It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: Video shows private security contractors shooting up Iraqi drivers

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 02:19 AM
link   
interesting, looking closer in the first part you can see shots when their gun is not pointing out at anyone....someone was shooting before they were...


[edit on 29-11-2005 by namehere]




posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 03:54 AM
link   


Then, mabe not, since the more "insurgency" there is in Iraq the more "need" there'll be for Aegis' services and the continued presence of its employer, the US Military.


This is a particularly chilling thought with huge implications, dubious one.


Ram

posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 03:57 AM
link   
I think they have a hole. where there should be a window.. Or maybe they have a open door in the back...
We are looking at the left window... From inside. They shoot out the right window.

Is it the burst... From inside what are you talking about..?

I think they use silencer. SD



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 04:35 AM
link   
Few facts:

If shooting at cars is a policy accepted. Woudnt be a practice that all the soldiers would open fire on any cars which would come close?

But we can see from Juba video for example that that isnt the case. Also why would someone try 2 kill it self by chasing mercenarys if he can always drive slowly 2 checkpoint or troops on the street an blast him self or the car?

Also if there were some wide policy of keeping the distance between vehicles why do we see normal trafic on the other side?

Bottom line is there just isnt any logic or excuse for the shootings. It all just looks as a few trigger happy mercenarys are having "fun".



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
So enlighten me here - if it did turn out to be self defence ( I'm sayin' if ) it still wouldn't be acceptable ?


Well given the circumstances of what they were defending themselves from, perhaps. However if it was indeed a suicide bomber I am sure the actions of these people would have been alot different. Well I at least hope so




If we didn't have people like that in this world, then there wouldn't be an insurgency and global terrorism. I hope your opinion extends to these people as well


Oh I can assure you it does





[edit on 29-11-2005 by ImJaded]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by G_o_l_d_y
Few facts:

If shooting at cars is a policy accepted. Woudnt be a practice that all the soldiers would open fire on any cars which would come close?


Well I've seen a few videos of US soldiers in Hummers and trucks shoot the crap out of cars in traffic which came too close to them. It mightn't be accepted policy, but it seems far from infrequent.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir
But is war a necessary part of life?


In my opinion, whether or not war is necessary, I do support it under certain circumstances. But what we saw on that tape has nothing to do with war. That was a public street with all kinds of people just driving along. I don't care who was in that car. Some teenager, Us soldier, 'mercenary' or watever. That scene had nothing to do with war.


Originally posted by namehere
interesting, looking closer in the first part you can see shots when their gun is not pointing out at anyone....someone was shooting before they were...


I think you're seeing what you want to see. You cannot even see their gun for a long time. How do you know it's not pointing out the window?

They shoot at the first car until it pulls over, then they shoot at the next until it pulls over, then a third, until it pulls over. Change scene, start over. They're shooting at anyone who approaches close enough for them to shoot. On the final scene it's clear that the approaching car intends to pass them, yet they still shoot.

I don't understand how you can make excuses for these people, but it's certainly not necessary that I understand your position. I don't really want to.


Originally posted by rogue1
So enlighten me here - if it did turn out to be self defence ( I'm sayin' if ) it still wouldn't be acceptable ?


Prepare for enlightenment. I am a firearms enthusiast. I strongly support the 2nd amendment and the right to protect one's self and property and to use firearms for recreational and sporting purposes. I am not a peace-nik and I support a necessary war.

I believe in the right to defend myself 100%, so yes, if it was in self defense, I absolutely would support it. This was obviously (obvious to me, anyway) not self defence.

Consider yourself enlightened.

[edit on 29-11-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

They shoot at the first car until it pulls over, then they shoot at the next until it pulls over, then a third, until it pulls over. Change scene, start over. They're shooting at anyone who approaches close enough for them to shoot. On the final scene it's clear that the approaching car intends to pass them, yet they still shoot.


You can't tell if it's intending to pass them or if it's intending to position itself to detonate an explosive.

Look at the cars in this video from October 4 2005 (not gory, just a car bomb filmed from above by a security camera):
VBIED_04_10_05_baghdad_1579.html

Everything looks normal until the explosion.

[edit on 29-11-2005 by AceOfBase]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
You can't tell if it's intending to pass them of if it's intending to position itself to detonate an explosive.


It's true. I cannot tell the intention of all the other drivers.

I did see one man who had been shot at and pulled off the road get out of his car. If he was in pursuit, that seems like a really stupid thing to do.

I have watched the film several times and analyzed it with all the reasoning capability I have, and I cannot fathom a logical reason for this behavior. And until someone else does (to my satisfaction), I'll continue to believe that whoever made and participated in this video are simply some kind of low-life people I hope I never have the occasion to meet.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Please note that the vehicle from which the fire is outgoing is always passing other vehicles that are pulled over. The vehicles that are drawing fire are those that are breaking out of a distant following pack of vehicles. They are accelerating and attempting to overtake the camera vehicle. There is no randomness here. This tactic is well thought out and executed. It may be that the driver and gunner are contractors. That will be discussed ad infinitum. It may be that the approaching vehicle is full of bad guys. One can not argue with the seeming effectiveness of the maneuver when seen in this light.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   


'Trophy' video exposes private security contractors shooting up Iraqi drivers
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
The Sunday Telegraph
(Filed: 27/11/2005)

Last night a spokesman for defence firm Aegis Defence Services - set up in 2002 by Lt Col Tim Spicer, a former Scots Guards officer - confirmed that the company was carrying out an internal investigation to see if any of their employees were involved.
The Foreign Office has also confirmed that it is investigating the contents of the video in conjunction with Aegis, one of the biggest security companies operating in Iraq. The company was recently awarded a £220 million security contract in Iraq by the United States government. Aegis conducts a number of security duties and helped with the collection of ballot papers in the country's recent referendum


link to aegisiraq.com



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   
All of the denialists suppositions are ignoring one basic fact.

They are not riding in a military vehicle.

It looks like a Rover, but I may be wrong.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
All of the denialists suppositions are ignoring one basic fact.

They are not riding in a military vehicle.

It looks like a Rover, but I may be wrong.


The Brits use armored Land Rovers as military vehicles, just as the Americans use armored humvees as military vehicles.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Articles Of Faith


Originally posted by xmotex
I have no doubt it's real.

These are the words every propagandist loves to see. Once they are uttered, it's “Mission Accomplished” and the corks can be popped off the champagne bottles.

I am singling out this comment, not the member who made it (many, many members -- including myself -- have said the same thing in different words here and elsewhere), to make some observations about the nature of information warfare, mind control and belief.

Freedom from doubt is not true freedom, but a commitment to discard it.

As an evangelist for the principles of Skepticism, I try where I can to point these things out -- which others are, of course, free to consider or reject as they see fit.

Opinions vary on everything, as well they should, but for me Skepticism boils down to accepting that I am fallible. I can be wrong.

Once I figured that out, it naturally followed that everyone else can be wrong, too, and a skeptic was born.

It is natural to want something “concrete” to believe in, to hold on to, lest we feel lost. However, no such shelter is offered free of cost.

The price of belief is obedience to it.

All forms of mind control depend on the power of belief. Without it, mind control cannot work. I urge my fellow ATSers to consider the importance of this fact.

In the case of this thread, I am seeing a pattern repeated ad infinitum on ATS and every other discussion forum I visit -- and in pretty much all the affairs of humankind.

My challenge to my fellow members is to be aware of it and -- if you choose -- to break out of it.

What lies beyond is well worth the effort.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   

quote: Originally posted by xmotex
I have no doubt it's real.


Of coarse it is real, there is no doubt about that. It is 100% real. But we do not know the real situation.
Though they are sick enough to slow down and shoot at cars........... That is real.


quote: Originally posted by Majic
In the case of this thread, I am seeing a pattern repeated ad infinitum on ATS and every other discussion forum I visit -- and in pretty much all the affairs of humankind.

My challenge to my fellow members is to be aware of it and -- if you choose -- to break out of it.

What lies beyond is well worth the effort.


From what we gather here, there will be no end. If I was to break free from it, there will be no story to tell.
What is really out there, Is it what I see from here real.
Is it not a matter of choice for what we all see here....

My mind is made up........

Propagandist or no propaganda, what I see from here is truly sick in that video.......................That is the repeated pattern here.......

[edit on 30-11-2005 by XPhiles]


Ram

posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   
I promised someone not to post here - But HERE WE GO!!
(peace)


November 29, 2005 -- British mercenary firm with Pentagon contracts exposed in civilian shooting incident in Iraq. A Souvenir video has surfaced on the Internet showing private security contractors working for Aegis Defense Services "Victory" Group firing indiscriminately at Iraqi civilian motorists in Baghdad. The video was reportedly taken by an Aegis employee and posted on a web site run by an ex-Aegis employee. The video has since been removed from the site. The video contains four clips showing Aegis mercenaries firing at civilian automobiles. The video's soundtrack includes Elvis Presley's "Train I Ride." Aegis is run by former British Scots Guard officer Lt. Col. Tim Spicer, an international mercenary who has been involved in UN sanctions busting in Sierra Leone and Bougainville invasion planning in Papua New Guinea. Spicer's firm, Aegis, was awarded a $293 million security contract in Iraq. Spicer's men also stand accused of shooting teenager Peter McBride in the back in Belfast in 1992. That has prompted a number of members of the Irish Caucus in the Congress to demand the Pentagon withdraw its contract to Aegis. The Pentagon has rejected such action.




From this source
It sure is a happy killing day for our own army....



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 12:27 AM
link   


Freedom from doubt is not true freedom, but a commitment to discard it.


Perhaps I should rephrase it - I have no reasonable doubt it's real.

In the modern world, nearly every single piece of information we recieve is secondhand. So it's all subject to doubt to some extent.

We have to use our own understanding of the world to choose how to interpret what we see and hear. In this case, most of the concievable hoax scenarios make no sense. If it was a staged propaganda video seeking to discredit the coalition, why target a relatively obscure contracting firm when targeting coalition military forces with a faked "sport killing" video would have so much greater poliical resonance?

Sure, it's possible that someone with a Spielberg level budget created a perfect replica of route Irish, fired off a lot of blanks, staged some car crashes, and surrepitously inserted the video onto a site created by members of the "security contracting" firm. Possible, but not very likely.

If it's simply misrepresented video of security contractors trying to fend off VBIDE attacks, why does the shooter's vehicle clearly slow down to let the "attackers" get in range? Why were there no secondary fireworks as the supposed VBIDE's were hit by gunfire and collided with other vehicles? Why was there no evidence of return fire from the alleged attackers?

Sorry, you guys feel free to spin it however you want to, but it is what it is.

The fact that it may challenge some people's beliefs about a simple, clear cut world of heroes in white hats vs. villians twirling their moustaches notwithstanding.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   
LB,

>>
Please note that the vehicle from which the fire is outgoing is always passing other vehicles that are pulled over.
>>

Note too however that the effective range of a VBIED is /hundreds/ of feet.
And any time you start running at less than 40mph you are vulnerable to the predictor cycle of see-gauge-trigger-boom inherent to just being _in_ traffic. Not just in front but to either side where you can be penned in.

Then too, Arabs are known the world over as lousy drivers (Saudi has the highest vehicle borne fatality rate on the planet).

But at it's heart, this is just another real world lesson in CT101 whereby you cannot have 'police motorcycles' running interference to keep the vulnerability zone open (for a smugglers turn or similar fast reverse away from an ambush/roadblock as well as a 'fore and aft' tag team slow down).

Because frankly, at least an IED is pretty well certain to end things quick compared to what getting captured, tortured and then manually (slowly) beheaded by knife is likely to feel.

As for those who dislike the dogs of war, keep in mind that HALF the 'police' work being done is occuring under the auspices of 'security forces' which are likely nothing more than death squads with the equipment and faceless personnel to tackle threats which are 'on the grapevine' discovered through various means (electronic and otherwise) but which cannot be seen to be engaged by a largely benevolent U.S. Armed Forces without breaking multiple sections of the LOLW and UCMJ. Even as such would seemingly escalate the fight and give the insurgents a sense of a running battle rather than a slow grind into oblivion at the hands of 'unofficial' terror.

As for personal entertainment, don't kid yourself. All soldiers love it. They wouldn't be any good at it if they didn't. The whiners are those who think that it should all be one sided at 1,000m+ with main tubes or smart weapons and they are the 'true patriots' that CNN interviews before every major war so that the mooing public can see that 'yes, even the experts are for it, however much they regret the chances of casualties, on our side...'.

You cannot be 18 years old, running on hormones and a preset series of B&W 'ethics rules' in the utter absence of experience. And then turn around and volunteer to butcher other bipeds for a MAN (not a nation) you have never met or judged the moral qualities of. And be considered halfway sane. Not when it cost your Mom and Pop upwards of 25 years and 300-500 grande to get you this far along and you are dice tossing it all on the random accuracy and first-sight firing of a bullet that costs all of cents to make.

>>
The vehicles that are drawing fire are those that are breaking out of a distant following pack of vehicles. They are accelerating and attempting to overtake the camera vehicle. There is no randomness here. This tactic is well thought out and executed. It may be that the driver and gunner are contractors. That will be discussed ad infinitum. It may be that the approaching vehicle is full of bad guys. One can not argue with the seeming effectiveness of the maneuver when seen in this light.
>>

This is true. It is also true that at the ranges they are firing, there is certain to be a lot of 'and half a mile beyond the target, a granny and her fruit cart are crossing the street as the zip-whoosh-crack goes by', even in controlled bursts. It is perhaps somewhat heartening to see relatively few starred windshields indicating a possible scope and engine block kill off steel core rounds. But the fact remains that what goes on in a war is ugly beyond words and if the images frighten the folks herein /now/ why did they not stop U.S. from 'going in' when we had shots like that of the Napalm burned little girl running from her village under punitive bombardment back in the late 60's or early 70's?

Why didn't we hang a U.S. GENERAL who officially stated that there would be 'no prisoners taken' for a period of three days from among the ranks of the S.S., snipers, and those who fired a Panzerfaust at the lead tank and then stood up to surrender?

I would be vastly more interested in hearing whether these 'If you can read this bumpersticker, you are about to eat 7.62!' anti-tailgating measures are in fact a known factor for the Iraqi's. Or if there is some kind of disconnect at the street level over there.

They are a conquered enemy civillian populace as far as I'm concerned.

We don't need to advertise the brutality by which we maintain some small leverage of law and order in place (something the Hague in fact requires of us). But nor do we need to be apologetic. Because the only thing Arabs understand is power and it's visual, repetitive, overwhelming, display. And I doubt seriously if they think about this kind of stuff at all until they sniff the scent of weakness which is guilt for an obviously '1,000ft in front and behind' spacing-avoidable consequence. At most, these folks should be required to have flashers so that there is no bunch-and-then-break-loose false positive indicators from the stupid or the young.


KPl.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   
I made a rather long and poorly typed post on another ATS thread about these incidents. It doesn't seem like too many people took the time to read it, so I will try to make this shorter.

The footage presented as "randomly shooting up drivers" does not seem to me to support that assumption. You can read that post for the details if you want.

First look at this advertisement to understand why the camera was in the car.

www.galls.com...

Probably not the same camera, but it could have been modified to work in these vehicles. This type of camera was probably required as part of the US contract with Aegis. It would be used to document any incidents for review, either by Aegis or the US government to make sure that the incident was within the rules of engagement.

To keep this post shorter allow me to continue with that assumption. That would make this a "company car".

So now we have at least two and almost certainly three mercenaries driving around in a car owned by Aegis (or another contractor). There are only four possibilities that I can see. 1) they are doing the job that they were hired to do. 2) They are on their way to work. 3) They are returning from work. 4) They took the Aegis car out for a joy ride.

Almost everyone is assuming that the fourth scenario is the case. If you were going out to randomly shoot up civilians, would you go to a location that has been identified as one of the most dangerous location in town or would you pick a safer place to get your kicks. I don't know... I'm not a mercenary soldier. Maybe.

I think from viewing the available video clips that the first case is most likely... they were performing their job.

According to reports quoted on this site, Aegis' contract is to provide protection for military and civilians during transport. What happens if they fail their job? Excuse me making a joke about such a serious situation, but heads will roll. The next video you will be discussing will be the beheading of another person.

Many of you that started with assumption number four can't understand why the cars with cameras slow down and stop to be able to direct more accurate gunfire. However it is one of the reasons that I believe that the first situation is the correct scenario. It really doesn't make any sense if they are randomly shooting people.

If we take just the cars we can see approaching from behind, the only ones that we can tell enough about what is happening to make a judgment about, there are only two reasonable (to me) situations that account for this behavior. The first is what is best known as "Suicide by cop". That is where someone without enough courage to commit suicide forces a cop (or in this case a mercenary) to kill them. This doesn't seem likely since there is no shortage of people in the area who want to commit suicide. There is also nothing in the video clips that indicated that any of these clips were suicide missions. When shot at and even possible wounded that make controlled stop, pulling over to the right side of the road. These appear to be kidnap attempts. Another reason that I think these video clips are work related.

Anyway, that only leaves that this footage represents video of vehicles initiating an attack. If you look at the video again you will see that there is nothing that disproves that idea. Of course there is not enough evidence to prove my conclusion either. But taken as a whole what evidence is available does support that conclusion as being much more likely.

Look at the second video. It is just one clip. You can clearly see that the car with the camera is fired on first. The other car is in front of the camera car on the right side on the screen. You can't actually see them firing, but you can see the impacts from the bullets on the left side of the screen. These appear to have been fired from out the back window of the attack vehicle. It also appears that the target was the vehicle providing protection (camera car)... in other works it looks like a kidnap attempt.

Many of the post begin with "clearly what they did was wrong..." or "I can't defend what they did...". Let me be the first to defend what they did. I think that these clips are actually textbook examples of good work.

If it was me, would I want a souvenir copy. Damned right I would.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Oh, one other thing. I heard that a report of the joint investigation (US Gov. & Aegis) is expected this coming week. Do I expect then to support my conclusions? Absolutely not. In our political world that would be used as yet another example of a government cover up for years to come.

The government wants to see this go away as silently as possible. If they agree with me, here is what I expect to see:

"While there is not sufficient evidence available in the video to bring charges against the people who did these acts, these videos point out the need for increased supervision of civilian contractors operating in war zones. bla, bla, bla."

While declaring this a righteous shooting is almost impossible, if they read the post on this site they might even use almost the same wording in part of the news release as a subtle way of letting ATS members know their real findings.

Bob




top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join