No wonder the world hates us - Page 2

Sgt Shultz · 2012-04-11, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by WildGunsTomcat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=e1trSD3Auyo#!

US Military Contractors.....basically former military guys that got hired on by a private company and contracted by the pentagon to do high profile security runs and the like.....

Shooting at civilians in Iraq.

Now I know we're not the only country to do this, I hear tales of the British contractors doing the same thing...also the French.

But Goddammit don't we have enough negative publicity without these fucking cowboys running around the streets of Baghdad killing people without a care?

Two things. First, I would seriously question if the person who posted this on YouTube has an agenda or not. In this day and age it's a very relevant question to ask.

Second, as cold as mercs seem I don't think was done because the people involved are moral or mental deficient in any way. More likely then of its SOP because not following SOP gets you dead. Pretty sure bad publicity loses out to being a corpse any day of the week.

Figment · 2012-04-11, 05:37 PM

Blackwater has been known for this sort of thing since at the very least the second year of the US-coalition presence in Iraq. There are a lot of vids like this with the humvee type driving and ramming and (especially to a bystander) seemingly wanton destruction. Blackwater's personnel has been repeatedly and consistently accused of arbitrary and irresponsible behaviour, while being free from prosecution. It's a bit like if police were above the law in the US, or if prison guards do not have rules to abide by. Meanwhile they're also far more expensive than the regular army (as usual with mercs).

Take a look at this old bit of news.
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/1/2...blackwater_inc

Also look at some of the related topics.

You know that sociological study where random students with no training or instructions on what is and is not allowed, were told to keep order in prisons and ended up torturing other students who rollplayed the prisoners? What if a similar sociological effect can be applied to these mercs?

What if you had the same lack of restriction on police? Would you get South African Apartheid police where police brutality was not just common, but also left unchecked? What if you leave a private army or army to do whatever?

Do you get the type of thing of raping and pillaging what they can, because they can and nobody would stop them? These people are not the top of the line, they need a leash. There need to be repercursions to improper use.

Besides, I notice the attitude in this thread as well, but what exactly makes their lives more important than the lives of other people that THEY get to do this, but everyone else just has to accept their secondary or tertiary class citizens in comparison? I'm not sure what kind of security you create by ramming people in the street, causing arbitrary property and bodily damage just because someone obeyed road rules: traffic light on red: stop. Green: drive. OH CRAP COLONNE OF HUMVEES - WAIT WHAT THEY SHOOT AT/RAM ME?!

Sure, being stopped/blocked can create an opportunity for an attack, but does that mean your paranoia should cause you to threaten the security of everyone around you? And how does that transfer a feeling of security and state of law (which you are supposedly there for) to the people?

Does not seem like a healthy situation to me. I understand why from a military pov you'd want to drive on, it does not help ease tentions in the country. Hell, if you were perfect models of law and order and set an example, yet were still attacked, sure, you'd be the victim, but you'd also be empathised with. Which in the long run would probably result in less recruits of disgruntled people.

Regardless, Bush was to blame for this whole insurgency and insecurity by dismantling the Iraqi army immediately and throwing the country into disarray, instead of listening to his generals and even Sun Tzu and taking it over, weeding out the bad apples over time. When I heard they decided to disband the army over night without even setting up security posts at all the ammo dumps, my jaw just dropped due to seeing a form of stupidity I thought even Bush Jr. was incapable of.

I do wonder how strong the Blackwater and other arms lobby was in doing so though.

Firefly · 2012-04-13, 12:41 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Blackwater has been known for this sort of thing since at the very least the second year of the US-coalition presence in Iraq. There are a lot of vids like this with the humvee type driving and ramming and (especially to a bystander) seemingly wanton destruction. Blackwater's personnel has been repeatedly and consistently accused of arbitrary and irresponsible behaviour, while being free from prosecution. It's a bit like if police were above the law in the US, or if prison guards do not have rules to abide by. Meanwhile they're also far more expensive than the regular army (as usual with mercs).

I worked for two separate PMCs when I got out of the Army, both companies sent me back downrange. None of them were Blackwater. Blackwater was a bunch of thugs - not even SF/SEALs would join them, after a certain point, unless they needed a quick burst of cash. Blackwater has a reputation in the community of hiring any dipshit with a DD-214 (your bye-bye paperwork). A majority of their contractors are ex-fobbits and idiot grunts with an axe to grind. And not to make a personal dig but a lot of them were former Marines. They also reportedly took in people regardless of what their discharge said, so long as it wasn't Bad Conduct or Dishonourable. That's why there was a break-away company that took some of the best lessons learned from Blackwater, and left the dregs to deal with the fallout.

The thing you have to remember, and this is no way an excuse, is that PMC operators are doing shit that the average soldier cannot do. They're doing a lot of bodyguard shit, as opposed to standing guard duty on a tower or running foot patrols in fields. Those bodyguard details are serious shit - you're not guarding some infantry colonel - you're guarding a high-level official who's worth a billion dollars (figure of speech). These are usually one-in-a-million people who are high-value targets. If they die, you're seriously fucked. So they take a no-holds-barred approach.

Lessons learned from being a grunt on the ground also taught PMCs, as Warborn pointed out, that you don't sit around and lollygag waiting for a local to get his car out of the way. Locals quickly learned, unfortunately the hard way, to stay the fuck away from any military or PMC convoy. They get rammed if they don't. Not good on building relations with the locals, but let me tell you something, Figment: your car getting rammed is a lot less violent than the shit that you get from the Taliban. As it turns out, locals generally tend to accept this behaviour as the lesser of two evils - at least in Afghanistan. And in case you're tempted to get all high and mighty, let me tell you one single story of Taliban behaviour. The Taliban (not al'Qaida) had a habit of coming into a village in the middle of the night and busting into a local's house. They'd make the father or the son swear an oath of allegiance. Then to prove it, that "recruit" would have to put a female family member in the oven and hold the door shut until the person was dead. I heard an elder say, once, he could accept the burden of Coalition roughness if it meant keeping the Taliban at bay.

On a personal note, most PMC operators view it as a matter of pride to conduct themselves professionally. For every Blackwater machine-gun monkey you hear about, there are a thousand quiet professionals that you DON'T hear about, doing their job and doing it well. Painting them all with the same brush is like saying every Dutchman is a stoned deviant sex addict just because of a red light district.

**Malorn** · 2012-04-13, 01:30 AM

Meh.

Figment · 2012-04-13, 04:11 AM

I never said there were no better private companies than Blackwater (hence I named them specifically and stated they were known for behaving very badly).

Also never said it wasn't without risk and I also never argued what the Taliban do is not worse. Have you read the article I posted earlier? That shows the complicated nature of the Afghan mission in quite some detail.

What I did say, is that observing or respecting local customs and if you expect others to abide by laws, to also follow those laws yourself and set an example.

Never did I say that removing your helmet does not involve risk and should be done with great care and careful consideration of the situation (if it's possible or not), but, that axing was merely an incident. It doesn't happen that much and it's extremely unfortunate when it does. To base policy on incidents is IMO bad, because then you would not get positive results based on the removed policy elsewhere. It's not ignorant, it's willingly accepting some risk. Sometimes the higher the risk, the higher the reward and unfortunately in a war, soldiers and civilians are always the ones to pay the price.

Though with only around 1800 dead casualties in the entire war, I can't say it's an extremely intense war on a physical level, more so on a psychological level because it's taking so damn long and because of the type of combat applied by the Taliban (ambush and bombings often using civilians and sometimes even children). :/ Sometimes I wonder if the nations involved in the war are really committed to winning it, since sending only a few troops (say 2.000) to cover a province the size of a nation in Europe or state in the US is simply not a lot. IMO that's one reason why the war against the Taliban is dragging on, the other is the complexity of a tribal nation. If they were a unified people and had a simpler geography, it'd be entirely different. IMO it's been extremely underestimated just how hard it'd be to pacify a nation like Afghanistan.

However, it then doesn't help that to appease the media, the death toll is kept low by applying low risk strategies and a lot of long distance strikes, resulting in a lot of errors being made with civilian casualties as a consequence. :/ I'm not saying it can be avoided, but a too low risk approach both in combat and in civilian situations IMO simply does not yield proper results, but mostly can be used to create frustration within the Afghan populace.

And there is simply no excuse for stupidities like burning Korans, regardless what they were used for.

You Americans should know, it's like insulting Nascar in Alabama! D:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6987775n
http://mcooki.es/57748

Noivad · 2012-04-18, 07:17 PM

The world will always hate the US.

Thats a Fact get used to it.

It has always been hated since its begining. It took 11 years to Ratify the Constitution an the formal government started on a wednesday - March 4th 1789 in New York City, New York.

It is the 1st government of its type.

Before this point in time all governments were ruled.

The United States was the first Free Country which gave specfic rights to its people.

So Lets Keep the Terms Straight.

Stop blurring them.

There are no real civilians in a War Zone.

But what is a War Zone.

It is a geographical place that War is being conducted.

Well what is war.

War is an organized, armed, and often a 'prolonged conflict' that is carried on between states, nations, or other parties typified by extreme aggression, social disruption, and usually high mortality. War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities, and therefore is defined as a form of political violence.The set of techniques used by a group to carry out war is known as warfare. An absence of war, (and other violence) is usually called peace.

There are numerious types of warfare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Warfare_by_type

Fact If there is no peace there is war.

What is a civilian - The word "civilian" goes back to the late 14th Century and is from Old French civilien, "of the civil law". It was used to refer to judges, lawyers, firemen, police, and other civil servants. Civilian is believed to have been used to refer to non-combatants as early as 1829.

Fact: If you refer to yourself as a civilian then you are a non combatant.

Non-combatant is a term in the law of war describing civilians who are not taking a direct part in hostilities, persons such as medical personnel and military chaplains who are member of the armed forces, but are protected because of their specific duties (as described in Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, adopted in June 1977), and combatants who are hors de combat ("outside the fight"); that is, sick, wounded, detained, or otherwise disabled.

Article 50 Protocol I defines a civilian as a person who is not a privileged combatant. Article 51 describes the protection that must be given to civilians (unless they are unprivileged combatants) and civilian populations. Chapter III of Protocol I regulates the targeting of civilian objects. Article 8(2)(b)(i) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court also prohibits attacks directed against civilians. Not all states have ratified Protocol I or the Rome Statute, but it is an accepted principle of international humanitarian law that the direct targeting of civilians is a breach of the customary laws of war and is binding on all belligerents.

Article 3 in the general section of the Geneva Conventions states that in the case of armed conflict not of an international character (occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties) that each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions to non-combatants: They shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, with the following prohibitions:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Fact If your in a War Zone then you are either a Combatant or NON combatant.

If you don't want to be either of these things then you can become a Refugee

What is a Refugee

The term refugee is often used to include displaced persons who may fall outside the legal definition in the Convention,[3] either because they have left their home countries because of war and not because of a fear of persecution, or because they have been forced to migrate within their home countries.

The term refugee is often used to include displaced persons who may fall outside the legal definition in the Convention, either because they have left their home countries because of war and not because of a fear of persecution, or because they have been forced to migrate within their home countries.

If you are not a Refugee who escapes his country that is considered a war Zone then you are eith a combantant or a non combantant.

It should be noted that all three die in war zones. refugees sometimes don't make it out.

If you live in a war zone regardless of who you are you should realize that you can die there.

Thats common sense.

Its going to happen.

If you have no common sense you will stay in the war zone.

Combantants are of two types - privileged and unpriviledged

A combatant is someone who takes a direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict. If a combatant follows the law of war, then they are considered a privileged combatant, and upon capture they qualify as a prisoner of war under the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII). An unprivileged combatant is someone, such as a mercenary, who takes a direct part in the hostilities but who upon capture does not qualify for prisoner of war status.

Privileged combatantsThe following categories of combatants qualify for prisoner-of-war status on capture:

Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict
Members of militias not under the command of the armed forces, with the following traits:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
For countries which have signed the "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts" (Protocol I), combatants who do not wear a distinguishing mark still qualify as prisoners of war if they carry arms openly during military engagements, and while visible to the enemy when they are deploying to conduct an attack against them.

Unprivileged combatantsMain article: unprivileged combatant
There several types of combatants who do not qualify as privileged combatants:

Combatant who would otherwise be privileged, but have breached other laws or customs of war (for example by fighting under a white flag).
spies, mercenaries, child soldiers, and civilians who take a direct part in combat and do not fall into one of the categories listed in the previous section, (for example "inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces" would qualify as privileged combatants).
If there is any doubt as to whether the person benefits from "combatant" status, they must be held as a POW until they have faced a "competent tribunal" (GCIII Art 5) to decide the issue.

Most unprivileged combatants who do not qualify for protection under the Third Geneva Convention do so under the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV), which concerns civilians, until they have had a "fair and regular trial". If found guilty at a regular trial, they can be punished under the civilian laws of the detaining power. The last time that American and British unlawful combatants were executed after "a regularly constituted court" was Luanda Trial in Angola in June 1976.

So please stick to the laws of War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war

When discussing War keep the terms straight so there are no misunderstandings.

Red Beard · 2012-04-18, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by BuzzCutPsycho

Most of those videos are of actual U.S. Military and not PMC. Good job taking something some chuckle fuck with an agenda on Youtube said to heart.

Sounds like you've played cowboy yourself.

Red Beard · 2012-04-18, 07:35 PM

Fact: If you refer to yourself as a civilian then you are a non combatant.

...Unless the state deems you unlawful enemy combatant. Then secretly arrests, tortures and convicts you using evidence not made available to the defence.

They're just changing the laws as they go. The Bush administration retroactively changed laws to make the illegal things they were doing...legal. Then Obama campaigns to shut down Gitmo and then signs a law making preventative indefinite detainment legal. That's a joke.

Talk about the rule of law when the law isn't applied equally doesn't really hold much water IMO.

Warborn · 2012-04-19, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by Noivad

The world will always hate the US.

Thats a Fact get used to it.

It has always been hated since its begining. It took 11 years to Ratify the Constitution an the formal government started on a wednesday - March 4th 1789 in New York City, New York.

It is the 1st government of its type.

Before this point in time all governments were ruled.

The United States was the first Free Country which gave specfic rights to its people.

I don't think anyone really cares about this stuff. I mean, as a non-American I don't hate the US but overall don't have any real opinion about its form of government or whatever, either. And I don't know anyone who does talk about disliking the US because of how their government works, or they're "more free" or whatever. People really don't care about that stuff.

What people do care about is the fact that the US has a very aggressive foreign policy which is essentially amoral. It will support bloody dictators if that's what serves its interests, or go to war with countries that have nothing to do with anything and lie and mislead to make it seem like it's really an act of preemptive self-defense. That's the stuff the world cares about.

I mean, take the 9/11 stuff. Why'd those guys do it? Was it because they were jealous of America's FREEDOM? No. They didn't like US support of Israel, US bases in Saudi Arabia, and what they saw as attacks on Muslims by Western imperialism. Hardly an excuse, but still, even the guys who fly planes into buildings didn't do it because they're just so jealous of the Bill of Rights or whatever.

Figment · 2012-04-19, 10:59 AM

http://www.dogfilm.net/2012/04/bring...an-body-parts/

Or this and the links below that.

They're not exactly making the US military more loved or respected. So how many incidents have there been with US troops disrespecting prisoners, holy items (including holy books), but even disrespectfully handling corpses? And I'm trying to say that in a nice way...

Why is it that you never hear any such incidents off other armies? :/ I mean, you hear about accidental killings of civilians during a campaign. You hear of bombings and drones hitting the wrong target. That I can imagine happens in war. But posing with disembodied human legs? :/

How can these soldiers - and let me stress they're still a small minority within a very big army - be THIS insensitive, stupid and plainly dumb? How can they NOT figure out in advance that this puts every other US soldier, every other NATO soldier, in more danger, leads to violent outbursts and makes their work harder and everything a lot easier for the enemy in recruiting and gaining support?

Vash02 · 2012-04-19, 01:06 PM

Really those acts of brutality and abuse should be taken as an act of treason. The soldiers involved obviously dont give a fuck about their fellow soldiers.

But there is that 18 month tour of duty american soldiers have to do. That may fuck with their heads somewhat, being stuck in a bloody hot country with no AC and being fired upon constantly.
I dont know about the other NATO nations but in Britain its only a 6 month ToD followed by at least a year off.

Warborn · 2012-04-19, 01:19 PM

Red Beard · 2012-04-19, 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

What people do care about is the fact that the US has a very aggressive foreign policy which is essentially amoral. It will support bloody dictators if that's what serves its interests, or go to war with countries that have nothing to do with anything and lie and mislead to make it seem like it's really an act of preemptive self-defense. That's the stuff the world cares about.

What he said.

**Malorn** · 2012-04-19, 09:44 PM

Meh.

HalfManHalfGod · 2012-04-19, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Oh hey lets all post pictures about how terrible war is. Lets throw in some a-bomb pictures from WWII, and Vietnamese girls covered in napalm.

How about the sound of people hitting pavement as they jumped off the World Trade Center preferring fall to their deaths than be burned alive? Or random Americans being beheaded on video?

War sucks. Even with all the advanced technology sometimes ordinance doesn't land where you want it to, and the bad guys don't always cluster up with other bad guys. They hide in homes and use human shields and all sorts of dirty stuff because they believe that a few horrible pictures like the ones above will make Americans lose heart and stop fighting. That's their weapon and the key to victory. Thanks for helping them out.

And thanks Clinton for setting that precedent in Somalia that the tactic works.

Malorn, see post #19