Video from iraq

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

5eleven

I don't give a f**k, call the Chaplain
Mar 23, 2003
787
0
0
Ohio
Visit site
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.
Rostam said:
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

PSN: Rostam_
May 1, 2001
2,807
0
0
Leiden, Holland
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

the truth is out there
Nov 14, 2005
11
0
0
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

I don't give a f**k, call the Chaplain
Mar 23, 2003
787
0
0
Ohio
Visit site
Damn Ros, you have some kind of "511 just posted alarm"? :lol:
Rostam said:
I do not believe in free will.
Wow.
Rostam said:
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.
Rostam said:
Some soldiers have been reported to be firing at children WHILE crying. What makes those people fire anyway?
Free will. :D
Rostam said:
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

PSN: Rostam_
May 1, 2001
2,807
0
0
Leiden, Holland
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

Swinging the clue-by-four
May 21, 2001
5,781
0
0
USA, Maryland.
Visit site
Rostam said:
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.
 
Last edited:

Nightmare

Only human
Sep 23, 2001
446
0
0
51
Finland
Visit site
5eleven said:
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

I don't give a f**k, call the Chaplain
Mar 23, 2003
787
0
0
Ohio
Visit site
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

We will not walk in fear.
Jan 15, 2004
1,081
0
0
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

PSN: Rostam_
May 1, 2001
2,807
0
0
Leiden, Holland
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

We will not walk in fear.
Jan 15, 2004
1,081
0
0
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 don't give a f**k, call the Chaplain
Mar 23, 2003
787
0
0
Ohio
Visit site
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.
 
Last edited:

ravens_hawk

New Member
Apr 20, 2002
468
0
0
Visit site
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

I don't give a f**k, call the Chaplain
Mar 23, 2003
787
0
0
Ohio
Visit site
ravens_hawk said:
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.
 

Arethusa

We will not walk in fear.
Jan 15, 2004
1,081
0
0
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 fucking insane.
 
Last edited:

ravens_hawk

New Member
Apr 20, 2002
468
0
0
Visit site
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

I don't give a f**k, call the Chaplain
Mar 23, 2003
787
0
0
Ohio
Visit site
ravens_hawk said:
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
 
Last edited:

ravens_hawk

New Member
Apr 20, 2002
468
0
0
Visit site
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.