Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ack-Ack on October 12, 2007, 01:59:49 PM
-
Preliminary reports indicate that the Blackwater guards didn't come under fire on Sept. 16 like they claimed. It also appears that most Iraqis that were killed were trying to flee the area.
Lt. Col. Mike Tarsa commands the 3rd Battalion, 92nd Field Artillery Regiment of the 2nd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division. His unit conducts patrols in the Nusoor Square neighborhood of Baghdad, the U.S. military source told CNN.
The unit was first to arrive at the scene, and soldiers took witness statements, photographs, and made assessments.
The source confirmed remarks made by Tarsa that were reported Friday in The Washington Post.
"It appeared to me they were fleeing the scene when they were engaged. It had every indication of an excessive shooting," Tarsa is quoted as saying.
"I did not see anything that indicated they [Blackwater guards] were fired upon."
Article (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/12/iraq.main/index.html)
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
"I did not see anything that indicated they [Blackwater guards] were fired upon."[/B]
doesn't mean they weren't.
(http://www.filenanny.com/files/44f7b9c9f14e0/1189197054338.jpg)
-
jump on it ack ack, americans are infidles, ally ackbaa. geeehadd
-
John's post is indicative of most of the pro-war folks on this board; it doesn't make much sense and its spelled horribly wrong.
Now for something more productive. Counter-insurgency operations have been called 'the graduate school' of war. In order to win a counter-insurgency, you not only have to have soldiers who are proficient in all manner of conventional fighting, but on top of that, they have to have extra skills. Skills that will enable them to earn the trust of the native population, so that they can then collect accurate intelligence and also deny the insurgents the support of that same population.
The absolute fundamental requirement for gaining the trust of the native population is to protect them. Protect them. If we kill insurgents and civilians alike, it becomes a never ending cycle. Civilian deaths in the very least deny U.S. troops of accurate intelligence, and in the worst case scenario, cause citizens to become insurgents.
-
The whole private contractor guard thing is political.
They are there because early on we didn't put enough troops in. They continued because using them provided political cover for the troop level issues.
By now it must be clear that it would have been way cheaper to have enough soldiers to do the job. There'd be more control over the situation with soldiers as well.
-
Ack-Ack, The one thing you have to understand is when a US Soldier goes into a town in Iraq and starts asking questions, nobody sees anything, nothing happens there and everyone is innocent. Even though that unit has been ambushed there more than once, IEDs go off there all the time and they are always finding weapon and ammo stores.
It is very frustrating to conduct an interview in Iraq. The Iraqis always have a sad tale to tell, how Americans bombed their home, shot their son or kicked in their door. Meanwhile they allow insurgents to use their land to train on, to hide weapons on and help with the planting of IEDs, by supplying old cars and other items.
So it doesn't surprise me that an "investigation team" found nothing, and/or were told Blackwater started it and that all the Iraqi people were just trying to run away.
I am not saying Blackwater is innocent. For the most part they are a bunch of *******es. However, what ever happened out there on those streets is most likely lost to history. All we can do now is keep a closer eye on Blackwater and see what unfolds.
-Spot
-
Originally posted by john9001
jump on it ack ack, americans are infidles, ally ackbaa. geeehadd
LMAO! And you wonder why I think you're such a tool.
ack-ack
-
i'm a "tool"? How much does al quida pay you?
-
Ive had this impression for the last few years that exceptionally bad things happen to good people in Baghdad. I would not presume to claim that any western security men in Iraq are innocent of being overly aggressive in terms of securing their own lives (I would certainly tend to be overly aggressive with my own safety if I found myself in baghdad), but I sure as hell wouldn't conclude that these security types were proved guilty simply by the absence of proof of threat either. Thats just twisted.
There definately is a sour group of people on this board hell bent on promoting Iraqi failure stories out of some twisted desire to counter the success stories coming out of Iraq........hmmm.
-
Originally posted by john9001
i'm a "tool"? How much does al quida pay you?
OK...now you're a "power tool"...
-
Originally posted by john9001
i'm a "tool"? How much does al quida pay you?
You really should stop posting. All you do is further prove how much of an idiot you are with each post.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by john9001
i'm a "tool"? How much does al quida pay you?
a tool has some use,you've none.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Ive had this impression for the last few years that exceptionally bad things happen to good people in Baghdad. I would not presume to claim that any western security men in Iraq are innocent of being overly aggressive in terms of securing their own lives (I would certainly tend to be overly aggressive with my own safety if I found myself in baghdad), but I sure as hell wouldn't conclude that these security types were proved guilty simply by the absence of proof of threat either. Thats just twisted.
There definately is a sour group of people on this board hell bent on promoting Iraqi failure stories out of some twisted desire to counter the success stories coming out of Iraq........hmmm.
Just some poor volunteer well-intentioned young people??? is that how you're trying to depict these mercenaries??
They were shooting at anything that moved...including away from them....they did not identify and shoot at threats...
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
You really should stop posting. All you do is further prove how much of an idiot you are with each post.
ack-ack
Aint that the truth.
-
"It appeared to me they were fleeing the scene when they were engaged. It had every indication of an excessive shooting," Tarsa is quoted as saying.
====
If I were in bad guy country and in fear of losing my life I would be using excessive force as I fled to safety to preserve my life. But thats just me :rolleyes:
"I did not see anything that indicated they [Blackwater guards] were fired upon."
====
No indication of a threat at some later point after the threat stopped does not mean that a threat did not exist or take place.
-
so I've been called a fool a tool and a idiot.
i love it when people pay attention to what i say. :D
-
Look at my post above. If you shoot everything that even has the slightest hint of being a threat, the war will be lost. We don't need spray and pray guys in Iraq, they will do more harm than good.
-
agreed, would just like to see a thorough presentation of the facts before coming to harsh conclusions.
-
Are ack and Murtha of same minds on this Blackwater thing?
-
Originally posted by Dago
Are ack and Murtha of same minds on this Blackwater thing?
One thing is certain, you and johnboy obviously share the same mind.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Stringer
Just some poor volunteer well-intentioned young people??? is that how you're trying to depict these mercenaries??
They were shooting at anything that moved...including away from them....they did not identify and shoot at threats...
Were you there?
Did you even read Yeager's post or were you just too spun up on what you think he was really trying to say?
-
i love it when people pay attention to what i say.
You must be really disappointed on a regular basis then.
I'll give you one thing - you're a rare breed. Attention Defecit Disorder continued into adulthood. Perhaps some anthropologist can study you and write a paper?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I'll give you one thing - you're a rare breed.
thank you , thank you very much. You are a very astute judge of character.
:D
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
One thing is certain, you and johnboy obviously share the same mind.
ack-ack
I hoped you and others would learn not to rush to judgment of those who stand in harms way in a combat zone until a complete investigation has been conducted. To do any less does a tremendous disservice to those involved, and often leaves a person with egg on their face, and in Murtha's case, a libel suit to defend against.
-
Originally posted by Dago
I hoped you and others would learn not to rush to judgment of those who stand in harms way in a combat zone until a complete investigation has been conducted. To do any less does a tremendous disservice to those involved, and often leaves a person with egg on their face, and in Murtha's case, a libel suit to defend against.
Dago, they are preliminary reports-that much is true.
However, Since the report was collected by U.S. servicemen on the spot, I don't believe we have any reason to doubt they're findings.
Unless, of course, you believe that Nancy Pelossi and Ted Kennedy were there with the insurgents, policing up empty brass.:D
-
"It looked like they were fleeing the scene when they were ENGAGED"
Does not agree with:
"I did not see anything that indicated they [Blackwater guards] were fired upon."
Now, either some type or form of combatant or group of combatants engaged them or not. If you are in a combat situation, or an armed confrontation, or some sort of danger zone, "engaged" means "under some form of attack".
So, which was it?
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
"It looked like they were fleeing the scene when they were ENGAGED"
Is in reference to the Iraqis that were shot while trying to flee the area, not that the Blackwater guards were engaged with combatents while the guards tried to flee the area.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Dago
I hoped you and others would learn not to rush to judgment of those who stand in harms way in a combat zone until a complete investigation has been conducted. To do any less does a tremendous disservice to those involved, and often leaves a person with egg on their face, and in Murtha's case, a libel suit to defend against.
Actually if you read the report and you are taking blackwaters side, you are questioning the word and professionalism of our troops to defend contractors/mercs.
"It appeared to me they were fleeing the scene when they were engaged. It had every indication of an excessive shooting," Tarsa is quoted as saying.
"I did not see anything that indicated they [Blackwater guards] were fired upon."
I will take the judgment of this man Lt. Col. Mike Tarsa who commands the 3rd Battalion, 92nd Field Artillery Regiment of the 2nd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division.
Over any like you on this board.
-
First off regardless if the contractors were at fault or not. It's pretty much a done deal that the guys that were there will take "all" the heat on this. Just like the few soldier's were used as pawns to take the heat in the whole Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The big dogs are never responsible for their policies or actions of their own
I actually hope Iraq does kick them out though, mercenaries have no business fighting a war for this country.
-
Originally posted by Dago
I hoped you and others would learn not to rush to judgment of those who stand in harms way in a combat zone until a complete investigation has been conducted. To do any less does a tremendous disservice to those involved, and often leaves a person with egg on their face, and in Murtha's case, a libel suit to defend against.
Where did I rush to judgement? I just posted a news article that reported the preliminary findings of the US soldiers that arrived shortly on-scene. However, there are a couple of posters in this thread have rushed to judgement, could you name the two?
ack-ack
-
If anyone thinks they are going to get an straight story from either the Press or the White House, you're sadly mistaken.
Both of them have an agenda and both of them cherry pick information.
-
My brother who is over there atm told me having them there is cool by him. He said they do alot of stuff over. Not all of it bad. Basically mercs on mercs.
-
I think its a seriously bad thing if you effectively out-source (part of) your military to corporations.
I've always generally found for whatever faults there may be, the US military is a proud organisation which values it reputation and takes steps to maintain that reputation - whereas mercenary companies seemingly don't.
AquaShrimp is correct - such action always is self destructive.
e.g: The Dutch/Australian construction teams in Afghanistan have had tremendous successes with the local populace because of the way they interact with the locals. I couldn't believe this same success would have been possible with similar incidents like this.
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Where did I rush to judgement?
Your statement:
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Preliminary reports indicate that the Blackwater guards didn't come under fire on Sept. 16 like they claimed. It also appears that most Iraqis that were killed were trying to flee the area.ack-ack
Originally posted by Ack-Ack I just posted a news article that reported the preliminary findings of the US soldiers that arrived shortly on-scene. However, there are a couple of posters in this thread have rushed to judgement, could you name the two?
ack-ack [/B]
I can name one, you!
Excuse me if I don't accept as complete the findings of "the first to arrive" who by the way, are not trained at scene investigation, but rather trained as soldiers.
I gather in your response, you don't think that Police Departments need Detectives, rather lets just take the opinion of the first beat cop to arrive at a crime scene and base all our final judgements and decision to prosecute on his impressions? :rolleyes:
People need to learn to not accept as complete an initial impression, but reserve even preliminary judgment until all the details are revealed after full and complete investigation. You do noone a favor in your rush to comment.
Do you really think the Blackwater guys just started hosing down innocent people for no reason? If you think that, you 1) need to learn more about them and the job they do, and 2) need to stop watching so many Hollywood movies, they are skewing your concept of reality as has happened to so many other people.
Do you really think the Iraqis at the scene were completely honest, or even accurate in their statements, and were willing to offer even a slight bit of balance to their statements recognizing the Blackwater troops were attacked?
-
i know you have a kid there dago... but GtoRA2's point was spot on.
-
i find it interesting that a lt col of field artillery files his AAR reports with the news media.
-
Originally posted by john9001
i find it interesting that a lt col of field artillery files his AAR reports with the news media.
Must be the evil anti war liberal again. I bet it was Al Gore's fault.
-
Originally posted by Torque
but GtoRA2's point was spot on.
What, that a Lt Col in field artillery is trained to investigate the actions of private security firms and form judgments on which they are tried and found guilty in the press?
That the Iraqi people in the area can be trusted on without reservation to be completely honest and accurate in their statements when they are in an emotional state, or when they think there may be money to be made?
No, I don't think he is spot on, and while I am not trying to cast negative connotations on the Lt Col, I don't think he is trained nor was he prepared to do a complete and accurate investigation, and based on that I think any rush to judgment is wrong.
Are you the same guys who wanted to hang the Durham Rugby players like the DA?
-
Do you really think the Blackwater guys just started hosing down innocent people for no reason? If you think that, you 1) need to learn more about them and the job they do, and 2) need to stop watching so many Hollywood movies, they are skewing your concept of reality as has happened to so many other people.
I don't think anyone thinks that. What obviously happened is that 'someone' opened fire first. Whether it was Blackwater personnel reacting to a perceived threat, such as an approaching car which they mistook for suicide bomber or something else. Other guards, mistaking this for incoming fire, joined in and killed a lot of innocent people.
Or they were fired upon by someone in the crowd. In which case they returned fire but in the process shot a lot of innocent civilians including women and children. Not a strictly proportional reaction.
Either way it's not good.
Any investigation is going to look at several things. One has been mentioned, no apparent evidence of them being fired upon. This coming from the US Army on the scene. Combat soldiers may know or thing or two about what to expect to see after a firefight. If they see a lot of dead civilians lying around shot in the back. They might draw obvious conclusions. Also the unanimity of reports from the witnesses. It's a mistake to think all Iraqis are anti American. Somebody would have said so had the Blackwater people been attacked first.
Were the vehicles hit? Were any Blackwater personnel hit? Evidently not. Any weapons recovered? How many of the victims fit the profile of insurgents? etc etc.
You don't have to Sherlock Holmes to work out what happened that day. A disproportionate reaction to a perceived threat whether real or not perpetrated by people who are not soldiers and not subject to the same discipline as the US military. It's surpising something like this hasn't happened sooner.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
I don't think anyone thinks that. What obviously happened is that 'someone' opened fire first. Whether it was Blackwater personnel reacting to a perceived threat, such as an approaching car which they mistook for suicide bomber or something else. Other guards, mistaking this for incoming fire, joined in and killed a lot of innocent people.
Or they were fired upon by someone in the crowd. In which case they returned fire but in the process shot a lot of innocent civilians including women and children. Not a strictly proportional reaction.
Either way it's not good.
Any investigation is going to look at several things. One has been mentioned, no apparent evidence of them being fired upon. This coming from the US Army on the scene. Combat soldiers may know or thing or two about what to expect to see after a firefight. If they see a lot of dead civilians lying around shot in the back. They might draw obvious conclusions. Also the unanimity of reports from the witnesses. It's a mistake to think all Iraqis are anti American. Somebody would have said so had the Blackwater people been attacked first.
Were the vehicles hit? Were any Blackwater personnel hit? Evidently not. Any weapons recovered? How many of the victims fit the profile of insurgents? etc etc.
You don't have to Sherlock Holmes to work out what happened that day. A disproportionate reaction to a perceived threat whether real or not perpetrated by people who are not soldiers and not subject to the same discipline as the US military. It's surpising something like this hasn't happened sooner.
You make my point, there is more to be discovered, a real and thorough investigation needs to be completed before the true facts are known and then, and only then should statements from others be offered as to what happened.
I am not defending them, nor am I saying they are innocent, and I do suspect that innocents did lose their lives but lets belay judgment until the appropriate time.
All would do well to remember there have been documented cases of insurgents killing innocent civilians with the purpose of making it look like US troops did it. There may have been some of that here aimed towards the Blackwater personel.
-
There's a little history in the mid-east with regard to immunity bestowed upon "occupiers" and or their puppet surrogates, it shouldn't be a surprise folks in those parts are highly suspicious of these "above the law" mercs, they've had experience.
Under the Shah of Iran, elements of the US .gov were immunized against prosecution for violating Iranian laws.. just like these mercs enjoy immunity in Iraq. It became a big deal in Iran, one of many rally points that lead up to the 79 revolution.
Iranians believed this was to protect Americans involved in, what was then, alleged acts of "terrorism" committed by the CIA... and it turns out they were right... so theres a long history of mistrust in those parts of any group thats placed above the law.
The hypocrisy of the US singing the praises of "the rule of law", then allowing some to be above the law, is not lost on those it affects either, thats an easy one to call BS on.