Nothing to see here, move along...

[Larkinn]

That's all I'm saying Gunny, is that depending on the POV, it was right or wrong. THis is the same concept that can be applied to the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed in WWII by Allied planes as well as Allied soldiers, but since it was/is viewed a necessary and good war by most people, it seems to be more acceptable.

Back then we didn't get the details of individual acts. Find individual atrocities, and you might have a point. By the way, just that civilians are killed doesn't make it a massacre or an atrocity. But there has been NO evidence that the Blackwater guards were fired on.

Larkinn seems to go to far and assume that I'm making excuses for them and wants to wrongfully compare this to the VT massacre. I don't agree with a massacre any more than Larkinn does, but I do recognize that it's a POV conflict.

Yeah, whether you want to apologize for murderers or not.

Larkinn, until you've been in warzone, don't pretend that you would do everything perfect and to the "T". Many good men and women have done things in combat for which they regret, (wheter intentional or unintentional). It's the most stressful situation that any human being can be placed under. I'm not saying that it's ok that they may have done this intentionally, but I'm not going to pass judgement on them as if I was there and saw the whole thing.

The Iraqi government issued a report finding Blackwater responsible for massacreing 17 Iraqi civilians.

You think maybe, just maybe, the Iraqis have been in a war zone?

As far as your reference to the other thread, it seems like you're the only one still caught up on racial issues......
And you've also twisted my words....
I didn't say that racism didn't exist, but I believe that you categorize many natural aspects of life under the banner of racism when you shouldn't. You're not racist for acknowledging the fact that Mexicans like Mexican Food.

Nice strawman while simultaneously claiming I twisted your words. I said that you claimed it wasn't prevalent, not that it didn't exist.

 

[BrianH]

Back then we didn't get the details of individual acts. Find individual atrocities, and you might have a point. By the way, just that civilians are killed doesn't make it a massacre or an atrocity. But there has been NO evidence that the Blackwater guards were fired on.



Yeah, whether you want to apologize for murderers or not.



The Iraqi government issued a report finding Blackwater responsible for massacreing 17 Iraqi civilians.

You think maybe, just maybe, the Iraqis have been in a war zone?



Nice strawman while simultaneously claiming I twisted your words. I said that you claimed it wasn't prevalent, not that it didn't exist.

First off, are you suggesting that killing hundreds of thousands of civilians with bombs is not a massacre? What does it matter what method was used?? They're just as dead as the 17 civilians that were shot. This is turning out to be the whole "Some racism isn't bad" theory that you like so much.

Individual atrocities: Hmm.....Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Dresden, Kassel, Pforzheim, Darmstadt...are just a few off the top of my head.

Ever heard of the massacre at Chenogne?: 60 German prisoners were executed by machine gun fire.

Do you realize that in WWII, roughly 40 million civilians died v. 20 million soldiers?

600,000 civilians were killed by allied bombings of Germany.

You claim there is no proof that anyone fired at blackwater...I suppose you're willing to take your CSI team to a war zone and look for bullets??

I am not justifying what blackwater did, so you need to get off your frickin high-horse and just admit the fact that you are biasly judging the situation, just like you do with your "Some racism isn't bad" bull shit. You are hangin them out to dry while you yourself do not have all of the facts.

And I'll correct my statement, racism is not nationwide in this country and certainly not close to the majority of citizens. Sure, there are people that are racist, but they are an exteme minority....However, according to your extremely low standards for racism, everyone is racist because they acknowledge the fact that the NBA is about 80% black....(I've got a hint for you, that's an observation and not a racist remark)....

 

[Larkinn]

First off, are you suggesting that killing hundreds of thousands of civilians with bombs is not a massacre? What does it matter what method was used?? They're just as dead as the 17 civilians that were shot. This is turning out to be the whole "Some racism isn't bad" theory that you like so much.

If its done at different times, no its not a massacre. By the way, we aren't talking about countries committing massacres, we are talking about individuals. Different scale, genius.

And thanks for the emotional "they are just as dead" bullshit. I'm well aware. However it is NOT ok to kill 17 civilians because you are scared. It IS to keep the holocaust from happening. Those are just 2 extremes with a lot of grey in the middle.

Individual atrocities: Hmm.....Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Dresden, Kassel, Pforzheim, Darmstadt...are just a few off the top of my head.

All with valid military objectives. I'm still waiting to learn of the military objectives here.

Ever heard of the massacre at Chenogne?: 60 German prisoners were executed by machine gun fire.

No, and that would be an atrocity.

You claim there is no proof that anyone fired at blackwater...I suppose you're willing to take your CSI team to a war zone and look for bullets??

The Iraq government did an investigation and found Blackwater responsible.

I am not justifying what blackwater did, so you need to get off your frickin high-horse and just admit the fact that you are biasly judging the situation, just like you do with your "Some racism isn't bad" bull shit. You are hangin them out to dry while you yourself do not have all of the facts.

Oh, boo fucking hoo. I'm hanging people who killed 17 innocent civilians out to dry. My eyes are wet for them, really.

And I'll correct my statement, racism is not nationwide in this country and certainly not close to the majority of citizens.

Provide your proof for this. Oh wait, you don't have any. But your willing to make a judgement on the level of racism in this country, just not on Blackwater. Because, as I said, your trying to justify their murders.

Sure, there are people that are racist, but they are an exteme minority

Again, proof?

....However, according to your extremely low standards for racism, everyone is racist because they acknowledge the fact that the NBA is about 80% black....(I've got a hint for you, that's an observation and not a racist remark)....

If you had read what I said before instead of going apeshit and throwing around names and insults, you would understand that I don't disagree with that. But instead you jumped on the Shogun bandwagon of "omg, anything that takes me more than 2 seconds to think about because it might actually be complicated must just be wrong".

 

[BrianH]

If its done at different times, no its not a massacre. By the way, we aren't talking about countries committing massacres, we are talking about individuals. Different scale, genius.

I've got news for you, in their (Iraqis) eyes, Blackwater is AMERICAN......What a dumbass.

And thanks for the emotional "they are just as dead" bullshit. I'm well aware. However it is NOT ok to kill 17 civilians because you are scared. It IS to keep the holocaust from happening. Those are just 2 extremes with a lot of grey in the middle.

Yeah, I'm sure you have every winking detail about the events that day....



All with valid military objectives. I'm still waiting to learn of the military objectives here.

To protect U.S. Diplomats.....that's their military objective.


No, and that would be an atrocity.

No shit dumbass...that's what I'm saying....



The Iraq government did an investigation and found Blackwater responsible.

I'm not saying they're not, but since when has the Iraqi government been extremely effective in what they do???



Oh, boo fucking hoo. I'm hanging people who killed 17 innocent civilians out to dry. My eyes are wet for them, really.

Your eyes are wet because you're a frickin cry-baby...



Provide your proof for this. Oh wait, you don't have any. But your willing to make a judgement on the level of racism in this country, just not on Blackwater. Because, as I said, your trying to justify their murders.

You say this as if you have proof that it is nationwide and rampant. You've taken one frickin study and applied it to the whole nation as if it's proof that it's rampant and blacks everywhere can't get hired because of their names....You're starting to sound like "Shemptard"<---courtesy of Manifold. Taking a "wee" bit of information and applying to an entire frickin continent. Not to mention, you've made up your mind about the blackwater incident as if you have every frickin detailed account as well as a personalized video of the massacre....



Again, proof?

The racism BS is for the other thread...I'm not going to stray off topic in this thread. I've said what I needed to say regarding that, however, it is your job to prove your claim, not throw it upon others to disprove your retarded ass rationale.



If you had read what I said before instead of going apeshit and throwing around names and insults, you would understand that I don't disagree with that. But instead you jumped on the Shogun bandwagon of "omg, anything that takes me more than 2 seconds to think about because it might actually be complicated must just be wrong".

No...you are absolutely full of shit. You went out of your way to say that observing natural differences is racist. The fact that many blacks like fried chicken and watermelon is racist to you. It's an observable statistic. Does that mean I'm racist and hate black people??? NO. It means exactly what it means, that a large percentage of African Americans like fried chicken and watermelon. In your twisted world, acknowleding the fact that Mexicans like Mexican food is racist---but just not "bad racism." Go back and read your own posts before you accuse me of "jumping on the bandwagon."

 

[Larkinn]

I've got news for you, in their (Iraqis) eyes, Blackwater is AMERICAN......What a dumbass.

Any particular reason we are looking at the incident through Iraqi eyes? Or is this just another stalling tactic?

To protect U.S. Diplomats.....that's their military objective.

Really? Please name the US diplomat they were protecting by shooting up Nisoor square.

I'm not saying they're not, but since when has the Iraqi government been extremely effective in what they do???

What a surprise. You want something saying they are guilty, and when I produce that, you attack the credibility of it. As I said, you are apologizing for murderers.

You say this as if you have proof that it is nationwide and rampant. You've taken one frickin study and applied it to the whole nation as if it's proof that it's rampant and blacks everywhere can't get hired because of their names....You're starting to sound like "Shemptard"<---courtesy of Manifold. Taking a "wee" bit of information and applying to an entire frickin continent. Not to mention, you've made up your mind about the blackwater incident as if you have every frickin detailed account as well as a personalized video of the massacre....

The racism BS is for the other thread...I'm not going to stray off topic in this thread. I've said what I needed to say regarding that, however, it is your job to prove your claim, not throw it upon others to disprove your retarded ass rationale.

What a surprise. You have no proof, but yet you made a judgement on racism in the US. Hell, you don't even have any evidence. But you still insist we need absolute proof for Blackwater to be guilty.

Does it matter that a Blackwater guard aimed his weapon on other Blackwater guards and threatened to shoot if they didn't stop killing civilians? No.

Does it matter that ABC has sworn statements by Blackwater guards saying they fired at people dressed like civilians? No.

Does it matter that ABC has sword statements by Blackwater guards corroborating Iraqi accounts of what happened, that there was no insurgent gunfire? No.

Does it matter that the Iraqi government issued a report finding Blackwater responsible for the deaths and saying they should be prosecuted? No.

We must wait for further "proof", which will conveniently never come since they have been issued immunity. Now bitch and whine and moan about how it was all a war zone and about other atrocities as if they somehow excuse this one.

 

[Gunny]

Funny that you accuse me of presenting a one-sided argument and then automatically assume that the Blackwater claims are correct, and the Iraqi claims are false. Blackwater claims they were fired on. All other Iraqi sources in the area say they weren't.

And of course you are willing to accept the source that suits your agenda. I don't assume anyone's claims or correct. I don't assume they are incorrect. I don't have an agenda here. You do.

They didn't fail to protect these civilians, they shot and killed them. The only things these people needed protection from was Blackwater.

Right. Because everyone knows Iraqis aren't killing Iraqis.

No, its really not. Their only goal isn't to protect their people, its also to not kill people needlessly here.

Yes, it really is. Their mission is to safeguard the diplomats they were hired and assigned to protect. No one else.

Sure, from a tactical view you can justify nuking England because they might get a bug up their ass and decide to attack us. But from any reasonable perspective you cannot justify killing 17 Iraqi civilians because you were fired on. If they were fired on, they should have left rather than killing everyone in the immediate area.

No, I cannot justify nuking England because they might get a bug up their ass and decide to attack us, and such assumptive reasoning is irrelevant to actually being fired upon.

If security forces accomplish their mission without loss of life to themselves, it justifies collateral damage.

How bout we stick to realistic solutions that we have some control over?

I have no problem with realistic. Have you ever been fired upon? No, you haven't. "Realistic" is you do whatever it is you have to do to accomplish the mission and destroy the hostile force's ability to wage war against you. It gets no simpler than that and I would level an entire city block rather than lose so much as one of my Marines. I'm on our side, not the enemy's and it's my job to bring each and every one of my Marines home without a scratch. You can call that unrealistic; however, it IS the standard.

Blackwater is the same. It has a mission. It has so far accomplished that mission without loss of a single life of those it is assigned to protect; although, Blackwater HAS lost over 20 operatives. That's called success.

Don't talk about realisitic to me when you expect US forces to operate with one hand tied behind their backs.

 

[Larkinn]

And of course you are willing to accept the source that suits your agenda. I don't assume anyone's claims or correct. I don't assume they are incorrect. I don't have an agenda here. You do.

Eye witness accounts? Interviews with blackwater guards? Iraqi investigations?

Which of those accounts should I doubt Gunny. All the Iraqi eyewitness accounts corroborate each other. Shall I doubt them because you and Brian don't like the results?

And don't feed me some bullshit about how you don't have an agenda. You already drew up your own conclusions when you stated, point blank, that Blackwater didn't massacre anyone or rip off the US government.

So much for for assuming peoples claims are correct or incorrect, eh? You already came to a conclusion, and apparently without even looking at the evidence.

Yes, it really is. Their mission is to safeguard the diplomats they were hired and assigned to protect. No one else.

You do realize the difference between safeguarding someone and avoiding killing them needlessly, right?

No, I cannot justify nuking England because they might get a bug up their ass and decide to attack us, and such assumptive reasoning is irrelevant to actually being fired upon.

Oh, they were fired upon, eh? According to who, please.

If security forces accomplish their mission without loss of life to themselves, it justifies collateral damage.

Not this much collateral damage.

I have no problem with realistic. Have you ever been fired upon? No, you haven't. "Realistic" is you do whatever it is you have to do to accomplish the mission and destroy the hostile force's ability to wage war against you. It gets no simpler than that and I would level an entire city block rather than lose so much as one of my Marines.

Congrats, your a fuckhead then. Blackwater signed up for this war, they are getting paid a shitload of money to take risks. These Iraqis are just trying to live without getting shot at.

I'm on our side, not the enemy's and it's my job to bring each and every one of my Marines home without a scratch. You can call that unrealistic; however, it IS the standard.

Iraqi civilians are the enemy now?

Blackwater is the same. It has a mission. It has so far accomplished that mission without loss of a single life of those it is assigned to protect; although, Blackwater HAS lost over 20 operatives. That's called success.

Killing 17 Iraqi innocents to accomplish exactly NOTHING is NOT a success.

Don't talk about realisitic to me when you expect US forces to operate with one hand tied behind their backs.

When your idea of a solution is to have Iraqi extremists just sort of give up because they want too, and blame THEM for Blackwater guards shooting up 17 innocents, then yeah, you need to have a reality check.

 

[BrianH]

Any particular reason we are looking at the incident through Iraqi eyes? Or is this just another stalling tactic?

IT's CALLED Point-OF-VIEW. The Taliban made a claim that the U.S. bombed at wedding party...does that make it true because they said so? You're a camel....now does that make you a camel?



Really? Please name the US diplomat they were protecting by shooting up Nisoor square.

So they were just hanging out? Waiting to kill some people?? What proof do you have of this?

What a surprise. You want something saying they are guilty, and when I produce that, you attack the credibility of it. As I said, you are apologizing for murderers.

Even if they were not immune....there's a little thing called reasonable doubt. If there is reasonable doubt, then they cannot be convicted....YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ABSOLUTE PROOF.



What a surprise. You have no proof, but yet you made a judgement on racism in the US. Hell, you don't even have any evidence. But you still insist we need absolute proof for Blackwater to be guilty.

I'm glad you're finally getting the parallel argument I'm trying to get across to your pea-brain. My lack of evidence thatracism is not rampant is equal to your opinion that it is. You've posted one study and assumed that racism is rampant and nationwide.

Does it matter that a Blackwater guard aimed his weapon on other Blackwater guards and threatened to shoot if they didn't stop killing civilians? No.

Does it matter than in WWII you could be simply executed for not following orders??? lol...you crack me up. Grow some cajones.

Does it matter that ABC has sworn statements by Blackwater guards saying they fired at people dressed like civilians? No.

Wow...that proves it. Everyone looky here. He's proven it. Cause anyone who's anyone knows that terrorists and insurgent have never ever dressed up like civilians to wage combat....lol. You get better every day.



Does it matter that ABC has sword statements by Blackwater guards corroborating Iraqi accounts of what happened, that there was no insurgent gunfire? No.

Does it matter that the media has a negative POV of the military and anything related to it? Does it matter that the media hung the Marines at Haditha out to try before the evidence was even collected and investigated. (Newsflash, they were acquitted of charges)....and then the media shut their mouths and picked Senator Murtha as a scapegoat.

Does it matter that the Iraqi government issued a report finding Blackwater responsible for the deaths and saying they should be prosecuted? No.

The Iraqi government is not even frickin able to handle their own country. What makes you think they're effective at investigating anything?


We must wait for further "proof", which will conveniently never come since they have been issued immunity. Now bitch and whine and moan about how it was all a war zone and about other atrocities as if they somehow excuse this one.

I like how you ignore facts and keep spewing your emotional, little-girl (no offense ladies) tantrums. I wonder how much you bitched and moan when Mr. Pearl got his head chopped of on Video camera? Or how much you bitched and moaned when the insurgents mutilated and booby-trapped three American bodies. How much did you bitch and moan when Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis with Chemical warheads?

I'm sorry, but in a war, civilians are casualties. You throwing a little temper tantrum is not going to change that. LIke I said, if they did do it out of cold blood, they should be punished. I don't know what it is that you're griping about. Is it that "They should not be immune?" or that "it's unethical and inhumane?" What exactly is your argument Larkinn??

 

[jillian]

Do you really want to compare what terrorists did to Richard Pearl to what people representing this country do? I'm sure the rest of the world would love to be able to see us the same way.

If a military organization did what the blackwater mercenaries did, they'd have been courts martialed.

 

[Larkinn]

IT's CALLED Point-OF-VIEW. The Taliban made a claim that the U.S. bombed at wedding party...does that make it true because they said so? You're a camel....now does that make you a camel?

Considering I'm the one claiming it was a massacre, seeing it through Iraqi eyes is irrelevant, jackass.

So they were just hanging out? Waiting to kill some people?? What proof do you have of this?

You claimed they were protecting a US diplomat. Why am I required to show proof you are talking out of your ass?

So, who were they protecting Brian. You made the claim, now back it up.

I'm glad you're finally getting the parallel argument I'm trying to get across to your pea-brain. My lack of evidence thatracism is not rampant is equal to your opinion that it is. You've posted one study and assumed that racism is rampant and nationwide.

Except that I have evidence, and you don't. Not that I ever said rampant, but you do like the strawmen. Point being you DO make judgements, even though now you don't want too. Why? Because you want to justify Blackwaters actions.

Does it matter than in WWII you could be simply executed for not following orders??? lol...you crack me up. Grow some cajones.

What? Do try and respond to the point, dumbass.

Wow...that proves it. Everyone looky here. He's proven it. Cause anyone who's anyone knows that terrorists and insurgent have never ever dressed up like civilians to wage combat....lol. You get better every day.

Its not proof, its evidence. Something that I have in abundance, and you have none of. Seems to be the pattern here.

Does it matter that the media has a negative POV of the military and anything related to it? Does it matter that the media hung the Marines at Haditha out to try before the evidence was even collected and investigated. (Newsflash, they were acquitted of charges)....and then the media shut their mouths and picked Senator Murtha as a scapegoat.

Lmao, so now your claiming everyone is biased. Alright then.

So you don't trust the media. You don't trust the Iraqi government report. I take it then that the only people you do trust are the Bush administration? You know, the people who gave Blackwater immunity before they had any idea what was going on?

So tell me Brian. What evidence would prove to you that Blackwater massacred these civilians. Or is no amount of evidence enough for that?

The Iraqi government is not even frickin able to handle their own country. What makes you think they're effective at investigating anything?

So your not willing to judge Blackwater, but you'll judge the Iraqi governments handling of a report without even looking at it?

As I said, your an apologist for murderers. Go you.

I wonder how much you bitched and moan when Mr. Pearl got his head chopped of on Video camera? Or how much you bitched and moaned when the insurgents mutilated and booby-trapped three American bodies. How much did you bitch and moan when Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis with Chemical warheads?

Your right...comparisons to act like that show that it was defintely not an atrocity. What are you, fucking retarded?

I'm sorry, but in a war, civilians are casualties. You throwing a little temper tantrum is not going to change that. LIke I said, if they did do it out of cold blood, they should be punished. I don't know what it is that you're griping about. Is it that "They should not be immune?" or that "it's unethical and inhumane?" What exactly is your argument Larkinn??

Surely since you've been saying I'm wrong you should know my argument. Or have you been just making shit up and talking out of your ass, as always?

 

[BrianH]

Do you really want to compare what terrorists did to Richard Pearl to what people representing this country do? I'm sure the rest of the world would love to be able to see us the same way.

If a military organization did what the blackwater mercenaries did, they'd have been courts martialed.

I agree Jill, and I've told Larkinn that. I'm not quite sure what the argument is. I don't agree that it's ok to kill innocent civilians. I think that if they did, they shouldn't be immune and they should be subject to the courts. However, I'm trying to explain to Larkinn, that he needs to quit throwing a biased-emotional tirade. He was not there, he's seen second-hand evidence that may or may not be true. He's taking an investigation (done by a government that can't even control itself) and saying they're 100% right. I'm just not one to hang someone out to try without having 100% proof. If there is reason to doubt, then there is possiblity that the facts are not all lined up together. The sooner Larkinn realizes that atrocities happen in a war-zone (and there is nothing anyone can do about it) then he'll be better off. He's even proven my point that there are many atrocities done by military personell during WWII and Vietnam that were never addressed. John Kerry knows about that....how is it he could run for president? I don't like it any more than anyone else, but there's no sense and throwing a fit about something that you can't change. People respond differently under stress. On a battlefield, it's more likely that a good person will do a bad thing than in civilian life. Does it mean they are a bad person? No, they've been placed in the most stressful situation known to man and expected to just deal and do everything by the book. The problem is that the world is so obsessed with perfection that anything not done by the book is the object of scrutiny and everyone is looking for someone to blame.

(Now, could you change Blackwater's accountability to their actions? I would hope so and I think it should be done.) BUt is seems that Larkinn is not arguing this, but making an emotional accusation just for the sake of doing it.

 

[Larkinn]

I agree Jill, and I've told Larkinn that. I'm not quite sure what the argument is. I don't agree that it's ok to kill innocent civilians. I think that if they did, they shouldn't be immune and they should be subject to the courts.

IF they did? They did. Find someone who says all 17 of those Iraqis were insurgents. Nobody is even willing to make such a stupid claim except you.

However, I'm trying to explain to Larkinn, that he needs to quit throwing a biased-emotional tirade.

Facts aren't emotional. I've posted many, you've posted none except garbage about withholding judgement forever and ever.

He was not there, he's seen second-hand evidence that may or may not be true.

Everything "may or may not be true". You are doubting it because you want to excuse the Blackwater thugs. No surprise there.

He's taking an investigation (done by a government that can't even control itself) and saying they're 100% right.

Please quote where I said the investigation was 100% right. And further please explain what the volatility of the political and religious situation in Iraq has to do with their competency to run a competent investigation.

I'm just not one to hang someone out to try without having 100% proof. If there is reason to doubt, then there is possiblity that the facts are not all lined up together.

100% proof is an absurd, asinine standard. There is always room to doubt. Even our legal system, which has a very high burden of proof, doesn't come even close to 100%.

The sooner Larkinn realizes that atrocities happen in a war-zone (and there is nothing anyone can do about it) then he'll be better off.

Wow, atrocities happen in war zones? I didn't realize that. Its not like we are talking about an atrocity (blackwater incident) in a war zone (Iraq) or anything.

He's even proven my point that there are many atrocities done by military personell during WWII and Vietnam that were never addressed. John Kerry knows about that....how is it he could run for president?

A point that is irrelevant. But kudos to you for making that point!

I don't like it any more than anyone else, but there's no sense and throwing a fit about something that you can't change.

Yes, you can. Your prosecute those who commit atrocities, and you damn well don't provide them with immunity.

People respond differently under stress. On a battlefield, it's more likely that a good person will do a bad thing than in civilian life. Does it mean they are a bad person? No, they've been placed in the most stressful situation known to man and expected to just deal and do everything by the book. The problem is that the world is so obsessed with perfection that anything not done by the book is the object of scrutiny and everyone is looking for someone to blame.

Nice strawman. Its not that this was a little bit off or not done "by the book". Its that this was a massacre that was WAY out of line.

(Now, could you change Blackwater's accountability to their actions? I would hope so and I think it should be done.) BUt is seems that Larkinn is not arguing this, but making an emotional accusation just for the sake of doing it.

Try reading the thread, asshat. I'm arguing that Blackwater shouldn't get immunity and should be prosecuted for their crimes.

 

[BrianH]

IF they did? They did. Find someone who says all 17 of those Iraqis were insurgents. Nobody is even willing to make such a stupid claim except you.



Facts aren't emotional. I've posted many, you've posted none except garbage about withholding judgement forever and ever.



Everything "may or may not be true". You are doubting it because you want to excuse the Blackwater thugs. No surprise there.



Please quote where I said the investigation was 100% right. And further please explain what the volatility of the political and religious situation in Iraq has to do with their competency to run a competent investigation.



100% proof is an absurd, asinine standard. There is always room to doubt. Even our legal system, which has a very high burden of proof, doesn't come even close to 100%.



Wow, atrocities happen in war zones? I didn't realize that. Its not like we are talking about an atrocity (blackwater incident) in a war zone (Iraq) or anything.



A point that is irrelevant. But kudos to you for making that point!



Yes, you can. Your prosecute those who commit atrocities, and you damn well don't provide them with immunity.



Nice strawman. Its not that this was a little bit off or not done "by the book". Its that this was a massacre that was WAY out of line.



Try reading the thread, asshat. I'm arguing that Blackwater shouldn't get immunity and should be prosecuted for their crimes.

Blackwater Baghdad shootings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Two words for you....Dumb Ass

"a distant Kia sedan with a woman and her grown son in it was driving slowly on the wrong side of the road, and ignored a police officer's whistle to clear a path for the convoy.[10] The report said the security team fired warning shots and then lethal fire at the Kia. After this, the report said that stun grenades were fired off by contractors to clear the scene. The report continues by saying Iraqi police and Army soldiers, mistaking the stun grenades for frag grenades, opened fire at the Blackwater team, to which the Blackwater team again responded.[11"

"A State Department report states that eight to ten attackers opened fire "from multiple nearby locations, with some aggressors dressed in civilian apparel and others in Iraqi police uniforms".[19] The report says that as the convoy tried to leave, its route was blocked by insurgents armed with machine guns at 12:08pm. According to the report, "The team returned fire to several identified targets" before leaving the area and a second convoy en route to help was "blocked/surrounded by several Iraqi police and Iraqi national guard vehicles and armed personnel".[18] A US Army convoy, possibly the same one delayed by Iraqi forces, arrived approximately a half hour later, backed by air cover, to escort the convoy back to the Green Zone.[16]

On September 27, the New York Times reported that during the incident at Nisoor Square, one member of the Blackwater security team continued to fire on civilians, despite urgent cease-fire calls from colleagues. The incident was resolved after another Blackwater contractor pointed his own weapon at the man still firing and ordered him to stop.[20]

US Military reports appear to corroborate the Iraqi government's contention that Blackwater was at fault in the incident"

The article also states that three blackwater gaurds were Iraqis and would be subject to prosecution.

"A senior aide to al-Maliki said that three of the Blackwater guards were Iraqis and could be subject to prosecution. The aide also said that the Iraqi government was pushing for an apology, compensation for victims or their families and for the guards involved in the shooting to be held "accountable."[7] Robert Gates has testified before Congress that the Pentagon has sufficient legal authority to control its contractors, but that commanders lack sufficient "means and resources" to exercise adequate oversight

It seems as though you have all your facts straight doesn't it...

LIke I said, if they did it, they should be punished. But reports shows that they were fired upon.

 

[Larkinn]

Haha, I love it. Your are such an apologizing little bitch.

All of my sources you say "omg, that is flawed because of x and y", yet when you put a source out there its suddenly "fact".

By the way, any comment from your OWN source that says that Blackwater was at fault? Or are you just ignoring that tiny little part?

 

[BrianH]

Haha, I love it. Your are such an apologizing little bitch.

All of my sources you say "omg, that is flawed because of x and y", yet when you put a source out there its suddenly "fact".

By the way, any comment from your OWN source that says that Blackwater was at fault? Or are you just ignoring that tiny little part?

Let's get one thing straight before you go on a little victory parade. Did I ever claim that Blackwater was either innocent or guilty??? I'll give you a quarter if you can find it. I didn't figure I needed to post the part about it being blackwater's fault because I figured you'd read it when you clicked on the link.

I have never claimed that it wasn't blackwater's fault. I claimed that you were prematurely convicting blackwater without having all the facts...which you have. You've made your little mind up and justified it by convincing yourself that they were never fired upon and that they weren't escorting anyone. You have claimed that they were never shot at, and that they were protecting no U.S. Diplomats when the report clearly shows they were protecting an entire convoy of U.S. diplomat vehicles. You also claimed that not a shot was fired against them, when the report shows that they were fired at by the Iraqi Army (mistaking them for insurgents).

Don't think you'll ever get an apology from me. I admit when I'm wrong, but I've never claimed they were innocent and I've never claimed they were guilty. I've also never claimed that they were or were not shot at. I was claiming that you are a dumbass for looking at this in a biased, one-sided manner.

There are three things that you have claimed that have turned out to be wrong. (and this is just off the top of my head)

Claim 1: They never were shot at.....wrong according to reports.

Claim 2: They weren't escorting anyone and did not have an objective....wrong according to reports.

Claim 3: You also claimed that blackwater is immune when the report shows that the Pentagon does have some control over it's contractors....

"Robert Gates has testified before Congress that the Pentagon has sufficient legal authority to control its contractors, but that commanders lack sufficient "means and resources" to exercise adequate oversight"
Blackwater Baghdad shootings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can get mad all you want and claim that I'm wrong.... I'm just calling out your ignorance and taste for biased opinion

 

[BrianH]

LOLOLOL...I just saw this...

Larkinn says:

"All of my sources you say "omg, that is flawed because of x and y", yet when you put a source out there its suddenly "fact". "

GO back and look at the thread Larkinn....exactly how many "sources" have you posted. I did a quick run on the thread and found one source from the Communist News Network (CNN). That's only one source you've posted...what a frickin dumbass.

How many sources was that again??......

 

[BrianH]

"On October 4, 2007 the US House passed a bill that would make all private contractors working in Iraq and other combat zones subject to the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act[47] and thus prosecution by U.S. courts.[8] Senate Democratic leaders have said they plan to send similar legislation to President Bush as soon as possible."

Blackwater Baghdad shootings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So it looks like headway is being made for contractors and atrocities....can you sleep better tonight?

 

[Larkinn]

Let's get one thing straight before you go on a little victory parade. Did I ever claim that Blackwater was either innocent or guilty??? I'll give you a quarter if you can find it. I didn't figure I needed to post the part about it being blackwater's fault because I figured you'd read it when you clicked on the link.

That just means you are smarter than Gunny who revised, damn quickly, his opinion from "omg they are innocent" to "well, you don't have all the facts".

I have never claimed that it wasn't blackwater's fault. I claimed that you were prematurely convicting blackwater without having all the facts...which you have.

And I showed what a ridiculous standard that is, and how you don't even follow it. After all, your willing to throw out the Iraqi government report as flawed because its done by Iraqis. So much for having all the facts.

You've made your little mind up and justified it by convincing yourself that they were never fired upon and that they weren't escorting anyone. You have claimed that they were never shot at, and that they were protecting no U.S. Diplomats when the report clearly shows they were protecting an entire convoy of U.S. diplomat vehicles. You also claimed that not a shot was fired against them, when the report shows that they were fired at by the Iraqi Army (mistaking them for insurgents).

Lets discuss that report for a second. I assume, since you feel free to quote it and you have such a deep regard for facts which have been researched that you looked at the report?

Its dated September 16th, 2007. The exact same day as the massacre. So tell me why you are willing to trust this report in which very little, if any, investigation went into?

Don't think you'll ever get an apology from me.

Yeah, I wasn't counting on one.

I admit when I'm wrong, but I've never claimed they were innocent and I've never claimed they were guilty. I've also never claimed that they were or were not shot at. I was claiming that you are a dumbass for looking at this in a biased, one-sided manner.

No, you've done very well with having a mealy mouthed bullshit opinion with no idea what your talking about.

There are three things that you have claimed that have turned out to be wrong. (and this is just off the top of my head)

Oh, I love this. So when my facts, and your facts, are in dispute that automatically makes me wrong?

So much for withholding judgement. Do keep apologizing for murderers, asshole.

Claim 1: They never were shot at.....wrong according to reports.

Make that 1 report that was filed the same day as the shooting. Whoops!

Claim 2: They weren't escorting anyone and did not have an objective....wrong according to reports.

I didn't say that. I questioned YOUR assertion that they were.

Claim 3: You also claimed that blackwater is immune when the report shows that the Pentagon does have some control over it's contractors....

What report? And Blackwater is immune. The DoJ offered them immunity
for the massacre.

You can get mad all you want and claim that I'm wrong.... I'm just calling out your ignorance and taste for biased opinion

Aww, your cute. I'm not mad at you, I just think your a moron.

 

[Larkinn]

LOLOLOL...I just saw this...

Larkinn says:

"All of my sources you say "omg, that is flawed because of x and y", yet when you put a source out there its suddenly "fact". "

GO back and look at the thread Larkinn....exactly how many "sources" have you posted. I did a quick run on the thread and found one source from the Communist News Network (CNN). That's only one source you've posted...what a frickin dumbass.

How many sources was that again??......

Communist News Network?

God you are a fucking dumbass. And I posted what numerous sources said, such as the Iraqi government report. Or did you forget about dismissing them with no evidence at all? So much for withholding judgement.

 

[Larkinn]

"On October 4, 2007 the US House passed a bill that would make all private contractors working in Iraq and other combat zones subject to the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act[47] and thus prosecution by U.S. courts.[8] Senate Democratic leaders have said they plan to send similar legislation to President Bush as soon as possible."

Blackwater Baghdad shootings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So it looks like headway is being made for contractors and atrocities....can you sleep better tonight?

So how is that change to the MEJA going nowadays Brian?