Video: US mercenaries Randomly Shooting Iraqis

Paddy I take it you mean ones without gas parts?

Well mate there are many reasons they could take blanks TO iraq, taking them on duty wouldnt be smart.
I mean they can kil up to 50 yards but not much use except for training.

You have to remember that the video isnt shot all at the same time nor in the same place.
Cut and paste mate.

Originally posted by ArchAngel

Do you generally make things up? Wait don't answer that.......obviously you do.

Do you understand the difference between A US State and THE US STATE?

Again, the word state has many meanings.

I think this explains the large part of everyones problem in this thread.

Of course I do which is why I asked if you meant the US Department of State?

Originally posted by devilwasp
Paddy I take it you mean ones without gas parts?

Well mate there are many reasons they could take blanks TO iraq, taking them on duty wouldnt be smart.
I mean they can kil up to 50 yards but not much use except for training.

You have to remember that the video isnt shot all at the same time nor in the same place.
Cut and paste mate.

BFAs are specifically for weapons WITH gas parts. Blank rounds do not create enough pressure within the barrel to work the gas parts (either direct blow-back like the M16 or more conventional gas-piston designs like the AK47 or SA80). All of these weapons require a combination of pressure from the explosive expansion of gasses from the fired round and an effective barrel seal to work their actions. Blank rounds don't create enough of a seal in the barrel, therefore the pressure is too low and what little there is dissipates too quickly. Weapons without gas parts only fire single shots (except pistols), therefore don't need BFAs. Sorry to get all technical there, but a SAA instructor can't let this sort of comment go un-answered!!

As for blanks killing you at 50yds, take it from someone who has been hit by several in training - it's cr@p. This is just a training margin extended for peace-time training ro reduce the chances of the DOD/MOD being sued in the off chance that someone looses an eye.

Blanks are in country, but they are NEVER taken onto live ops. As is stated earlier, there is just too much chance of someone getting killed due to an ammunition mix-up. This is basic skill at arms stuff.

Mercs are unlikely to waste their money on anything that will have no operational function. The chances that blanks would be used for any purpose (including training) by these people is low. They are not held by the same safety constraints that armies are. Blanks are difficult to come by, and are twice as expensive as live rounds.

Of course I do which is why I asked if you meant the US Department of State?

No I did not.

I meant the US Admin.

President is head of STATE.

Originally posted by Trunk Monkey
Do you know what the ROE are?

Rules of engagement, according to Arch, the only rules are, there are no rules. Which is of course BS. Also it is my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, that private contractors do not take orders from the military, and even bump heads on occasion. But according to the author of this thread, the US government is calling all the shots.

Do you know what the Trunk Monkey’s job is?

Isn't it a monkey that lives in your trunk and if somebody bigger tries to attack you on the road, you just press a button and the monkey emerges to hit him/her with a crowbar? Just kidding, a trunk monkey is the guy who has to make sure nobody approaches from the rear, right?

This is a war zone. The video does not show random shootings. It shows action taken against vehicles that fail to slow down and fail to take notice of the warnings.

It's pointless to try and bring logic into this thread, we have all tried and it just has no effect.

You cannot see what the Trunk Monkey is doing in this regard. You cannot see the warning sign on the back of the vehicle or the flashing lights. This is a war zone. Over 200 contractors have been killed, and nearly 4000 wounded. This is a war zone. The press only reports deaths, and hardly ever mentions the constant attacks against security contractors, ranging from random gunfire, to car bombs, to complex ambushes. I have been wounded twice in action and have been working in Iraq since early 2004. I know this is a war zone.

Just for the record, what kind of zone is it again? Just kidding.
Keep safe.

I've heard the new 5 series BMW comes with a trunk monkey standard.

nice to hear from someone who is there and can let the truth be told.

Originally posted by PaddyInf
BFAs are specifically for weapons WITH gas parts. Blank rounds do not create enough pressure within the barrel to work the gas parts (either direct blow-back like the M16 or more conventional gas-piston designs like the AK47 or SA80). All of these weapons require a combination of pressure from the explosive expansion of gasses from the fired round and an effective barrel seal to work their actions. Blank rounds don't create enough of a seal in the barrel, therefore the pressure is too low and what little there is dissipates too quickly. Weapons without gas parts only fire single shots (except pistols), therefore don't need BFAs. Sorry to get all technical there, but a SAA instructor can't let this sort of comment go un-answered!!

Hmm....can I get back to you on this? I cant remember exsactly but I think that the LSW's we used at ottoburn (sp) didnt have the BFA's, (I know what you mean about the SA-80 and co but I wasnt sure if that meant all rifles) , but I cant remember since it was over a year ago.....

As for blanks killing you at 50yds, take it from someone who has been hit by several in training - it's cr@p. This is just a training margin extended for peace-time training ro reduce the chances of the DOD/MOD being sued in the off chance that someone looses an eye.

Well mate we've had one cadet shoot himself in the mouth before when he managed to steal a blank one and get it inside his L-98 (Stupid idiot), survived but just..

Blanks are in country, but they are NEVER taken onto live ops. As is stated earlier, there is just too much chance of someone getting killed due to an ammunition mix-up. This is basic skill at arms stuff.

Well mate then how do you train the locals?

Mercs are unlikely to waste their money on anything that will have no operational function. The chances that blanks would be used for any purpose (including training) by these people is low. They are not held by the same safety constraints that armies are. Blanks are difficult to come by, and are twice as expensive as live rounds.

Well mate you have to remember this company does train forces and would need to keep training...unless your telling me they train all the time with live ammo?

Originally posted by devilwasp
Hmm....can I get back to you on this? I cant remember exsactly but I think that the LSW's we used at ottoburn (sp) didnt have the BFA's, (I know what you mean about the SA-80 and co but I wasnt sure if that meant all rifles) , but I cant remember since it was over a year ago.....

Try firing one of these weapons without a BFA. You'll see what I mean. One round will fire, but the weapon will have to be re-cocked by hand to fire each subsequent round. It is applicable to all weapons that are in common use in Iraq.

Well mate we've had one cadet shoot himself in the mouth before when he managed to steal a blank one and get it inside his L-98 (Stupid idiot), survived but just..

In order to shoot himself, he must have been holding the thing! - Quite a bit less than 50yds I'm sure you'll agree. The BFA reduces the amount of debris that exits the muzzle of a rifle. As the L98 is single shot (bolt action), there is no need for a BFA, therefore more of the rubbish from the round is allowed to escape. Stupid to allow cadets to use a weapon that is more dangerous in training than the regs, but there you go.

Well mate then how do you train the locals?

Lots of shouting 'BANG', believe it or not! Either this or using live rounds. Dangerous, but they are not held by the same training safety constraints as a regular force.

Well mate you have to remember this company does train forces and would need to keep training...unless your telling me they train all the time with live ammo?

See above. Please beart in mind, I'm not trying to shoot anyone down here (pardon the pun). I'm just trying to share a few years of experience with you. I can only say what I see. I trained local units in Africa in 2000 as a reg. This apparently 'regular' force (SLA) didn't have the facilities to use blank ammunition, so we had to improvise. From what I have seen in Iraq, there are alot of similarities in the training of locals.

So...

The issue here is the identity of the mercenaries, NOT the fact that they are shooting Iraqi citizens randomly. What a way to shift the focus on the real issue...

Anyway, suspend the argument on the identity of the mercs. What do y'all think about them killing people at whim like this? Any comments?

Originally posted by truthseeka
So...

The issue here is the identity of the mercenaries, NOT the fact that they are shooting Iraqi citizens randomly. What a way to shift the focus on the real issue...

Well, the title is misleading. I don't think there is a poster on here who hasn't condemned the actions of the contractors, if indeed they were shooting randomly. It's hard to tell from the video since we don't really know the events leading up to it. I'm sure there will be some kind of investigation, and if they were just having "fun", they should be charged with murder or attempted murder if they didn't actually kill anybody.

Anyway, suspend the argument on the identity of the mercs. What do y'all think about them killing people at whim like this? Any comments?

If they are killing on a whim, they are murderers. Just like the D.C. sniper or any other thrill killers. The reason there is an argument on the identity is because the title says US mercs, when they clearly are not American. Both arguments are valid and on topic, however I don't think you'll find anybody arguing that it's okay to shoot at civilians randomly. If that's all that was being argued on this thread, it would have died long ago. Unless you're suggesting that somebody ordered them to fire randomly at people?

Originally posted by ArchAngel

President is head of STATE.

Yes, of the United States. I think we've gotten way off topic, maybe we should get back to what was going on with the mecs instead of who they're working for.

[edit on 5-12-2005 by CogitoErgoSum1]

I have seen the video a couple times on TV here. So far, I really dont see anything conclusive.

I dunno how you heard the voices on the tape, cargo, let alone discerne accents. I know what various British accents sound like, but I couldnt hear anything over the music and noise.

And as far as guilt is concerned, I SEE NOTHING CONCLUSIVE, SINCE i WAS NOT THERE, AND DID NOT KNOW WHAT THE CAR BEHIND THEM WAS DOING, OR WHETHER IT WAS THREATENING THE VEHICLE.

We know very well that western workers need all the security they can get in Iraq, even peace workers, so I will not pass any judgement till the incident is fully investigated.

Originally posted by PaddyInf
Try firing one of these weapons without a BFA. You'll see what I mean. One round will fire, but the weapon will have to be re-cocked by hand to fire each subsequent round. It is applicable to all weapons that are in common use in Iraq.

Must be mate, sorry I am not that up to date with my weapons (Mabye the reson I failed my TOT lately )

In order to shoot himself, he must have been holding the thing!

He was, Think FMJ.

- Quite a bit less than 50yds I'm sure you'll agree. The BFA reduces the amount of debris that exits the muzzle of a rifle. As the L98 is single shot (bolt action), there is no need for a BFA, therefore more of the rubbish from the round is allowed to escape. Stupid to allow cadets to use a weapon that is more dangerous in training than the regs, but there you go.

Well doubt it mate, we can only fire it from the prone position. Have to make safe before we move, Only get issued 2 magazines and most of the time are forced to shout bang.
We are getting the SA-80A1's though soon.

Lots of shouting 'BANG', believe it or not! Either this or using live rounds. Dangerous, but they are not held by the same training safety constraints as a regular force.

I do believe it, I have been there are done that.
Still I do beleive they would bring some blank ammo.

See above. Please beart in mind, I'm not trying to shoot anyone down here (pardon the pun). I'm just trying to share a few years of experience with you. I can only say what I see. I trained local units in Africa in 2000 as a reg. This apparently 'regular' force (SLA) didn't have the facilities to use blank ammunition, so we had to improvise. From what I have seen in Iraq, there are alot of similarities in the training of locals.

I understand mate I am just putting my opinion forward and I respect yours, I can understand what you as well about lack of facilities.

While watching a news report of a suicide bombing on CNN you can see a van with a sign in arabic and english saying "stay back" and what could be 100 ft or 100 m ... hmmm

You can watch ths video here:

Video Link (broadband required)

I wonder if this is some official "unofficial" policy in Iraq now? ... Any vehicle that strays within that zone can be shot at by either civilian contractors or military vehicles.

Why have the warning to "Stay Back"... Stay back or what?

You'll be shot at!

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
Why have the warning to "Stay Back"... Stay back or what?

You'll be shot at!

Cant tell what that vehicle is. It looks more like a police yellow tape we see in the states when a crime is committed and to keep the people back as the police is gathering evidence.

Nevermind its a Humvee with the sign that is telling anybody with a vehicle to stay away from it 100 meters.

[edit on 6-12-2005 by deltaboy]

I never make post on ATS, but for some reason this thread is driving me crazy. I have to say something. I guess that I expect someone on this group to be a skeptic. Instead I see everyone skipping the first think that a skeptic would do... look at the video objectively.

I'm a filmmaker... OK, I do low budget, independent films. Some of my comments are based on my experience as a filmmaker. Currently I working on a movie called "The Edison Death Machine". The first scene, which we haven't shot yet, will show a white haired actor in a lab. Everyone should recognize him as Thomas A. Edison. Why? Because we used his name in the title! People see what they expect to see.

In this thread and another one on this site the video is identified as a souvenir or trophy video. Virtually everyone that has posted starts with that assumption. They then go off on their own agendas.

I looked at the video and came to a conclusion that neither side of this discussion is going to like. I set out to answer some basic questions:

1) Is there anything in the video that proves that it is a trophy or souvenir video?
2) Why was the video shot?
3) What does it show or not show?
4) Why was it on a web site where it could be found.
5) Why was the footage edited in the first place?
6) Why was the music added and by whom?

As you can see this will take a while. I'll try to be as brief as possible.

First is there anything in the movie, other that its existence, that proves that it was filmed as a trophy video. Have you ever caught a swordfish? Me either, but I would have may picture taken with it. I wouldn't take a picture of just the fish. I would want a "Trophy Picture" and not just a snapshot of a fish. I know that you're going to say that other incidents taught these people not to get caught on tape, but without something in the video that appears to point toward being shot as a souvenir tape it is irresponsible to jump to that conclusion.

But what else could it be?

Take a look at the first five or six seconds of the footage and then stop it. What do you see? Some cars in the distance? As a moviemaker, that is not what I see. I see a fixed camera on either a tripod or a stationary mounting. From my experience I don't think it is a tripod. It is much too hard to keep a tripod steady in a moving vehicle. I think it is a fixed mount. In fact if it were pointing forward I think that anyone that as seen any of the police reality shows would recognize what it is. Virtually all large cities and states now require these cameras in vehicles that are used in traffic stops. Why are they requires? Because it protects both the policeman and the motorist that he stops. When it is shown "in context" it keeps the motorist from making untrue claims. It also protects the motorist from having the cop yank him out of th car and bitch slap him, or to put it into context for this discussion it keeps the mercenaries from "randomly shooting drivers".

So now six seconds into the video you have to accept the possibility that the company that hired these people is not a ruthless company that turns its people loose to shoot up the countryside... well I know that some of you won't be willing to accept that.

Why is the camera pointed toward the rear? I think that others have touched on this subject. This vehicle is protecting the rear of either a convoy or a vehicle with cargo or people inside. Other actions in the video points to this conclusion. For instance the are times when the camera vehicle comes to a stop in order to create a (in computer terms) firewall. They slow down or stop to increase the accuracy of their fire power. If you notice that is when the vehicles pull over. Either they are taking fire or they know that their risk of being killed has just increased. Please don't assume that every attacker wants to be killed.

Boy this is getting long and I don't know how long of a message that this forum will allow. So for now go ahead and watch the rest of the video in a new light. Maybe you will come to the same conclusions as I did. I will continue this in another post.

Bob

Hi again. No I haven't read all the hate mail post and name calling about my first post yet. I'm too busy trying to finish up my dissertation.

I think that my third point was to explore that the video does and doesn't show. On the resolution of the movie it really doesn't show much. I would love to get a copy of the original footage on DVD! It might even change my opinion, but we have to make decisions based on "the cards we are delt".

While there are things that I think that I see I need to limit myself to what I'm sure of or at least things that I'm very sure of. In the video I do not see any evidence of the camera car or any of the other vehicles being hit by gunfire. Maybe some of you can, but I don't see it in the video. I only see one case that appears to be gunfire coming from one of the vehicles.

Before we go on, you have to ask yourself if you have complete confidence in the original source of the footage that was released on the Internet. Even if it supports your theories, are you sure that the person who originally found this footage doesn't have his own agenda. Is he someone that feels that information wants to be free, or was it released simply as propaganda.

My fourth point is who originally edited the video. If my scenario is correct so far then it almost has to be the private firm that the mercenaries work for. I think that it was identified as Aegis or something like that. That is the web site where it is claimed to have been found on. I have no problem with that. I'm willing to accept that as fact... even without any proof.

I'm not willing to accept at face value that the released video is exactly the same as the original footage that was found on the web site. That brings up two things to consider. The first is if the starting point and the finishing point of each clip is the same as the original. The second thing is who and why was the music added. The original edit was done by employees of Aegis. If the released version has not been altered then they are the ones that added the music. I'm the first to admit that there is some kind of compulsion that editors have to add music to everything that they edit, but I don't think that they would have put copyrighted music on the video and then put it on the web. There is plenty of royalty free music that they could use.

That leaves the people that found the video on the web. Why would they add the music. Actually there are two good reasons that I can see. The first is to hide duologue in the video that would show that these people were acting properly. The second is probably giving them too much credit, but by having the same music throughout (in movies) you tie all the different clips together. This gives the allusion of some kind of a unity to the clips. In other words it makes it look like it is all part of some master plan. A conspiracy... imagine that on this site!

So if you are willing to consider that the music was added later then it isn't much of a stretch to consider that the individual clips are shortened so that the threat seems less in the released footage.

It is only a theory, but as a filmmaker I do see a few things that point to this being the case. The short version is that all the software needed to do it this way comes free with the newer versions of windows and can be done by a novice editor. With access to the original footage there are much better ways to work with the sound.

I've covered points four and six. Now it is time to tackle number five. The answer to this one is what ties everything else together. Let me go over everything again to put it into perspective.

My scenario is that this video shows nothing more than people doing the job that they were hired for. There appears to be a policy to videotape all actions and (probably) review them to determine if the actions taken were proper. Nothing definitive can be gleaned from viewing the video in the resolution provided. The footage does seem to be altered by someone which includes hiding the audio and possibly shortening the clips to create a false impression.

So why was the video made in the first place. I believe that they were made as training videos. These were made to show how it "should" be done. If you look at the video with this assumption you will see that each clip shows a different tactic that might be used by the enemy to get to the "convoy". There are a few more things that I want to say, but my wife tells me that there is a story on TV about this, so I want to get off before it starts.

Bob

Very interesting analisys. Thanks for that. I don't know enough about making movies to pick those things out, so I was just going by what I could and couldn't see in the video related to things I know.

Well the news story is over. The footage they use is the same, but it is even harder to see on TV.

For the record the slant that they used is virtually the same as all of you that have posted. Other possibilities were not considered in the report.

Any way, back to the subject. The report did say that it was found on a web site for former employees of Aegis. That does lend some support to the theory that it was not posted there, at least, as a training film. It doesn't prove that it wasn't originally a training film.

Real quick. I know that you are sill wondering where I think that I see gunfire coming from one of the card. Look in the last two or three seconds pg the video. You will see o puff of smoke coming from the right (passengers?) side of the car. The first time I saw it I assumed that it was a bullet hit, but then I realized that I too was being a victim of Hollywood. While it is possible that it was a hit that vaporized something, it is much more likely to be someone firing a weapon close enough to be seen.

The other place that I think shows the car under fire is the clip where someone claims that they threw out pyrotechnics. In this clip all the explosions are withing a 10 x 10 foot (3 x 3 meter) area. This doesn't seem to be a likely pattern if thrown from the car. They also explode in sequence like automatic fire. I don't see how this could have been rifle fire from a moving car.

What I do see as a likely scenario as as follows. One of the first things we see is what appears to be fire from the person on the right of the screen. Assuming a right hand ejection from the rifle we see spent cartridges going from right to left, indicating that he was firing at something in front of the car and off camera. We also see traffic going the other way. We don't see cars going off the road or anything that indicates that they feel that they are under fire.

Next on the left side of the footage we see a bunch of explosions. I can definitely count eight and think that I see a few more. This continues until the camera car is maybe a hundred or more feet past that spot.

How do I read that. Something happened before the clip starts. The person on the right of the screen returns fire. The sniped is on the top of a tall roof that we can see later in the video. The traffic on the other side is not overly concerned since that can see our rifleman firing over the cars. They know that they are not the target.

The explosions are the impacts from the gun on the roof. Probably a much larger "machine gun" like a 50 cal. The explosions appear to be coming from a higher angle that from one of the cars. From the cars they would probably be at too low of an angle to create this type of explosion.

Why doesn't the sniper try to follow the camera car with his fire? Two possibilities. He guy in the car could have the sniper. Not very likely, but possible. The second possibility is that the machine gut was fixed, kind of llike the camera and fires by some kind of remote control (string anyone). Sit the gun so that it would hit any cars on that side of the road and let them drive through the lead. I think that his is the most likely case.

Now look at the second video that was released. It is a single clip. You hear a single shot, then a series of shots (three I think) and then another shot. Around the series of shots if you look on the left side of the screen you will see bullets making impact. The people who released the second video probably didn't notice that. When the car comes into view you will see that the windows are rolled up. That is probably what they wanted you to see. They couldn't have fired shots with the windows up... unless of course they fired the shots from out the rear window. Duh.

OK, I'm done. I admit that I can't prove any of this, but it does all fit together. I think it is a compelling cast for questioning the original assumptions that you all made.

Oh, and finally although I do think that the video that we see is real someone on one of the threads said that it would take a large budget to fake this footage. Assuming that I could steal the cars I could make this footage for a few hundred dollars. Almost free if I used computer graphics instead of blanks and squibs (explosions). It is all about what you expect to see.

Bob

Zaphod58,

Thanks for the reply. I'm glad that the first reply wasn't hate mail. Everyon else is probably trying to dig through all my typos to figute out what I said.

I really should proof these messages before I post them!

Bob