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.

 

Blackwater Rent-A-Soldiers to be Indicted?

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Scorched Earth
 


Look continuing to argue over the label the people should be slapped with is merely putting a band aid over the fact that the use of the private sector in war zones is bad news all round. The private sector will always do what is in its best interest so that is why it cant be trusted to do what is the best interests of national security and what is in the best interests of Iraq .

The money that is spend on mercenaries should be used to pay US military personal more and to fund veterans health care .

[edit on 20-8-2008 by xpert11]




posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Dan Tanna
 


Ah so the signature on the paycheck differentiates them from DSS correct?

Yea, sorry, I prefer to live in reality.

They arent armed "troops"

They are Security details. Big difference.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scorched Earth

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?


1) Yes. The second they left US Forces for private monies, they became mercenaries.
2) They did conduct offensive operations, or supported offensive operations, many times.
3) The DSS are Federal Employees... BW are not. They are private people, working for a private company for monies from a government. That it happens to be the US Gov is irrelevant. They are guns for hire.

Dynacorp in Columbia are just the same.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dan Tanna

2) They did conduct offensive operations, or supported offensive operations, many times.



Source for that ? Cmon, lets see it.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 04:40 AM
link   


A couple weeks ago, a congressional committee issued a report on Blackwater. Started before the mid-September shooting that has landed the company in so much trouble, the report detailed all sorts of misdeeds and got all sorts of attention. The NYT had a Page One story on it. Mentioned briefly in that piece was this:

Contrary to the terms of its contract, Blackwater sometimes engaged in offensive operations with the American military, instead of confining itself to its protective mission, the [report] found.



Sorry scorched, BW got caught with their sticky mitts in the offensive ops cookie jar.

Blog link

i'll dig up the report for you later.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 04:42 AM
link   


Moreover, contrary to the terms of its contract, Blackwater sometimes engaged in offensive operations with the American military, instead of confining itself to its protective mission


New York Times


OOOPS.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Dan Tanna
 


If true, I stand corrected, however being that the article is from NYT, I will withhold comment until I see the actual report.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 05:01 AM
link   


The report -- by the Democratic majority staff of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform


Theres who did the report for congress...



The report also says that Blackwater gunmen engaged in offensive operations alongside uniformed U.S. military personnel in violation of their State Department contract, which states that Blackwater guards are to use their weapons only for defensive purposes.


Thats part of their findings.



The report cites two instances in which Blackwater gunmen engaged in tactical military operations. One was a firefight in Najaf in 2004 during which Blackwater employees set up a machine gun alongside U.S. and Spanish forces. Later that year, a Blackwater helicopter helped an U.S. military squad secure a mosque from which sniper fire had been detected.


OOOPPPS. BW got caught in the cookie jar. However, i don't actually blame them, I am just showing you they have done offensive ops.

article link



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Congress oversight report

Hope that helps.


Oh and as for them not being 'for hire' by foriegn governments?

Greystone. BlackWaters 'foreign' oversees 'peace keeper' arm.

Greystone - Blackwater in disguise.

[edit on 20-8-2008 by Dan Tanna]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.




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?




That's exactly what I was saying. How are you gonna try to rebut my point by making it?

You said OPSEC before - the above is not OPSEC.


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



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scorched Earth
reply to post by BlasteR
 


Could you provide an example of the knowledge he possesses that no one else does?


You have ATS too. You can research his threads and posts just as easy as anyone else.. I am not here to speak on behalf of other ATS members anyway.

-ChriS

[edit on 21-8-2008 by BlasteR]



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted 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?


Exactly! So if someone were to capture video footage of your illegal actions, it would be harder to indite and convict you of your crimes.

I agree with whomever said that Honorable Men do not need to hide their faces.
DocMoreau



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join