# Eric, Prince Of Blackwater



## GAP (5 May 2010)

Eric Prince Of Blackwater Could Not Stop His Speech From Being Recorded. 
Article Link

Speaking at the University of Michigan, Eric Prince of Blackwater fame made provocative comments about The Geneva Convention and NATO troops. Typically he doesn’t allow his speeches to be recorded. But The Nation magazine received this recording and it is a whopper.

He expressed disdain for the Geneva Convention and described Blackwater’s secretive operations at four Forward Operating Bases he controls in Afghanistan. He called those fighting the US in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan “barbarians” who “crawled out of the sewer.” ….

Prince revealed Blackwater’s involvement in Pakistan

Prince spoke of Blackwater working in Pakistan, which appears to contradict the official, public Blackwater and US government line that Blackwater is not in Pakistan.

Prince also was unimpressed with the Afghans.

Several times during the speech, Prince appeared to demean Afghans his company is training in Afghanistan, saying Blackwater had to teach them “Intro to Toilet Use” and to do jumping jacks.

Prince Blames Iran For Mideast Turmoil

Prince painted a global picture in which Iran is “at the absolute dead center… of badness.” The Iranians, he said, “want that nuke so that it is again a Persian Gulf and they very much have an attitude of when Darius ran most of the Middle East back in 1000 BC. That’s very much what the Iranians are after.” [NOTE: Darius of Persia actually ruled from 522 BC–486 BC]. Iran, Prince charged, has a “master plan to stir up and organize a Shia revolt through the whole region.”

Prince is contemptuous of the Geneva Convention

Prince scornfully dismissed the debate on whether armed individuals working for Blackwater could be classified as “unlawful combatants” who are ineligible for protection under the Geneva Convention. “You know, people ask me that all the time, ‘Aren’t you concerned that you folks aren’t covered under the Geneva Convention in [operating] in the likes of Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan? And I say, ‘Absolutely not,’ because these people, they crawled out of the sewer and they have a 1200 AD mentality. They’re barbarians. They don’t know where Geneva is, let alone that there was a convention there.”

Prince disses the US Secret Service

“A little known fact, you know when the shoe bomber in Iraq was throwing his shoes at President Bush, in December 08, we provided diplomatic security, but we had no responsibility for the president’s security—that’s always the Secret Service that does that. We happened to have a guy in the back of the room and he saw that first shoe go and he drew his weapon, got a sight picture, saw that it was only a shoe, he re-holstered, went  forward and took that guy down while the Secret Service was still standing there flat-footed.

Prince disses NATO but praises Canada. Turns out he just signed a big contract with Canada.

Prince spoke disparagingly of some unnamed NATO countries with troops in Afghanistan, saying they do not have the will for the fight. “Some of them do and a lot of them don’t,” he said. “It is such a patchwork of different international commitments as to what some can do and what some can’t. A lot of them should just pack it in and go home.” Canada, however, received praise from Prince. “The Canadians have lost per capita more than America has in Afghanistan. They are fighting and they are doing it and so if you see a Canadian thank them for that. The politicians at home take heavies for doing that,” Prince said. He did not mention the fact that his company was hired by the Canadian government to train its forces.

Prince reveals company’s involvement in Pakistan

Erik Prince spoke at length about Blackwater’s deployment in 2005 in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, bragging that his forces “rescued 128 people, sent thousands of meals in there and it worked.” Prince boasted of his company’s rapid response, saying, “We surged 145 guys in 36 hours from our facility five states away and we beat the Louisiana National Guard to the scene.” What Prince failed to mention was that at the time of the disaster, at least 35% of the Louisiana National Guard was deployed in Iraq. One National Guard soldier in New Orleans at the time spoke to Reuters, saying, “They (the Bush administration) care more about Iraq and Afghanistan than here… We are doing the best we can with the resources we have, but almost all of our guys are in Iraq.” Much of the National Guard’s equipment was in Iraq at the time, including high water vehicles, Humvees, refuelers and generators.

Prince also said that he had a plan to create a massive humanitarian vessel that, with the generous support of major corporations, could have responded to natural disasters, such as earthquakes and tsunamis across the globe.

Prince complained that he was outed as a CIA operative.

Prince also addressed what he described as his outing as a CIA asset working on sensitive US government programs. He has previously blamed Congressional Democrats and the news media for naming him as working on the US assassination program. The US intelligence apparatus “depends heavily on Americans that are not employed by the government to facilitate greater success and access for the intelligence community,” Prince said. “It’s unprecedented to have people outed by name, especially ones that were running highly classified programs. And as much as the left got animated about Valerie Plame, outing people by name for other very very sensitive programs was unprecedented and definitely threw me under the bus.”
end

_OK. I did it  _


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 May 2010)

Seems like an interesting mix of uncomfortable truth and ego run wild.  Interesting about the Katrina involvement though.  I'd not heard of Blackwater doing dom ops in that fashion.


----------



## Brasidas (5 May 2010)

> He did not mention the fact that his company was hired by the Canadian government to train its forces.



Train the CF in what?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 May 2010)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> Train the CF in what?



Macrame.  Shhh.


----------



## SeanNewman (5 May 2010)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> Train the CF in what?



Google "Mirror Image" and "Terrorism Research Center".


----------



## 40below (5 May 2010)

GIS for Blackwater:


----------



## bdave (5 May 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> Prince scornfully dismissed the debate on whether armed individuals working for Blackwater could be classified as “unlawful combatants” who are ineligible for protection under the Geneva Convention. “You know, people ask me that all the time, ‘Aren’t you concerned that you folks aren’t covered under the Geneva Convention in [operating] in the likes of Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan? And I say, ‘Absolutely not,’ because these people, they crawled out of the sewer and they have a 1200 AD mentality. They’re barbarians. They don’t know where Geneva is, let alone that there was a convention there.”



That is actually a good point.


----------



## dangerboy (5 May 2010)

You think that insulting a bunch of people is a good point?


----------



## armyvern (5 May 2010)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> You think that insulting a bunch of people is a good point?



I get the feeling from his statement there, that he was referring directly to insurgents/Taliban etc, not any "nationality" (my context of it coming from the last line) --- of course, we'll never know because the author of the article chose only to quote the "good bits" vice the entire conversation in context. Funny that. Our very own former CDS called them "murdering scumbags" and we all cheered when he did so - but then, we had the benefit of "context" instead of a couple of snippets from a media type with an agenda/spin of their own to push out there - _whatever_ agenda that may be.

And, I too believe that he has a very good point with his last line --- which makes the "context" obviously clear for me in my mind:

"They don't know where Geneva is, let alone that there was a convention there.” IE: Whether or not Blackwater et al are covered by Geneva Conventions is absolutely 500% MOOT ... when the "murdering scumbags" who might catch them don't adhere to them anyway. He isn't being "Contemptuous of the Geneva Conventions" as the author of the artcile claims ... he's being contemptuos of the "enemy" that ignores those conventions anyway - even when they are applicable.

Yep, excellent point I say.  Remember all those Brit soldiers who actually WERE covered by the Geneva Conventions who were found dead, gutted and worse in the sandbox? Apparently, whoever did that to them, didn't have a clue where Geneva is, or that conventions had been signed there that applied to those troops.


----------



## SeanNewman (5 May 2010)

That photo (while tongue in cheek) points to a larger problem about the Blackwater (X whatever) image which is that everyone views the entire company based on the one branch of their company that deals with the "mercenary" type overseas ops.

The problem with that is that it's kind of like seeing Ford as only the Mustang, or the whole CF as the Airborne, or whatever other analogy you want to use.

Blackwater has provided decades of incredibly useful training, be it the Police-type shooting / defensive driving lessons or the Mirror Image course which is the only thing like it short of attending a real madrassa.  

The guys who run the Terrorism Research Center (a branch of Blackwater) were some of the most professional instructors I have ever learned from; in fact, some of the classes given by Walter Purdy were downright riveting.  These guys may have shared the same base as the stereotype-guys in the poster above, but could not have been further removed from them in their behaviour or mindset.


----------



## TimBit (6 May 2010)

bdave said:
			
		

> That is actually a good point.



That's just wrong. Has it ever crossed your mind that this is EXACTLY how Nazis viewed Jews? We all know the result. If dehumanization of the enemy has gone to your brain that much maybe you should report to MIR. We are professional soldiers, therefore we abide by rules... if you don't like those then just go and find work with Blackwater, perhaps.


----------



## TimBit (6 May 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I get the feeling from his statement there, that he was referring directly to insurgents/Taliban etc, not any "nationality" (my context of it coming from the last line) --- of course, we'll never know because the author of the article chose only to quote the "good bits" vice the entire conversation in context. Funny that. Our very own former CDS called them "murdering scumbags" and we all cheered when he did so - but then, we had the benefit of "context" instead of a couple of snippets from a media type with an agenda/spin of their own to push out there - _whatever_ agenda that may be.
> 
> And, I too believe that he has a very good point with his last line --- which makes the "context" obviously clear for me in my mind:
> 
> ...



There is an excellent article on this by Professor Imbault from RMC in the last Canadian Military Journal. Here is a liberal summary of its arguments: We cannot on the one hand pretend to be there in the service of democracy, to enact human rights, to protect minorities and women, in summary defending and promoting LIBERAL values which we believe to be superior to their backward values, then one moment later not abide by our own rules (we signed Geneva, eh!) because they do not. It is either we promote all of our values or none... or we get out. Promoting human rights and the rule of law then killing ex-judicio indiscriminately will only breed comptent and hatred and send more flak our way. You may not like it, but that's how it has always been and always is. Example? The French swept aside a few rules in Algeria, and ended up spending 40 yrs dealing with FLN and terrorism on their home soil.


----------



## dapaterson (6 May 2010)

TimBit:  Two minute penalty for using logic on the internet.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (6 May 2010)

Wow, irrelevant dissention run amok!  

Where did Mr. Prince say that his people or any NATO force should ignore the Conventions?  He stated that the people we currently fight don't give a crap about them.  That is not in dispute.  He also indicated that his people are aware that their enemy will not be giving them such consideration.  That is just being realistic about what they can expect if captured.  I do not see anywhere his indication that friendly forces should act less than professional and in keeping with the standards of conduct we currently practice.


----------



## TimBit (6 May 2010)

Well previous Blackwater behaviour in Iraq would tend to support the charge that they do not exactly obey rules of war. They are lso being investigated for weapons smuggling.

But I guess it is possible he was only remarking that they (Taliban) did not follow rules because they are unaware of them or would not care, not that we ought to do the same.

That being said, labelling your enemies as barbarians coming out of the sewer is pushing it.


----------



## 40below (6 May 2010)

Timbit: Last night I was reading a WWII-era screed by a U.S. admiral published in one of the Navy publications of the day about the barbarity of U-boats and German destroyers sinking American naval ships and merchantmen, painting a vivid picture of ships sinking in the night surrounded by puddles of burning fuel and how he hoped every American would remember it when peace inevitably came and German shipping sought safe US harbour. 

I thought then, as I did when I read your last point, 'Ah - one of those things that's only wrong when the other guy does it.'


----------



## vonGarvin (6 May 2010)

Talk about barbarians.  In the early days of WW2, German U Boats would surface before their prey, have the crew abandon ship (eg: onto their boat) and then sink the ship by shooting the deck mounted 88mm at the waterline.  Soon, this became suicidal (for obvious reasons).  Still, U Boats regularly picked up the survivors.  Consider the "Laconia Incident"



> Flying the Red Cross flag, U-506 (Erich Wurdeman) and U-507 (Harro Schacht) arrived two days later, just around noon of September 15. They were later joined by an Italian submarine Cappelini. These four submarines shepherded the survivors, with lifeboats in tow and hundreds standing on the decks of the U-boat, they made towards the African coastline for a rendezvous with Vichy French warships dispatched as part of the rescue.
> 
> The next morning, September 16, at 11.25am, this concentration of U-boats was spotted by an American B-24 Liberator bomber operating out of Ascension island. The survivors waved and the U-boats signaled for help. As Red Cross flags were draped over their decks, the pilot Lieutenant James D. Harden turned away and radioed back to base for instructions. *The officer on duty that day Captain Robert C. Richardson III replied with the order to attack. *
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 May 2010)

Everytime I read this thread title, I want to edit it and put a comma after Eric. Like something from Monty Python or Blackadder


----------



## armyvern (6 May 2010)

TimBit said:
			
		

> That being said, labelling your enemies as barbarians coming out of the sewer is pushing it.



I'll take it that you were very insulted then when our former CDS simply "told it like it is" and weren't one of the great many of us cheering him with a "finally, someone telling it like it is to all our fellow Canadians on the left wing porting their blinders every day."


----------



## dapaterson (6 May 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'll take it that you were very insulted then when our former CSS simply "told it like it is" and weren't one of the great many of us cheering him with a "finally, someone telling it like it is to all our fellow Canadians on the left wing porting their blinders every day."



Vern:  While I`d love to see a CSS CDS, I think you meant CDS, not CSS.


----------



## armyvern (6 May 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Vern:  While I`d love to see a CSS CDS, I think you meant CDS, not CSS.



Crap. Beer <---- next time.  ;D


----------



## dapaterson (6 May 2010)

Time to start a Facebook group: Vern for CDS!

I, for one, am looking forward to her new dress regs - with assless chaps an optional addition to mess kit.


----------



## TimBit (6 May 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'll take it that you were very insulted then when our former CDS simply "told it like it is" and weren't one of the great many of us cheering him with a "finally, someone telling it like it is to all our fellow Canadians on the left wing porting their blinders every day."



Good point  :blotto:

No I wasn't insulted... yes I despise Talibans and their ideas... that being said, I think taxing your enemy, ANY enemy, with being sub-human/barbarian/retarded etc etc etc is a sliperry slope. And that coining these terms not too far from a candid brush at the Geneva conventions is even slipperier (?!? pushing the limits of my language skills...). While Prince's words were no doubt re-arranged to fil the leanings of the author, they sound to me like the words of someone justifying behaviour of dubious legality on the battlefied. And behaviour which seriously hampers our long-term objective over there.

Below 40: Classic example! Also included are things like mass incendiary bombing raids at night... on cities of no strategic values... AH, to be the victors... how much simpler!


----------



## TimBit (6 May 2010)

I'll add to that that Taleban were/are murderous and certainly choice-candidates for the designation "scumbag"  ;D

However I think Prince is wrong when he says they're out of the sewer...not sure they have those over there.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 May 2010)

While I think the Taliban are murdering scum who don't deserve the oxygen they are stealing from us, I rarely verbalize it, and when I do, I know my audience. 
The descriptions I use are intended for those I trust. And I will not repeat them on here.


----------



## armyvern (6 May 2010)

TimBit said:
			
		

> I'll add to that that Taleban were/are murderous and certainly choice-candidates for the designation "scumbag"  ;D
> 
> However I think Prince is wrong when he says they're out of the sewer...not sure they have those over there.



Perhaps then, you think, I too should join Blackwater??

At least I read the "actual" question that the reporter "actually" asked him ... and that was *NOT* "What do you think of the Geneva Conventions?" It *WAS* rather:

(to paraphrase): "Aren't you worried that you may be considered an unlawful combattant and that *you may not be "PROTECTED"* by the Genenva conventions?" The very use of the word "protected by the conventions" means that the reporter was speaking in a context whereby the responder would be "captured by the enemy".

His response to the "*actual*" question asked? "(to paraphrase): "The Geneva Conventions are moot in this case because, even if I were covered by them, they are a bunch of murdering scumbags who wouldn't follow them anyway after capturing me."

You might not like that - but it's a fact that our opposition over there ... ignores the fact that we are covered by Geneva ... and rest assured your lil ole heart that they (our oh so nice enemies to put it in a more PC term for you) damn well know EXACTLY where Geneva is, that a convention was signed there, and that we are covered by them.

I get the sarcasm of his point - perhaps it was lost on you. That doesn't make me someone who "ignores those conventions" or a mercenary or someone who thinks the Conventions are el toro poo poo or that I'm someone who would NOT follow those Conventions.  It simply means that I am someone smart enough to realize that - if the Taliban, scumsucking murders that they are, catch MY ass .... they don't give a rats ass whether those conventions apply to me or not. 

I'd prefer to walk in there with my eyes wide open - vice thinking that they'll treat me in a nice, delicate, and non-sexual manner "just because" Geneva is applicable to me. Welcome to reality.


----------



## mariomike (6 May 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> In the early days of WW2, German U Boats would surface before their prey, have the crew abandon ship (eg: onto their boat) and then sink the ship by shooting the deck mounted 88mm at the waterline.  Soon, this became suicidal (for obvious reasons).  Still, U Boats regularly picked up the survivors.  Consider the "Laconia Incident"



The S.S. City of Benares, evacuating British children to Canada to escape the Blitz, did not receive a warning.
She was torpedoed in 1940. Two years before the Laconia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_City_of_Benares

"That the Germans themselves have no exaggerated regard for the area is proved by the fact that of the 38 ships referred to at least 16 were torpedoed outside the limits of the war zone." "The sinking of the City of Benares on the 17th September 1940 is a good example of this."

"The captain of the U-boat presumably did not know that there were children on board the City of Benares when he fired the torpedoes. Perhaps he did not even know the name of the ship, although there the evidence suggests strongly that he had been dogging her for several hours before torpedoing her. He must have known, however, that this was a large merchant ship, probably with civilian passengers on board, and certainly with a crew of merchant seamen. He knew the state of the weather, and he knew that they were six hundred miles from land, and yet he followed them outside the blockade area and deliberately abstained from firing his torpedo until after nightfall when the chances of rescue would be enormously reduced."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/05-11-46.asp

The "uboataces" link provided is included as one of the references to be considered regarding the Laconia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident

Judgement at Nuremberg:
"In view of all the facts proved and in particular of an order of the British Admiralty announced on 8 May 1940, according to which all vessels should be sunk at sight in the Skagerrak, and the answers to interrogatories by Admiral Chester Nimitz stating unrestricted submarine warfare was carried on in the Pacific Ocean by the United States from the first day of the Pacific War, the sentence of Dönitz is not assessed on the ground of his breaches of the international law of submarine warfare."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/juddoeni.asp


----------



## Bellesophie (6 May 2010)

" Prince said. He did not mention the fact that his company was hired by the Canadian government to train its forces."

Can someone tell me why we would hire them to train our CF ?!?

Yes Talibans are killing our soldiers but so far we have fought with honnor and never we should slip lower then our enemy... I don't think the Canadian population would caution this.

After the Somalian incident, it took a lot of years to restore pride for our CF in the public eye. We shall not lose that again. Just look at what is going on in Parliament over the transfer of afghan prisoners. It's giving the CF a lot of bad press for nothing if you want my opinion on it.

So guys and girls keep doing the good job and walk out of there your head high and proud...

p.s. Read the book of General Hillier loved it !

Sophie


----------



## armyvern (6 May 2010)

Bellesophie said:
			
		

> " Prince said. He did not mention the fact that his company was hired by the Canadian government to train its forces."
> 
> *Can someone tell me why we would hire them to train our CF ?!?
> 
> ...



Good gawd, less drama please. That first question of yours has already been answered in this thread.

As for the yellow bit, it's not giving us in the CF bad press. What it is is the Liberal Party now swinging the policy on prisoner exchange that "their very own Liberal Party put into effect" (how wonderfully though that the average Canadian "forgets" that bit of fact) into a spin to make it look like the Tories did so ... a political power play aimed soley at gaining sympathetic votes from those who would forget the actual facts; nothing more and nothing less. 

How ironic, the Liberals bitching at the Tories about the CF following a policy the Liberals made happen. Absolutely typical.


----------



## TimBit (6 May 2010)

> How ironic, the Liberals bitching at the Tories about the CF following a policy the Liberals made happen. Absolutely typical.



It would be just as typical the other way around... don`t be fooled, it`s party politics, not liberals.


----------



## armyvern (6 May 2010)

TimBit said:
			
		

> It would be just as typical the other way around... don`t be fooled, it`s party politics, not liberals.



I fully understand that.

In this case, I was speaking specificly to the incident referred to in the quote I posted. That is (this time) the Liberal party.


----------



## Dissident (6 May 2010)

The fact that there has been some controversy with BW does not equal to Eric Prince being the enemy.

My personal belief is that the (successful?) demonetization of BW and Eric Prince means that The Enemy is winning.

We need, of course,  to remain critical and objective, never should we let the ends justify the means and let anyone (contractor or soldier) function outside of our "rules". 

However, when someone is quoted out of context, we would be wise to ponder as to why the author needs to do so and re assess our frame of reference towards that issue.


----------



## armyvern (6 May 2010)

Dissident said:
			
		

> However, when someone is quoted out of context, we would be wise to ponder as to why the author needs to do so and re assess our frame of reference towards that issue.



Yep. Well said --- all of your post.


----------



## Nauticus (6 May 2010)

This is a very good thread.

I have a lot of respect for Erik Prince and Blackwater (or Xu). They _have_ done some good things, and they're a generally effective organization. Of course, employees of Blackwater have also done some negative things, but I don't blame the organization any more than I blame the Canadian Forces for any of the negative things our staff has done.

It is also my opinion that these "private military corporations" are actually a good thing. Once the world gets used to them and once they become regulated, I feel that they can professionally and effectively remove some of the strain on our armed forces. Specifically in escorting and that sort of job that they could do without directly becoming a combat force.


----------



## Journeyman (7 May 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Vern:  While I`d love to see a CSS CDS.....


Hey, you had Bill Leach as CLS


----------



## armyvern (7 May 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Hey, you had Bill Leach as CLS



It was Freudian. My sky is purple.  ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (7 May 2010)

mariomike said:
			
		

> The S.S. City of Benares, evacuating British children to Canada to escape the Blitz, did not receive a warning.
> She was torpedoed in 1940. Two years before the Laconia:


Oh, I know that the Deutschers were far from "saints" when it came to war at sea.  Just tried to show that they weren't the only ones playing "foul" out there.  That's all.


----------



## mariomike (7 May 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Oh, I know that the Deutschers were far from "saints" when it came to war at sea.  Just tried to show that they weren't the only ones playing "foul" out there.  That's all.



I completely agree with you.


----------



## ArmyRick (7 May 2010)

I found the article an interesting read as well.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 May 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Everytime I read this thread title, I want to edit it and put a comma after Eric. Like something from Monty Python or Blackadder


I see you got your wish!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 May 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I see you got your wish!



Yeah, I couldn't resist. I'm sure Gap sees the humour in me editing his title.


----------



## GAP (7 May 2010)

I'm comforted...... ;D


actually, it suits


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 May 2010)

Bellesophie said:
			
		

> " Prince said. He did not mention the fact that his company was hired by the Canadian government to train its forces."
> 
> Can someone tell me why we would hire them to train our CF ?!?
> 
> ...



 :



I'd like to see Eric Prince and Eric Prydz fight.


----------



## 40below (7 May 2010)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> :
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to see Eric Prince and Eric Prydz fight.



I gotta like Eric Prydz' chances. He's the same boy he used to be.


----------



## Nuggs (8 May 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Time to start a Facebook group: Vern for CDS!
> 
> I, for one, am looking forward to her new dress regs - with assless chaps an optional addition to mess kit.



 ;D


----------



## bdave (8 May 2010)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> You think that insulting a bunch of people is a good point?



Nope. I meant how his men are not covered by the Geneva Convention and that it doesn't really matter.

edit: Seems I was misunderstood.
I will clarify: It is my firm belief, and one shared by Mr. Prince, that the Taliban couldn't give a damn about the Geneva Convention. They (for the most part) are probably not aware that it even exists. If they are aware, they probably do not care. They fight by their own rules. 
As such, the fact that Mr. Prince's men are not covered by the Geneva Convention is a moot point, because even if they were, it wouldn't matter.
Mr. Prince says this in a not very eloquent way, and I think it is a good point.


----------



## Marauder (10 May 2010)

I'm pretty sure EVERY Western-born individual involved in the GWOT (soldier AND contractor alike) is savvy to the fact that the foe being hunted and fought could give less than a millionth of a fuck about the rules of treatment the Geneva Convention affords captured personnel. While the leftards and (spit) lawyers go on and on and on about the horrors of stress positions and sleep deprivation  : : : anyone with two brain cells is well aware of the "humane"  :blotto: treatment that AQ, the TB, and just plain old abos and indigs in the House Of Peace will afford a captured soldier OR contractor OR journo.

Pretty sure that after Fallujah, (http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/art/highriskp.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/contractors/highrisk.html&usg=__8dZyudne1Ck7fRfa6nQvxXTumYY=&h=178&w=300&sz=11&hl=en&start=8&itbs=1&tbnid=nmH1JrFSNhTtAM:&tbnh=69&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfallujah%2Bcontractors%26hl%3Den%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1) there wasn't a contractor out there, be they one of the frontline folks that Petamocto seems intent on denigrating, or even a straightforward KBR trucker, that went outside the gate while under the impression that these 7th century throwbacks would provide the slightest of mercies to a captured kaffir. If you bother to read the actual ‘article’ instead of the idiot editor’s ‘headline’, you’ll be able to gather that this is what Prince was driving at, NOT! that Blackwater, DynCorp, Triple Canopy, et al were themselves intent on ignoring the GC as it pertains to the treatment of captured enemy combatant personnel. In fact, I would bet hard cash that there are more stories of “filthy contractors’ rendering medical aid to injured muj who were trying their level best to kill those same contractors moments before, than you will of the ZERO stories you would ever dig up of imagined ‘atrocities’ against enemy combatant personal who ever so heroically hide behind civilian populations while ever so bravely firing a few rounds at GWOT troops before running like a punk.

Google Nick Berg, Jack Hensley, Olin Eugene Armstrong, Kenneth John Bigley, Kim Sun-il, Shosei Koda, and Georgi Lazov to see how Timbit’s heroic resistance fighters treat captured kaffir, especially the non-combatants these courageous anti-imperialist heroes  capture at such great risk to themselves. Use the Video function to get the best view of the heroes of the people bestowing loving kindness on those damn dirty kaffir who helped to kill the benighted indigs without ever carrying a weapon.

Fuck, why do I waste my time…


----------



## SeanNewman (10 May 2010)

Marauder,

As has been brought up many, _many_ times already, just because some enemy break the rules does not give us permission to.

Also, grouping all of our enemy in the same pile is also a mistake.  

Are we in the CF responsible for the Abu Gharib prison photos?  Of course we are (to them), because over there we all look the same.

We have more access to information than they do and we still lump them all in as Taliban even though it would be incredibly rare for your average Afghan insurgent to even imagine cutting someone's head off.  But yet we still paint them with the same brush.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 May 2010)

I think that for clarification, the term “nasty” should be quantified. As well, I’m fairly certain that about 85%+ of Afghan Insurgents (excluding the foreign fighters) have never heard of Abu Ghraib.  

But the point is this: those of us who act counter to international law are held accountable.  Those of “them” who do not are not.

Also, it’s a point of group psychology for one to think of one’s own group as heterogeneous, and of the opposing group as homogeneous.  So, though I agree with you, Petamocto, that it’s not correct to label “them” all as “Taliban” (there are HiG, there are criminals, there are AQ, there is inter tribal and intra tribal rivalry, etc), it’s quite natural and common to do so.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 May 2010)

> I think that for clarification, the term “nasty” should be quantified.




They ambush our convoys and patrols- a few hours later they crawl up to the FOBs under the guise of farmers and ask for dirty western infidel medicine.
We disrespect them by patching them up with our nasty  bandages and other life saving stuff then send them on their way. Oh by the way here is a ration pack, don't worry there's no pork in it because that would be offensive, have a good day.


----------



## SeanNewman (10 May 2010)

Again though, you're bunching all of "them" together.  And even if "they" all did exactly what you just wrote, would you do any differently in their shoes?

If I were poor and my kids were starving, I would probably ask you for help if you had anything to hand out.  I would then also probably shoot at you if someone paid me a hundred dollars to do it.


----------



## armyvern (10 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Again though, you're bunching all of "them" together.  And even if "they" all did exactly what you just wrote, would you do any differently in their shoes?
> 
> If I were poor and my kids were starving, I would probably ask you for help if you had anything to hand out.  I would then also probably shoot at you if someone paid me a hundred dollars to do it.



...

Would you walk into the midst of innocent women and children, your own countrymen, (no "infidels" present) and blow yourself up and killing those innocents for any amount of money?

I wouldn't. And for me, that's the difference between a professional forces and a non-legit organization.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Again though, you're bunching all of "them" together.  And even if "they" all did exactly what you just wrote, would you do any differently in their shoes?[/q


Yes brother.



> If I were poor and my kids were starving, I would probably ask you for help if you had anything to hand out.  I would then also probably shoot at you if someone paid me a hundred dollars to do it.


I respect your honesty however I wouldn't make the same choices as you.


----------



## SeanNewman (10 May 2010)

Vern,

99% of Afghans wouldn't walk into women and children and blow themselves up anymore than Canadians would.  Nice of you to paint all Muslims with the same brush, though.

Apollo,

Say the same thing when you have your own starving children in front of you who will die if you don't take action.

I would call everyone a liar who says they would hole onto their moral compass at that point.


----------



## armyvern (10 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Vern,
> 
> 99% of Afghans wouldn't walk into women and children and blow themselves up anymore than Canadians would.  Nice of you to paint all Muslims with the same brush, though.



Nice of you to paint all "Afghans/Muslims" into my comment which obviously was about the Taliban and insurgents. It's not I painting "Afghans" or "Muslims" as such with one brush. Rather, it is you who chooses to take any comment "anti-Taliban" and claim that those who are "anti-Taliban" are painting ALL Aghans/Muslims as such terrorists, radicals and insurgents; that's bullshit - I've done no such thing.

Rather, do not paint me with the same brush as my enemy - for I am not the enemy. Do not compare a professional army who tries to verify legitimate each and every target to those enemy who routinely do not try to do such, and will deliberately target an innocent civilian populace (ie target hose "everyday average Afghans") routinely and innocently going about their business in the market etc only to find themselves blown up by their own "countrymen". We are not them and we are not comparable to them - despite how you are trying to wish us so.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Apollo,
> 
> Say the same thing when you have your own starving children in front of you who will die if you don't take action.
> 
> I would call everyone a liar who says they would hole onto their moral compass at that point.



You may have a point. The "What would you do if your child was starving" argument is a very hard one to debate against.  I have a little girl and I wouldn't suggest anyone come between her saftey and me.


The kind of stuff you're talking about is like giving someone a blank cheque though.
Well I killed those people for money because I was starving to death.
Killed that other family because I needed money to buy drugs and I was going to die without my fix.

It's like you're saying we don't have a hope in Afghanistan because the locals will just always side with whoever pays them.
Not that the afghans are all about money
 ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (10 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Apollo,
> Say the same thing when you have your own starving children in front of you who will die if you don't take action.


That is a bullshit example, as the Afghans aren't wanting for food.  It's a bullshit example in a bullshit attempt to rationalise irrational behaviour.

Now, "they" (the enemy) aren't all Taliban, HiG, Al Qaeda, whatever.  Who cares?  The focus is on our credibility to the populace, no?  Who cares what makes them tick.  Focus on what makes the people tick, and kill the enemy when they appear.  That is the easy part (killing the enemy), the hard part is focussing on the population and sorting through that mess, making the Afghan government credible, etc.


----------



## SeanNewman (10 May 2010)

Apollo,

Agreed that it's a blank cheque of sorts, and I think we've established common ground of understanding.

Vern,

What you are missing are the parallels of what we are accusing our enemies with and what they accuse us of.

In western culture, the media focuses on specific examples like acid on the girls' faces and beheadings to make our opponents look like savages (so a lot of people see all of them like that).

However, where they are, what do you think they focus on in village and market chats?  Probably NATO driving through their fields and dropping bombs randomly from the sky murdering hundreds of innocent people...making us look like savages (so a lot of them see all of us like that).

We are exactly comparable to them, in that most of them just want to do their job and stay alive if at all possible, and hoping the whole thing ends soon so they can get back to their families.  Also, comparable in that the actions of a few make the actions of the many seems questionable.


----------



## Dissident (10 May 2010)

Moral relativism. Fail.


----------



## SeanNewman (10 May 2010)

[/off the rails]

[blackwater]


----------



## Marauder (10 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Marauder,
> 
> As has been brought up many, _many_ times already, just because some enemy break the rules does not give us permission to.
> 
> ...



So first, you're going to have to point me in the direction of the part of my post in which I advocate that we in the CF should "break the rules”, or that any Western contractors have or should “break the rules” as it relates to the treatment of captured enemy combatants (be they TB, AQ, HiG, or any other brand name of ******* they associate with). I reread my post and still can’t find that part, so one is left to assume you either fabricated that strawman or just weren’t paying attention.

I admit some confusion as to your second point, where you advise that lumping the muj together is a mistake, but in the next breath seem to see some validation in their possibly thinking CF members had some part in the Abu G debacle, because WE “all look the same”. 

As to your final little pearl of "observation",  perhaps I shall take the opportunity to remind you that this is an open forum, and perhaps it would be best if you leave your pontificating to the closed confines of your particular Mess.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (10 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> However, where they are, what do you think they focus on in village and market chats?  Probably NATO driving through their fields and dropping bombs randomly from the sky murdering hundreds of innocent people...making us look like savages (so a lot of them see all of us like that).



What the hell tour were _you_ on where this was happening?!  I don't recall that.  



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> We are exactly comparable to them, in that most of them just want to do their job and stay alive if at all possible, and hoping the whole thing ends soon so they can get back to their families.  Also, comparable in that the actions of a few make the actions of the many seems questionable.



It speaks to motivation.  The Afghans know we are there to try to help.  They just think we are rather useless and are going to bail on them so there is no really good reason to side with us.  They aren't wrong.  The Taliban in their current incarnation are petty criminals and it is widely known that their movement has nothing to do with Islam any longer.  If we had caused a legitimate government to evolve out of this, the people would have rallied to us.  
So no, we are in no way shape or form comparable to them.


----------



## SeanNewman (11 May 2010)

Marauder / Zipperhead,

Everything I have posted is based on the mindset of the Afghan on the street.  What concerns me is the generalization of the "other guys", and I am stating that the same is done to us.  They will tell us that we are their favourite, and they will tell Americans and Brits the same thing, because it's polite.

It does not matter that the CF was not at Abu Gharib and it does not matter that the CF has not dropped bombs that have killed hundreds of people.  We are (for the most part) lumped in the same pile when we are talked about so that is what I mean when I write that their perception is that we are the barbarians (infidels, invaders, etc).

It's not at all to state that anyone in the CF has done anything wrong, it's about being guilty by association in the same way that some on this board have made all Afghans guilty by their association or all insurgents capable of cutting off heads or blowing themselves up.

People_ should _ get defensive when they hear that everyone in NATO acts like the Abu Gharib crew, and they _should _ get defensive if it's stated that anyone does anything bad to captured people.  But if we generalize "them" as all beheaders and suicide bombers, why should we expect any different?


----------



## TimBit (11 May 2010)

Dissident said:
			
		

> Moral relativism. Fail.



Why? Demonstrate moral universality to me. You can't.

Morality is based upon education and social values - change those, you change values. How do you think SS managed to smash jewish infants' heads on trees? Suggesting they were all morally sick is not all... there clearly was conditionning at work here. I cannot accept your demonstration with only "Fail." as an argument.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 May 2010)

TimBit said:
			
		

> Why? Demonstrate moral universality to me. You can't.
> 
> Morality is based upon education and social values - change those, you change values. How do you think SS managed to smash jewish infants' heads on trees? Suggesting they were all morally sick is not all... there clearly was conditionning at work here. I cannot accept your demonstration with only "Fail." as an argument.


*ahem*
Objectivism is what you perhaps you intended to put here.  Morals (what is right, what is not right) is considered by about 99% of Philosophers to be objective, that is, not subject to opinion, time, manner or place.  It is considered as universal as mathematics: 2+2=4 is true today, was true for Og the caveman and will be true for ZLort, Imperial Overlord of the Gamma Quadrant in four gazillion AD.  Even though Og had no concept of mathematics, 2+2=4.

The same holds true for "right" and "not right", or "good" and "evil".  The challenge, however, is what _is_ right and what _is_ wrong.  That is the challenge.  Some philosophers contend that the rightness of "things" depends on the outcome of acts.  This is called consequentialism.  Some contend that it is based on the person, and some would call this "virtue" ethics (such as that brought forth or proposed by Aristotle and Jesus Christ).  Still other contend that the acts themselves have intrinsic values.

The irony of your statement is that no matter how hard you try (and many have), no person can make a logical argument for moral relativism.  Maybe smashing baby heads on trees was a "right" act.  Whether the SS believed it was, or I believed it wasn't, is immaterial.  We are bound by logic to determine what is good and what is not good.  Some things are known a priori, and others a posteri.  "A Priori" knowledge tells me that it's not a good act.  For many, the litmus test is in the behaviour of children.  They almost always know what is right and what is not right.


So, all this to say: an argument that says "they believe it to be right, therefore, it *is* right" is a bullshit, *fail* answer.  Were that the case
then we would not have been "right" to blow up German cities, or condemn AQ for murdering those thousands in NYC in 2001.  Moral relativism is akin to Anarchy and political correctness on acid.  And it's downright dangerous.


----------



## SeanNewman (11 May 2010)

+1 to Techno's stance (even though it has nothing to do with Blackwater).

Ethics is not the study of what is wrong because that is impossible to do, but it studies the decision processes that people use to decide.

If you put your emphasis on the decision itself (rule-based) you are a deontologist.  If you place your value on the outcome (the best decision results in the most good for the most people) you are a utilitarianist.  If you base your decision on the best outcome for you, you're a hedonist.

Someone using a deontological system would never hit a baby against a tree no matter what you promised them in return, but if you told someone who made decisions based on utilitarianism that if they smashed a baby against a tree that 100 kids would be set free from certain death that baby would get killed.

You might think it's completely wrong to you to eat your baby if it died because of your culture, but some island in the south Pacific may believe that is the way to keep their soul alive and en route to heaven, and you putting them in a box in the ground may be the most heinous thing they could think of.  Who are we to say we're right?  We can say that our culture has set rules to live by where we are, but those are hardly universal.


----------



## armyvern (11 May 2010)

Wow, this thread has now officially become a mini-OPME school.

 :

Still nothing to refute the fact that the enemy *routinely and deliberately* targets an innocent civilian populace while we do not. I am not them, nor is anyone that I know and those of you in this thread who continue to insist that we somehow 'are' the same ... just Wow. Wow.

I am a legitimate target. Women and children going about their business in the souk are not. That is the difference between them and us.


----------



## SeanNewman (11 May 2010)

Vern,

I 100% agree with you that in some cases, our enemy deliberately targets civilians.  No questions there.

However, we have access to all the world's information at our finger tips.

The average Afghan doesn't, and who is he to argue with the guy who tells him at the market that the NATO bomb that killed 10 innocent Afghans the night before wasn't deliberately targeting innocent Afghans?

If that's the perception, then that's their reality.

That's where I have been coming from with this debate and how easily it is for us to be viewed as the barbarians/invaders.  The less information people have of the whole truth, the easier they can be swayed by one source of information (village elder, madrassa, etc).

We (NATO) give them all sorts of reasons to dislike us being there.  If we don't acknowledge the terrible things we do to them (run them off their own roads and drive through their fields to avoid IEDs) then we fail to understand the COIN environment and we lose.


----------



## Dissident (11 May 2010)

To paraphrase from BHD:

"Do not think that because I grew up without running water that I am simple, General Garrison."

The lack of internet does not preclude the average Afghan person from knowing what is what.


----------



## armyvern (11 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Vern,
> 
> I 100% agree with you that in some cases, our enemy deliberately targets civilians.  No questions there.
> 
> ...



You know, for a guy who seems to be dead set against any friendly forces "widely brushstroking" *the Taliban* (you'll note that you repeatedly resort to neglecting the "Taliban" bit and inserting wider-group words such as "ALL Afghans" or "ALL Muslims" into your response instead as "our" words) ...

You sure as heck don't mind tarring those "average Afghans" as a majority being "unable to distinguish" between "deliberate" and all "anti-western" for that is all that they "know".  How absolutely ironic is that??

Fortunately, I am able to read/view docs and commentary from "average Afghans" online with a little digging to find out that the "average Afghan" doesn't toe that line after all and that they do recognize the difference between us and them too. Unfortunaely - if the average Canadian sticks to MSM Canadian media to get their "facts" - they'd never realize that ... and would end up speaking & posting just as you seem to be - from their holier than thou and 'we know better' platform based on nada but what the MSM deems worthy of reportage.


----------



## SeanNewman (11 May 2010)

Vern,

You are right that my post seems a bit narrow.  You saying that it's ironic is to show that you have not gotten the point I have been making the entire time that if we generalize them (and I have demonstrated how we do that), how can we expect not to be generalized back?

However, I didn't think too many people would be interested in the 100 novel encyclopedia that would have to be attached to my post to explain the complexities and motivations of all the different people in Kandahar.


----------



## armyvern (11 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Vern,
> 
> You are right that my post seems a bit narrow.  You saying that it's ironic is to show that you have not gotten the point I have been making the entire time that if we generalize them (and I have demonstrated how we do that), how can we expect not to be generalized back?
> 
> However, I didn't think too many people would be interested in the 100 novel encyclopedia that would have to be attached to my post to explain the complexities and motivations of all the different people in Kandahar.



No, I get your point. And, I disagree with it; sorry, I really _really_ thought that was rather obvious.

Now, why don't you 'prove your point' to me by explaining just how it is then, given your dropped bomb in the market example, how it is that the average Afghan distinguishes then decides that the bomb was deliberatly targetted but that the suicide bomber, VBIED, bike bomb etc with no NATO troops in sight was somehow 'not' a deliberate targetting of them by the Taliban?

Hmmmm ---- me thinks perhaps they DO know the difference and that you just fail to give the average Afghan enough credit.

And, you've done it again with the above quoted post Mr Petamocto --- point out just one SINGLE post in this thread where I (or anyone else) have generalized about average Afghans, ALL Afghans, or ALL Muslims.  I distinctly used the words 'Taliban, insurgents, terrorists etc' ... rather it is you who chooses to take statements made by others about 'specfic' groups and then respond to them with a BIG BROAD brush by inserting a wider-group word such as *ALL Muslims* instead of the actual word used (Taliban) and then claiming it is we doing such.

Your spin is good, but it is wayyyy off target.


----------



## Dissident (11 May 2010)

I <3 Vern and TV.


----------



## SeanNewman (11 May 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Hmmmm ---- me thinks perhaps they DO know the difference and that you just fail to give the average Afghan enough credit.



You are wrong as demonstrated by the many Afghan polls that have been done on the topic.

Some educated Afghans may know the difference, or the ones who deal with certain people on a regular basis (district leader, chief of police, etc), but to the vast majority of Kandaharis we are a big green machine with no home country or different morals.

Luckily, some Afghans see us as different from the Russians.  Small victories.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> You are wrong as demonstrated by the many Afghan polls that have been done on the topic.
> 
> Some educated Afghans may know the difference, or the ones who deal with certain people on a regular basis (district leader, chief of police, etc), but to the vast majority of Kandaharis we are a big green machine with no home country or different morals.
> 
> Luckily, some Afghans see us as different from the Russians.  Small victories.



Will you ever decide to back down and just admit that you pull stuff out of your ass to feed your own misguided sense of self worth?

No need to answer as it was more an opinion, spoken by of all of us here, than a question.

Kinda like all those Afghans you know so well and keep quoting.


----------



## SeanNewman (11 May 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Will you ever decide to back down and just admit that you pull stuff out of your *** to feed your own misguided sense of self worth?



Is this another time when I get called out to provide proof of what I am saying, and then when I provide 10 references that I get called out for having the audacity to support my side of the argument?

Have you focused on the Afghan people for years of your life (including operationally)?

I can't say you haven't, but if you want to call me out on this one you will lose.


----------



## armyvern (11 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Is this another time when I get called out to provide proof of what I am saying, and then when I provide 10 references that I get called out for having the audacity to support my side of the argument?
> 
> Have you focused on the Afghan people for years of your life (including operationally)?
> 
> I can't say you haven't, but if you want to call me out on this one you will get owned.



YOU have, numerous times now, in this thread, accused both myself and others of "broad brushstroking ALL Afghans/Muslims" and grouping them into "one group".

I have asked you at leats twice now to back up those claims of me "doing this" with a SINGLE quote from this thread where that occured. You have yet to do so. You will also not ever be doing so, because there isn't a SINGLE post in this thread where I or any other person did such a thing as you claim --- other than your own posts using the big brush on the Afghan people.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 May 2010)

What was this thread about??


----------



## SeanNewman (11 May 2010)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> What was this thread about??



The smartest thing the last 10 posters (including me) have written.


----------



## armyvern (11 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> The smartest thing the last 10 posters (including me) have written.



That's not unusual.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 May 2010)

Let it go everyone,...back on topic.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (12 May 2010)

Can we just chance the title to "Petamocto Blathers On With Self Importance and Blinders and Hijacks a Thread" so we can save other threads in the future?


----------



## PanaEng (12 May 2010)

The only way someone hijacks a thread is when other fools follow.

(I do agree with some of the comments Petamocto has made - but that doesn't mean that I disagree with the responders pov either, just that their response have been more of a cornered-badger style) op:

Now, back on topic, I think Mr Prince is probably a great guy. His problem is the speech style he is used to using - more like the blustering US Army/Marine DS which reporters don't get but like to quote out of context.
Is it reckless? Maybe.
Can it get the troops fired up? yes; in trouble? maybe.
Should we be more careful in our choice of words? Yes.

It is not about being authentic or honest when we speak in public. You can still express yourself in a way that your audience identifies with you without giving the agenda-driven media many chances to use your words out of context. Just look a Gen Hillier's speeches - they were all very carefully crafted; sure there were some sound-bites that made some people uncomfortable, but in a strict sense, he did not cross the line (whatever that is).

cheers,
Frank


----------



## McG (12 May 2010)

This topic needs a rest - lock in place for at least the next 24 hrs


----------

