Security Contractor 'Trophy' Video in Iraq

[kirottu]

The Ghost of Saddam still lingers. :ph34r:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Someone should call for Guybrush Threepwood! Or am I the only one who think Saddam resembles Captain LeChuck?

[Lucius]

The Ghost of Saddam still lingers. :ph34r:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Someone should call for Guybrush Threepwood! Or am I the only one who think Saddam resembles Captain LeChuck?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How come I never saw the connection?

[Commissar]

Warning shots? Entire clips were used here in bursts and full auto, hardly warning shots. These mercenary bastards are nuts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, that's more likely to get your attention than a couple of semiautomatic shots that you might not even hear. But my overall point was that if they were genuinely looking to do some random killing, better targets presented themselves in a couple of spots, and they apparently ignored them.

 

I'm not really defending these guys; all I'm suggesting is that, quite possibly, the cars they fired on resembled the sort of threat profile they'd seen before. I know I'd be considerably nervous if a civilian car came roaring up behind me over there, and keep in mind these contractors are huge targets, partly because a lot of Iraqis don't know the difference between the military and these private security companies. Unfortunately, many of the contractors don't help matters much - I've seen a couple who'd managed to get their hands on MARPAT before. Some of them are quite professional, and I'd even almost go so far as to say they deserve the unbelievable salaries they're getting, but many more really are just Soldier of Fortune readers.

 

Bottom line is, the way things work over there at the moment, they're allowed to defend themselves against a perceived threat - the signs plastered all over their cars say as much. These guys either really were out for a murderous joyride or were defending themselves far too aggressively. Whatever the case, PMCs are one of those things we really need to sort out.

[SteveThaiBinh]

This was the lead story on tonight's ITN news, a very mainstream and respectable news organisation, and not on a slow news day by any means. I guess they've had it checked by some people who know what they're talking about, and it checks out.

[Judge Hades]

Good. The more the US and the coalition look like the bad guys the better. We shouldn't have gone in there in the first place.

[Commissar]

This was the lead story on tonight's ITN news, a very mainstream and respectable news organisation, and not on a slow news day by any means.  I guess they've had it checked by some people who know what they're talking about, and it checks out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Checks out in what regard, though?

[SteveThaiBinh]

Checks out in what regard, though?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In the sense of being what it appears to be, rather than a hoax. The presenter made all the necessary caveats, about 'if this proves to be true' and so on. It's not unheard of for a major news network to be fooled by a hoax, but it's fairly rare. They clearly feel it's not, and I have no idea how they would establish that, but it's their reputation on the line, so they've clearly done enough to satisfy themselves.

[Commissar]

Checks out in what regard, though?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In the sense of being what it appears to be, rather than a hoax. The presenter made all the necessary caveats, about 'if this proves to be true' and so on. It's not unheard of for a major news network to be fooled by a hoax, but it's fairly rare. They clearly feel it's not, and I have no idea how they would establish that, but it's their reputation on the line, so they've clearly done enough to satisfy themselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I think they confirmed that the guys were actually shooting, and the events actually took place. What it appears to be is a bunch of security contractors on a joyride. If they came to a conclusion that there's no other explanation, I'd be quite surprised.

[SteveThaiBinh]

No, I think they confirmed that the guys were actually shooting, and the events actually took place.  What it appears to be is a bunch of security contractors on a joyride.  If they came to a conclusion that there's no other explanation, I'd be quite surprised.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You might be right. The focus of the story was on western security contractors, though.

 

How would you go about establishing that the events took place? Speak to witnesses? Hard to track down in a few days, especially since there's no date on the video and the road is notorious for attacks.

[Commissar]

No, I think they confirmed that the guys were actually shooting, and the events actually took place.  What it appears to be is a bunch of security contractors on a joyride.  If they came to a conclusion that there's no other explanation, I'd be quite surprised.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You might be right. The focus of the story was on western security contractors, though.

 

How would you go about establishing that the events took place? Speak to witnesses? Hard to track down in a few days, especially since there's no date on the video and the road is notorious for attacks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I trust the video, for the most part. I just don't think it goes anywhere towards establishing a motive. You could frame it however you like. An anti-coalition activist would suggest that it's contractors run amok. A contractor who nearly got killed by a car bomber racing up behind his convoy yesterday might suggest that these guys are doing precisely what they need to be doing.

[Judge Hades]

Its a matter of perspective. Iraq is a very volitile nation right now and that is all thanks to George W. Bush.

[Gabrielle]

Its a matter of perspective.  Iraq is a very volitile nation right now and that is all thanks to George W. Bush.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We can deport him to the European Union and have him become an absolute monarch there.

 

King George

Edited December 1, 2005 by Gabrielle

[Walsingham]

Its a matter of perspective.  Iraq is a very volitile nation right now and that is all thanks to George W. Bush.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yes, because prior to George's birth Iraq was a land of sweetness and light, that had never felt the thunderous tread of War, Famine, or Pestilence.

[Judge Hades]

Yes, because prior to George's birth Iraq was a land of sweetness and light, that had never felt the thunderous tread of War, Famine, or Pestilence. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hardly, but before the death and destruction was centered only on Iraqis and was contained. Now we have aid workers getting decapitated, US Soldiers and contracters killed and/or executed, and so forth and so on.

[Gabrielle]

The United States needs to mind their own business, really. We have our own issues to deal before we can be saviors of the world.

[Walsingham]

The United States needs to mind their own business, really.  We have our own issues to deal before we can be saviors of the world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

You mean like in the 1930s? Because as a European I have to say that worked out splendidly.

[Judge Hades]

Its not our fault the Euros can't take care of themselves.

[kumquatq3]

Ok, I got some video info while watching CNN:

 

 

1. There is a site anonymous site that encourages members of a British defense contractor to post stuff, not necessarily damning stuff, most stuff on the site is not "bad". Nor does it appear that there is alot of "home movies", the video is hand me down, like the stuff we post here. Hence, no clear link between the contactor and the video.

 

2. The video was first posted there.

 

3. The contractor in question has the contractual obligation to follow the rules of engagement.

 

4. No one really knows whats up with the video yet.

[kumquatq3]

Home come no one seems to care once it turns out, if it's anyone or even real, then it is probably British guys?

[Azarkon]

Well, Iraqi life may have sucked under Saddam, but under Bush it's even worse:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4395525.stm

 

Course, the fear now is that if the US pulls out of Iraq, the area will quickly destabilize and revert to a police state. But it's also clear that even if we stay, the situation will not stabilize any time soon. Lose-lose situation, ain't it?

[kumquatq3]

Well, Iraqi life may have sucked under Saddam, but under Bush it's even worse:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4395525.stm

 

Course, the fear now is that if the US pulls out of Iraq, the area will quickly destabilize and revert to a police state.  But it's also clear that even if we stay, the situation will not stabilize any time soon.  Lose-lose situation, ain't it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

off topic

 

But, let me get this right. As soon as you find out this apparently "horrible" crime commited by "animals" wasn't done by Americans, you just shift topics? This is why it's hard to take people seriously sometimes.

 

When people don't actually care about what their talking about, when all they care about is making the US or Bush look bad, well, then your not in a position to be making any moral claims. Besides, Bush is already clearly an idiot, no need to go out of your way to prove that.

 

I'd like to point out that the original article didn't bother pointing out that the contractor in question is: 1. British 2. Is bound to the "rules of engagement".

 

I doubt they will clarify that with further remarks.

 

.........................

 

About article just posted:

 

How does this guy know the malnutrition rates pre-war?? I didn't know Saddam gave open tours of Iraqi's children.

 

Conveninatly, the story has no link, the UN doesn't have the document posted (at least yet) and the UN is not noting anything like the story in its news section.

 

The only thing I could find was that this guy gave a speech to the same conference, days before he made the above speech, about the children in the Pak-India quake zone. You know who is leading that effort, in both donations and equipment to get food and such there?

 

One guess:

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?...748&p=y64398454

 

Does the BBC pick up this story? Nope, nobody does, except "Ireland online". No news value in "America doing good" stories.

 

But, if the UN is so concerned, why doesn't it offer peace keepers? You know, instead of pulling out troops because a shell fell on your offices in a war zone. Or hell, go into Darfur if your so concerned about the children. Take those UN vechicles and food supplies, 30%+ paid for by the US, and go do something. Reports are great, but kids can't eat news articles.

Edited December 2, 2005 by kumquatq3

[Azarkon]

I'm not really interested in the "trophy" video claim. I was responding to this off-shoot of the thread:

 

Yes, because prior to George's birth Iraq was a land of sweetness and light, that had never felt the thunderous tread of War, Famine, or Pestilence.  online2long.gif

 

As far as the article's authenticity goes, it's based on a study conducted by the Fafo Institute for Applied Social Science, Norway, which did the study based on surveys of 22,000 Iraqi homes. It's been quoted now by almost every major publication on the Iraqi war, including UNICEF, so I don't think its data is erroneous.

 

How does this guy know the malnutrition rates pre-war?? I didn't know Saddam gave open tours of Iraqi's children.

 

You don't need to have an open tour of Iraq's children during Saddam's reign. You can just ask a family whether they were malnourished before and after. Unless you're cynical enough to believe that a vast number of Iraqi families would fake their own children's malnourishment in order to further some cause.

 

No news value in "America doing good" stories.

 

The point, which I think you missed, is that regardless of what "good" America is doing in Iraq, the living conditions have gotten worse than when Saddam was in power and frankly, the Iraqi people want us out. Democratically, they want us out: http://www.progressive.org/?q=mag_solomon0605 (search for Newsweek poll).

 

I won't debate the idea that the soldiers there are doing their best to help the Iraqi people. However, I also don't think you can question the fact that their living condition is deterioriating amidst a war that has no end in sight. Unless we're willing to commit a vastly larger army in order to maintain the peace and to rebuild Iraq, our presence there is simply drawing more and more terrorist actions which serves to destabilize the very society we're trying to "democratize."

 

Given unlimited time and resources, anything is possible, and yeah, if we devote the entirety of the US to socially engineering the Middle East we might end up with a democratic Middle East. But since we're not going to do that, and since our resources are limited, maybe it's time to turn things over to the Iraqi people, regardless of the fact that it's almost certain to lead to a reversion.

Edited December 2, 2005 by Azarkon

[kumquatq3]

You don't need to have an open tour of Iraq's children during Saddam's reign. You can just ask a family whether they were malnourished before and after. Unless you're cynical enough to believe that a vast number of Iraqi families would fake their own children's malnourishment in order to further some cause.

 

Fafo Institute doesn't have the report either.

 

My point is: They don't have to lie. Malnourishment is NOT starvation, different things. Without a doctor, you can't just go: "Ya, my kid isn't getting enough B12 vitiams or protein". Your mostly guessing. You can ask if food conditions and such were better, anyone can tell you that, but not malnourishment.

 

So unless they had a bunch of doctors checking out kids in Iraq pre-war...

 

The point, which I think you missed, is that regardless of what "good" America is doing in Iraq, the living conditions have gotten worse than when Saddam was in power and frankly, the Iraqi people want us out. Democratically, they want us out: http://www.progressive.org/?q=mag_solomon0605 (search for Newsweek poll).

 

The search failed, and oddly, I couldn't find the poll on newsweek (or cnn or foxnews).

 

but I remember it, but unfortunatly, this is going off memory alone (so it might be wrong):

 

Of course they want us out. Would you want a foriegn army in your land? They are also very afraid of what happens if we do leave. With good reason. The poll wasn't quite as cut and dry as you suggest.

Edited December 2, 2005 by kumquatq3

[Azarkon]

So unless they had a bunch of doctors checking out kids in Iraq pre-war...

 

One of the articles state:

 

Affected children usually have stunted physical growth, as well as irreparably retarded mental development.

 

I think these attributes can be measured quite easily pre- and post-war, given that the children who grew up malnourished will likely show signs of it, and those who died because of malnourishment will be known by the family.

 

The search failed, and oddly, I couldn't find the poll on newsweek (or cnn or foxnews).

 

Here's one:

 

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5217874/site/newsweek/

 

There are several others, and I think you do know that they exist.

 

And on that search of the article, I shouldn't have put Newsweek poll. If you simply searched for poll or Newsweek, you would've gotten it.

 

Of course they want us out. Would you want a foriegn army in your land? They are also very afraid of what happens if we do leave. With good reason. The poll wasn't quite as cut and dry as you suggest.

 

Many Iraqis were reported to have said that they have *lost* faith in Coalition forces, which indicates that they originally *had* faith in our ability to make their lives better. I recall back when the Iraq War first started that we were getting tons of reports about how Iraqis welcomed the US liberation forces. I'm not going to claim absolute data on this front, but I do think that they have a point: what's all death and violence for? If the US are not going to improve Iraqi living conditions, then what the hell are we still doing there inspiring more and more violence from insurgents? Do we have a plan, still, to rebuild and democratize Iraq or are we just bidding our time now for the best, most "honorable" withdrawal possible?

 

We should've thought about this long before now, when it became clear that our forces in Iraq were not improving things.

[kumquatq3]

One of the articles state:

 

Affected children usually have stunted physical growth, as well as irreparably retarded mental development.

 

I think these attributes can be measured quite easily pre- and post-war, given that the children who grew up malnourished will likely show signs of it, and those who died because of malnourishment will be known by the family.

 

Still, take mental retardation, how do you know the cause without a doc.

 

and the article didn't say anything about "died because of malnourishment", just malnourishment.

 

Here's one:

 

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5217874/site/newsweek/

 

There are several others, and I think you do know that they exist.

 

I actually found that, but it's outdated

 

 

not going to claim absolute data on this front, but I do think that they have a point: what's all death and violence for? If the US are not going to improve Iraqi living conditions, then what the hell are we still doing there inspiring more and more violence from insurgents? Do we have a plan, still, to rebuild and democratize Iraq or are we just bidding our time now for the best, most "honorable" withdrawal possible?

 

The point, if we leave, does it get better or worse?

 

"The plan" at this point is to see how the elections go.

 

Say what you will, but these people are clearly going out to vote. I say we let them finish voting, at least.

 

Maybe an elected goverment can do for the people what the people say we American troops can't do.