Blackwater Rent-A-Soldiers to be Indicted?, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times


reply posted on 19-8-2008 @ 12:20 PM by DocMoreau
Originally posted by Scorched Earth
reply to
post by WyrdeOne



Any chance you could actually use the proper terminology and not refer to them as mercenaries since they aren't merc's?

Security contractors will suffice. Thanks.


Ha ha....
Maybe you should look up what a security contractor/mercenary is:
A private military company (PMC) provides specialized expertise or services of a military nature, sometimes called or classified as mercenary ("soldiers for hire").[1] Such companies are equally known as Private Security Contractors (PSCs), Private Military Corporations, Private Military Firms, Military Service Providers, and generally as the Private Military Industry.

en.wikipedia.org...

Maybe look up 'denial' while you are at it....
DocMoreau


reply posted on 20-8-2008 @ 12:00 AM by BlasteR
reply to post by justamomma



If you honestly think that then you really don't know anything about how blackwater really operates...

-ChriS


reply posted on 20-8-2008 @ 12:42 AM by Scorched Earth
reply to post by BlasteR



And you do?

Care to enlighten us as to the wealth of knowledge you possess on how BW operates?


reply posted on 20-8-2008 @ 02:36 AM by Scorched Earth
reply to post by WyrdeOne



Ever happen to think that faces are blurred for OPSEC?

Obscurity is the word of the day



reply posted on 20-8-2008 @ 03:15 AM by WyrdeOne
reply to post by Scorched Earth



The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


I've heard this logic when it comes to undercover cops, plainclothes officers and the like.

How does it apply here?

Are they hiding their faces so they can blend with the locals? lol Somehow, I don't think 'blend' is the word for a 6 foot five tattooed guy with a mohawk and a mini-14 in a tactical sling.



I'm sure I'm just missing your point though - so could you clarify?


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



reply posted on 20-8-2008 @ 03:16 AM by BlasteR
reply to post by Scorched Earth



I am not a blackwater expert but I do know that this has been a war-profiteering campaign from the very beginning. If you care to review any of my previous posts in other threads regarding blackwater, I suggest you do that as I have reiterated my thoughts over and over again..

This is a company of mercenaries who are not held to the normal rules of engagment normally attributed to a fighting force in an AOI. And even though this may be legally justified by the fact they operate under the guise of security contracting, there are no laws to hold them accountable for anything. Military soldiers in Iraq continue to be court-martialed for conduct related infractions of the UCMJ. But no Blackwater security contractor has EVER been held legally accountable for anything. Either these guys are boy scouts who can do no wrong, or there is something critically wrong with this system.

These handful of blackwater contractors involved with the supposed civilian killings are ALL being investigated. And if this case is litigated, it opens up pandora's box for similar lawsuits in the future. That's why this case is so critically important. It isn't just a matter of holding people accountable for their actions either. These are, mostly, American citizens who represent the united states of America as they have been paid by the government to conduct operations in Iraq and elsewhere.

Up to now, the worst reprimand a contractor has gotten for misconduct, or anything else, is losing his/her job. And although this is costly for them due to the amount of money these people make, it in no way justifies not having to adhere to any form of legal precedent. This system is completely twisted.

Noone knows yet if these contractors can even be held accountable due to the legal nightmare involved with this case. Even if these people are found guilty, it doesn't mean there will be broad, sweeping changes throughout the realm of big security contractors The only legal stipulation involved with these companies at this point are the contracts themselves and whatever laws apply to the organisations themselves here in the U.S.

If there really are more contractors in Iraq than there are military soldiers, then the current system is critically flawed. These people represent our country abroad. And if these contractors can get away with anything they want to and not have to worry about being slapped with a lawsuit, what does that say about our country in general? Losing your job because of misconduct hardly makes up for killing an innocent civilian. I don't know all of what happened, I have only read tidbits here and there. And I am not passing judgement on these people because that's for a jury to decide if this lawsuit does procede. But make no mistake about it, if these contractors are found guilty of these crimes, it is definately going to wake people up to what is going on here.

The government continues to give Blackwater more freedom to do what it pleases and more money. These are our tax dollars. The government recently decided to allow Blackwater to conduct intelligence gathering operations in the U.S., and Blackwater officials say they are currently moving away from private contracting to focus investment and expansion in other areas. They recently expanded their aviation division and opened a new counter-terrorism training center in San Deigo (to the behest of San Diego city officials). What we are seeing is the expansion of contracting companies in hopes that they will eventually get more contracts and, thus, take over part of the military's current responsibilities. The counter-terrorism facility is a great example of military soldiers being trained by private companies.. And lawmakers are still making a big fuss over it.

Blackwater puts private contracting in back seat

ATS THREAD Blackwater Now in The 'Private Intelligence' Business

But you can't look at these news stories and not at least question the integrity of an organisation like this on the very edge of what is legal and not legal. Where does the Blackwater end and the government begin?

Auditors Question Blackwater Contracts

Interrogation for Profit

2004 Use of Gas by Blackwater Leaves Questions

Iraqi Official: Blackwater staying on 'is bad news'

Blackwater May Have Fudged Numbers to Get $100M in Contracts

-ChriS

[edit on 20-8-2008 by BlasteR]

[edit on 20-8-2008 by BlasteR]


reply posted on 20-8-2008 @ 03:22 AM by Scorched Earth
reply to post by WyrdeOne



Keeping faces hidden lessens the chances of someone being recognized. If you worked for an unpopular company, would you want everyone knowing what you look like?


reply posted on 20-8-2008 @ 03:25 AM by BlasteR
reply to post by Scorched Earth



Then you really do know nothing about Blackwater....

Do you think YOU are an expert on Blackwater? Why should listen to you? The only "credibility" anyone has on ATS is the credibility you establish here. At least try to make some kind of argument that makes sense. Do you possess some kind of magical hidden knowledge that we do not? If so then prove it and stop blabbering about not reading posts because you don't agree with them.

-ChriS




[edit on 20-8-2008 by BlasteR]


reply posted on 20-8-2008 @ 03:27 AM by Scorched Earth
reply to post by BlasteR



And you do?

If you did, you would know they arent mercs.

Stop trying to debate something you know nothing about.


reply posted on 20-8-2008 @ 04:05 AM by Dan Tanna
Originally posted by Scorched Earth
reply to
post by BlasteR



And you do?

If you did, you would know they arent mercs.

Stop trying to debate something you know nothing about.


Hey can I add my two pennies worth?

They call themselves Private Military Contractors. PMCs. Now, they are private individuals working for a private company for gainful employment as trigger pullers.

This makes them mercenaries to all but the operators themselves. The definition of mercenary is thus;
1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2. Hired for service in a foreign army.
n. pl. mer·ce·nar·ies
1. One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
2. A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.

The USA might try to redefine them, might try to brush up the image of these people, but until they manage to get the public to see killing for money as gainful proper employment, they the public will always call them mercs.

R.I.P Scott Helvenston et al.



reply posted on 20-8-2008 @ 04:24 AM by Scorched Earth
reply to post by Dan Tanna



a) they arent serving a foreign army, or under a foreign flag.

b) did they magically become mercenaries when they left the Seal Teams to work for BW?

c) they do not conduct offensive operations.

d) As I asked before, would you also consider the DSS mercs considering the perform the same role as BW does?


reply posted on 20-8-2008 @ 04:25 AM by Scorched Earth
reply to post by BlasteR



Could you provide an example of the knowledge he possesses that no one else does?
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



ALL ATS`ers are terrorists
  Posted 5 days ago with 10 member flags
CNN Endorsing Terrorism
  Posted 9 days ago with 7 member flags
Obama\'s terror Drones.
  Posted 7 days ago with 6 member flags