Blackwater Drew Guns on and Disarmed US Troops - Page 2

Reverend_Hellh0und · 10-14-07, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by niftydrifty

Yes, you do.

Wow that's like the same thing.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 10-14-07, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lachean

Oh my god, that means it coulda been a year ago, maybe more! That makes it soooo irrelevant!

Just what exactly is your argument, what are you, a mercenary apologist?

They are not Mercenaries, but I guess if thats what your xbox tells you they are. well...

an unnamed source told me you punch puppies.....

Reverend_Hellh0und · 10-14-07, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

BWAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

Another jem of sheer brilliance from Jallman..... Way to add to the discussion.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 10-14-07, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danarhea

He must be. This information was confirmed by a Colonel, and also by another security contracting company spokesman.

Who, please name them and link to the sources,

jallman · 10-14-07, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

Another jem of sheer brilliance from Jallman..... Way to add to the discussion.

There isn't any discussion. You made a blatant misstep and it was hilarious. Deal with it, kid.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 10-14-07, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

There isn't any discussion. You made a blatant misstep and it was hilarious. Deal with it, kid.

What are you now stalking me and trolling me? Get a life pufta....

CaptainCourtesy · 10-14-07, 05:58 PM

Moderator's Warning:

Reverend, please refrain from bringing downstairs baggage, upstairs. Everyone, let's be civil, here.

bhkad · 10-14-07, 06:13 PM

We interrupt this thread to bring you an important fact that you might not recognize while on your normally scheduled orgasmic Bush/America/Iraq War bash.

Quote:

The Washington Post's editorial board noticed something over the last few weeks that many of us have pointed out all along. They discover that General David Petraeus told the truth about the improving situation in Iraq. They have also found out that hardly any news agency seems interested in reporting it:

NEWS COVERAGE and debate about Iraq during the past couple of weeks have centered on the alleged abuses of private security firms like Blackwater USA. Getting such firms into a legal regime is vital, as we've said. But meanwhile, some seemingly important facts about the main subject of discussion last month -- whether there has been a decrease in violence in Iraq -- have gotten relatively little attention. A congressional study and several news stories in September questioned reports by the U.S. military that casualties were down. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), challenging the testimony of Gen. David H. Petraeus, asserted that "civilian deaths have risen" during this year's surge of American forces.

A month later, there isn't much room for such debate, at least about the latest figures. In September, Iraqi civilian deaths were down 52 percent from August and 77 percent from September 2006, according to the Web site icasualties.org. The Iraqi Health Ministry and the Associated Press reported similar results. U.S. soldiers killed in action numbered 43 -- down 43 percent from August and 64 percent from May, which had the highest monthly figure so far this year. The American combat death total was the lowest since July 2006 and was one of the five lowest monthly counts since the insurgency in Iraq took off in April 2004. ...

This doesn't necessarily mean the war is being won. U.S. military commanders have said that no reduction in violence will be sustainable unless Iraqis reach political solutions -- and there has been little progress on that front. Nevertheless, it's looking more and more as though those in and outside of Congress who last month were assailing Gen. Petraeus's credibility and insisting that there was no letup in Iraq's bloodshed were -- to put it simply -- wrong.

Let's put it a little more simply: they lied. Being "wrong" would have meant them saying, "General Petraeus, your numbers appear to be incorrect," or alternately, "We don't believe these trends will last." That's not what Petraeus heard. He heard a Senator -- someone vying to become Petraeus' Commander in Chief -- tell him that his testimony required a "willing suspension of disbelief". MoveOn greeted Petraeus' testimony with a full-page ad declaring him a potential traitor to his country.

All of that was very wrong on many levels, but his critics were much more than just incorrect. They lied about Petraeus, and the Washington Post lets them off far too easily.

They appear to do the same with their colleagues in the media. The Post notes the lack of "attention" given to the improving numbers, but never asks why this story hasn't gotten more press. The same agencies that reserve room on the front page for endless Blackwater stories somehow can't find room to report on military progress in Iraq -- and political progress as well. Somehow the story becomes much less interesting to editors when the American military reverses violent trends, starts saving lives, and starts beating terrorists.

That's not just a lack of attention, as in someone simply neglecting a wire service output. Those are deliberate editorial decisions to ignore or deprioritize news that shows the progress of Petraeus and the surge. Referring to these deliberate decisions as a "lack of attention" is equivalent to calling Petraeus' critics "wrong" rather than "exposed for what they are".

Captain's Quarters

Let's call wrong doers on their wrong doings when they do wrong.

But let's keep an eye on the big picture, too.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled Orgasmo-Bush Bash.

the makeout hobo · 10-21-07, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

They are not Mercenaries, but I guess if thats what your xbox tells you they are. well...

an unnamed source told me you punch puppies.....

They are professional soldiers not directly working for the US military who carry guns into combat zones and do get engaged in firefights. If they're not mercaneries, what would have to change for them to get the title?

Reverend_Hellh0und · 10-22-07, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the makeout hobo

They are professional soldiers not directly working for the US military who carry guns into combat zones and do get engaged in firefights. If they're not mercaneries, what would have to change for them to get the title?

Uhhm wrong.

They are private military contractors.... They are not involved in direct combat and they work DIRECTLY for the USG.