Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
Braydon

Blackwater Question

Recommended Posts

You're making the ridiculous implication the Medvedev's speech would have been somehow different had McCain been elected; conveniently projecting your own political bias into the Russian's actions. Oldest propaganda trick in the book. I believe it's called blowing smoke up your own ass.

 

I reality, of course, an increasingly belligerent Russia would have greatly preferred a McCain victory, so that the bulk of our forces would continued to be tied up in our Iraqi money pit. Under Obama, many of those forces will either be freed up or redeployed closer to the Russian border. This fairly obvious conclusion would have required you to go a few steps beyond the "liberals are pussies" ceiling of your analytical capability, so I'm not too surprised at your assertions.

 

Like I said previously, I hope President Elect Obama makes the right choices. I don't have any real issues with the party right now. I am keeping an open mind and hoping that things get worked out in our favor. I'm a pragmatist, but I think it's important to see the bigger picture and take it all in, not just the narrow field of view that is partisan politics.

 

Somehow I don't see President Elect Obama forward deploying returning troops to Poland or the Fulda Gap. I think he's already indicated little willingness to stand by the countries that put their necks on the line and courted a ballistic missile shield to begin with.

 

Only time will tell, after all this is all just speculation.

 

I was referring to Obama's stated goal of increasing deployment in Afghanistan. In addition, actually having some troops in reserve, should a conflict arise, might increase American negotiating leverage a bit. Sheeit, we've overblown our wad so much that even the Iranians don't take us seriously anymore.

 

Obama's shown character and backbone his whole life. He just handed one of Washington's most notorious street brawlers his ass in an American presidential election; one of the toughest political battles anyone can take on. This is in addition to his proven intellect and analytical capability. I'd say he has the raw materials to enact a successful foreign policy agenda, even in this current world of tough customers.

 

In contrast, McCain would have been a predictable, repetitious, and increasingly confused and tired adversary for a rising star like Medvedev, if his unimpressive behavior during this election is any indication.

 

Just speculating, of course.

Edited by tvashtarkatena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could it also be that Iraq and Afganistan actually works to OBL's advantage in almost every way. His existing close cadre of lieutenants were all winnowed and sifted out of the ranks of folks who proved themselves fighting a superpower (the Russians) in Afganistan. What makes you think he cares about the outcomes in Iraq or Afganistan now beyond their potential for replenishing his ranks? It could just as easily be that he realizes he's fighting a new and broader asymmetric 'war' and at this point doesn't really give a rat's ass about either beyond their role as the perfect training and proving ground for a new generation of jihad fighters loyal to his broader cause. With the neocon's help he gets two different breeding grounds he can rotate his most promising recruits through giving them exposure to very different operating environments and alliances. I would suspect he runs them through the mill there and then moves them to Syria and on to the EU and Indonesia for 'cultural' training and integration testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could it also be that Iraq and Afganistan actually works to OBL's advantage in almost every way. His existing close cadre of lieutenants were all winnowed and sifted out of the ranks of folks who proved themselves fighting a superpower (the Russians) in Afganistan. What makes you think he cares about the outcomes in Iraq or Afganistan now beyond their potential for replenishing his ranks? It could just as easily be that he realizes he's fighting a new and broader asymmetric 'war' and at this point doesn't really give a rat's ass about either beyond their role as the perfect training and proving ground for a new generation of jihad fighters loyal to his broader cause. With the neocon's help he gets two different breeding grounds he can rotate his most promising recruits through giving them exposure to very different operating environments and alliances. I would suspect he runs them through the mill there and then moves them to Syria and on to the EU and Indonesia for 'cultural' training and integration testing.

 

Interesting: CIA report post minutes before on the NY Times.

 

Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, believe it or not I missed that one as I've been coding. But it's not an altogether surprising pronouncement as it seems to me about the only explanation for the way OBL's engagements have played in the region since 9/11 and the invasions of Afganistan and Iraq. I have yet to see a sustained pattern of operations by Qaeda in Iraq that amounted to anything other than giving a pipeline of recruits experience in [temporarily] controlling local populations (a Taliban specialty) and engaging US and Iraqi troops. I suspect the focus was on Iraq only due the fact that a high-volume recruiting pipeline was far easier to pump through Syria than Pakistan. Now that he likely has a good established base groomed he's probably moving on to bigger things.

 

If that is how it's playing out then the likely net result of the administration's wars in Iraq and Afganistan is that we just invested a trillion dollars in OBL Enterprises, Inc., Pashtun tribes, Iraqi Shiites, Taliban, and Iran. No matter how you slice or dice it - we've generated far more hardened 'terrorists' then we started with.

 

--------------

 

Now that I do take a few minutes and look, here's another:

 

WASHINGTON, Nov 13 (Reuters) - U.S. pressure on al Qaeda near Pakistan's border with Afghanistan has put the group "off balance," but the region remains the biggest terrorism threat to the United States, the CIA's chief said on Thursday...

 

Now there's some serious wishful thinking and grasping for some sort of accomplishments for an adminstration 'progress' report they've had to make public now that they've briefed Obama.

Edited by JosephH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh c'mon. Patience, persistence has an effect. The operation tempo is increasing.

 

OBL is not a significant factor. He was just a catalyst, and now he is an iconic figure.

 

You have to understand that Pakistan has always been the real problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as the enemy within our own borders is in power, I think we can be sure our problems will continue to mount, on all fronts, including here: Paksitan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the bulk of extremist ideas flowed out of Saudi Arabia, but found a fertile home in Pakistan. Pakistan was forged in bloody extremism. It's so politically and religiously volatile that anything could ignite it. That makes it basically off limits for U.S. incursions or even joint operations of any scale, yet that's where the bad guys operate, right out in the open. Even if large scale joint operations were planned in Pakistan, their army and intellitgence services, with their fractured loyalties and unusual autonomy, would add a couple of wild cards to an already risky hand. Now that the country has nuclear weapons, the technology for which they have shared with unsavory nations for the past two decades, they are, by far, the number one world threat right now.

 

This is a much belabored point, but had we not gone into Iraq, we might have destroyed the Taliban more completely and helped to prevent their resurgence, while putting into effect a much more widespread and deeper aid package for Afghanistan and Pakistan to build some friendship.

Edited by tvashtarkatena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a much belabored point, but had we not gone into Iraq, we might have destroyed the Taliban more completely and helped to prevent their resurgence, while putting into effect a much more widespread and deeper aid package for Afghanistan and Pakistan to build some friendship.

 

Pakistan has little interest in seeing the current regime stay in place. They are a Pashtun dominated country, and as such they believe in their inherent supremacy.

 

Anonymous, a retired CIA intelligence operative and analyst, says this about the Pashtun's.

 

"The Pashtun's were not and are not going to abide a political relationship with minority groups they do not dominate."

 

-pg 38 Imperial Hubris

 

To better understand the Bush administrations approach to the initial invasion of Afghanistan reference "The Tenent Plan". A westernized view of the situation, which discarded the knowledge of years of research behind what is often referred to "As the most successful and long running clandestine program in US history". Also reference Charlie Wilson's war.

 

Most of the unrest and the real fighting in Afghanistan, particularly Wazaristan takes place along a narrow series of mountain corridors dominated by Pushtun tribes, supplied and mentored by agents of Al Qaeda, as well as independent groups who fight only because that is the life they know and understand.

 

The fighting in Pakistan and Afghanistan is every bit as intense and bloody as anything in Iraq. Often very personal at close quarters. Seasoned Iraqi veterans are often caught off guard by the lonely and isolated conditions they are enduring. The firebases along the frontiers are subject to constant probing and assaults. The tactics the current enemy uses differs very little from what the British faced along the frontier during Kipling's days.

 

If you would like to study a microcosm of the current situation you can read this redacted report from the assault on the 173rd ABN in Wanat. The Waygal vignette is an example of just how distant victory is in Afghanistan. The Waigalis, at their heart, are isolationists. There are probably no Al-Qaeda members among the local insurgents and the actual Taliban influence, outside of the deobandist meta-narrative is negligible.

 

PT1

PT2

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a much belabored point, but had we not gone into Iraq, we might have destroyed the Taliban more completely and helped to prevent their resurgence, while putting into effect a much more widespread and deeper aid package for Afghanistan and Pakistan to build some friendship.

 

Pakistan has little interest in seeing the current regime stay in place. They are a Pashtun dominated country, and as such they believe in their inherent supremacy.

 

Anonymous, a retired CIA intelligence operative and analyst, says this about the Pashtun's.

 

"The Pashtun's were not and are not going to abide a political relationship with minority groups they do not dominate."

 

-pg 38 Imperial Hubris

 

To better understand the Bush administrations approach to the initial invasion of Afghanistan reference "The Tenent Plan". A westernized view of the situation, which discarded the knowledge of years of research behind what is often referred to "As the most successful and long running clandestine program in US history". Also reference Charlie Wilson's war.

 

Most of the unrest and the real fighting in Afghanistan, particularly Wazaristan takes place along a narrow series of mountain corridors dominated by Pushtun tribes, supplied and mentored by agents of Al Qaeda, as well as independent groups who fight only because that is the life they know and understand.

 

The fighting in Pakistan and Afghanistan is every bit as intense and bloody as anything in Iraq. Often very personal at close quarters. Seasoned Iraqi veterans are often caught off guard by the lonely and isolated conditions they are enduring. The firebases along the frontiers are subject to constant probing and assaults. The tactics the current enemy uses differs very little from what the British faced along the frontier during Kipling's days.

 

If you would like to study a microcosm of the current situation you can read this redacted report from the assault on the 173rd ABN in Wanat. The Waygal vignette is an example of just how distant victory is in Afghanistan. The Waigalis, at their heart, are isolationists. There are probably no Al-Qaeda members among the local insurgents and the actual Taliban influence, outside of the deobandist meta-narrative is negligible.

 

PT1

PT2

 

Hints of Vietnam here. Sounds like groups such as this are fighting to repel foriegners and maintain independence, not plotting against the United States, and therefore not a threat. Is this similar to branding Ho Chi Minh's movement as communist in the 50's, when it was an independence movement with a minority communist faction at the time, because that re-definition served American political interests better.

 

The question is; how do we go after groups like Al Qaeda while avoiding conflict with local tribes that care only about being left alone? Or would our domestic security actually improve if we just packed up and left the tribes to establish their own territorial dominance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say pull the troops out of the hills,and have the C.I.A. start breeding genetically re-engineened mutant heards of Ibex that are raised on high protein,steroid loaded feed, and trained like drug dogs to seek out goatcheese eating,C4 packing Al QAEDA fighters and rewarded with drugs like METH or ICE. They could pay a turned Taliban hardcore hillbilly to have forced sex with them while firing his AK47 and yelling GOD IS GREAT in his native Pashtuns to install a agressive hate for ragheads. Before being deployed they would surgically implanted Satellite controled G.P.S.,cameras with night vision and range finders,remote drug injecters for Steroids and meth,and 40LB.of high explosive for suicide missions, maybe a freakin starwars lasser all controled from the same remote bases that control the Predator Drones. Who knows it could already be in the works?

800px-Capra_ibex_ibex_04.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, with the Democrats in power the budget for cool shit like that is gone. Probably go to feed the homeless or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a much belabored point, but had we not gone into Iraq, we might have destroyed the Taliban more completely and helped to prevent their resurgence, while putting into effect a much more widespread and deeper aid package for Afghanistan and Pakistan to build some friendship.

 

Pakistan has little interest in seeing the current regime stay in place. They are a Pashtun dominated country, and as such they believe in their inherent supremacy.

 

Anonymous, a retired CIA intelligence operative and analyst, says this about the Pashtun's.

 

"The Pashtun's were not and are not going to abide a political relationship with minority groups they do not dominate."

 

-pg 38 Imperial Hubris

 

To better understand the Bush administrations approach to the initial invasion of Afghanistan reference "The Tenent Plan". A westernized view of the situation, which discarded the knowledge of years of research behind what is often referred to "As the most successful and long running clandestine program in US history". Also reference Charlie Wilson's war.

 

Most of the unrest and the real fighting in Afghanistan, particularly Wazaristan takes place along a narrow series of mountain corridors dominated by Pushtun tribes, supplied and mentored by agents of Al Qaeda, as well as independent groups who fight only because that is the life they know and understand.

 

The fighting in Pakistan and Afghanistan is every bit as intense and bloody as anything in Iraq. Often very personal at close quarters. Seasoned Iraqi veterans are often caught off guard by the lonely and isolated conditions they are enduring. The firebases along the frontiers are subject to constant probing and assaults. The tactics the current enemy uses differs very little from what the British faced along the frontier during Kipling's days.

 

If you would like to study a microcosm of the current situation you can read this redacted report from the assault on the 173rd ABN in Wanat. The Waygal vignette is an example of just how distant victory is in Afghanistan. The Waigalis, at their heart, are isolationists. There are probably no Al-Qaeda members among the local insurgents and the actual Taliban influence, outside of the deobandist meta-narrative is negligible.

 

PT1

PT2

 

Hints of Vietnam here. Sounds like groups such as this are fighting to repel foriegners and maintain independence, not plotting against the United States, and therefore not a threat. Is this similar to branding Ho Chi Minh's movement as communist in the 50's, when it was an independence movement with a minority communist faction at the time, because that re-definition served American political interests better.

 

The question is; how do we go after groups like Al Qaeda while avoiding conflict with local tribes that care only about being left alone? Or would our domestic security actually improve if we just packed up and left the tribes to establish their own territorial dominance?

 

Geez guys...I need to get my English grade up. How much for writing an essay for me due on Friday. :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Marc and I combined you guys could get a buisness going.

Edited by Braydon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nah, with the Democrats in power the budget for cool shit like that is gone. Probably go to feed the homeless or something.

 

ya,they need to stop some projects,but i'm talking of off the shelf technology,and besides we might not even have to pay to have them raped by ex-taliban for it could be a normal thing for them,hell they cover their women with a sheet??? WTF? How gay can you be,I mean the women cant all be that ugly? Of corse there was a joke going around after 911"How do you get a Taliban woman knocked up" ? come on her shoes and let the flies do the rest! I always that was a sick joke!!I thought it was more like the old Greek joke about not being able to separate the men form the boys!!!Could be the caves are their version of a S.F. bath house? But we do need to keep are troops out of snipper range until they can be replaced by robots !!

 

 

"heres one that we dont need"

bigdogclipped1.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thread revival Porter.

 

Vis-a-vis this earlier salient point.

 

Credible strategic threats have to be dumbed down so the layman can understand them in a 60 seconds (or less) T.V. blurb. Whether you are a Christian right wing nutjob or a Jihadist car bomber, you're probably cut from the same mold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting thread revival Porter.

 

Vis-a-vis this earlier salient point.

 

It's time for an intervention. Seriously. Bar soap and towels. Now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gawker published the results of the Freedom on information act on Blackwater in Iraq which they had filed 4 years back. Copied and pasted most as well in case the link disappears. Short version: "GET OFF MY GRASS...."ERR SAND..." Interesting comments below the story if you click the link.

 

http://gawker.com/5866375/gentlemen-we-shot-a-judge-and-other-tales-of-blackwaters-rampage-through-iraq

 

"‘Gentlemen, We Shot a Judge’ and Other Tales of Blackwater, DynCorp, and Triple Canopy’s Rampage Through Iraq

 

Every time a Blackwater centurion discharged his weapon in Iraq, the company filed a written report with the U.S. State Department. Blackwater shot Iraq to shit. Here are the reports.

 

Blackwater, the private mercenary firm that became synonymous with Bush-era war profiteering and reckless combat-tourism, announced yesterday that it has changed its name to Academi (after a previous incarnation as Xe Services) in a bid to distance itself from its history of wanton lawlessness. We've obtained a 4,500-page record of that history in the form of State Department incident reports documenting every time a Blackwater guard shot at an Iraqi between 2005 and 2007.

 

We got them in response to a Freedom of Information Act request we filed four years ago. They come from the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, which was charged with overseeing and monitoring the contractors hired by State to secure its diplomats and other VIPs in the war zone. While firms like DynCorp and Triple Canopy make frequent appearances, the reports are dominated by Blackwater, which was paid roughly $1 billion between 2004 and 2009 to provide "worldwide protective services" for State Department personnel. (It continues to surreptitiously weave its tentacles into various government contracts; hence the name changes.)

 

In Iraq, Blackwater's "protective services" consisted in large part of preemptively shooting any car that drove near its convoys. Page after page of the reports feature drivers (and occasionally boat pilots) who were fired upon simply because they drove "aggressively," attempted to pass, or didn't heed warnings to keep their distance. There was no routine mechanism for following up with the drivers to determine if they were injured or were actually hostile. Blackwater (and DynCorp and Triple Canopy) guards roamed Iraqi cities and highways, ignoring traffic rules and shooting at other drivers literally at will, and driving on. According to a 2007 investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform [pdf], between 2005 and 2007 Blackwater operatives fired on Iraqis at least 195 times, or an average of 1.4 times per week. That included an infamous Baghdad firefight at Nisour Square that killed 17 civilians.

 

Much of what these files contain has already been reported—the authors of the Oversight Committee report appears to have had access to them, and various reporters have covered some of the incidents they record. But as far as we can tell, the documents themselves have never been published in their entirety. We have only been able to read a few random slivers of the 4,000 pages—we're posting them here for readers and researchers to pore over and help us find untold stories—but here's some of what we've been able to find.

'Gentlemen, We Shot a Judge' and Other Tales of Blackwater, DynCorp, and Triple Canopy's Rampage Through Iraq

Shot at for Using a Cell Phone

 

On February 19, 2007, a Blackwater motorcade carrying a dignitary to a local juvenile prison was attempting to make a left turn when a parked white four-door sedan entered oncoming traffic. "The lead [vehicle's] rear gunner...noticed that the lone occupant had a device in his hands," reads a report on the incident. "Suspecting that the vehicle may be a Vehicle-Born Explosive Improvised Device, [redacted] fired one round from his rifle into the grill of the suspicious vehicle.... The impact of the round caused the driver to bring the vehicle to an immediate stop. He raised his hands in the air revealing that he held a cell phone." The same Blackwater team fired on cars three other times that day.

'Gentlemen, We Shot a Judge' and Other Tales of Blackwater, DynCorp, and Triple Canopy's Rampage Through Iraq

"Any Disciplinary Actions Would Be Seen as Lowering Morale"

'Gentlemen, We Shot a Judge' and Other Tales of Blackwater, DynCorp, and Triple Canopy's Rampage Through Iraq

 

 

In February 2005, a Blackwater team fired hundreds of rounds at two different "aggressive" cars during an operation in Baghdad. Team members subsequently told State Department investigators that 1) one of the cars' occupants fired on them, striking a vehicle in the motorcade, and 2) one of the cars was on a Be on the Lookout (BOLO) list as a suspected insurgent vehicle. Both were lies. Investigators later found that bullet holes in the Blackwater vehicle had been caused by friendly fire and that none of the Blackwater guards involved could recall the make or model of the car that was allegedly on the BOLO list, making it impossible for them to have known such a car was on the list. (The team's leader told one investigator that he always claimed that cars he fired on were on the BOLO list, whether they were or not. Indeed, the vast majority of shooting reports claim that the target vehicles were on the BOLO list.)

 

State Department investigators came to the conclusion that the Blackwater team was unjustified in firing on the cars, coordinated their stories to avoid suspicion, and lied about it later. So what it it do? "[investigating agents] concluded that several of the...individual [sic] involved in the shooting provided false statements to the investigators as well as failed to justify their actions. When investigators briefed [the State Department Regional Security Officer] on their findings and inquired about what disciplinary actions were to occur, RSO informed the investigators that any disciplinary actions would be deemed as lowering the morale of the entire [personal security detail] entity." No one knows if the occupants of the targeted cars were injured of killed. USA Today has previously reported the incident and lack of disciplinary action.

'Gentlemen, We Shot a Judge' and Other Tales of Blackwater, DynCorp, and Triple Canopy's Rampage Through Iraq

"Well Gentlemen, We Shot a Judge"

 

On July 16, 2007, a DynCorp (not Blackwater, but still) convoy traveling near Erbil fired five shots at a red Isuzu because it was driving "at a fast pace" toward the caravan and failed to heed warnings to keep back. According to an after-action report filed by one of the shooters, the driver pulled over, "got out of the car," and "appeared to be OK."

 

In fact, he was shot in the leg. And he was an Iraqi civil affairs judge. The incident resulted in a $2,500 payment to the judge for damage to his vehicle and formal letters of protest from Kurdistan's minister of justice and the Kurdistan Judges Union. But not an apology: The State Department determined that shooting at judges for driving too fast in their own country is "within the established Department of State policy for escalation of force." One State official wrote in an email to his colleagues that the DynCorp guards did exactly the right thing:

 

Well gentlemen—I met with the Director this morning; as such, I am convinced that we shot the re-colored SUV driven by [redacted], a civilian affairs judge in kaler [sic] court, who was transported to the emergency room with a minor bullet wound to the leg.

 

I am certainly not questioning the judgment of the PSD members involved in this incident; in fact, the contrary. Based on my review of the reports... the PSD members did exactly what they should have done and we should hope they react similarly if presented with the same scenario in the future.

 

'Gentlemen, We Shot a Judge' and Other Tales of Blackwater, DynCorp, and Triple Canopy's Rampage Through Iraq

 

 

The judge case is illustrative because the initial reports in almost all of the shootings we looked at included language along the lines of "the driver did not appear to be injured" or "the driver appeared to be OK." In the Erbil shooting, obviously, that wasn't true. Since there was almost never an effort to track down the victims of contractor shootings—which in effect means Blackwater left hundreds of presumed insurgent suicide bombers on the streets after disabling their cars with shots to the engine block—it's impossible to know how many were actually injured or even killed.

'Gentlemen, We Shot a Judge' and Other Tales of Blackwater, DynCorp, and Triple Canopy's Rampage Through Iraq

"I'm hearing stories of [contractors] using bullets like hand signals."

 

A July 2007 email from one State Department official to several colleagues—apparently in reference to the judge's shooting—openly worried about contractor teams indiscriminately shooting their way around Iraq:

 

When was the last time we...looked into all the other contractor PSD elements running around Iraq? I'm hearing stories of quite a few PSD elements moving from Mosul to Irbil firing up to 50 rounds per move and using bullets like we use hand and arm signals, flashers, or a water bottle. [security teams would often toss plastic water bottles at the windshield of a suspicious car to get the driver's attention—Ed.]

 

It doesn't appear that anyone wrote him back or addressed his concerns.

'Gentlemen, We Shot a Judge' and Other Tales of Blackwater, DynCorp, and Triple Canopy's Rampage Through Iraq

"Several New York Times reporters were saddened to learn that their favorite dog had been shot."

 

Shortly before Christmas 2007, a Blackwater team went to the New York Times compound in Baghdad to conduct a security sweep it in advance of a dignitary's visit. They encountered a stray dog that the Times' security team had raised from a pup. And (as Reuters reported at the time) shot it.

 

The dog became aware of [blackwater's K-9] and became extremely aggressive, lunging at the K-9 and prompting the k-9 handler to place his body between the two dogs and draw his pistol. The K-9 handler and another [personal security specialist] assigned to cover him shouted at the stray dog, kicked it, and struck it with a [redacted] muzzle to try to repel it, but the stray dog would not back off. [T]he PSS member shot the stray dog with two [redacted] rounds.

 

After killing the "stray" dog, the Blackwater team learned that it was in fact was a pet and "basically a mascot.... Several New York Times reporters subsequently came out of the residence and were saddened to learn that their 'favorite' dog had been shot. [Redacted] spoke to [redacted] and the reporters and did a good job smoothing things over and de-escalating the situation."

'Gentlemen, We Shot a Judge' and Other Tales of Blackwater, DynCorp, and Triple Canopy's Rampage Through Iraq

 

All 4,500 pages of reports are embedded below. As we mentioned previously, we haven't read them all, but they don't appear to include some high-profile events, like the Nisour Square shootings (presumably because the State Department considers them to still be under investigation and exempt from the FOIA).

 

We've uploaded them to Document Cloud, an excellent service that allows readers to search and annotate documents and send around links to specific pages. So we encourage you to peruse them and flag any interesting incidents worth following up on."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If not for the clarification that the actions were committed by certain private security forces that were deployed in Iraq, one might assume the stories are about regular militarized police forces -- now operating in a different country.

 

Or maybe just about a holiday shopping spree gone horribly wrong at the Tacoma Walmart Supercenter.

Edited by Crux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many of those stories seem rather abrasive when they are really not. I am no BW Xe whatever apologist, but all of the dogs in Iraq are diseased and many if not most a rabid. Shooting dogs that get too close was more SOP than war crime. Also, with regards to the shooting at vehicles addition; it is very odd when a vehicle drives up to an armored vehicle loaded with machine guns and has signs in 5 languages to stay back x-amount of meters. Many suicide bombers would simply drive their vehicle up alongside the vehicles and self-detonate.

 

Like I said, never have been one to defend BW but much of this is taken out of context and to read it without an Iraqi primer is useless and misleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The dog became aware of [blackwater's K-9] and became extremely aggressive, lunging at the K-9 and prompting the k-9 handler to place his body between the two dogs and draw his pistol. The K-9 handler and another [personal security specialist] assigned to cover him shouted at the stray dog, kicked it, and struck it with a [redacted] muzzle to try to repel it, but the stray dog would not back off. [T]he PSS member shot the stray dog with two [redacted] rounds.

 

This shit happened to me, that dog would have received the same treatment. Our dogs are given rank (higher than ours) and are brave and awesome Americans. If you think I am going to let an aggressive, loose and potentially rabid dog take a chunk out of my highly trained pooch while on restraint, you have another thing coming....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×