Video from iraq

[geogob]

I found this on the Project Reality Mod forum.
(http://realitymod.com/forum/t2724-contractors-shooting-at-civilians.html)

Not sure if I'd rather be sick now and comment later or the other way around. The stupid music the video maker put in the sound track is also somewhat sickening. Reminds me of the music in kill bill.

http://realitymod.com/forum/t2724-contractors-shooting-at-civilians.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/27/wirq27.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/11/27/ixworld.html


This definately helps to explain why the iraquies are a bit tired of occidental presence in their country.

[hara]

Yeah sure. Give them kids guns and send them to the desert - some of them will go crazy. On the one hand.
On the other hand:
http://www.enwhore.com/movie/525-A_Scary_Car_Bomb_Attack_Iraq.html

Well, I do not want to discuss the Iraq-issue. But I prefer to shoot some cars into pieces than being blown up by some carbomb.

[geogob]

Sure. That justifies slowing down to shoot innocent drivers who happen to pass by.

I think they now also have the right to shoot people that seem to be a menace in Florida. I should go there and shoot anyone I see on the street. You never know who might try to rob you, attack you or kill you too.

[Rostam]

You would say that when **** like this goes on, the citizens of that country would have the right to kick the invaders out by any means necessary. I know this isn't entirely right to say, but I can be perfectly honest and say that if I would be Iraqi; I'd be placing bombs too.

The problem as always is that neither sides are entirely evil nor entirely good. Another problem, also very common, is that while the young men are bleeding and going crazy of fear the old are cashing in their profit.

But more specifically on the video, at first I thought they were firing blanks. That still doesn't make it right since it will obviously scare the hell out of people and might cause a carcrash, but I just didn't want to believe that people were actually doing something THAT stupid. Bush would probably just say the same thing as he did after the Abu Ghraib photos: don't judge america on a few rotton apples. Sad that immidiately after a problem has been discovered, a scapegoat is picked and thrown in the crowd. Imagine how much better the situation in Iraq would be if the problem (vague orders, amongst others) would be solved.

Come to think of it, incidents like this are starting to remind me of the My Lai masssacre in the Vietnam war. Same problems, I think.

[5eleven]

I watched an excellent documentary on PBS specifically on private security contractors in Iraq, and also their operations on "Route Irish".

I gotta tell you, although the music that the video is set to may be in poor taste, I remember distinctly the GIANT signs on the backs of the private contractor's end-convoy vehicles with huge STOP SIGNS and KEEP BACK in both English and Arabic.

Sorry, while I don't necessarily agree with private security contractors "in theatre", that's the way it is. I see the video entirely differently. A car speeds toward you and is identified as using a common tactic - insurgents, terrorists, whatever, they know who the contractors are - the contractors fire a volley of warning shots at the vehicle. The vehicle speeds up or continues, what are they supposed to do? Wait and see? Hell with that. Changes in response tactics are commensurate with changes in attack tactics. You'll also note when the taxi gets hit, that the occupants actually RUN from the vehicle at a relatively good clip - is that indicative to a normal response to a traffic crash? No. You'll also notice that the last vehicle, when fired on and struck in the windshield - it's hit on the passenger side of the windshield, across the car. If the operator is a good enough shot to hit a vehicle in the windshield while both targets are moving, I think he's good enough to hit the driver. He didn't.

The stupid music the video maker put in the sound track is also somewhat sickening. Reminds me of the music in kill bill.
Maybe so. But frankly, that sense of humor is prevalent in war zones. Has to be, otherwise everyone would lose it. Same sense of humor in safety services. Doesn't concern me. Funny that it's okay in films that glorify violence and death, but when the real deal is set to music it's so sickening.

Sure. That justifies slowing down to shoot innocent drivers who happen to pass by.
I think they now also have the right to shoot people that seem to be a menace in Florida. I should go there and shoot anyone I see on the street. You never know who might try to rob you, attack you or kill you too.
The video is shot from the rear. I didn't see them slow down TO shoot, nor did I see anyone make it close enough to pass by. When the contractors DO slow down, I have no idea why. And when people in Florida start driving car bombs into police cars, or strapping explosives on themselves and walking into malls or police stations, or other crowded places to kill people, I imagine I'll be more inclined to support preemptive killing too.

if I would be Iraqi; I'd be placing bombs too.
The 72 virgins await.
The problem as always is that neither sides are entirely evil nor entirely good. Another problem, also very common, is that while the young men are bleeding and going crazy of fear the old are cashing in their profit.
Wow, that's really a brilliant quote. Makes no sense, means nothing, and can be neither proven or disproven. Excellent.
But more specifically on the video, at first I thought they were firing blanks. That still doesn't make it right since it will obviously scare the hell out of people and might cause a carcrash, but I just didn't want to believe that people were actually doing something THAT stupid. Bush would probably just say the same thing as he did after the Abu Ghraib photos: don't judge america on a few rotton apples. Sad that immidiately after a problem has been discovered, a scapegoat is picked and thrown in the crowd. Imagine how much better the situation in Iraq would be if the problem (vague orders, amongst others) would be solved.
They generally don't fire blanks in a war zone. If they did, I'd imagine the insurgents would pick up on that pretty quickly. Car crashes are small potatoes to the alternative = BOOM! 150 attacks on that stretch of road in a four month period. What you might call paranoia, in that situation, I call "being prepared". And as far as you're Bush comment goes: From this, I could easily draw the conclusion that apparently the hatred of Bush seems to dominate the love for your fellow man.
Hope that answers your question from the other thread. ;)

EDIT - Oh yeah, one last thing Ros: Abu Ghraib was a prison system run by the US military, of which Dubya is the Commander-In-Chief. Private contractors shooting at vehicles are not under command of the military, but by a civilian corporation, of which Dubya is not the Commander-In-Chief. In addition, from the article, I think the contractors may have been British, hence the article and the comments and tone of the article. Dubya is neither King, nor Prime Minister of England. This also proves: From this, I could easily draw the conclusion that apparently the hatred of Bush seems to dominate the love for your fellow man.

[Rostam]

5eleven, the car of the private contractor was SLOWING DOWN. In one it even looked as if it was going to back up.

Wow, that's really a brilliant quote. Makes no sense, means nothing, and can be neither proven or disproven. Excellent.
As are all opinions.

edit:
By the way, not sure why the hell you are responding like that to me but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's not make this personal.

edit2:
5eleven, I don't hate Bush. I don't hate anybody.

[5eleven]

Let's not make this personal.
Agreed, I wasn't trying to. Just feeling rather cheeky today. And I guess I see that video and it's contents completely differently. Sorry if I offended. Shoulda used more smileys.
5eleven, I don't hate Bush. I don't hate anybody.
If that's true, you're a better man than I. I hate LOTS of people. :lol: But seriously, the only point I was trying to make regarding your Bush comment, was that even though these contractor's actions have nothing to do with GWB, and he is not responsible for their actions, it seems to be easy to immediately attribute everything negative to Bush. Therein lies my other comment, or rather quote from Harrm, that illustrates that hatred for Bush by some people, seems to completely outweigh any common sense in a specific situation. That EVERYTHING bad is attributed to Bush. And that just isn't so.

[OpFor]

Well the van in the first part of the video could be an insurgent. After numerous rounds being pumped into it, it still kept going, and for a while, was speeding up. However I dont see how most of the other vehicles behind the car could pose a threat.

[Almost]

Let's be honest. There was no threat whatsoever. Morons out joyriding, shooting at people for fun. That's what it was.


But I prefer to shoot some cars into pieces than being blown up by some carbomb.

That statement is just plain stupid in this context. Did we see the same video? "Oh, we're here to rebuild Iraq for the general public. Let's go out and shoot someone".

[DEFkon]

I think the video only sheds some light on just how bad things in that area really are. All i can say is that i feel sorry for those that live there, and were sent there, and that i question the sanity of those that would chose to go there for adventure or money. I just hope that things settle down over there.

[5eleven]

Let's be honest. There was no threat whatsoever. Morons out joyriding, shooting at people for fun. That's what it was.
I was being honest. It's all in your perception and point of view. Assumptions are already made about what was seen on the video. You don't know what their assignment or mission was, but usually it involves some type of protection detail for dignitaries/civilians/businesspeople flying in and out of Baghdad Airport. You don't know how many vehicles there were in a convoy/caravan - because rarely do contractors go it alone with one vehicle. I didn't hear any laughter, banter, or joking as shots were fired, and the first shots in the volleys did not appear to be fired with an intention to hit the vehicle. They appeared to me to be warning shots, first. I don't know if you've been shot at, or had to prepare to shoot at someone, but I don't care who you are, it isn't a joke, period. And how can you say there was no threat whatsoever? How do you know?
5eleven, the car of the private contractor was SLOWING DOWN. In one it even looked as if it was going to back up.
Rostam, as I said earlier, the viewfinder is only pointing one way. If you saw the contractor's vehicle slow or stop, you do NOT know why. I don't understand how it "looked as if it was going to back up". I did see on the PBS special, several intentional and unintentional traffic jams, which are occasionally designed for ambushes of the contractors. The contractors always attempt to keep moving. During that special, they would not continue the journey because of one such jam, and turned around and took the correspondents back. While they maneuvered through some of the traffic at slower speeds, armed contractors walked ahead of the vehicles, to inspect other cars and occupants and order vehicles moved. The contractor's vehicles stopped several times, and it wasn't to back up and shoot at approaching vehicles. I realize that it looks bad to some - I'm just looking at the other side of it, and telling you that it isn't always as it seems. Don't make assumptions, or at least try to put yourselves in the shoes of the contractor.

[Almost]

Was there anything, anything at all in that video that indicated there was a threat? We all base our conclusions on what we saw. You assume there was a threat. What exactly do you base that on? You say there was no laughter. Was there any screams? Like "Speed up! They are gaining on us!" Or "They are shooting! Fire back!". How about We're under fire! Let's get the hell out of here!"

Anyone with even the most basic training behind the wheel knows that you don't slow down when you are being fired upon or find yourself in a situation where your life is in danger. You get the hell out of there. Instead, they are slowing down to pump even more bullets into an already disabled car. We see them randomly shooting at passing vehicles. We see them shooting into the tarmac without any vehicle behind them. Seriously. How can anyone see it differently. It's called joyriding. The difference in this case is that they are doing it with a loaded AK47.

[5eleven]

Yes, there was. First, 150 such attacks on that stretch of road in a four month period. When there are 150 attacks, you generally pick up on the method of operation of your adversaries.
If you listen, you can hear radio traffic and/or a spotter calling out the vehicles that are approaching at rapid speeds. Once again, they identify the vehicle and fire warning shots. When the vehicle doesn't stop or slow from the warning shots, they fire on the vehicles.

A threat is identified as a threat first. If you don't identify the threat, and you are killed, it's not a threat, it's a promise. :)
90% of the contractors there are former military. As such, they don't generally yell such things as "speed up", "they're gaining on us" or "get the hell out of here". The goal is to keep the convoy intact, and not to allow it to be broken. They will continue to move as they can and hold their ground, while keeping suspicious vehicles away from them. You'll note the other vehicles keeping their distance. It's only the rapidly advancing vehicles that they fire at. When the vehicles stop or back off, they stop firing.

Again - you do NOT know what is going on in front of the vehicle. YOU are basing your assumptions regarding slowing and speeding up based on a rearward camera angle. The guy driving certainly ain't the one firing, and I don't hear anyone issuing an order or request to slow down so they can shoot more.

Sorry, but basic training behind the wheel has absolutely nothing to do with driving in an armed convoy, dignitary protection, tactical vehicle operations, or even military driving, period.

And I'm not certain, but I don't think they were firing into the road. It looked to me like something was tossed from the vehicle - some type of distraction or fragmentation device, I don't know. That's what it looked like to me.

And I dispute "joyriding". No fool jumps onto that road to "joyride". And the only weapon I saw not only did not SOUND like an AK, but I caught a glimpse of a muzzle, and it looked to me to be in the M4 family.

[UN17]

I wish there was a cure for stupidity.

[Nightmare]

BTW, I recently discovered that these private contractors are Unlawful Combatants, same as the classification of Gitmo prisoners. Mercenaries aren't accorded any rights, you can just execute them when you catch them.

[geogob]

Sounds like fun! You can kill anyone, but everyone can kill you too. Awesome place for sick minds

[MP_Lord_Kee]

I'm with 5eleven on this one. Tasteless to put music in the clip but probably that has been done to mask the voices I'd guess. On the other hand, why even post this on the net in the first place...?

Anyway, I don't want to get involved in a lenghty argument at this point, if someone really wants to discuss this, use pm. :)

//K

[Arethusa]

Maybe so. But frankly, that sense of humor is prevalent in war zones. Has to be, otherwise everyone would lose it. Same sense of humor in safety services. Doesn't concern me. Funny that it's okay in films that glorify violence and death, but when the real deal is set to music it's so sickening.
Unfair. Kill Bill is over the top and hyperstylized. The blood and gore are not meant to be taken strictly seriously. Set Black Hawk Down to that music and you get about the same reaction. There is black humor and there is tasteless disregard for human suffering and injustice.

Of course, it's also worth noting that the music has likely nothing to do with the people in the video. That was probably added on by some 14 year old kid on the internet. Also, I am pretty sure that that is Charlie Feathers. Certainly sounds like it.

Wow, that's really a brilliant quote. Makes no sense, means nothing, and can be neither proven or disproven. Excellent.
Also unfair. I don't agree with some of the things he said, but this much is true: the Iraqis are not big bad evil terrorists out to get us (no, not even the ones that are out to get us), and the Americans are not big bad evil invaders out to get them (well, not the guys on the ground, anyway). His point about old men getting rich by putting poor kids in the sand may be an obtuse oversimplification (especially on the insurgent/Iraqi side of things), and it may be imprecise, but it is not inaccurate.

EDIT - Oh yeah, one last thing Ros: Abu Ghraib was a prison system run by the US military, of which Dubya is the Commander-In-Chief. Private contractors shooting at vehicles are not under command of the military, but by a civilian corporation, of which Dubya is not the Commander-In-Chief. In addition, from the article, I think the contractors may have been British, hence the article and the comments and tone of the article. Dubya is neither King, nor Prime Minister of England.
Aren't almost all the military private military contractors under the command of the US? And not that these guys are a part of that, but isn't the Bush administration pushing heavily for privatization of parts of the intelligence/espionage world in order to increase plausible deniability when he wants to play dirty?

For what it's worth, all that aside, I agree with everything you said about the contractors. From what I could see, they showed proper restraint in extremely tough circumstances. Very few people here seem to have any grasp of the dilemmas presented by close protection duty. I wanted to see that documentary, too.

On a side note, were those rifles suppressed?

[mat69]

How do you secure yourself the best way against (suicide-)car-bomb attacks?
You keep away from cars, but as you know that is not a good idea if you have to drive somewhere. :rolleyes:
So you have to create some tactics as keeping the cars away from you!
I understand that they want some distance between them and following cars, they maybe also want to have a distance between cars in front of them, allthough those cars are not such a high risk as the cars following you I assume because you can turn around and drive away --> if I (alone) was to kill someone with my explosive car I would closing from the back, because that way I could drive the same road the whole day, passing cars to see if some targets are in them, or I would place a bomb in a parking car.
I think the keeping cars behind you is a way to lessen the risk to be killed by a suicide bomber and I understand that soldiers and contractors (who are allowed by the US administration to stay in Iraq) force this "rule" by all means.

Now to the video:
Putting "keep back .."-sings on the back of the car (photos of those signs [how big they are ...] would be very important! otherwise this discussion is nearly wortheless imo) is a good way to warn followers, not to forget that there are many (22% --> the article is said to be found somewhere here (http://www.iwpr.net/), a german page said that this page is the source) illiterates in iraq, so those signs have to be clearly readable and understandable for those who can not read. I guess they have stop signs in iraq so the form of the word "stop" should be also familiar to those being not able to read.

It does not look like they are using silencers (00:00:38), maybe they are using subsonic ammo. On second 51 you can clearly see that the car is way back and he was still shooting (stopped soon after), allthough we do not know what he is shooting at. Yet the risk is there that he could harm innocent people. On 1:15 it seems that they stop to make a clear shot on the car (that was way back before), but they do stop close to another car (is a possible threat), so imo they risk more than they gain. They could have driven away, assuming that there is no traffic jam or the like in front of them.
What's the exploding stuff on 1:37?
On 2:29 they slow down - for whatever reason - and hit they car they "warned" (?) in 1:37 with XY.
In the last scene they are also very slow - for whatever reason.

Overall there is not enough information on the video, because you see not what is in front of the car, but it seems (!) that they abuse their right. They could argue that they took out those suspicious cars, because if there is really a bomb in that car they wanted no possible threat (following them) from behind. And if they informed the army of such possible bombs the army could invistigate in that issue further and remove the vehicle from the street, but not necessary to say that it would take ages until the hit cars are removed and untill that time many other people are vulnerable.
The video leavse a bad impression, but for more I have too less information.

Edit: sorry for repeating stuff, I did not read the whole thread before, anyway arethusa's last message says it pretty good what I think
Edit2: Tried to make my post more readable

[Rostam]

Rostam, as I said earlier, the viewfinder is only pointing one way. If you saw the contractor's vehicle slow or stop, you do NOT know why. I don't understand how it "looked as if it was going to back up". I did see on the PBS special, several intentional and unintentional traffic jams, which are occasionally designed for ambushes of the contractors. The contractors always attempt to keep moving. During that special, they would not continue the journey because of one such jam, and turned around and took the correspondents back. While they maneuvered through some of the traffic at slower speeds, armed contractors walked ahead of the vehicles, to inspect other cars and occupants and order vehicles moved. The contractor's vehicles stopped several times, and it wasn't to back up and shoot at approaching vehicles. I realize that it looks bad to some - I'm just looking at the other side of it, and telling you that it isn't always as it seems. Don't make assumptions, or at least try to put yourselves in the shoes of the contractor.
I understand, but I don't see how that would work out in every part of the video. The driver barely turned, and only slowed down when that other guy started shooting. At this point I would say that he isn't trying to keep a distance from traffic but trying to aid the gunner as much as possible.

Tasteless to put music in the clip but probably that has been done to mask the voices I'd guess.
Doesn't make much sense since you can turn sounds off.

As for my Bush comment, it was just there to show that I do not believe this is the work of a few rotten apples. I believe this is the work of a very flawed system. Other then the vague orders that I mentioned earlier, any tactic which includes frequent shooting at civilians is a wrong one. Adding tension to that, maybe the rush of combat or (perhaps more likely) the fear of getting hurt or killed, and I just don't see how much good can come out of Iraq. Not for the Iraqi's, anyway. Which explains the old men getting rich part.

More specific on the video: The first 'truck' that seems to speed up is shot at till it slows down, then shot at till it seems to come to a complete stop. It is continued to be shot at till the range is probably too big to hit. Assuming safety ever played a role, you'd think the truck would stop getting shot at as soon as it slowed down. But it seemed to receive full auto fire after that.

The second part in which that mercedes is shot at and crashes, they were driving past a whole bunch of cars. Assuming they had the manpower to check every one of those cars before overtaking, they should have the manpower to put a check point behind the convoy (or single car) and stop traffic untill the checkpoint has gained some speed. Because right now that car is just moving at a normal speed while that convoy (or single car) is not, I don't know how big those signs are that you speak of, but I don't see how that car could have reacted in time when it had that speed.

In the third part it seems to be obvious that there is just one car, not a convoy. The car seems to want to cross the road (to the left for the driver) but has to wait for the traffic coming from the other side to stop.

Now the 'interesting' thing about all these cases is that a guy coming from the back isn't seen as a threat, while cars just a few feet away (other side of the road) are seen as none. If this really is the tactic used, then it is seriously flawed because it won't take long before the omgterrists adapt. It is also an illegal one since it doesn't give civilians to see in time that they are supposed to stop, making it dangerous. Now you could argue that these private contractors don't want to give their presence away. But the life of civilians are worth atleast just as much as the private contractors choosing to go there and make a profit.

I still don't think there was a convoy, or anything important at all. More likely they were doing what they thought they were supposed to be doing. Not exactly uncommon for people (see Abu Ghraib example).

Whatever the case might be I don't see anything good coming from this video. I'm pretty damned good at putting myself in the shoes of another person, but however I do it in this case; the situation remains ****ed up. I honestly don't see anything that makes sense, at all. You could argue that all war is like this, except this time stalemate seems to be the objective instead of 'winning'.


edit:
Bah, I hate writing in the morning. Hope it is readable.

[mat69]

Now the 'interesting' thing about all these cases is that a guy coming from the back isn't seen as a threat, while cars just a few feet away (other side of the road) are seen as none.
It's easier to hit a car from the back as from the front, if cars are passing by it is hard for you (as the "terrorist") to find possible targets, you do not have much time to react, you do not see much.

[Rostam]

It's easier to hit a car from the back as from the front, if cars are passing by it is hard for you (as the "terrorist") to find possible targets, you do not have much time to react, you do not see much.
Not if it would have been a convoy, then you could steer RIGHT IN and then blow up whatever you have to blow up. Or just steer in and speed up, should also do some damage.

Plus I heard about this group that only placed bombs under ground and detonated from a distance. Ever since the start of the war, they still haven't lost a single man. How the hell do you battle such a tactic? Not by shooting cars, I'd say.

[mat69]

You can't battle the second tactic.
And your first attempt only works if the convoy is long enough and still that way you would have to be constantly tense. Driving a road for a few hours to have just a few seconds is not so great and even it it works soldiers and contractors can not do much against it.
Yet you should do what you CAN do and they do.

[Rostam]

I guess we just have different opinions on solving problems then. In my opinion and experience, doing what you can will make the problem move out of you reach so that can't do anything about it anymore. Like trying to stop a river from flowing by only using half a dam... Only in this case, both the civilians as the soldiers are seriously being harmed by the tactic used.

[5eleven]

BTW, I recently discovered that these private contractors are Unlawful Combatants, same as the classification of Gitmo prisoners. Mercenaries aren't accorded any rights, you can just execute them when you catch them.
:lol: Yeah, and since the whole war was built on LIES, LIES, LIES, Bush will be seated next to Saddam when the trials reconvene in five weeks. :rolleyes:
Unfair. Kill Bill is over the top and hyperstylized. The blood and gore are not meant to be taken strictly seriously.
Okay, I'll buy that. Maybe a bad example. But may I ask: Whether movies such as that, or even violent video games, are not meant to be taken strictly seriously, would you agree that to some people they are taken over-seriously, and in some cases, unhealthily? (Is that even a word?)
Aren't almost all the military private military contractors under the command of the US? And not that these guys are a part of that, but isn't the Bush administration pushing heavily for privatization of parts of the intelligence/espionage world in order to increase plausible deniability when he wants to play dirty?
Excellent observation. But while private contractors are issued contracts by the US, they do not fall under the command of the military. My point was that in this example - Bush has nothing to do with these contractors.
On a side note, were those rifles suppressed?
I'll tell you, I saw a comment regarding subsonic ammo, and the only rifle I observed was not suppressed. That isn't to say that was definitely the rifle fired. To me, they sounded like a suppressed MP5. I would say that the dB level might have caused some audio problems with the video equipment they were using, but you can hear them talking, so I dunno.
Putting "keep back .."-sings on the back of the car (photos of those signs [how big they are ...] would be very important! otherwise this discussion is nearly wortheless imo) is a good way to warn followers, not to forget that there are many (22% --> the article is said to be found somewhere here, a german page said that this page is the source) illiterates in iraq, so those signs have to be clearly readable and understandable for those who can not read. I guess they have stop signs in iraq so the form of the word "stop" should be also familiar to those being not able to read.
Understand....I did not say that there are such signs on this vehicle. I don't know. All I was commenting on was the fact that on the PBS special, the private contractors working Route Irish ALL had signs that were the width of the back of their SUV, and from the bumper to the back glass. They were well marked. Of course, if the guy can't read and doesn't have a bomb.....what do you do? Wait and see when he gets close enough to detonate?
Overall there is not enough information on the video, because you see not what is in front of the car, but it seems (!) that they abuse their right. They could argue that they took out those suspicious cars, because if there is really a bomb in that car they wanted no possible threat (following them) from behind. And if they informed the army of such possible bombs the army could invistigate in that issue further and remove the vehicle from the street, but not necessary to say that it would take ages until the hit cars are removed and untill that time many other people are vulnerable.
The video leavse a bad impression, but for more I have too less information.

I don't think that the military has the time or personnel to follow up on leads or suspicious vehicles reported by private contractors, beyond the fact that some of these attacks are by "rolling vehicles" not vehicles parked along the road. And even so, they have to keep that route open - they can't just roll up with a tow truck and jerk it out of the way. Either disarming or detonating an explosive in a vehicle takes considerable logistics.
Doesn't make much sense since you can turn sounds off.
Yeah, but that is a big part of what disgusts people - the fact that there IS a soundtrack.
As for my Bush comment, it was just there to show that I do not believe this is the work of a few rotten apples. I believe this is the work of a very flawed system. Other then the vague orders that I mentioned earlier, any tactic which includes frequent shooting at civilians is a wrong one.
I agree wholeheartedly with that comment. But it isn't a system that Bush created. And Ros, the only person that made the "few rotten apples" comment was you. Regarding shooting at civilians, I only ask this question: If your enemy uses the civilian population, to blend in with, to hide behind, and to attack you from, what tactics do you employ WITHOUT risking civilians? And if you must engage, whose fault does it become that civilians are at risk? I'm just telling you, you might not like it, but tactics such as these are employed because of information gleaned from previous attacks and intelligence. As far as the rest of your analysis of the video, we'll have to agree to disagree. I understand where you are coming from, and I understand your point of view. I can see where you would draw your conclusions. I just happen to see it completely differently.

[Nightmare]

Originally Posted by Nightmare
BTW, I recently discovered that these private contractors are Unlawful Combatants, same as the classification of Gitmo prisoners. Mercenaries aren't accorded any rights, you can just execute them when you catch them.

:lol: Yeah, and since the whole war was built on LIES, LIES, LIES, Bush will be seated next to Saddam when the trials reconvene in five weeks. :rolleyes:

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/protocol1.htm

Article 47.-Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

( a ) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

( b ) Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

( c ) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

( d ) Is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

( e ) Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

( f ) Has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

Someone who gets special training in the armed forces and then joins a mercenary company in order to get ten times the pay for the same job is certainly a mercenary.

[ant75]

Regarding shooting at civilians, I only ask this question: If your enemy uses the civilian population, to blend in with, to hide behind, and to attack you from, what tactics do you employ WITHOUT risking civilians? And if you must engage, whose fault does it become that civilians are at risk? I'm just telling you, you might not like it, but tactics such as these are employed because of information gleaned from previous attacks and intelligence. As far as the rest of your analysis of the video, we'll have to agree to disagree. I understand where you are coming from, and I understand your point of view. I can see where you would draw your conclusions. I just happen to see it completely differently.

Surely your arguments stand, from the soldier's perspective. But i'd like to go back a little and comment on geo's original post, without entering the technical debate on military tactics.
There are 2 kinds of people in this video : the ones shooting, and the ones being shot at. Maybe if we tried to adopt the viewpoint of the other side, we wouldn't be assessing such actions upon the sole factor of military efficiency.
First, you cannot take the war zone argument as a prime principle from which all actions should derive : the state of war in itself is questionnable, and should certainly not serve as an absolute justification for everything armed forces feel appropriate to do. But most importantly, you cannot apply the "the end justifies the means" logic to everything. Just because there MIGHT be a terrorist in a car, doesn't mean that you can blindly shoot at any given car that happens to drive by. Following this logic, you could say that it's ok to ban suitcases in public transport simply because a lot of terrorist use them to carry bombs. You see, it's just a matter of balance between the risk and the public benefit. In this case clearly the people's safety is totally ignored, which doesn't seem right. (and then i'm not even considering that these people were in fact "joyriding", in which case we wouldn't even be having this conversation).

I'm just playing the devil's advocate here, whoever the devil is in this case ;). What i'm really trying to say, is that it's not because you think these people did the right thing for their own safety, that what they did is in fact right.

ps : i'm sure i can hear people talking in this video, unfortunately my poor english prevents me from understanding what they say : could anyone sum it up for me ?

[5eleven]

( a ) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
They are not "specially recruited" and they are not there to fight in an armed conflict. They are there to provide security to convoys, contractor infrastructure projects, and provide dignitary protection to CEO's of such companies as well as correspondents and any other civilians who choose to enter the zone for purposes of conducting business. Happens all the time. Any contractor working an infrastructure project is entitled to provide security for their personnel. They are not there to fight in an armed conflict.
( c ) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
A mercenary works for themselves. Private contractors work for security companies. They are compensated not by a party in the conflict to fight for one side or another.

It's a good comparison, it really is. But if you think that private contractors are out conducting military operations, they are not. If their pay is essentially greater than that of a military operator of equivalent skill, it makes no difference. You can't say that because a guy carries a gun and is a civilian in Iraq that he is a mercenary. Private security operations for the aforementioned purposes are not military operations.

Sorry. While it might make sense to you, it doesn't apply. :D

There are 2 kinds of people in this video : the ones shooting, and the ones being shot at. Maybe if we tried to adopt the viewpoint of the other side, we wouldn't be assessing such actions upon the sole factor of military efficiency.
Which other side? The other side that is the civilian casually driving down the road, or the other side that has TNT strapped in the passenger compartment? Which one is more dangerous? Which one should you watch out for, when they both look the same?
First, you cannot take the war zone argument as a prime principle from which all actions should derive : the state of war in itself is questionnable, and should certainly not serve as an absolute justification for everything armed forces feel appropriate to do.
Um, yes you can. Whether you feel that the state of war is questionable, here is something that there is no question about: It IS a state of war. I don't believe in absolute justifications. I believe that every situation is different, and tactics like this must be applied with great care. Each decision to fire has to be applied on the basis of a totality of the circumstances and each shooting must be reviewed, whether it be police, military or private security.
Just because there MIGHT be a terrorist in a car, doesn't mean that you can blindly shoot at any given car that happens to drive by.
Correct. Which is why they didn't. How many cars went by or did they go by that the did NOT fire? Common thread? Cars accelerating toward their vehicles and ignoring warning shots to stop.
Following this logic, you could say that it's ok to ban suitcases in public transport simply because a lot of terrorist use them to carry bombs. You see, it's just a matter of balance between the risk and the public benefit.
No. If I made that comparison, I would say that vehicles other than military vehicles should be banned on Route Irish. Bags can and are being searched, from the NYC transit system to the Gaza Strip. Wanna see how seriously this stuff is taken in the Middle East? Look at Israel's security checkpoints. Go to a mall in Jerusalem. The balance between public risk is simple: The road must stay open. 150 bombings in 4 months. Fire at and kill people that advance on convoys and stop their vehicles, or risk massive explosions that will certainly kill security forces and innocent civilians. Sorry guys, it's a combat zone. If you think for one minute that people traveling that stretch of road are oblivious to the rules, you've lost your mind.

[Rostam]

Ros, the only person that made the "few rotten apples" comment was you.
Did you happen to read this (http://forums.beyondunreal.com/showthread.php?t=166540) thread? I was just saying that to state right from the start that this has nothing to do with those particular soldiers / mercenaries / unlawful combatants / people with guns and cars and stuff. I wasn't replying to anyone and I certainly wasn't blaming anyone. It was an example before I led to my conclusion (all in the same paragraph in my first post). Edit: perhaps this is the easiest way to explain: I only said it to make clear that I don't think it is right to blame people. Instead, blame the situation they are in, and if possible find a way to make sure they can't get in such a situation (I believe all people act the exact same way in the exact same situation).

I only ask this question: If your enemy uses the civilian population, to blend in with, to hide behind, and to attack you from, what tactics do you employ WITHOUT risking civilians? And if you must engage, whose fault does it become that civilians are at risk?
That's TWO questions. :p
Erm, anyway. The tactic used right now spawns enemies. I see people around me getting mad because of the all of the smallest things all the time. Imagine how much hate there must be in Iraq, where REAL bad stuff goes on all the time. When this hate gets a form, a person or a group, things get dangerous. The enemy hiding and blending in with civlians, well; the enemy are civilians. It's not like 'the enemy' is born in a different country than the civilians, or has different genes or anything. In both Palestina and Iraq you've seen footage of the same thing a million times: someone who has just lost his entire familly. You've said yourself that you hate quite a bit of people, do you hate people that drive slow on the freeway? Do you hate people that cut a qeueing line? Would you hate those responsible for the death of those you love? Or those responsible for the destruction of your town? Well, who is responsible is not the important part, because it can be twisted and turned by anyone with a strong power of speech.
So to answer your first question, any tactic involving the risk of civilians needs to change. It helps the enemy. If you can't move across the freeway safely, then don't move across the freeway. I'm joining the military as well, but specifically only in Holland. I'll gladly give my life if it will save another, but I WILL not take a life in the Iraq mess. We don't have a draft, you choose to join the military. Civilians don't have a choice in war. With the tactics used now however, more civilians are dieing than omgterrists and soldiers put together. Something is VERY wrong, and it is making the enemy stronger.

[ant75]

511, clearly your logic is locked into an unilateral military viewpoint. I get your point, but if you fail to understand why people may find this video outrageous, you'll never be able to understand why some people in Iraq will never see the US troops as the benefactors they claim to be.

[geogob]

Well 511 surely has a different viewpoint on this topic then most of has his personal experience bring him a whole different perspective. Whether I agree with him or not on some things, I appreciate reading his vision of the subject a lot.

I still find what I see here an outrage, regardeless of if the actions where legitimate or not. But after reading what 511 had to say on the matter, I have to admit it was an eye opener. There's more to it then "people who are just shooting cars".

[5eleven]

if you fail to understand why people may find this video outrageous, you'll never be able to understand why some people in Iraq will never see the US troops as the benefactors they claim to be.
Nope, I totally understand why people find the video outrageous. Absolutely do, and have no qualms with their opinions on the matter. My ONLY point was to bring a different viewpoint, one that somewhat understands a tiny bit of a reasonable explanation to what you see on the video. All viewpoints take certain things for granted, and all viewpoints make certain assumptions about what is seen. Things are never always what they seem, especially in this day and age of video. Anything can be manipulated and twisted to be anything anyone wants it to be. And certainly, the same can be said for my viewpoint. Sort of like what Rostam has said about opinions, I guess.

And geo, thanks. I may be snippy at times, or frustrated, but I do appreciate everyone's opinion, especially when we can be reasonably civil and just agree to disagree.

Now to my apparent thread nemesis. :lol:
Did you happen to read this thread?
No. I started to, and it looked kind of dumb, so I quit reading. I was concentrating on this thread, when I addressed the rotten apple comment, which only you made. :lol: Sorry.
I only said it to make clear that I don't think it is right to blame people. Instead, blame the situation they are in, and if possible find a way to make sure they can't get in such a situation (I believe all people act the exact same way in the exact same situation).
I'm sorry, I didn't get that at ALL from your comments. I was under the impression from what I got from your previous posts that you were assigning a lot of blame. My mistake. And I disagree absolutely wholeheartedly about your belief that all people act the exact same way in the exact same situation. Case in point: I recently ran and videotaped SWAT raid scenarios using our team at a large metropolitan police department's shoothouse using simunition. By simply changing teams and using the exact same scenarios, the outcome of the scenarios changed drastically. The officers perceptions of the threat was drastically different and after running several scenarios where the officers were shot at with simunition and pumping them up to expect a firefight, we purposely had our actors unarmed, and had them flee upon team entry. On three occasions, the actors were not harmed or shot and taken into custody. On two other occasions, officers fired at unarmed, fleeing suspects. So no, people do not act the same in a given situation.

As far as the rest of your post, and your beliefs regarding hatred, etc: In MY OPINION, that is way too heavy, ethereal, or simplistic to explain the goings on in Iraq. When I said I hate lots of people, I was being sarcastic. But there are people that I hate, most certainly. In the examples given, no, no, yes, and probably yes. Does it mean that I would kill them, no. Not necessarily. But I'm not a pacifist either. If attacked, I will defend myself.
So to answer your first question, any tactic involving the risk of civilians needs to change. It helps the enemy. If you can't move across the freeway safely, then don't move across the freeway. I'm joining the military as well, but specifically only in Holland. I'll gladly give my life if it will save another, but I WILL not take a life in the Iraq mess. We don't have a draft, you choose to join the military. Civilians don't have a choice in war. With the tactics used now however, more civilians are dieing than omgterrists and soldiers put together. Something is VERY wrong, and it is making the enemy stronger.
No, I think you are missing the point. Insurgents, terrorists, are using civilians in order to attack military forces and even other civilians, because they assume that using civilians as cover prevents military forces from responding in kind, therefore increasing casualties while saving their own asses. When responding to attacks by insurgents, terrorists, whatever, that use civilians, you have to be fluid in your tactics. You also have to succeed. In addition to that, you don't give up real estate. You don't say, well, they are attacking us there, so let's not go there. Doesn't work that way. In order to achieve the objective, you must seize and control real estate, while suppressing and preventing casualties to your own people as well as civilians.

And maybe you are missing my point regarding civilians. Civilians, strictly in this example, are the general, law abiding, motoring public. Terrorists, insurgents, nutjobs, whatever, are NOT civilians. Just because they are not officially part of a sanctioned, state run military, doesn't mean that they are civilians.

Let's be clear about this: This isn't about a family who lost a son from a stray bomb. (Let's also be clear that fundamentalist muslims value sons a great deal more than daughters). It isn't about revenge for a needless death. It isn't about the average Iraqi in war-torn Baghdad. It isn't even about a shahada; a martyr for Islam. This is about Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalists, who want desperately to deny a democracy in the Middle East. This is about their belief in strict adherence to their version of Islam and their interpretation of the Q'uran. This is about an expanding muslim influence. This is about being muslim, converting to Islam, or being killed. This is not about America, nor is it about Bush or coalition forces. If it was, why would muslim suicide bombers attack in Jordan? Why would they attack in Egypt? I'll tell you why: Because fundamentalist muslims, represented by a small majority of extremists do not want democracies to succeed in the Middle East. They do not want a representative government, they do not want political leaders or governement period. They don't want Saddam in power any more than we do. They want Imams to rule not just Iraq, or Iran, but the entire Middle East Region. One Islamic nation, leading to one Islamic world. They know our weaknesses better than we know our own. They know our tactics better than we know our own. They know that we don't have the stomach to defeat their small numbers, based on growing American death tolls, and our distaste for lengthy wars that seem to have no purpose.

I'm all about live and let live. Until the guy I let live tells me that he'll slit my throat when given the opportunity.

And just to clear something up that I forgot to address. This video is absolutely NOTHING like the My Lai massacre. Nothing like it. My Lai was a systematic execution of unarmed civilians in a small village in Viet Nam, by a military platoon leader who cracked. It was wrong. It was identified. He was prosecuted. While you may bring up the "bad apple" argument, whether you support it or not, frankly, the military tends to address, discipline and discard it's "bad apples". Something you won't see happening to terrorist insurgents who kill Americans AND fellow muslims.

[Almost]

My comment about the weapon was to illustrate a point. I couldn't tell the difference between a M4, AK47 or a dildo by looking at the muzzle even if you crammed it up my arse.

[cracwhore]

Gay.

There. I said everything that needed to be said.

On a serious note - it appears as if Hollywood has lied to me - yet again. Your car doesn't go spinning out of control - nor does it catch on fire and instantly explode - upon being hit by a 5.56mm round or two.

Those ****ers...

[{GD}Odie3]

I been watching this thread and only have this to add: Only believe half of what you see, hear, or read from media sources.

Oh, cracwhore - I am about to fall out my damn chair laughing so hard at your post! :2thumb:

[hara]

Hollywood has lied

:eek:

[5eleven]

Gay.
Thank you, Mister Obvious.
:lol:
Your car doesn't go spinning out of control - nor does it catch on fire and instantly explode - upon being hit by a 5.56mm round or two.
Or twenty.
You must admit that it would have looked a lot better if that Merc had exploded upon impact with that taxi.

And Almost - dildos have muzzles?

[chuckus]

Referring to that side note: I think it is suppressed. In the taxi scene he's letting loose but the guy leisuring next to the taxi doesn't even seem to notice until he gets rear ended. At that range, he should have at least turned his head or hunched over in reaction to the gun fire. No one is THAT jaded to small arms fire.

Which also explains why most drivers were confused when hit. Your car starts pinging wildly then your windshield pops and all of a sudden you have a flat. How do you respond to something like that. You can't hear the gun fire so the first thing that crosses your mind is you hit a rock or something. Then what? Between the time you start taking fire to the time you realize you're being shot at with no gunfire to be heard anywhere, you're going to act pretty squirrelly in my opinion.

edit: wow totally missed the end of this thread where everyone's assing it up. So much for debate. Talk about unfashionably late.

[Rostam]

511:
On the exact same situation thing, I do not believe that is the exact same situation. I believe it's the exact same situation when EVERYTHING is the same, so not only the current surroundings but also life experiences so far. For example, if that very same simulation would be trained more and more often then the SWAT officers would probably start to act more and more alike.

On the muslim thing, well I disagree. Not much else to say, I've been in Iran 6 times and it just isn't anything like people think it is. Assuming it really is about muslim fundemantalism then it is about power. In any case, freedom and democracy have absolutely nothing to do with it. Just like these 2 words have nothing to do with the USA. But even then, I don't believe it is about islam, it is about a small group that wants more power and a large group that can easily be abused because of the situation.

On the My Lai example, that is WAY too simple. That commander received vague orders and twisted it to how he thought he was supposed to act. That company had quite some bad things to digest. Losses due to booby traps, bad intel causing them to expect battles that never came, and inexperienced commanders leading them. There was a funeral of a sergeant just a day before the massacre. The company was full of fear, hate and just itching for a fight. The commander in charge received orders to attack the village and kill all VC, he also heard that all civilians would be gone at that time. Furthermore he was to burn all lifestock.
My comparision with My Lai is this, vague orders makes people in those situations go after revenge or do whatever else they think they might be supposed to do.

[Almost]

Damn 5eleven, you are slow, aren't you. "...To prove a point" :D

I wouldn't take myself too seriously if you were me. I like throwing matches, sometimes even torches, to spark a heated, yet constructive, debate. If there's one thing (or two) we don't need here these days, it's dull and boring debates :)

I'm sorry if I offended you or anyone else. That was not my intention.

[5eleven]

Ros, I've never been to Iran. Hell, I've never been to the Middle East. I would concede that your knowledge of such things is vastly superior to mine. However, having said that, I've been to NYC several times and never been mugged either. That doesn't mean that there aren't muggers and criminals in NYC.
so not only the current surroundings but also life experiences so far
So.....can you give me a situation where that would occur? I thought you said (paraphrasing) "same situation - same response for everyone". I guess I don't understand what you mean, and if I do understand what you mean, then the entire comment makes no sense to me.
Regarding My Lai, specifically: I cannot comprehend a massacre based on "vague orders". No order must be followed if that order is illegal. I understand and can totally take into account the totality of the circumstances surrounding Calley, and the influences on his psyche at the time. However, even given the circumstances you have presented, right is right and wrong is wrong. As a professional soldier, platoon leader, and as a human being, he MUST be held accountable for HIS decisions, which resulted in the massacre of civilians in a village. I'm sorry, the whole circumstance bears no resemblance whatsoever to the video of contractors on Route Irish.

Almost: I was not offended in any way shape or form by your comments. And I'm not taking myself too seriously. Seriously. Anyway, I knew what you were doing, and I wanted to address the issue you raised. I thought it was a good issue. ;)

[Rostam]

5eleven, nobody lives identical lives. The same situation - same responce thing was to show that I do not believe in free will. By controlling the surroundings, you control people.

As for not following illegal orders, that much makes sense. Some soldiers have been reported to be firing at children WHILE crying. What makes those people fire anyway? Is it because they were very very bad people? I don't think so. I believe we're all the same.

[omni]

Not everyone in the Iraqi insurgency is a crazed islamic fundie, a lot of them are just secular nationalists who are fed up with foreign occupation. I even saw a video once of a resistance fighter who was planting roadside bombs and he claimed he was an atheist!

[5eleven]

Damn Ros, you have some kind of "511 just posted alarm"? :lol:
I do not believe in free will.
Wow.
Some soldiers have been reported to be firing at children WHILE crying
Hadn't heard that one. I'd like to see a link or that story.
Some soldiers have been reported to be firing at children WHILE crying. What makes those people fire anyway?
Free will. :D
I believe we're all the same.
I guess I still don't get it Ros. Everything before this comment is contradicted by your own statements, with the exception of not believing in free will.

[Rostam]

I'm at my parents house for the weekend, bored and just browsing the web the entire time. Guess I'll go to bed soon.

I got my information from "Crimes of Obedience", a book. I don't have it with me but if you want I can post a bit more info about it when I get home this sunday.

By the way, I don't see any contradiction. Soldiers crying while firing pretty much proves they didn't want to. If they had free will, they would not be doing it.

As for the we're all the same comment, let's just say I don't believe we're different than animals. I don't believe in a soul or in people being good or bad. I believe we're similar to machines; we're operated by our surroundings. Again, no free will the way I see it. This is also the reason I don't hate people, doesn't make much sense to hate somebody who just happened to have a ****ty life and started acting accordingly, does it?

[yurch]

By the way, I don't see any contradiction. Soldiers crying while firing pretty much proves they didn't want to. If they had free will, they would not be doing it.The crying can't be taken one way or the other. It just means it bothered them, although obviously not enough to stop. Free will has nothing to do with it.

Edit: more specifically, it implies we're imprisoned observers in our bodies that we have no control over. That's not what free will/lack of free will means at all.

[Nightmare]

It's a good comparison, it really is. But if you think that private contractors are out conducting military operations, they are not. If their pay is essentially greater than that of a military operator of equivalent skill, it makes no difference. You can't say that because a guy carries a gun and is a civilian in Iraq that he is a mercenary. Private security operations for the aforementioned purposes are not military operations.


Even if it's jobs the regular soldiers would be handling if there were no private contractors to use? It is getting close enough to mercenary work IMO.

But enough of that. I'll admit that it's a pointless thing to worry about as far as the insurgency goes. Those guys aren't arguing points of law in attacking private contractors, they're just attacking enemy support functions.

[5eleven]

Nightmare: Regular troops conducting military operations aren't generally tasked for foregin dignitary protection, except in a support function. They also do not generally tasked to provide protection for private sector CEO's or workers, and in many cases these days, even civilian convoys. Unless the civilians are working on a specific military project or providing direct military support. They certainly aren't required to provide protection for media correspondents.

If the security contractors are acting "on their own" under the direct command of a governmental military body to carry out military or combat operations, then they would be classified as mercenaries, paid by the government.

The military does have and has always had civilian support functions in the military, but they do not carry out direct operations - generally support functions, such as technical support for communications/data equipment and the like. They do not carry out combat operations. Their pay scales are called GS ratings, and they are commensurate in pay with their military counterparts.
http://www.fedsmith.com/pay_rates/rates.militaryequivalencies.php

That's the way I understand it. If I'm wrong, someone let me know.

[Arethusa]

I know, strictly, in the traditional sense of the word, mercenaries are hired soldiers for governments, and I know the private military contractor community is extremely touchy about that term, but do you really think the distinction is all that significant?

For that matter, there absolutely were private military contractors involved in US military operations during problems in Najaf a while back, and I've heard of other stuff. I'm not sure how widespread it is, but the US military is definitely contracting out more than simple support work.

Though, personally, I am unsure why all this matters. It isn't like there's a huge difference between a private military contractor and a kid who signed up just to pay for college, except that the contractor is probably much more experienced.

[Rostam]

Totally off topic, but I'm glad you removed the "I die free" comment. For whatever reason, I felt disgusted every time I read that.

[Arethusa]

I'm kind of surprised. I'd always figured you'd be one of the people to like it. Though, admittedly, I had it up for undisclosed reasons of great irony.

[5eleven]

I honestly don't know how "contract operators" feel about any terms used.

I think the distinction is clear and made clear for legal reasons - specifically the reasons mentioned previously by Nightmare. I doubt very seriously that a contractor or even the security company wants to get into the massive issues of liability brought on by exposing their people to "war crimes". That's just a guess.

I don't know about the contractors in Najaf, but I'd be very interested to read any links you might have regarding that.

I can imagine that "contractors" could get into a pickle or a large incident and could continue to work in tandem with the military, but I think I'm looking more along the lines of a company/battalion/brigade/division level commander making assignments for strategic operations strictly for contractor units. At that point, the contractor would be acting as an agent for the government, and would thus become a mercenary. And I can't imagine any commander, specifically a line commander like a platoon leader or company commander, allowing contractors to operate in conjunction with his soldiers at the outset of any mission.

I think you are right about experience - no private company worth their salt would send an inexperienced security guard into a combat zone. And remember, they aren't private military contractors, they are security contractors. ;)

EDIT
Hey, I just looked up that PBS documentary on contractors, and it appears as though the full episode is available for viewing online:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/

EDIT2
Man, I forgot how good an episode of Frontline that this was - watching it again. IMO, it shows more bad than good, but it gives a heck of a lot of information. I recommend everyone watch it.

[ravens_hawk]

Just out of curiosity, would it be possible that the weapon fired is an airsoft? "AEG ISPSD" ie automatic electic gun. While it does look like brass flying in the last shot, this would explain alot. Not that I doubt that anything like this could happen, just thinking it might be some guys out to scare some people by putting a few holes in thier windshields while they were driving.

[5eleven]

Just out of curiosity, would it be possible that the weapon fired is an airsoft?
No. Two issues there: First, in situations that you expect to be attacked with lethal force, less lethal methods are just not recommended or effective. Secondly, using an airsoft would be noticed rather quickly by insurgents, who would be more likely to attack through a barrage of plastic pellets, rather than be deterred.

[geogob]

ok never seen an airsoft... I even barelly know what it is... but do they really sound like that?

[Arethusa]

Airsoft rifles are plastic replica weapons that fire 6mm plastic bbs using compressed air (if it's an electric weapon) or compressed gas from canisters. It's like tacticool paintball for people who like to pretend it's just like the real thing. Suggesting that such a weapon be brought into a hot combat zone, let alone that it could be fired on a car and damage it, is completely ****ing insane.

[5eleven]

Yeah, what Arethusa said.
AND, I picked up another nifty word - tacticool:lol:

[ravens_hawk]

You’ll never catch me saying I'm sane.

However what the video looks like to me is a bunch of guys going on a joyride. Like the ones you see of people shooting pedestrians with paintball guns. Maybe I haven’t actually looked at the video close enough but it doesn't look any of the cars get really damaged. I see a couple drivers getting spooked by what looks like someone firing an automatic weapon out the back a car. And what could be their windshield getting broken, probably causing them to crash. Is it not possible a BB could damage a windshield? I dunno I blame the picture being grainy and editing.

[5eleven]

However what the video looks like to me is a bunch of guys going on a joyride. Like the ones you see of people shooting pedestrians with paintball guns. Maybe I haven’t actually looked at the video close enough but it doesn't look any of the cars get really damaged. I see a couple drivers getting spooked by what looks like someone firing an automatic weapon out the back a car. And what could be their windshield getting broken, probably causing them to crash. Is it not possible a BB could damage a windshield? I dunno I blame the picture being grainy and editing.
With all due respect, allow me to retort:
1. That's because you obviously don't know what you are looking at.
2. Are you nuts? Look at the windshield on the last car...... and I think the windshield of the Mercedes. Did you expect as crac eluded to earlier, that the vehicle should explode like in the movies?
3. Maybe a metal BB fired between 2500 and 3500 fps. Not a plastic 6mm BB. No. Not now, not ever. Joyriding with paintball guns, this ain't. :D

[ravens_hawk]

Sorry I forgot the full-auto ones usually only shoot light, plastic bbs. I was thinking about the .177 (usually lead) ones that you'd think would crack up a window if not break it. (Esp with the number they're firing.) In the first one Im not sure what they were firing at but if it was at the car behind them you'd think they'd hit the radiator or something and it might have some effect on the car. Maybe they just really are firing low powered rounds. Again its hard to see in the video, most of what looks like damage to say the glass also looks like compression/video errors.

[Arethusa]

No airsoft gun will fire traditional BBs. Not only are they made of metal, but they are a completely different size.

[ravens_hawk]

I know, 6mm>.177" and while there are aluminum 6mm BBs you're probably right they wouldn't break a window.

[ecale3]

Sorry I forgot the full-auto ones usually only shoot light, plastic bbs. I was thinking about the .177 (usually lead) ones that you'd think would crack up a window if not break it. (Esp with the number they're firing.) In the first one Im not sure what they were firing at but if it was at the car behind them you'd think they'd hit the radiator or something and it might have some effect on the car. Maybe they just really are firing low powered rounds. Again its hard to see in the video, most of what looks like damage to say the glass also looks like compression/video errors.


Windshields are safety glass boss, coated with plastic to help prevent shattering and pretty ****ing strong.

[Crazy_Ivan]

contractors that did africa and changed names...

Somewhere in the first weeks of the war there was a big fuss about these contractor companies hiring guys with not too clean backgrounds (apartheid era police, mercenaries from various backgrounds). They promised to do something about it but according to the article not much has changed.

Anyway shooting civvies doesn't make you popular. and if these guys have similar looking uniforms, there is a big chance for escalation