Video of Blackwater Contractors Driving Over Iraqi Woman

Considering the circumstances which I was going to point out also (but Xcathra beat me to it) and the war excuses aside. Based on the video alone the driver is more at fault here than the victim because they are fully aware that they are driving on the wrong side of the road (if that is the way traffic flows). It seems like gross negligence if this was not a convoy mission to stay so close to the curb with the pedestrian near it when they have the distance of half a cars width apart to swerve before hitting any other cars on that same street. If this was just generally driving from point A to point B no mission involved this had the possibility of being prevented on the driver’s part. Also I find the name calling on this thread towards the victim while immediately assuming the victim is at fault completely inhumane.

Does it matter if it happened in 2006? Not really. What matters is that we talk about this to root out the seed of oppression buried within us which we will easily project on others (given the right circumstances as those mercs did in the first video) if we do not set the moral standards here now. Learn from history do not repeat the same mistakes.

reply to post by Swills



you have no idea who, how or what was going on in 2006, this company was authorized to be there, drive like they were and and use the vehicles that they were using by the american embassy. If you dont like what you see go to the government representatives that your state elected and tell them. There are no contractors allowed in country with weapons and vehicles that are not cleared but both the US state department and the Iraqi Embassy. Blackwater is now USTG. Again if you are pissed ,,,its your government's reps and the Iraqi governement that allow them there and approved their rules of engagment. Every convoy that leaves an American compound is given a briefing as to the changing rules of engagement before they leave the compound. Breaking traffic laws..in case you didnt notice there were little or no traffic control..either working traffic lights or traffic police (most of which are corrupt) who are ignored by the public. Lastly there are a number of PSD companies operating in Iraq and Afghanistan..I didnt see a BW logo or hear anyone claim they were BW employees in the clips that was played. I'm not defending any company ..put the blame were its due ..square on the shoulders of our governement representatives (Senators, Congressmen, Represenatives, Governers) etc,,,,

Originally posted by Swills
Has anybody looked the second I posted in my original post? The Harpers Magazine link? You know, the source of all of this? Anyway, click this, harpers.org... and watch the videos. I don't think any of us are talking about it, mainly focusing on the woman who got hit by the Humvee.

edit on 7-4-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)

Thats actually my other complaint / irritation. All we are getting is the reporting of what occured and a video. What "occured" is coming from people who watched the video who were not present when it occured. I want to know what was going on from start to finish of the convoy as well as any radio / phone traffic from epople invovled to see if they contacted anyone about thefemale who was hit.

I want to know why they were possibly on the wrong side of the road and who was in the vehicle they were supposedly transporting / providing security for.

When they make a title that says "Video of Blackwater Contractors Driving Over Iraqi Woman" when in fact she was not run over, it tends to come across as one sided or setup to slam a company / admiinstration in hopes people dont ask to many question that could place the video into context and undermine their reporting.

Not saying thats what they are doing, but withte media lately I would prefer to see as much info as possible before taking their word for it. The guy who reported on the video was terminated from MSNBC for being to far out there. I did not think that was possible for MSNBC so it makes you wonder about the other reporting that was done and why it was considred way out there and could it possible have been linked to exageration or omitting information?

Clearly the woman is not walking across the road in a quiet suburban neighbourhood, shes crossing a road in a busy war torn country, I'd be checking both ways continuously. They were pretty close to her by the time she stepped out, and at the speed the convoy was going I really don't believe the drivers would have had enough time to deviate their set course.

Obviously there are reasons that would prove stopping to help would be bad for security, and good for public moral, but honestly the locals probably would have still wanted to enrage something.

This video is something that happens nearly everyday around the world on streets of every type, by hooligans, decent drivers, police, but because its in a war torn country it gets more attention. I'd like to see some statistics on Iraq's "roadkill" within the same nature against other countries.

An ambulance, police vehicle is permitted in some countries to mount the sidewalk in chase, or emergency. In war everyday can seem like an emergency.

Seriously, this is only to aggravate peoples opinions on both sides, no sides and whatever. I'm sure worse things happen over there.

To me looks like she should have double checked where she was walking, especially since there is a war going on.

On another note The Young Turks are biased and don't investigate their stories enough, how do I know, because they label American Stereotypes onto other countries.

reply to post by Swills

That's a dark, scary road that can do wrong very easily.

That operates under the assumption we are capable of determining what mission is right in the first place.

There are wrong actions ... but wrong missions? Even the right missions can be undertaken with the darkest of actions.

What kind of security are you talking about here?

Mostly the kind we already provide. We have sizable deployments of security forces in Kuwait, the UAE, Korea, Australia, Japan, etc - all largely there to protect ports used for ships that operate in defense of shipping lanes.

We pay for that in taxes (or national debt... since we don't run a sensible budget), and the financial system of the military is out of whack. You know how it is with command budgeting... use it or lose it (waste it or don't have it next year when you might just need it). Start treating the military like the business it is and minimize its reliance upon the Federal budget (this has its own security, in a way; we will have a military even if we are running into tax revenue problems). Place commands in charge of procuring their own budget and securing their own inventories... and watch the cost-effectiveness of the military grow by a factor of two in a very short order. Abuse by contractors will start to dwindle, and you'll see far fewer do-nothings allowed to persist in the service (and far fewer contractors hired to do staff work... like cut the damned grass... sure - if you are running 24 hour operations and straining your crew, bring in a contractor to cut the grass if it is that important... but why do that when you're cutting loose at lunch?)

Commands that naturally have no mission will begin to evaporate based on market demand; and commands that perform well will be supplied and outfitted well (because they will be more likely to be awarded contracts).

Better yet - allow those commands to invest in stocks or other securities that could be taxed (much in the way a franchise 'taxes' the profits of its operators) as well as bolster various industries and provide ROI for commands that operate in a fiscally responsible manner.

Do I support private security teams bidding on US operations? No, I don't. I think military operations should be handled by the military.

What, exactly, defines a "military operation?" I could get a small team of marksmen together with some 'tactically acquired' explosives and launch an assault on a particular target.

Is that a military operation? I'm utilizing my training from the military for it, and I'm using weapons to accomplish the goal.

Or does it matter what the target is?

The military is nothing more than a group of people who get trained in various tactics and jobs that directly engage in combat or support combat activities ... and is recognized by the Government as being our military. Otherwise... the distinction between Military and Contractor is merely in the finances (one could argue discipline and various "codes" - but you find those in employment contracts with various PMCs).

The military has standards which are enforced but I fear a civilian army would be to independent and free, comparatively.

The contract of employment and the contract of defense are the rules and standards the mercenary is bound to. If a contract says to avoid collateral damage and civilian casualties - violation of that leads to the customer with-holding pay.

Further, the employee holds a contract with the PMC (employer) binding them to a set of standards and conduct. Violating those standards will lead to contract termination (being fired); demotion, etc.

The Military is far more tolerant of poor behavior, laziness, and complacency than real-world business is (particularly manufacturing). It takes a damned act of congress to get a #bag out of the military. It takes a single piece of paper to terminate employment contracts.

These constant conflicts need to end. Seriously, how much longer can we keep this up? The answer is to continue to create more and more private contractors and that doesn't well with me.

We are a top-notch provider of military services. Why should we not offer those services on the market?

reply to post by Xcathdra


I hear ya, I think we all would love to see all of these videos in a longer format. Looks like we got the high light reel which means short videos obviously leave out a lot of much needed content > context. Did Charles Glass get the videos edited like this or did he do it? Hopefully he explains in his article. I think he edited it and hopefully they'll release more footage but there are a few more short clips on that site, the Harper Mag site, and you don't need a long time line to tell that was wrong. For example, there was machine gun fire and it came from a M4A1 and it hit a civilians car, parked car, and a truck. Kinda reminded me of that scene from Full Metal Jacket and the Huey gunner, but clearly not as dramatic.

reply to post by Swills


Hey Swills contrare to what anybody thinks about the BLACKWATER BOYS .they are regular human Americans just like the trust us. Hell. I almost was one. I am not running over women last I looked.The American Soldier is still the Icon of humanity no matter what the liberal media paints us out to be

Originally posted by jbmitch
reply to post by Swills

 

...this company was authorized to be there, drive like they were and and use the vehicles that they were using by the american embassy.

Ohhh well if the American embassy says it's ok to run down civilians then it must be! Sorry, I thought it was rude to be a complete scumbag but I guess I was wrong.

And so now we are incensed that someone got hurt in traffic(?) but not that the whole country is being subjugated by invasion and raped of it's resources?

Kind of propagandistic isn't it? I mean we bomb, invade and murder a million or so, but are reminded of our senses by a traffic accident? Who started this morals switch anyway?

reply to post by Swills


All of this isn't to say that soldiers and/or contractors do not commit 'atrocities' ever - but that one must look carefully at each case.

It is easy to see what you want to see. That is why the media loves the gray area. People can read into these scenes whatever their bias is. If you see soldiers and/or contractors as inherently bad people... you read into malice. If you see 'civilians' on the roads in Iraq as terrorists in the wings - then you're going to read into it "got 'em before they got us."

In this one - I have to say that none of us have sufficient information on this one. Do I approve of the way the individuals talked? No. At the same time - plenty of us were shouting similar epithets at each other during our training exercises as we 'killed' each other. ... And that is relatively tame compared to the things shouted over video games.

reply to post by rebellender


Clearly not everyone is a bad apple but that doesn't mean there aren't any bad apples.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Swills

 

All of this isn't to say that soldiers and/or contractors do not commit 'atrocities' ever - but that one must look carefully at each case.

It is easy to see what you want to see. That is why the media loves the gray area. People can read into these scenes whatever their bias is. If you see soldiers and/or contractors as inherently bad people... you read into malice. If you see 'civilians' on the roads in Iraq as terrorists in the wings - then you're going to read into it "got 'em before they got us."

In this one - I have to say that none of us have sufficient information on this one. Do I approve of the way the individuals talked? No. At the same time - plenty of us were shouting similar epithets at each other during our training exercises as we 'killed' each other. ... And that is relatively tame compared to the things shouted over video games.

You hit the nail on the head in your first paragraph and your second paragraph continues to drive it. Your post before this one was very informative, we all appreciate it. You do bring an excellent point of the demands of contracts and how easily one could lose that contract, so that is one very effective consequence. What do operations mean or what kind of operation? As you said, that's really a broad term that encompasses anything and everything. Really, the sky is the limit. And you're again right, we do specialize in warfare, so why not sell it. We are the military industrial complex, are we not?

There is no doubt we all would love to see a longer version of these videos, especially the woman who was struck. That said, there are a few shorter videos that are just as bad that the Young Turks video didn't cover. These videos can be found on this link, harpers.org...

reply to post by Swills


This begs the question of whether or not its our responsibility to concern ourselves with every bad apple that comes along on the international scene.

I find it somewhat ironic that many members of ATS are all for privacy and what-not until events like this occur - in which case they want to know the name of the guy's first girlfriend and a complete genetic sequence analysis run on him.

It's e-mob-vigilantism that threatens the rights of people, and we have to be careful how swept up we get in the media's tizzy fits (such as the whole issue over Martin or the killings in Afghanistan).

reply to post by Aim64C


The bad apples I was referring to was bad apple US contractors. They have to be dealt with, no? As far as ATS posters wanting privacy and the names and numbers of people they are incest with, I dunno where that came from. Have people in this thread asked for the personal information of anyone in question in these videos? As far as we're concerned no one is sure if these are military or contractors, so we haven't even gotten far enough to ask for names let alone blood. What people do want to see is behavior and accidents like this not happen and if they do our contractors/soldiers are held responsible for them.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Swills

 

This begs the question of whether or not its our responsibility to concern ourselves with every bad apple that comes along on the international scene.

I find it somewhat ironic that many members of ATS are all for privacy and what-not until events like this occur - in which case they want to know the name of the guy's first girlfriend and a complete genetic sequence analysis run on him.

It's e-mob-vigilantism that threatens the rights of people, and we have to be careful how swept up we get in the media's tizzy fits (such as the whole issue over Martin or the killings in Afghanistan).

In case you hadn't notice the USA is part of the 'international scene'.

Surely you don't think that as soon as you step outside of your own country's borders you are free to do as you please because everywhere else is a lawless, barbaric land in desperate need of your influence?

reply to post by Aim64C


Some good points...

My other question is why now? Why bring something up from 2006 that has been dealt with?

Originally posted by intrptr
And so now we are incensed that someone got hurt in traffic(?) but not that the whole country is being subjugated by invasion and raped of it's resources?

Kind of propagandistic isn't it? I mean we bomb, invade and murder a million or so, but are reminded of our senses by a traffic accident? Who started this morals switch anyway?

Yeah man!!! Those crazy Chinese and raping Iraqs resources.... They are mad as hell and they are not going to take it... Unless of course its contracts worthbillions, then they will take it.

China opens oil field in Iraq
Iraq signs oil deal worth up to $3 billion with China
Chinese company ZTE wins Iraqi reconstruction contract
China reaps benefiets of Iraq war
Iraq: BP, Chinese win lucrative oil contract
Chinese firm ‘owns’ telephone system in Iraq
Iraq wants Iran, China to turn power on
Chinese firm ZTE wins telephone reconstruction contract in Iraq

Want me to keep going?

reply to post by Garfee


Nope -
however at the time blackwater was operating with the equivelant of a status of forces agreement.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Garfee

 

Nope -
however at the time blackwater was operating with the equivelant of a status of forces agreement.

And we are all shocked when they blow us up.

Originally posted by Garfee

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Garfee

 

Nope -
however at the time blackwater was operating with the equivelant of a status of forces agreement.

And we are all shocked when they blow us up.

Im not.. they have been killing themseleves long before the new world was even discovered, let alone since the creation of the United States.

Its nice to see you are ok with the 100 meter rush to judgement though.Even more so since its been resolved being it happened 6 years ago.. But why live in the noew and look to the future when we can look to the past and play monday morning quarterback?

Or would you prefer announcements on airplanes to the tune of -
"We are sorry to inform you that due to global islamic fundamentalists this plane is being diverted to paradise"

if, as the argument goes, they hate us because of our foreign policy then why target the world trade center? Not once, but twice (which people conviently ignore because itdoesnt fit into their 9/11 was a government coverup dream).

Because they hate the us its acceptable for them to kill anyone within blast radius of their car / truck / homicide bombers?

reply to post by Xcathdra


What am I judging mate?

All I saw was someone run down by a vehicle.