treat civilian convoys. Do you?


Dude.....you're not in a war zone either....apple meet orange


You're missing the point. Why should anyone, anywhere NOT resent being told what to do by a non-military entity?
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 7:24:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By shooter0311:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By ScoutOut:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
So you would support the right of Wal-Mart to overrule the laws of the your city?



Out on the road the private convoys/PSD teams are treated the same as the military by the locals. Should the military be there?


Don't throw out straw man arguments. This isn't about the military, this is about for profit operations performing military actions.

I've lived around military bases for a long time. I don't treat military convoys the same as I treat civilian convoys. Do you?


Dude.....you're not in a war zone either....apple meet orange


You're missing the point. Why should anyone, anywhere NOT resent being told what to do by a non-military entity?


Because in a War-Zone, they are the same thing as .mil convoys. They have essentially the same power/authority as a .mil convoy does.

That being said, we ran a few off the road who got too close to us because my gunner was a complete fucking retard. Also ran 2 .mil convoys off the road too.
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 7:26:23 PM EDT
Make no mistake about it the liberals are out to take down every soldier and every PMC they can.

Since they can't spit on soldiers openly they've found another way to piss on this war.

Link Posted: 8/11/2007 7:31:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

I've lived around military bases for a long time. I don't treat military convoys the same as I treat civilian convoys. Do you?


Ummm.....wow. How many of those military convoys have a high VBIED threat in your back yard? How many "civilian convoys" also face that threat?
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 7:32:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By shooter0311:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By ScoutOut:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
So you would support the right of Wal-Mart to overrule the laws of the your city?



Out on the road the private convoys/PSD teams are treated the same as the military by the locals. Should the military be there?


Don't throw out straw man arguments. This isn't about the military, this is about for profit operations performing military actions.

I've lived around military bases for a long time. I don't treat military convoys the same as I treat civilian convoys. Do you?


Dude.....you're not in a war zone either....apple meet orange


Dude.

You're replying to someone who's doing well to conceptualize the world outside his basement bedroom. Asking him to frame his existence beyond the local Wallyworld makes the "Evil Monkey" come out of his closet.
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 7:57:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By tyman:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By shooter0311:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By ScoutOut:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
So you would support the right of Wal-Mart to overrule the laws of the your city?



Out on the road the private convoys/PSD teams are treated the same as the military by the locals. Should the military be there?


Don't throw out straw man arguments. This isn't about the military, this is about for profit operations performing military actions.

I've lived around military bases for a long time. I don't treat military convoys the same as I treat civilian convoys. Do you?


Dude.....you're not in a war zone either....apple meet orange


You're missing the point. Why should anyone, anywhere NOT resent being told what to do by a non-military entity?


Because in a War-Zone, they are the same thing as .mil convoys. They have essentially the same power/authority as a .mil convoy does.

That being said, we ran a few off the road who got too close to us because my gunner was a complete fucking retard. Also ran 2 .mil convoys off the road too.


Right. My concern is over whether or not them having the same power as the .mil is a good thing. Historically there have been pretty clear lines between the military and the civilians. Once you start blurring the line you run into the problem that all of a sudden ALL civilians become legitimate targets.


Well stop concerning yourself about that. There are still clear lines between .mil and these "civilian" operators.
If you cant see that, then this whole argument is a moot point.
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 8:04:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
What a complete and utter hack job, and a compilation of previous articles.


No shit. The only thing missing is Custer Battles.
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 8:14:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ScoutOut:

Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
What a complete and utter hack job, and a compilation of previous articles.


No shit. The only thing missing is Custer Battles.



And AL franken, unless I missed him in there already.
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 8:19:59 PM EDT
OMG, this video will piss you off. Some Socialist phag reports on Blackwater.
This may be a dupe, Sorry.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqM4tKPDlR8&mode=related&search=
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 8:24:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fadedsun:

Originally Posted By ScoutOut:

Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
What a complete and utter hack job, and a compilation of previous articles.


No shit. The only thing missing is Custer Battles.



And AL franken, unless I missed him in there already.


We had him when he came to Iraq, well not my team but our unit.
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 8:25:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tyman:

Originally Posted By fadedsun:

Originally Posted By ScoutOut:

Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
What a complete and utter hack job, and a compilation of previous articles.


No shit. The only thing missing is Custer Battles.



And AL franken, unless I missed him in there already.


We had him when he came to Iraq, well not my team but our unit.


I'm dying to found out how that went.

Did he make it out?

Shame shame....
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 8:49:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/11/2007 8:53:39 PM EDT by tyman]

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By tyman:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By tyman:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By shooter0311:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By ScoutOut:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
So you would support the right of Wal-Mart to overrule the laws of the your city?



Out on the road the private convoys/PSD teams are treated the same as the military by the locals. Should the military be there?


Don't throw out straw man arguments. This isn't about the military, this is about for profit operations performing military actions.

I've lived around military bases for a long time. I don't treat military convoys the same as I treat civilian convoys. Do you?


Dude.....you're not in a war zone either....apple meet orange


You're missing the point. Why should anyone, anywhere NOT resent being told what to do by a non-military entity?


Because in a War-Zone, they are the same thing as .mil convoys. They have essentially the same power/authority as a .mil convoy does.

That being said, we ran a few off the road who got too close to us because my gunner was a complete fucking retard. Also ran 2 .mil convoys off the road too.


Right. My concern is over whether or not them having the same power as the .mil is a good thing. Historically there have been pretty clear lines between the military and the civilians. Once you start blurring the line you run into the problem that all of a sudden ALL civilians become legitimate targets.


Well stop concerning yourself about that. There are still clear lines between .mil and these "civilian" operators.
If you cant see that, then this whole argument is a moot point.


Explain to me the difference. Essentially explain to me why -
In case of A) a company employee using military-style gear and military-style tactics to conduct a military-style operation. If company A is engaged in military style actions, do I, or do I not have the right to shoot at ALL EMPLOYEES OF COMPANY A regardless of their current actions?

If you answer yes, then its fair game for the bad guys to target electricians, plumbers, school builders, consultants, etc...

If you answer no, then how do you justify targeting, lets say the Al Qaeda finance minister who in no way shape or form performs threatening actions himself?

This is the problem of "non-military" doing military stuff.


What "military operations" are you talking about?

Security contractors DONT conduct offensive operations. They are STRICTLY defensive/protective.

So once again, you're whole way of thinking is a giant moot point. Security companies are Personal Security Detachment (PSD). They are bodyguards for VIP's in country. If a "threat" gets too close to their convoy (within 100m), then its deemed an immediate threat and will be fired upon to protect the contents of the convoy.

Just because they "Get guns" and can "Shoot people" doesnt mean its a "military operation".






Eta: These guys dont just go around the country in SUV's finding people they can shoot. If they shoot at someone, its because they were deemed a threat.
The biggest rule of PSD/VIP protection on the open road is NOTHING and I do mean, NOTHING, keeps you from delivering your convoy to its intended destination.

Like I said before, we had to run off 2 civilian PSD convoys and 2 US Military convoys off the road because they were threatening our bubble. Both .mil convoys were MP's and one convoy even had 2 ASV's with them and we still ran them off the road. Why? Because nothing was going to keep us from taking our convoy to its destination unharmed. Not other military personnel, not civilians with VBIEDs, not a little kid walking down the street. The contents of the convoy are the most important thing in the world when there is a VIP.
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 8:53:41 PM EDT
some of you guys obvously do not see the dager in a private merc firm hiring out to the highest bidder. it can and will become a VERY dangerous thing. just rememmber the hession mercs in the revolutionary war
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 8:54:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cypher15:
some of you guys obvously do not see the dager in a private merc firm hiring out to the highest bidder. it can and will become a VERY dangerous thing. just rememmber the hession mercs in the revolutionary war


Well perhaps you could point out the dangerous mercenary companies so we can avoid them?
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 8:54:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/11/2007 8:56:08 PM EDT by Sub-MOA]

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By Sub-MOA:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By tyman:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By shooter0311:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By ScoutOut:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
So you would support the right of Wal-Mart to overrule the laws of the your city?



Out on the road the private convoys/PSD teams are treated the same as the military by the locals. Should the military be there?


Don't throw out straw man arguments. This isn't about the military, this is about for profit operations performing military actions.

I've lived around military bases for a long time. I don't treat military convoys the same as I treat civilian convoys. Do you?


Dude.....you're not in a war zone either....apple meet orange


You're missing the point. Why should anyone, anywhere NOT resent being told what to do by a non-military entity?


Because in a War-Zone, they are the same thing as .mil convoys. They have essentially the same power/authority as a .mil convoy does.

That being said, we ran a few off the road who got too close to us because my gunner was a complete fucking retard. Also ran 2 .mil convoys off the road too.


Right. My concern is over whether or not them having the same power as the .mil is a good thing. Historically there have been pretty clear lines between the military and the civilians. Once you start blurring the line you run into the problem that all of a sudden ALL civilians become legitimate targets.


Two questions:

1) How old were you in 2001?
2) Should the people of Iraq have food, water, electricity and basic medical care?


1) In 2001 I was 21 and stationed at Fort Riley, Kansas with the 70th Engineer Battalion. One year later I was in a guard tower at New York Kabal in Kuwait.

2) Again this is a straw man. Of course they would, could and did. Why didn't we tap the engineers and architects that had a perfectly viable and operational system up prior to the invasion?


21 in 2001...
Hell, you're old enough to remember that civilians have been perfectly viable military targets since before you were born. You're old enough to remember the kidnappings, the beheadings, the torture, the rape, the hijackings, the bombings, the biological attacks and the hostages.

Yet your naive enough to think that civilian guards for a civilian convoy is a bad thing... ¿
That our modern "force multiplied" military structure can provide food and water for the whole of Iraq... ?

Duplicity or stupidity? Third question: Which?

Fourth question: Where the fuck did you get the idea that Iraq had a viable system pre-OIF?

But the important point! You acknowledge the need of the Iraqi people for things like Food and Water.

Fifth question: Without convoys, guards and drivers (I.E. contractors) how exactly are they going to get those things into places like Al-Anbar?

Link Posted: 8/11/2007 8:56:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tyman:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By tyman:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By tyman:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By shooter0311:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By ScoutOut:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
So you would support the right of Wal-Mart to overrule the laws of the your city?



Out on the road the private convoys/PSD teams are treated the same as the military by the locals. Should the military be there?


Don't throw out straw man arguments. This isn't about the military, this is about for profit operations performing military actions.

I've lived around military bases for a long time. I don't treat military convoys the same as I treat civilian convoys. Do you?


Dude.....you're not in a war zone either....apple meet orange


You're missing the point. Why should anyone, anywhere NOT resent being told what to do by a non-military entity?


Because in a War-Zone, they are the same thing as .mil convoys. They have essentially the same power/authority as a .mil convoy does.

That being said, we ran a few off the road who got too close to us because my gunner was a complete fucking retard. Also ran 2 .mil convoys off the road too.


Right. My concern is over whether or not them having the same power as the .mil is a good thing. Historically there have been pretty clear lines between the military and the civilians. Once you start blurring the line you run into the problem that all of a sudden ALL civilians become legitimate targets.


Well stop concerning yourself about that. There are still clear lines between .mil and these "civilian" operators.
If you cant see that, then this whole argument is a moot point.


Explain to me the difference. Essentially explain to me why -
In case of A) a company employee using military-style gear and military-style tactics to conduct a military-style operation. If company A is engaged in military style actions, do I, or do I not have the right to shoot at ALL EMPLOYEES OF COMPANY A regardless of their current actions?

If you answer yes, then its fair game for the bad guys to target electricians, plumbers, school builders, consultants, etc...

If you answer no, then how do you justify targeting, lets say the Al Qaeda finance minister who in no way shape or form performs threatening actions himself?

This is the problem of "non-military" doing military stuff.


What "military operations" are you talking about?

Security contractors DONT conduct offensive operations. They are STRICTLY defensive/protective.

So once again, you're whole way of thinking is a giant moot point. Security companies are Personal Security Detachment (PSD). They are bodyguards for VIP's in country. If a "threat" gets too close to their convoy (within 100m), then its deemed an immediate threat and will be fired upon to protect the contents of the convoy.

Just because they "Get guns" and can "Shoot people" doesnt mean its a "military operation".




Doing bodyguard missions for private contract VIPs is a rather high profile sort of mission and easily classified, if you are doing a military style convoy, as a military operation.

The secret service guys might not be military in the strict sense of the word, but some of the operations they do could be described as "military." (I'm using military as a broad adjective here to avoid using obnoxious terms like "tactical." If there's a better term please let me know.)

From a purely emotional stand point, what would be your response if you saw a bunch of non-military Saudi's all "tacti-cooled" up convoying down YOUR neighborhood telling you to keep back 100 meters?
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 8:59:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
Explain to me the difference. Essentially explain to me why -
In case of A) a company employee using military-style gear and military-style tactics to conduct a military-style operation. If company A is engaged in military style actions, do I, or do I not have the right to shoot at ALL EMPLOYEES OF COMPANY A regardless of their current actions?

If you answer yes, then its fair game for the bad guys to target electricians, plumbers, school builders, consultants, etc...

If you answer no, then how do you justify targeting, lets say the Al Qaeda finance minister who in no way shape or form performs threatening actions himself?

This is the problem of "non-military" doing military stuff.


It would be great if companies operating in Iraq or Afghanistan, or a multitude of other countries for that matter, could operate without security because they are civilians simply trying to serve companies operating in said country, trying to better said country, but that's not the way the bad guys play. They never have.

Calling an Al Qaeda member a civilian is silly.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top