Re-Bump!
Posted on 10/12/2007 7:20:43 AM PDT by freedomdefender
Blackwater USA guards shot at Iraqi civilians as they tried to drive away from a Baghdad square on Sept. 16, according to a report compiled by the first U.S. soldiers to arrive at the scene, where they found no evidence that Iraqis had fired weapons.
"It appeared to me they were fleeing the scene when they were engaged. It had every indication of an excessive shooting," said Lt. Col. Mike Tarsa, whose soldiers reached Nisoor Square 20 to 25 minutes after the gunfire subsided. His soldiers' report -- based upon their observations at the scene, eyewitness interviews and discussions with Iraqi police -- concluded that there was "no enemy activity involved" and described the shootings as a "criminal event." Their conclusions mirrored those reached by the Iraqi government, which has said the Blackwater guards killed 17 people.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I didn’t post anything to infer those comments.
Okay. . .this could be true. . .but how does killing 17 innocent civilians act in the company's financial interest?
I very much doubt that looking out for the company's financial interest had anything to do with it.
My, my, my.
Thank you for making my point.
Seems fair to me.
Now then...be careful. Your intemperate comments might get someone’s undies in a knot.
” these Blackwater guys (and other privatized paramilitary outfits) are pretty much despised by everyone”
Good point. The people they protect are infuriated that they are all still alive./s
” some policy that has Bush’s name on it”
Ah, the old ‘Bush’s War!’ nonsense.
P.S. You forgot to accuse Blackwater of stealing oil.
“Iraqi government that is basically just a puppet of the United States”
I thought you anti-war people claimed that the Iraqi government was a puppet of Iran?
“I’m not surprised that the Bushbots won’t look at this situation objectively”
Speaking of objectively, is the investigation still ongoing? Have you already determined that Blackwater is guilty?
Thank you, Moby.
I have no proof (nor do you) whether this is true, whether the person cited is accurately quoted or what the political leaning of that person is. We do have ample evidence that the Washington Post, among others, is not above lying to try to damage our country, particularly our military.
Having said that, you do know what an REMF is, don't you? Are you suggesting that there are none of those in Iraq? Or how about "soldiers" like Scott Beauchamp? Admit it, it does happen and the WaPo would clearly have a tendency to seek out such "sources" for their reports.
There is an active campaign to try to discredit Blackwater as a way to damage our position in Iraq and it is being coordinated between elements in the dinosaur media and Al Qaeda. I'm not questioning their patriotism. I'm flat out calling them traitors.
Lol, bump your post devolve.
Lol, at least you didn’t pile up helcopters as ‘credits’.
Excellent graphic.
.
Thanks potlatch
The Nisoor Square incident is the new Haditha.
Given the context in which you made that comment -- in relation to an article which includes claims by a U.S. soldier that are incriminatory of Blackwater -- one reasonable inference from that statement is that you view the soldier's comments as untrustworthy.
It would also be a reasonable inference that you view the soldier as misinformed or incorrect.
It would also be a reasonable inference that you believe the reporter misquoted the officer.
These are 3 reasonable inferences that can be drawn from your post. I suspect that's why the person was questioning you about it, and not stating it as a fact (i.e. -- "So you think the soldier was untrustworthy?" rather than "You think the soldier is untrustworthy.").
>>>It would also be a reasonable inference that you view the soldier as misinformed or incorrect.
Nope. I have comments in this thread stating otherwise. Try again.
;0)
Maybe in the ensuing time, but not at the point at which the other poster questioned you about it (post #6 I believe).
“Detainees told FBI interrogators…”
“many said they were severely beaten by captors…”
“a dozen allegations that…”
“One prisoner said…”
“a Koran was flushed down a toilet…”
“a report calling Guantanamo Bay “the gulag of our time”…”
“allegations of detainee abuse at U.S. facilities…”
“While detainees and others have lodged complaints of abuse at Guantanamo Bay…”
“Some captives said they witnessed mistreatment of the Koran…”
“One prisoner said he and other detainees had been “beaten, spit upon and treated worse than a dog…”
“prisoner complained about sexual assaults…”
“interviews included allegations that guards or interrogators at Guantanamo Bay either mishandled the Koran…”
“Another said he was “touched sexually”…”
I could keep going with this for quite some time, but I hope you get the point. There is a definite message being drilled here. This is not objective journalism, it’s a clear attempt to repeat the same idea as many different ways as possible. That idea is somewhere along the lines of, “yea…the Newsweek story happened to not be true… but this stuff is going on, and we all know it.”
He Said, She Said Inmates Alleged Koran Abuse
How you're tying incriminating claims against Blackwater into the ambush at Haditha is beyond me. Google WAPO's Josh White and Haditha, take a look at the post you just made, and see if you can rearrange the words to make any sense at all...try adding "ooops" a few times, maybe it'll help, mebbe not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.