Nothing to see here, move along...

[RetiredGySgt]

Jillian I agree with the morality and inhumanity of these actions, all I'm saying is that our soldiers (not blackwater or mercenaries) firebombed many cities in Germany for the sole purpose of destroying them and killing everything in it's path. Google Dresden.... The same with the atomic bombings.
Paramilitary force or not, this is not the first time nor the only time in which paramilitary or regular military forces have killed civilians needlessly. We only view this incident differently because it is an unpopular war. WWII is always viewed as the "goodwar" ; therefore, we don't see the atrocities (committed by our own troops) as a bad thing....(most people don't anyway)....

And the same to you Larkinn.

You are AWARE Dresden was a British operation?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

Operation planned and controlled by the British.

With far fewer casualties then have been bantered about, currently believed to be 25 to 35 thousand dead.

 

[Larkinn]

More bald faced lies. They fired to protect the CONVOY. They thought they were under attack.

The police officer, whom CNN is identifying only as Sarhan, said the Blackwater guards "seemed nervous" as they entered the square, throwing water bottles at the Iraqi police posted there and driving in the wrong direction. He said traffic police halted civilian traffic to clear the way for the Blackwater team.

Then, he said, the guards fired five or six shots in an apparent attempt to scare people away, but one of the rounds struck a car and killed a young man who was sitting next to his mother, a doctor.

Sarhan said he and an undercover Iraqi police officer ran to the car but they were unable to stop it from rolling forward toward the Blackwater convoy.

"I wanted to get his mother out, but could not because she was holding her son tight and did not want to let him go," Sarhan said. "They immediately opened heavy fire at us."

"Each of their four vehicles opened heavy fire in all directions, they shot and killed everyone in cars facing them and people standing on the street," Sarhan said.

The shooting lasted about 20 minutes, he said.

"When it was over we were looking around and about 15 cars had been destroyed, the bodies of the killed were strewn on the pavements and road."

Sarhan said no one ever fired at the Blackwater team.

"They became the terrorists, not attacked by the terrorists," he said.

"I saw parts of the woman's head flying in front of me, blow up and then her entire body was charred," he said. "What do you expect my reaction to be? Are they protecting the country? No. If I had a weapon I would have shot at them."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/02/blackwater.witness/index.html

Funny that you claim to know more than the Iraqi witnesses who were there, eh? Pretty much they ALL say that the Blackwater convoy was never fired on. But go on with your whining about Blackwater.

No one woke up that morning and said " damn. lets go kill some Iraqis for fun" You know it, I know it and so does anyone with half a functioning brain. Nice try though Mensa Boy.

Nobody is claiming that. They didn't do it for fun, they did it because they were poorly trained, arrogant, scared, and stupid. That doesn't make it any less of a massacre.

 

[Larkinn]

Jillian I agree with the morality and inhumanity of these actions, all I'm saying is that our soldiers (not blackwater or mercenaries) firebombed many cities in Germany for the sole purpose of destroying them and killing everything in it's path. Google Dresden.... The same with the atomic bombings.
Paramilitary force or not, this is not the first time nor the only time in which paramilitary or regular military forces have killed civilians needlessly. We only view this incident differently because it is an unpopular war. WWII is always viewed as the "goodwar" ; therefore, we don't see the atrocities (committed by our own troops) as a bad thing....(most people don't anyway)....

And the same to you Larkinn.

Actually there have been many many condemnations of Dresden and long academic talks about whether dropping the bombs was warranted or not.

Regardless, as I said, agree with the actions or disagree Dresden, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima could have been said to have legitimate military objectives. There was none here. Just pure old fashioned massacre. And, by the way, one which you are attempting to minimize with your bullshit of "oh, well its happened before". Yes, it has. And it will happen again. That doesn't make it any more OK or acceptable.

 

[jillian]

Jillian I agree with the morality and inhumanity of these actions, all I'm saying is that our soldiers (not blackwater or mercenaries) firebombed many cities in Germany for the sole purpose of destroying them and killing everything in it's path. Google Dresden.... The same with the atomic bombings.
Paramilitary force or not, this is not the first time nor the only time in which paramilitary or regular military forces have killed civilians needlessly. We only view this incident differently because it is an unpopular war. WWII is always viewed as the "goodwar" ; therefore, we don't see the atrocities (committed by our own troops) as a bad thing....(most people don't anyway)....

And the same to you Larkinn.

The difference between these paramilitary MERCENARIES at Blackwater and our legitimate military is that our military is subject to courts martial if they commit war crimes. They are subject to international law. Blackwater isn't. One can't compare a group of blackshirts with our soldiers and its an insult to the military to do so, IMO.

 

[manifold]

The difference between these paramilitary MERCENARIES at Blackwater and our legitimate military is that our military is subject to courts martial if they commit war crimes. They are subject to international law. Blackwater isn't. One can't compare a group of blackshirts with our soldiers and its an insult to the military to do so, IMO.

"international law?"

That's about as binding as a referendum on freedom fries.


But seriously, those Blackwater guys should be subject to the same oversight as the military.

 

[jillian]

"international law?"

That's about as binding as a referendum on freedom fries.


But seriously, those Blackwater guys should be subject to the same oversight as the military.

They should be. But they aren't. So they shouldn't exist, IMO. Not to mention the fact that we don't exactly think of democracies when we think about paramilitary forces.

 

[Larkinn]

"international law?"

That's about as binding as a referendum on freedom fries.

But seriously, those Blackwater guys should be subject to the same oversight as the military.

Considering that parts of int'l law have been domestically implemented, yeah some of it is extremely binding.

 

[manifold]

Considering that parts of int'l law have been domestically implemented, yeah some of it is extremely binding.

Yeah, and parts of the Magna Carta were incorporated into the Bill of Rights too. I guess that makes it extremely binding.

 

[BrianH]

You are AWARE Dresden was a British operation?

Yes, and the British were part of the ALLIES who worked TOGETHER with the U.S. to defeat the Germans and Japanese in WWII. .....

In World War II, strategic aerial bombardment claimed the lives of over 160,000 Allied airmen in the European theatre,[7] 60,595 British civilians and between 305,000 and 600,000 German civilians, [8][9] while American precision bombing, fire bombing and atomic bombing in Japan killed between 330,000 and 500,000 Japanese civilians.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II

 

[BrianH]

Actually there have been many many condemnations of Dresden and long academic talks about whether dropping the bombs was warranted or not.

Regardless, as I said, agree with the actions or disagree Dresden, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima could have been said to have legitimate military objectives. There was none here. Just pure old fashioned massacre. And, by the way, one which you are attempting to minimize with your bullshit of "oh, well its happened before". Yes, it has. And it will happen again. That doesn't make it any more OK or acceptable.

So blackwater was on no mission when this happened? They just decided to go out and kill them? I don't care for blackwater to begin with, but there is always information that is not released to the public. I believe that if it is proven that it was done out of cold blood...they should be punished for it, but it reminds of of Murthas condemnation of those marines who ended up being cleared of atrocities. A war zone is not always clear cut lines where you shoot at someone on the other side. Some people seem to think that it's super easy to distinguish enemy from civilian during the middle of a firefight. This could be a more difficult task in a warzone where your enemy dresses like civilians and shoots from among them. THis is not the first incident in which civilians have been killed, could it be possible that someone shot from among them and got away??? Could it be possible that someone shot at blackwater from the other side of the civilians and blackwater thought it was coming from them? There are all types of scenarios that could be played out in their defense or prosecution Without having full evidence, you're passing judgement...which shows your ignorance.

I don't like blackwater any more than you do, but I'm not going to pass judgement on something I don't have full facts about. Not to mention that "FACT" can be extremely distorted by battlefield situations.

 

[BrianH]

The difference between these paramilitary MERCENARIES at Blackwater and our legitimate military is that our military is subject to courts martial if they commit war crimes. They are subject to international law. Blackwater isn't. One can't compare a group of blackshirts with our soldiers and its an insult to the military to do so, IMO.

Well now I feel bad Jill cause you think I'm comparing Blackwater to our military....

I'm certainly not doing so intentionally. Let me try to explain what I meant.
I know that blackwater (for some reason) cannot be prosecuted. Even though our U.S. soldiers can be, they weren't during WWII because it was different war and a different time. THe U.S. and allies killed many civilians during the war and nothing was ever done about it. Atomic bombing, bombing of German cities, battlefield civilian casualties. I'm not saying that our military is bad, but these things happen. Our soldiers were never court martialed for killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in Germany. I don't think they should, because that's war.

I agree more with your take om the subject (That blackwater should be subject to some sort of court in the event of breaking international law), more than Larkinn's sensitive and emotional approach.

 

[Larkinn]

So blackwater was on no mission when this happened? They just decided to go out and kill them?

Tell me what kind of a mission justifies stopping in a civilian square and blowing away 17 Iraqi civilians? To kill 17 people the danger you are in damn well better be present, and obvious as fuck. The Iraqis who were there saw no danger to Blackwater at all.

I don't care for blackwater to begin with, but there is always information that is not released to the public. I believe that if it is proven that it was done out of cold blood...they should be punished for it, but it reminds of of Murthas condemnation of those marines who ended up being cleared of atrocities.

Guess what? They have immunity.

A war zone is not always clear cut lines where you shoot at someone on the other side. Some people seem to think that it's super easy to distinguish enemy from civilian during the middle of a firefight.

Blackwater started the firefight. They couldn't distinguish the difference while driving down the street. Pretty important skill when your in a country just brimming with Iraqis.

This could be a more difficult task in a warzone where your enemy dresses like civilians and shoots from among them. THis is not the first incident in which civilians have been killed, could it be possible that someone shot from among them and got away??? Could it be possible that someone shot at blackwater from the other side of the civilians and blackwater thought it was coming from them?

Perhaps you should actually read what happened before trying to make excuses for them. The civilians weren't clustered in a group. They were spread out, in different cars, in the square. Blackwater fired indiscriminately and killed 17 people. Thats simply unacceptable.

There are all types of scenarios that could be played out in their defense or prosecution Without having full evidence, you're passing judgement...which shows your ignorance.

Your right...we should withhold judgement on the VT shooter was well. Maybe he too was doing it in "self defense".

I don't like blackwater any more than you do, but I'm not going to pass judgement on something I don't have full facts about. Not to mention that "FACT" can be extremely distorted by battlefield situations.

Weren't you the idiot claiming that racism isn't prevalent in this country? So much for not passing judgement on things you don't have the full facts about.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Tell me what kind of a mission justifies stopping in a civilian square and blowing away 17 Iraqi civilians? To kill 17 people the danger you are in damn well better be present, and obvious as fuck. The Iraqis who were there saw no danger to Blackwater at all.



Guess what? They have immunity.



Blackwater started the firefight. They couldn't distinguish the difference while driving down the street. Pretty important skill when your in a country just brimming with Iraqis.



Perhaps you should actually read what happened before trying to make excuses for them. The civilians weren't clustered in a group. They were spread out, in different cars, in the square. Blackwater fired indiscriminately and killed 17 people. Thats simply unacceptable.



Your right...we should withhold judgement on the VT shooter was well. Maybe he too was doing it in "self defense".



Weren't you the idiot claiming that racism isn't prevalent in this country? So much for not passing judgement on things you don't have the full facts about.

Simple enough, YOU are a LIAR.

 

[Larkinn]

Simple enough, YOU are a LIAR.

Whatever. You can't come up with any reasonable points to defend this massacre, so you just claim that I lie.

You really are a sick fuck, aren't you?

 

[Gunny]

Whatever. You can't come up with any reasonable points to defend this massacre, so you just claim that I lie.

You really are a sick fuck, aren't you?

You are presenting a one-sided argument. Blackwater did not fire first. They fired indiscriminantly when fired upon. They are paid by the US government to protect US diplomats and that's what they do. They are not paid to protect anyone else. As of last time I checked, they had lost 20+ of their own operatives to hostile fire at the cost of zero losses to the people they are hired to protect. Mission-wise, that is a perfect record.

The bottom-line argument here is whether or not the end justifies the means. From a purely tactical point of view, it does. From a humanitarian point of view, it does not.

Which side you come down on, IMO, would probably be determined by whether or not you are a US Statet Dept official or an Iraqi civilian, or whether or not your agenda is condemning and villifying anything the US does in Iraq.

The obvious solution is for these religious extremists to stop trying to bushwack US convoys. That would preclude the necessity for security personnel to take their weapons off safe.

 

[Gunny]

Simple enough, YOU are a LIAR.

Let's ease up on calling people liars, huh? Even if one is presenting a POV that is incorrect in YOUR opinion, it is STILL based on individual perception and does not necessarily mean someone is lying.

Lying is a purposeful intent to deceive.

 

[Gunny]

Whatever. You can't come up with any reasonable points to defend this massacre, so you just claim that I lie.

You really are a sick fuck, aren't you?

You ease off too, please.

 

[BrianH]

That's all I'm saying Gunny, is that depending on the POV, it was right or wrong. THis is the same concept that can be applied to the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed in WWII by Allied planes as well as Allied soldiers, but since it was/is viewed a necessary and good war by most people, it seems to be more acceptable.

Larkinn seems to go to far and assume that I'm making excuses for them and wants to wrongfully compare this to the VT massacre. I don't agree with a massacre any more than Larkinn does, but I do recognize that it's a POV conflict.

Larkinn, until you've been in warzone, don't pretend that you would do everything perfect and to the "T". Many good men and women have done things in combat for which they regret, (wheter intentional or unintentional). It's the most stressful situation that any human being can be placed under. I'm not saying that it's ok that they may have done this intentionally, but I'm not going to pass judgement on them as if I was there and saw the whole thing.

As far as your reference to the other thread, it seems like you're the only one still caught up on racial issues......
And you've also twisted my words....
I didn't say that racism didn't exist, but I believe that you categorize many natural aspects of life under the banner of racism when you shouldn't. You're not racist for acknowledging the fact that Mexicans like Mexican Food.

 

[Larkinn]

You are presenting a one-sided argument. Blackwater did not fire first. They fired indiscriminantly when fired upon.

Funny that you accuse me of presenting a one-sided argument and then automatically assume that the Blackwater claims are correct, and the Iraqi claims are false. Blackwater claims they were fired on. All other Iraqi sources in the area say they weren't.

They are paid by the US government to protect US diplomats and that's what they do. They are not paid to protect anyone else.

They didn't fail to protect these civilians, they shot and killed them. The only things these people needed protection from was Blackwater.

As of last time I checked, they had lost 20+ of their own operatives to hostile fire at the cost of zero losses to the people they are hired to protect. Mission-wise, that is a perfect record.

No, its really not. Their only goal isn't to protect their people, its also to not kill people needlessly here.

The bottom-line argument here is whether or not the end justifies the means. From a purely tactical point of view, it does. From a humanitarian point of view, it does not.

Sure, from a tactical view you can justify nuking England because they might get a bug up their ass and decide to attack us. But from any reasonable perspective you cannot justify killing 17 Iraqi civilians because you were fired on. If they were fired on, they should have left rather than killing everyone in the immediate area.

The obvious solution is for these religious extremists to stop trying to bushwack US convoys. That would preclude the necessity for security personnel to take their weapons off safe.

How bout we stick to realistic solutions that we have some control over?