Private Security Contractors working in Iraq. Must See.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6


It contain 6 parts about 1 hour of footage of what contractors face everyday in Iraq. Covers everything about their life working as a contractor, tactics they used, equipment they used, etc. Its a very good video, and I recommend you watch it if you want to get a better idea what they actually do instead of just looking a news reports.

[edit on 27-9-2007 by deltaboy]

[edit on 27-9-2007 by deltaboy]

The man states they are not Mercenaries, yet the very definition of Private Security Contractors is mercenaries.

Shattered OUT...

Blackwater's Eric Prince is the brother of Betsy Prince - ne wife of Dick De Vos of Amway fame, failed Michagan gov. candidate and biggest contibuter to Republicans in the U.S. whole conspiracy thread of and on itself.

We are in a new version of rennasiance Italy, there is a lot to the private security business that does not get mentioned here...

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
The man states they are not Mercenaries, yet the very definition of Private Security Contractors is mercenaries.

Shattered OUT...

I'm gonna have to disagree with that definition. If private contractors were being used on offensive missions(cordon & search, raids, snap vehicle checkpoints, etc...) then I'd agree they were being used in a mercenary capacity. As they're used now, they're only used in defensive capacities(i.e. guarding VIPs, convoys, bases/facilities).

[edit on 28-9-2007 by BlueRaja]

reply to post by deltaboy


that they show this.. its giving alqaida info about locations , tacticts , ect.
I find it really stupid sending this kind of info out.

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen

that they show this.. its giving alqaida info about locations , tacticts , ect.
I find it really stupid sending this kind of info out.

You pretty much just figured that out about youtube. Double edge sword.

Besides, sometimes private security companies want to send a message about their own perspective, instead of depending on news reports. You always hear about how much bad publicity they have on these companies, and Armor Group is trying to show their side of the story. Anyways people already know about their locations, especially in populated areas. Men with guns and armor vehicles and convoys, not much we can do about it.

[edit on 28-9-2007 by deltaboy]

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
The man states they are not Mercenaries, yet the very definition of Private Security Contractors is mercenaries.

Shattered OUT...

The narrator states they aren't soldiers as well, I guess you disagree with that as well eh?

Now you're just putting words in my mouth.

Please don't do that, assumptions just make you look bad.

If you're hired (for whatever reason it may be, in an offensive or defensive capacity) to perform a task that involves you using your abilities with a weapon, you are a mercenary.

All a mercenary is, is someone payed to do a soldier's job. A soldier can have both offensive and defensive capacities, as now in Iraq the current condition requires soldiers to operate under a defensive capacity.

Shattered OUT...

reply to post by ShatteredSkies


Isn't that something that soldiers do as well? They are paid to do this kind of job, not just doing it for free. Even some people at my school debate about soldiers being used like mercenaries doing it for money. After all soldiers do it for rewards as well, don't deny it.

Whatever Deltaboy, I'm surprised you're even arguing this. A Private Security Contractor is to a Merc what a Macintosh apple is to... well and apple. They're the same only have a different name and may look different. In the end they leave the same aftertaste in your mouth, that of significantly reduced funds.

At this point we're playing semantics.

Shattered OUT...

reply to post by ShatteredSkies


Yeah, we can have a disagreement over who is terrorist and who is freedom fighter.

The difference between a soldier and a mercenary is that the soldier is paid by a government alone, and are subject to military law. They are public servants and are not able to put their services up for hire by a third party. A mercenary works for himself or a private company/firm, and is able to change and choose the war, conflict or situation that they take part in.

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
reply to post by deltaboy

 

that they show this.. its giving alqaida info about locations , tacticts , ect.
I find it really stupid sending this kind of info out.

alqaida goes to youtube? Ya they probably go wherever real news could be. I always try to stay off youtube though to be honest, its full of noobs/terrorist/2012 cults.

Good post, good to see that than government filtered new, or worse, the propaganda.

Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by ShatteredSkies

 

Isn't that something that soldiers do as well? They are paid to do this kind of job, not just doing it for free. Even some people at my school debate about soldiers being used like mercenaries doing it for money. After all soldiers do it for rewards as well, don't deny it.

Soldier - Joins, and swears, to defend the constitution from all enemies and abroad. Many join to protect the ideals their nation was formed on, and their beliefs of what is just and good. They are taught about the moral responsibility of soldiering in society and are held accountable for their actions. They are paid, and some just join for economic reasons but they are taught a from of allegiance to a higher ideal. Their role is dictated by the will of the people through an elected(theoretically) official. They are managed and created by the will of the people through the government.

Mercenary - They join for money, there ideals are to do for money, personal gain and greed. Note many of us take jobs for money, but we do not deny the motive. They are not required to stand for the greater good of society, they are required to protect and make profit for those who pay them. They are ran by a few since they are bought and sold by money alone. They are not accountable to the high held standards of military professionals. They can only be stopped by government, it takes a direct action of government to control them after they have already done something or raised public outcry, and no elected person, nor popular beliefs in society effect there efforts, unless legislation restricts or outlaws them.

Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by ShatteredSkies

 

Yeah, we can have a disagreement over who is terrorist and who is freedom fighter.

Relevance to the Soldiers and Mercenaries?

What exactly are you insinuating?

Shattered OUT...

reply to post by ShatteredSkies


Well the relevance to the soldier vs the Mercenary is one in response to the comment that soldiers make money too so what is the problem. Plus Jobs previously done by soldiers were replaced by contractors.

So I do not think insinuate anything, or at least did not wish to. I tried to clearly state what I see as the difference between a paid by the government soldier, and a paid by the corporation mercenary.

If this answer is not what you meant, please let me know what I said that you disagree with, or you think is not true.


[edit on 29-9-2007 by Redge777]

I wasn't referring to your post because I completely agreed with what you said, it was what Delta had stated about terrorists and so called "freedom fighters" who really the only clans that refer to themselves as freedom fighters (that we will encounter) are the different militias and guerrillas in Africa. Don't think I've ever seen any actual terrorist organization from any other area refer to themselves as freedom fighters.

Shattered OUT...

reply to post by ShatteredSkies


My apologies, that explains why I did not understand your question. On your point I agree. Furthermore the label you give a group really doesn't mean as much as its actions. Especially when the label contains such broad ranging words such as freedom and terror. They are very convenient to project a message attached to them on an emotional level, but do not add to the understanding of the situation.

How would you define a private security detail that wasn't overseas? Are they mercs, since police officers aren't being used? If we're gonna use a very loose definition of a merc, than perhaps these folks are. In the capacity that they are being used though, I do take exception to the claims some here make, that since they're making money, they're willing to do anything for money. There's a big difference in somebody who sees an opportunity to perhaps pay off their house, put aside a nice nest egg for retirement, take care of their family financially by doing something that they have specialized skills in, and somebody who is willing to do anything for the highest bidder. I don't think it's fair to say that folks who served honorably in the military, immediately lose their ethics and conscience once they go into the private sector. Another analogy might be a military surgeon or pilot getting out, and going into the private sector. Their salaries go up considerably for doing the same job they'd been doing before. If you're background is Special Ops, it stands to reason you might take a job utilizing the skills you have in that field. It doesn't mean you're now an unfeeling, bloodthirsty, wannabe Rambo.

It depends what you perceive a mercenary to be. In my eyes a mercenary is merely a person with a certain skill attempting to make a living with what they know best.

Shattered OUT...