Video of Blackwater Contractors Driving Over Iraqi Woman

Originally posted by redneck13
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I think it's ok for Iran to have as many conventional weapons as they choose. If those nut jobs have their finger on the button, they will use it eventually. They need to bring on the anti-Christ through world Chaos or sum such non-sense. It’s not as those atomic particles stay put. Its spreads all over the planet and it has the gift that just keeps giving. It affects the entire planet it’s in all our interests. Russia and the US had two narrow escapes due to faulty equipment; it’s just a bad idea. China, Pakistan, India, this just makes the end game too easy for planet earth.

I used to be scared of nuclear weapons, too, back when i was taking other people's word for all the evil they would unleash. I got so scared of them, in fact, that I dug deeply into their effects, and did an intensive, extensive, study of what the can and can't do in comparison to what was claimed they would do. I highly recommend you do the same, and set your mind at ease in the matter.

Just as an example of what you'll discover is the notion that they are "the gift that keeps on giving". Radioactive material has what is called a "half life" - it's radiation drops off exponentially over time. it's not a gradual tapering off - it's dramatic. 1/2 to 1/4 to 1/8 to 1/16 to 1/32, etc. In layman's terms, it rapidly loses it's "oomph". That works together with a lot of other variables - the most dangerous stuff is the heaviest stuff, and it falls out close to ground zero. the longer the air borne stuff stays air borne, the longer it has to loose it's oomph before it gets close enough to do any damage. The more powerful stuff is the fastest decaying - it only has a finite amount of radiation to give off, and if it gives it off in quantity, it "runs out of gas" faster - that sort of thing.

Nukes have an "optimal burst height" - the height optimal for maximum damage from the explosion is too high to produce any fallout at all - no fallout ever results from those. The ground bursts, which produce fallout, have minimum damage radii.

It's really a pretty interesting field to dig into, and the more you learn, the madder you get that people have lied to you all these years about the degree of danger.

Check out "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons" US GPO, 1979, and "Life After Doomsday" by Dr. Bruce Clayton. Those are good points to start out with and use as a springboard in a discovery that you won't soon forget - or forgive.

I presume the "faulty equipment" escapes you are referring to are nuclear power plants, like Chernobyl. Nuclear power plant relate to nuclear weapons in precisely the same way a light switch in your house relates to a stick of dynamite - both are initiated by heat - burning coal generating electricity in one and a piece of resistance wire heating up and initiating the explosion in the other, but the end results are NOT comparable.

Yes, both involve "radiation" just as both of my examples involve heat - and the similarities end there. Using a nuclear power accident to try to illustrate what a nuclear weapon exchange would do is a lot like using what a key does to a car ignition to illustrate what a key does to your house. In one case, it sets off a series of combustions, and in the other it opens a door so you can carry your groceries in. they simply aren't comparable in spite of the similarities (i.e. both use a key) that people will try to convince you matter.

So I don't much care if Iran puts a nuke in every basement and gives the family baby the keys - first launch will be their last act, and it's not likely to ever get close enough to the ground before it's destruction to do anything at all. As I sit here, the news is carrying on about the ICBM launch vehicle that North Korea is carrying out this morning. Meh. Let 'em waste their money. It ain't my problem, and never will be.

Originally posted by Jameela
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

I want to say something..

The reason the US government used private contractors like Blackwater was to have people on the ground who could use tactics the military could not due to international law, and also gave the US complete deniability concerning said actions.

you cannot say "Black Water did a bad thing, or a few bad things but they were punished"

It is the policy itself that must change, the one where the US wants to circumvent international law through the use of "private contractors."

Dream on. Mercenaries have been here since long before David slew Goliath and then ran off to create a mercenary band, and they will still be here long after Xeon of Arcturus devastates Borno of Sirius. There has always been a demand for such, there is now, and there always will be. As long as there is a demand, there will be men seeking "job security" who will fill that demand.

International Law actually happens to be very stringent on mercenaries - far more than on national Service Soldiers.

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by popsmayhem

 

wow...I have seen a great many things in my life...and yet again another person completely devoid of reason understanding and compassion for fellow human beings....does it make a difference if it was a man woman or child who was struck by the vehicle in the second video.....guess what....not one bit......It is a blatant disregard for fellow human beings....in the first vid you can hear the arrogant SOB asking a Iraqi what they are looking at....well sorry m8 your in my f£$$%% country and i can look at what i please.....i am looking at the A£$ who is driving like a fool in my place of residence......

Yup, he was an arrogant ass, a scared little boy hiding behind a great big gun.

So tell me...if this was in your streets and the person just drove over say your wife......or brother....or son or daughter......would you be so flippin arrogant....I would venture a guess....NOT

I've taught my wife, daughter, and son not to walk into moving traffic - and that it's stupid to try to body-block a 5000 pound vehicle with a 120 pound body. My brother is on his own, but I suspect his training in the matter of playing in traffic was similar to mine, so it's not likely to happen.

first off the war against Iraq was a false flag OP....these are PRIVATE security making use of US military....and this is ok in your books.....Why the heck are you even on here if this is your position....You should be a government shill if this is your thinking.....OH i see...you probably are.....well your in the wrong place then.....if you cannot use common sense.

I wouldn't be denigrating someone else's "common sense" while simultaneously attempting to defend the actions of a woman who walks in traffic....

reply to post by nenothtu


The Red Button (Czerwony Guzik) The man that saved the world

The Red Button is a 52-minute documentary film that tells the dramatic story of Stanislav Petrov, the Russian officer who, in 1983, saved the world from atomic war.

During the early ‘80s, the Russian leader was Jurij Andropov, the most right-wing Soviet leader since Stalin. A known hardliner, Andropov was very wary of US activity.

www.logtv.com...

We also had our day of a false positive

reply to post by 31Bravo

What's with the "you people"? So since I'm an American I'm not good enough to be a human being like everyone else on this mud ball? Wow, are you really that hippocratic? As far as hurting others being ok, No. To say every American feels this way is the height of arrogance. British and French are so quick to call Americans rude, but it is you who has been the aggressor already.. you should look down before you look up you know what I mean? Practice what you preach my friend.

Don't twist my words and assume i refer to "you people" as the whole of the american population.

By using "you people" i am referring to the individuals who claim it's okay to run women over. Unless you associate that with a common trait of being american.... then think what you want.

reply to post by nenothtu


actual 'mercenaries I believe to be illegal under international law.. however, the laws are written in such a manner things such as this are easily circumvented


"As this paper has explained, current international legislation on mercenaries is very limited in its effectiveness.The weakness of the law is of course intended.Governments...see no reason to deny themselves access to a potentially valuable source of military expertise. All the international community has wanted to do for the last 5 decades is to remove freelance mercenaries from those wars it would prefer them to stay out of"
conflits.revues.org...

However, having these 'private contractors' working for the US doing things the US cannot do under international law allows complete and plausible deniablility to the US.. as seen with Black Water, they got in trouble (publicly anyway) and the US is under no scrutiny for their actions!

This is what I was referring, and I was asking someone else on the board who discusses in a nice manner, and does not become hateful or insulting, he simply discusses, even though he disagrees with me. It is why I replied him.

Speaking with people such as him is a learning experience for everyone, myself, him, each other. It is the purpose of a discussion forum. I just wanted to point that out.

reply to post by Jameela

actual 'mercenaries I believe to be illegal under international law.. however, the laws are written in such a manner things such as this are easily circumvented

44/34. International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries

44/34. International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries - UN Archives

I think this is what you were referring to.

UN article from 2010 addressing issues relating to the use of private security entities

The use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination

Originally posted by Jameela
reply to post by nenothtu

 

actual 'mercenaries I believe to be illegal under international law.. however, the laws are written in such a manner things such as this are easily circumvented

No, they're not illegal, but conditions of their employment are pretty tightly regulated. For example, if I were to come to Iran and offer my services for a price, I would insist that the contract include a commission in the Iranian military to cover my own behind. I would technically be a "mercenary", but covered under the Geneva Conventions as a member of their national military, If I were to sell my services to a private company as a Security Consultant, that will have it's own contractual obligations attached in order to cover my own behind, depending on the circumstances of employment.

However, having these 'private contractors' working for the US doing things the US cannot do under international law allows complete and plausible deniablility to the US.. as seen with Black Water, they got in trouble (publicly anyway) and the US is under no scrutiny for their actions!

What do you think they are doing that the US couldn't do under International Law?

This is what I was referring, and I was asking someone else on the board who discusses in a nice manner, and does not become hateful or insulting, he simply discusses, even though he disagrees with me. It is why I replied him.

Speaking with people such as him is a learning experience for everyone, myself, him, each other. It is the purpose of a discussion forum. I just wanted to point that out.

Yeah, I'm not a very nice guy. I'll go stand in the corner and hang my head now.

Blackwater / Xe doesn't have contractors in Iraq last I had heard, this was a couple of years ago.

Also, anyone who thinks the contractors drive "crazy" has obviously never seen how the typical Iraqi drives.

reply to post by popsmayhem


To be quite frank, they had no f*****g business over there IN THE FIRST PLACE. You act as if they belong over there, and they have every right to be there.

Originally posted by ecoparity
Blackwater / Xe doesn't have contractors in Iraq last I had heard, this was a couple of years ago.

security.blogs.cnn.com...

Once the U.S. military presence in Iraq is gone, the embassy in Baghdad, the largest U.S. embassy in the world, will be staffed by approximately 1,700 diplomats and representatives of various cabinet agencies. They will be supported by approximately 5,000 security contractors. There will also be up to 4,000 contractors supporting every service for U.S. personnel in Iraq from food to sanitation and anything else necessary for diplomats to carry out their jobs

Originally posted by ecoparity
Blackwater / Xe doesn't have contractors in Iraq last I had heard, this was a couple of years ago.

Also, anyone who thinks the contractors drive "crazy" has obviously never seen how the typical Iraqi drives.

Blackwater just changes names and diversifies. I knew the war was not over but just moved into the private sector, funded by the public, which is wrong. Calling soldiers of fortune contractors is a funny legal move.

reply to post by Swills


I whole hartedly agree with you, anyone who watches this and thinks it is ok is sick in the head! These guys are tearing down their roads with no regard for anyone around them!

Oh so macho and tough, i would be ashamed if I was one of there mothers.

Peace

reply to post by Vasa Croe


They are American you can hear their accent!

reply to post by popsmayhem

I am just looking for truth and this video sure as hell aint it..

Please indicate on this video why it is not 'truth' It is a video of the terrorists running over an innocent iraqi and somehow it is false? I say false because the opposite of truth is falsehood. Please specify what exactly about this video is not true. Otherwise tell your blackwater bosses they are not paying you enough to be their propaganda public representative.

for the hundreth millionth time they broke the law I posted earlier no one seemed to care I will say one more time the info i put is good look it up its in here and again remember hearts and minds is this part of the mission or not???