us death squad involvement in news increasingly-iraq

[Hypnospin]

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/

in the news of late, claims that insurgency, militias, death squads and the attacks they commit are in fact us supported, trained, organized and led.

no less than an interior minister in the newly formed iraqi gov't has made statements indicating this today on radio interview, previously reported as well on the radio. there seems to be a belief among iraqis that the link between internal attacks and us led forces is clear.

there have been reports of soldiers being told certain units they see in action "do not exist".

this is to keep an eye out for, more is sure to follow regarding the facts behind this, esp. since this has made mainstream commercial media, with concern over who, in what department of the us gov't will be to blame...

 

[limerickman]

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/

in the news of late, claims that insurgency, militias, death squads and the attacks they commit are in fact us supported, trained, organized and led.

no less than an interior minister in the newly formed iraqi gov't has made statements indicating this today on radio interview, previously reported as well on the radio. there seems to be a belief among iraqis that the link between internal attacks and us led forces is clear.

there have been reports of soldiers being told certain units they see in action "do not exist".

this is to keep an eye out for, more is sure to follow regarding the facts behind this, esp. since this has made mainstream commercial media, with concern over who, in what department of the us gov't will be to blame...

The British media have given extensive coverage of what the Americans have been up to in Iraq.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...27/ixworld.html
'Trophy' video exposes private security contractors shooting up Iraqi drivers
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 27/11/2005)

A "trophy" video appearing to show security guards in Baghdad randomly shooting Iraqi civilians has sparked two investigations after it was posted on the internet, the Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

The video has sparked concern that private security companies, which are not subject to any form of regulation either in Britain or in Iraq, could be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent Iraqis.

The video, which first appeared on a website that has been linked unofficially to Aegis Defence Services, contained four separate clips, in which security guards open fire with automatic rifles at civilian cars. All of the shooting incidents apparently took place on "route Irish", a road that links the airport to Baghdad

The road has acquired the dubious distinction of being the most dangerous in the world because of the number of suicide attacks and ambushes carried out by insurgents against coalition troops. In one four-month period earlier this year it was the scene of 150 attacks.

In one of the videoed attacks, a Mercedes is fired on at a distance of several hundred yards before it crashes in to a civilian taxi. In the last clip, a white civilian car is raked with machine gun fire as it approaches an unidentified security company vehicle. Bullets can be seen hitting the vehicle before it comes to a slow stop.

There are no clues as to the shooter but either a Scottish or Irish accent can be heard in at least one of the clips above Elvis Presley's Mystery Train, the music which accompanies the video.

Last night a spokesman for defence firm Aegis Defence Services - set up in 2002 by Lt Col Tim Spicer, a former Scots Guards officer - confirmed that the company was carrying out an internal investigation to see if any of their employees were involved.

The Foreign Office has also confirmed that it is investigating the contents of the video in conjunction with Aegis, one of the biggest security companies operating in Iraq. The company was recently awarded a £220 million security contract in Iraq by the United States government. Aegis conducts a number of security duties and helped with the collection of ballot papers in the country's recent referendum

Lt Col Spicer, 53, rose to public prominence in 1998 when his private military company Sandlines International was accused of breaking United Nations sanctions by selling arms to Sierra Leone.

The video first appeared on the website www.aegisIraq.co.uk. The website states: "This site does not belong to Aegis Defence Ltd, it belongs to the men on the ground who are the heart and soul of the company." The clips have been removed.

The website also contains a message from Lt Col Spicer, which reads: "I am concerned about media interest in this site and I remind everyone of their contractual obligation not to speak to or assist the media without clearing it with the project management or Aegis London.

"Refrain from posting anything which is detrimental to the company since this could result in the loss or curtailment of our contract with resultant loss for everybody."

Security companies awarded contracts by the US administration in Iraq adopt the same rules for opening fire as the American military. US military vehicles carry a sign warning drivers to keep their distance from the vehicle. The warning which appears in both Arabic and English reads "Danger. Keep back. Authorised to use lethal force." A similar warning is also displayed on the rear of vehicles belonging to Aegis.

Capt Adnan Tawfiq of the Iraqi Interior Ministry which deals with compensation issues, has told the Sunday Telegraph that he has received numerous claims from families who allege that their relatives have been shot by private security contractors travelling in road convoys.

He said: "When the security companies kill people they just drive away and nothing is done. Sometimes we ring the companies concerned and they deny everything.
The families don't get any money or compensation.
I would say we have had about 50-60 incidents of this kind."

A spokesman for Aegis Defence Services, said: "There is nothing to indicate that these film clips are in any way connected to Aegis."

Last night a spokesman for the Foreign Office said: "Aegis have assured us that there is nothing on the video to suggest that it has anything to do with their company. This is now a matter for the American authorities because Aegis is under contract to the United States.

 

[roadhog]

The British media have given extensive coverage of what the Americans have been up to in Iraq.

There should definitely be some concern about what private security companies are up to in Iraq and elsewhere around the world. Their existance is an unfortunate manifestation of a wacked out view of how certain aspects of armed conflict can be handled. The legality issues surrounding these companies are very real concerns. They present problems for many many reasons, only a couple of which are touched on by the article you pasted. They are also not all American companies but in fact come from a great many nations, and are only associated with the American military in that the military's boss (US gov't) has contracted the companies to do a job. Trust me, the military itself loaths these people and is ****** that they are around causing trouble. The military has repeatedly had to put their own ass on the line to respond to messes these folks create with their renegade style (reference Fallujah incident and aftermath).

As for the original post in this thread discussing the suggestion that the US military is secretly behind the "death squads", etc. Nonsense. Reality does not match the kind of thing portrayed in the lame new show "The Unit".

 

[lyotard]

nonsense indeed, we all know our history, rest assured, the us does not perpetrate covert acts.

As for the original post in this thread discussing the suggestion that the US military is secretly behind the "death squads", etc. Nonsense.

 

[roadhog]

nonsense indeed, we all know our history, rest assured, the us does not perpetrate covert acts.

Of course the US participates in covert acts. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. Incidentally, do you know the difference between "covert" and "clandestine"? Do you know the difference between "white ops" and "black ops"? There are significant differences.

Regardless, "The Unit", if you are familiar with it, is still pretty ridiculous - but that is beside the point.

The allegation at hand in this thread is still nonsense.

 

[Hypnospin]

ah, yes, the mindset of rationalizing by semantics, how reassuring for those not willing, able, or equipped to confront the truth.

more will come out on this, right now it is all but admitted to, but the company line goes something like "the security forces were in some cases infiltrated"
as if this could account for all the various suspect scenarios.

even when this breaking news is expanded on, there are always those who will find a way to minimze, condone, and apologize for those who are behind committing these acts.

Of course the US participates in covert acts. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. Incidentally, do you know the difference between "covert" and "clandestine"? Do you know the difference between "white ops" and "black ops"? There are significant differences.

Regardless, "The Unit", if you are familiar with it, is still pretty ridiculous - but that is beside the point.

The allegation at hand in this thread is still nonsense.

 

[roadhog]

ah, yes, the mindset of rationalizing by semantics, how reassuring for those not willing, able, or equipped to confront the truth.

I'd say I am adequately well equipped to understand certain things. Not all things of course, but some things in particular.

So let me get this straight. I'm honestly curious because perhaps I misunderstand you... Do you believe U.S. forces are supporting the insurgency (which is an increasingly ambiguous term anyway) by supporting, training, and organizing their attacks? Is that what you believe? If so, who are you refering to when you say insurgents? It's not semantics - it's important.

 

[limerickman]

Actually the US Forces are killing innocent Iraqi's : tonight BBC's Newsnight broadcast a film about Iraqi War Veterans who stated that US Army personnel actually shot innocent Iraq's while occupying Iraq.

The details of the programme are here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4857800.stm

The film aired as part of the report will be added to the site tonight.

I suggest that those of you who are interested in the truth about what the US army are doing in Iraq, should go to the Newsnight site here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm

The US armed forces doesn't need to infiltrate death squads : the US Army according to the Iraqi Vets is a death squad and is killing innocent Iraqi's.

 

[roadhog]

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/

in the news of late, claims that insurgency, militias, death squads and the attacks they commit are in fact us supported, trained, organized and led.

The newsweek article you link does not match your statement above. The newsweek article talks about the potential of helping Iraqi forces engage what we perceive to be the enemy. At the level of detail presented, it seems logical to me. The Peshmerga in particular are a quite capable and organized force.

Of course this brings up the whole issue of the existance of militias and which ones should be allowed to operate and which ones shouldn't, etc. I personally think there will never be a coherent authoritative central gov't while militias continue to operate independent of the Iraqi army. But I also know the Kurds, for example, will *not* give up their Peshmerga forces. And this goes into significant politics involving Turkey, Iran, and others. I have no clue what the answer is to the whole militia thing. But that isn't really the topic of the article.

no less than an interior minister in the newly formed iraqi gov't has made statements indicating this today on radio interview, previously reported as well on the radio. there seems to be a belief among iraqis that the link between internal attacks and us led forces is clear.

Are you aware of *the* Interior Minister's general feelings toward the U.S.? This is not a good working relationship to say the least. And referencing the good Iraqi citizens on this matter does not necessarily bring anything into focus. Their emotions have been continuously manipulated by the insurgents as well as the coalition since this thing started. Through no fault of their own, the emotional dynamics of the situation do not lend to accuracy in their perceptions on some issues. They often have no clue what to think. You and I would be the same if we were in their shoes. Many of them are justifiably suspicious of everyone, U.S. forces included.

 

[roadhog]

Actually the US Forces are killing innocent Iraqi's : tonight BBC's Newsnight broadcast a film about Iraqi War Veterans who stated that US Army personnel actually shot innocent Iraq's while occupying Iraq.

The details of the programme are here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4857800.stm

The film aired as part of the report will be added to the site tonight.

I suggest that those of you who are interested in the truth about what the US army are doing in Iraq, should go to the Newsnight site here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm

The US armed forces doesn't need to infiltrate death squads : the US Army according to the Iraqi Vets is a death squad and is killing innocent Iraqi's.

There should of course be concern about innocent losses. I have not seen the program you reference, but of course we all know that innocent civilians have been lost in this struggle.

Here's the deal (and this is all my opinion only): Any conflict of the type presently in Iraq is going to include innocent civilian casualties. That is not to say it is okay. It's absolutely not. But it is also literally not possible to avoid it to any degree that we should be satisfied with (which would be 100% avoidance). We have a large armed force fighting an enemy that is not well defined at all. Ask 10 people who the "enemy" of the U.S. is in Iraq right now. You'll get 10 different answers. We have several forces who look the same all fighting each other. Of course there are rules of engagement to try to discern things on the fly, but these cannot ever be perfect. The bottom line is at some point you've got an 18 year old kid on a street corner trying to decide which of the 6 people shooting at him or blowing up a civilian down the street is the "enemy", or which one might be successful in claiming him (the 18 year old) as the next casualty. I might suggest that if you were in that situation for 12 straight months you might make a mistake or two along the way. Is it excusable? No. It's not a formula for success. But the absence of that kid on the corner is not a formula for success in this situation either. It's a ****-sandwich all-around. I'll be the first to agree with that.

 

[limerickman]

There should of course be concern about innocent losses. I have not seen the program you reference, but of course we all know that innocent civilians have been lost in this struggle.

If you go to the linked site tomorrow - the film should be posted.
The US service men state to camera that Iraqi's were shot - deliberately - by US forces patrolling in APC's and other transport vehicles in Iraq.

Iraqi's shot in cold blood, I might add.

Here's the deal (and this is all my opinion only): Any conflict of the type presently in Iraq is going to include innocent civilian casualties. That is not to say it is okay. It's absolutely not. But it is also literally not possible to avoid it to any degree that we should be satisfied with (which would be 100% avoidance). We have a large armed force fighting an enemy that is not well defined at all.

I realise that you did not see the film - but let me be clear here.
The Iraqi vets referred to their driving through areas shooting and killing Iraqi's randomly.
I think they stated "shoot first, ask questions later".

One soldier states that after an IAD (is IAD some sort of missile attack?) - his
group went out and shot any Iraqi they happened to see.
No questions were asked - no fire was exchanged.
The American soldier states that this was policy between 2004-2005.
They were told to do this, as soon as they arrived in Iraq.

We have several forces who look the same all fighting each other. Of course there are rules of engagement to try to discern things on the fly, but these cannot ever be perfect. The bottom line is at some point you've got an 18 year old kid on a street corner trying to decide which of the 6 people shooting at him or blowing up a civilian down the street is the "enemy", or which one might be successful in claiming him (the 18 year old) as the next casualty. I might suggest that if you were in that situation for 12 straight months you might make a mistake or two along the way. Is it excusable? No. It's not a formula for success. But the absence of that kid on the corner is not a formula for success in this situation either. It's a ****-sandwich all-around. I'll be the first to agree with that.

Yes, there are several guerilla forces operating in Iraq.
Some guerilla forces are Iraq nationalists - some guerilla forces are al qaeda backed groups and some are just criminals.
I accept that it is difficult to discern who is who.
That is understandable to the extent that three different entities object to the presence of your country forces in that land and are attacking that presence.

But let's not mince words.
Your country has no right to be in Iraq in the first place.
Your country is the invader.
And by it's very presence - your forces are being opposed by those guerilla factions.
If the same situation occured in the USA - if iraqi forces were in the USA - you too would be shooting at the invader, no?

And let's futher clarify what that film stated : the soldiers stated that innocent Iraqi's were shot at random.
People walking the streets - minding their own business - were shot dead.
People working in fields or at roadsides - minding their own business - were
shot dead by US forces.

I suggest that you visit the site tomorrow and look at the film.

 

[roadhog]

But let's not mince words.
Your country has no right to be in Iraq in the first place.
Your country is the invader.
And by it's very presence - your forces are being opposed by those guerilla factions.
If the same situation occured in the USA - if iraqi forces were in the USA - you too would be shooting at the invader, no?

Neither of us have said anything on this topic in this thread. This is not the subject. I comprehend your views on this. You always respond to me as though I have said something like "how dare anyone fight the American invaders". I have never said anything of the sort. I think I have always held a quite realistic view in these matters.

And let's futher clarify what that film stated : the soldiers stated that innocent Iraqi's were shot at random.
People walking the streets - minding their own business - were shot dead.
People working in fields or at roadsides - minding their own business - were
shot dead by US forces.

I suggest that you visit the site tomorrow and look at the film.

Of course I would never defend anyone doing what you describe. And I tell you this about the soldiers who you say state that was "policy in 2004-2005". What you describe is criminal, and has not been any sort of Army policy in this conflict *ever*. If it was "policy" to those soldiers, then it was criminally established in that soldier's unit by some criminal small unit leader. It most certainly is not any official U.S. or Army policy. And if it is true then those criminals should be held accountable. Period.

 

[roadhog]

Completely off the topic, but are you in fact from Limerick? I spent the night in a B&B there once, but damned if I can remember the name of it. Can picture it though.

 

[roadhog]

That is understandable to the extent that three different entities object to the presence of your country forces in that land and are attacking that presence.

If only it were even that simple. In addition, some of them are opposed to the presence of each other in Iraq (or even the planet) as well.

 

[davidmc]

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/

in the news of late, claims that insurgency, militias, death squads and the attacks they commit are in fact us supported, trained, organized and led.

no less than an interior minister in the newly formed iraqi gov't has made statements indicating this today on radio interview, previously reported as well on the radio. there seems to be a belief among iraqis that the link between internal attacks and us led forces is clear.

there have been reports of soldiers being told certain units they see in action "do not exist".

this is to keep an eye out for, more is sure to follow regarding the facts behind this, esp. since this has made mainstream commercial media, with concern over who, in what department of the us gov't will be to blame...

This Negroponte guy gives me the creeps given his history in central america under the reagan admin.
On another note. The insurgency, from what I understand; following the rules of assymetrical warfare/guerilla warfare blend in w/ the civilians. Anybody heard of the Mahdi Army? :
"The (Mahdi) army is believed to have infiltrated Iraqi police forces and to be involved in vigilante activities."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi_Army

 

[limerickman]

Completely off the topic, but are you in fact from Limerick? I spent the night in a B&B there once, but damned if I can remember the name of it. Can picture it though.

I'm originally from Dublin but I live close to Limerick City.

Did you enjoy your stay in Limerick?

 

[limerickman]

Neither of us have said anything on this topic in this thread. This is not the subject. I comprehend your views on this. You always respond to me as though I have said something like "how dare anyone fight the American invaders". I have never said anything of the sort. I think I have always held a quite realistic view in these matters.
.

I apologise if I appeared to be attacking you personally.
I wasn't attacking you personally.
The point that I was trying to make was that a percentage of US armed forces appear to engage in the random execution of Iraqi's according to the testimony of the Iraqi Veterans,

Of course I would never defend anyone doing what you describe. And I tell you this about the soldiers who you say state that was "policy in 2004-2005". What you describe is criminal, and has not been any sort of Army policy in this conflict *ever*. If it was "policy" to those soldiers, then it was criminally established in that soldier's unit by some criminal small unit leader. It most certainly is not any official U.S. or Army policy. And if it is true then those criminals should be held accountable. Period.

The point that I was trying to make was that a percentage of US armed forces appear to engage in the random execution of Iraqi's according to the testimony of the Iraqi Veterans.
You have always stated that any such acts are criminal and ought to be punished.

 

[roadhog]

I'm originally from Dublin but I live close to Limerick City.

Did you enjoy your stay in Limerick?

I did, although I can't say we spent much time in the immediate area. Flew into Shannon in the evening and spent the night in Limerick. Then spent the ensuing 6 days or so mostly along the South and West coasts. Mrs. Roadhog's grandmother grew up in a small town on the West coast so we chased down some of her family there. Didn't even venture over to Dublin. We had no plans, and just made it up as we went along and had enough fun where we were to not feel like we needed to get to Dublin. Maybe next time.

We had a fine time overall. People were very nice and congenial without exception that I can remember anyway. That was especially fun for us because we lived in Germany at the time and it was refreshing to be able to speak English again while out and about. We were off-season so didn't have to put up with many tourists. Something else notable: we later went to Scotland for a similar bit of holiday. The experience was very similar (and positive) except that everything about the Scotland trip cost about exactly twice as much as in Ireland. If I remember right anyway. This was all 4 years ago I guess.