How are they “legitimate targets”? They aren’t attacking anyone. AFAIK, they aren’t actively engaged in any fighting. By your perverse logic, any civilian in a combat area is a legitimate target even if he is just defending his home from looters.
Because they’re part of the occupying empire army i.e. paid by the empire army to occupy ?
They are there to assert rights by force and to deny the enemy by force the capability to assert those rights. It’s called war. Their purpose is to deny the enemy the capabilty of asserting their claimed rights. They are ready to use deadly force against the other side. I can’t see how the other side cannot shoot them. They have no legal right and their only right derives from the use of force. That is what war is. They are clearly fighting in a war for one side. If not they would not be in Iraq. Their only business in Iraq is to fight for one side.
If you want you can believe they are there to “help in the reconstruction” but I believe that is BS. they are there to use force, to fight and to deny the iraqi resistance the capability of asserting their control. The Iraqi resistance do not want these people there and these people are there by virtue of the use of force. They should be prepared to have force used against them.
Reminds me of “Hello, I’m from the IRS and I’m here to help you”. yeah, right.
Hello, I’m a “private civilian contractor” and I’m here to help you so get out of my way or I blow your brains out.
These guys provide security to people working in Iraq. In my opinion they are too heavy headed, and create the wrong impression, but I have never seen them do anything other than do just that, provide security.
Clearly the insurgents consider any foreigner or Iraqi working with foreigners to be legitimate targets. They have intentionally killed members of the UN and the Red Cross, so any distinction here about who is a legitimate target is beyond moot.
Have any of these private contractors, or mercenaries, if you prefer, indulged themselves in killing the locals? I’m sure we’d have all heard about it by now if it had ever happened.
Is it really OK to approve the locals killing the contractors simply because the contractors had military training? And, to the person who dragged this in, none of them were Foreign Legion Serbs or wannabes.
What is so misleading about use of the term contractors? Their job description was in every report I have read, and they were certainly not attached to the military or, as far as I can tell, able to access information from the military.
What’s wrong with hiring security types in a high-risk security zone?
Admittedly, in this instance they did not have enough firepower to defend themselves adequately, but they probably weren’t expecting an attack sufficiently powerful to take out an AFV or two.
Originally posted by madmonk28
You have worked out the motive in this instance to your satisfaction then, have you?
The USA invades Iraq and installs an occupying authority to govern the country. They sell the assets of the country to foreign firms, they do all sorts of things which the Iraqi people have no say in. The insurgents do not recognise this authority. The “contractors” are there by authority of the occupation government which the insurgents do not recognise. The whole purpose of war is to settle who can control those assets and territory. To go in there and say "I am a civilian and I am not part of the fight " is ludicrous when what you are doing is working for one side. Let’s get real here. The “private, civilian, consultant, contractors” are armed and are working to assert rights claimed by the occupying power. The resistance does not recognise those rights or authority and they are fighting for their side.
The sentiments of the Iraqi people were quite clear in the video footage. They, obviously, prefer the “contractors” stay out of Iraq. I am sorry but I have little sympathy for these “contractors”. They have chosen to live by the sword and they should be ready to die by the sword.
Sailor, Irealize we are getting off topic, but I disagree with your assessment of the reasons for the war and of the occupation. I believe the reasoning behind the war are much more nuanced, but this is getting away from the OP. For the record, I was not a supporter of this war, more accurately, I was not a supporter of the way this war was prosecuted by the Bush admin. I am also troubled by the methodology of the reconstruction/aid processes this administration is using.
It is completely inaccurate to say that the actions of a mob in Fallujah represents the will of the Iraqis. Fallujah is in the heart of Saddam territory, he has some fierce supporters there. It might be accurate to say that in Fallujah, they don’t want us there, but I think it is far too extreme of a community to represent the entire nation of Iraq.
BBC conducted a poll that showed that most Iraqis favored a continued coalition presence and are glad that Saddam has been removed. Last night, I sat around smoking a nagilla with a bunch of Iraqis talking about the war and Saddam’s removal and they were glad it happened. In my experience the majority of people I meet are glad to have “contractors” such as myself working there. I wouldn’t be here if I thought otherwise.
I read the security report for what happened in Fallujah. I believe that the next SUV carrying foreigners coming down that street in Fallujah would have been attacked. Something like that could very easily happen to me. I am here trying to organize a national association of disabled people in Iraq among other things. Last summer I was delivering supplies to Iraqi schools. I assure you the people I met were supportive of our work, but I am working on a US funded aid contract and am thus a “contractor.” Do I deserve to be ripped apart and have my body pulled behind a donkey cart? Should my wife have to see me lying in the street stripped and burned? Am I a legitimate target?
As for not having sympathy for the “contractors” butchered in Iraq, how can you not have sympahty for ANYONE killed in that way? They had wives, girlfriends, kids, and dreams. They were people and they died a horrible death. What is to be gained by not having sympathy for them?
The mere fact that you are ignorant of events does not constitute any kind of proof that said events did not occur.
Originally from Desmostylus
The mere fact that you cannot tell the difference between an interrogatory and a declaration of fact does not prove that you left school in 8th grade (when you eventually achieved compulsory school leaving age) to become an apprentice tree lopper. It is merely an indicator that something similar to that scenario happened, on the balance of probabilities, of course.
Part of my question was:
The links you provided indicate no malfeasance on the part of the security guards involved (ie. indulged themselves in killing the locals).
madmonk28, I have great admiration for anyone who tries to help human beings and you deserve it and have it but the fact is that the USA has created a state of war and in war shit happens. US forces have killed plenty of innocent civilians who were innocent bystanders or who were just trying to their jobs. Shit happens in war. It is inevitable. The war was started by the USA and the status is maintained by the USA who refuses to take measures like transfer authority to the UN or to allow Iraqis greater say in their affairs. It is war and it was started and is maintained by America. And then, not all civilian organizations there are goodwill nonprofits. There are plenty of companies there who are just out to make a profit. US forces have killed news reporters who were just doing their job and have never given a satisfactory explanation other than “it’s war and shit happens”.
If you are in Iraq doing strictly neutral humanitarian work then you have all my sympathy but it is a fact that it is a war zone where the authority is in dispute. The fact is that the insurgents do not recognise the authority under which you operate. Would the US authorities allow strictly neutral organizations to operate? I doubt it. I mean organizations which would equally recognize or not recognise the authority of the USA and of the insurgents and who would obtain safeconducts from both. I doubt it. Does your organization deal with the insurgents as an authority? I bet it doesn’t. In fact they are asserting the authority of the USA in the country and the fact that it is for humanitarian purposes does not change that. Not to mention that most of these commandos are providing security for companies who are there to make a profit. Or, maybe if you are an Iraqi, “for the expoliation and stealing of Iraqi wealth”. It all depends on the POV.
I have no good answers except that any idiot knows that war is a mess where shit happens and therefore the one who starts a war is responsible for the consequences. The answer that the solution is to not resist is not acceptable to me. The solution was to not attack in the first place.
This mess was foreseeable and the price is either (a) not acceptable, in which case the invasion should not have been done, or (b) acceptable as the price to be paid for the ends to be achieved, in which case, well, you just pay the price.
The fact that you have a family does not entitle you to go into a country uninvited and shoot people and if you are going to do that then you have to be prepared to have them shoot back. These people are mostly there fighting to protect American interests in exchange for money. In my view they are legitimate targets. And anyone who goes to Iraq these days should be aware that he is risking his life. That is just a fact. The Iraqis have a reason to be there because it is their home but foreigners are meddling in the country uninvited. Those who go to provide humanitarian help are admirable, but they are in a war zone.
Nothing. Just don’t be surprised when they get killed.
I just don’t know what there is to understand. These people are operating under the authority of the US authority which the resistance does not recognise or accept. They are providing military force to protect and further the objectives of the occupation authorities. Any way you look at it they are legitimate targets just as if they were in US Army uniform as they are doing the same job. You can’t just say they are civilians and conclude they are not targets. In fact, they are fighting for one side. They are armed combatants. No way around that. Their only purpose there is to use force against the Iraqis who may dispute their capacity to operate.
What claimed right? The right to act like savages? Your argument is completely absurd. If civilians like the Red Cross go in and try to feed the refugees of a war they are “legitimate” targets?
Regardless of how you feel about the war in Iraq, there are plenty of people with legitimate business is a lot of places that are pretty dangerous. As long as there are terrorists, drug dealers, kidnappers, organized criminals, petty warlords and other shady dudes, there will be a real need for trained security guards who can actually whoop ass.
I tried to sign up for one of those Peace Corp tours of duty in St Lucia and Cancoon but they kept wanting me to go to all these shithole countries where there war wars and stuff.
Yeah…damn them for stealing our money and squandering it on schools and roads.
I can tell the difference. If you were actually asking a question rather than making a claim, you wouldn’t have said “I’m sure we’d have all heard about it by now if it had ever happened”.
Adding “malfeasance” is a weasel on your part. It wasn’t part of your initial false claim that no killing took place.
You’re now attempting to claim that even though they obviously did shoot and kill Iraqis, it’s OK.
Funny I see as more alarming the fact that the US is probably spending more money in these guys in order to avoid political fallout from sending in more troops…
… and the fact that these mercenaries might be easily used elsewhere and without congressional approval or knowledge. It means they get to put private armies without really making it public.
What is your opinion of the killing by US forces of reporters of different nationalities who were covering the war and who were no threat to US forces?
Does the Red Cross go into a country under the authority of only one side and with armed escorts? I don’t think so. I think they go unarmed and take no sides. Please correct me if I am wrong.
This is about Iraq, a country in war, not about Walmart security.
Reminds me of Iran-Contra. The government is violating the spirit of the law, if not the letter.
This is about five kinds of nonsense. I’m speaking from the perspective of someone who fervently opposes the war, but this is a simplistic analysis that insists all the blame must be laid at the feet of only one party. Clearly in this situation there are multiple groups of bad guys, multiple culprits; showing malfeasance on the part of the US in no way excuses the actions of those who ambush and kill people in the streets.
You DO realize, don’t you, that many of the anti-US forces in Iraq are Saudis who went into the country uninvited and are shooting people, right?
Though a war comprise a million acts of barbarism, that is no excuse for committing the million-and-first act.
As to the OP, I only heard about the mercenary status of these guys this morning, too; I wonder if the military has been releasing information slowly. NPR did some short bio bits on the guys who were slaughtered, and it sounded like they were really stretching to say nil nisi bonum about the mortuis. I’m keeping my ears up.
Daniel
Post #25 from yours truly:
A later follow up from Desmostylus
Nowhere did I claim that no killing took place. See my quote above. The falsehood is entirely ……
As far as I can ascertain, even from all of your links, none of the gunfire from the private security guards in any of the events described could be described as the guards “indulging themselves” – see my quote - in killing the locals. It seems pretty much self defence to me, and only marginally successful, at that.
I’m not questioning when you first heard about it, but the information about who they were was available right from the start. The NYT, Reuters, etc. identified the company they worked for, Blackwater, right from the start on 31 March. It was a simple Google on the word “Blackwater” to identify them as mercenaries. That’s how I found out, and I’m sure some reporters thought of that, too.
That makes sense; when I first heard about it (mostly on NPR), they left those details out, giving me the impression that they were engineers or something.
Daniel