FOX:"...since those 4 INNOCENT civilians were killed in Fallujah"

[underpants]

They reported that as a teaser on an update on the "innocent civilians" and a report form Fallujah. I can jsut hear MSRNC's Lester Holt declaring the GLORIOUS attack/response now.

What happened to them was horrible and shouldn't happen to anyone but they aren't really "innocent" they WERE hired guns. I don't mean to disparage them or their families memories but I just thought you might want to see the spin coming.


Oh in case you forgot there were also 5 soldiers killed that day but then they probably made about a 1/5 of what the "innocent civilians" made. Experience costs.

[mzmolly]

1. Additionally, there were thousands of INNOCENT people murdered by the US

Government.

I feel deeply for these people and their families, along with the Iraqi people who have lost loved ones.

[Raenelle]

2. Read this comment I copied from Steve Gilliard's blog--

On : 4/3/2004 9:32:08 PM Cameron in vancouver (www) said:


I find it odd that American TV viewers and newspaper readers who are not even allowed to witness the arrival of the covered coffins of their own soldiers are now finally able to view horrific images of the reality of your war.
The rest of the world watched stunned when our newscasts showed mothers dragging the headless bodies of their charred children out of the rubble of whatever restaurant or neighbourhood Saddam just MIGHT have been in.
Meanwhile,American media treated its viewers to Shock and Awe video game shots as some breathless talking head blathered on about how "we" almost got him.
And 70% of Americans at the time said they loved Bush for trying,no matter who got turned into a crisp in the meantime.
I imagine if the people of Fallujah had access to nice clean missles fired from 30,000 feet in the air,they wouldn't feel the need to get up close and personal .
There is a reason that somebody,somewhere in the upper reaches of the US government feels its a good idea to make these images widely available at this moment.
Somebody wants a reaction that cannot be achieved by protecting US citizens from reality any more.
Outside of the isolated US with it's locked down media,the rest of the world(and the blogoshere) has seen this kind of atrocity (and worse) all before.
There's blood on everybodies hands,and because of incompetance and stupidity I think its only just beginning.

[aquart]

4. Actually, we weren't allowed to see it.

Not on the news shows I was watching.

[DIKB]

7. acceptable losses

Iraqi civilian death is viewed as acceptable, as if they aren't really human. This would NEVER be acceptable happening in America, killing dozens of citizens while searching for a serial killer. It stinks of hypocrisy to me

[theHandpuppet]

8. That's because when innocent Iraqis die...

... we objectify them by calling their deaths "collateral damage".

When American colonists, effectively using what was then considered "barbaric" tactics of warfare they learned from Native American peoples, drove the occupying British out of the colonies they were called patriots. The mercenaries of that time were the Hessians, still a word that carries with it very negative connotations.

When Iraqis fight to drive out the invaders and occupiers of their land they are called "terrorists", "insurgents" and "Saddam loyalists".

There is also a war of semantics going on in America, and sad to say most of the media plays right into it.

[Teddy_Salad]

3. Underpants......

......I just have to say how much I love those angry pair of undies that go across the bottom of your posts.

They're great! Crack me up every time I see them.

B-)

[aquart]

5. See, and I hate those underpants.

They make it really difficult for me to read anything the writer says. My eye gets dizzy from the moving object.

[Poiuyt]

17. I agree

Funny, but distracting

[mhr]

6. Mercenaries, By Definition, Are Not Innocent, Especially To The Occupied

eom

[Toucano]

12. I really wanted to push that word

but then I looked it up and mercenaries are people hired to work for an army "other than their own". All the definitions included "foreign" as part of the definition.

Since they were US citizens working under contract with the Pentagon, they were not technically mercenaries. I think we have to give it up.

[mhr]

14. More Definitions - Seems The Definition Still Fits

"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"
Mercenary Mer"ce*na*ry, n.; pl. Mercenaries.
One who is hired; a hireling; especially, a soldier hired
into foreign service. --Milman.


"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"
Mercenary Mer"ce*na*ry, a. OE. mercenarie, F. mercenaire, fr.
L. mercenarius, fr. merces wages, reward. See Mercy.
1. Acting for reward; serving for pay; paid; hired; hireling;
venal; as, mercenary soldiers.

2. Hence: Moved by considerations of pay or profit; greedy of
gain; sordid; selfish. --Shak.

For God forbid I should my papers blot With
mercenary lines, with servile pen. --Daniel.

Syn: See Venal.

"WordNet (r) 2.0"
mercenary
adj 1: marked by materialism syn: materialistic, worldly-minded
2: used of soldiers hired by a foreign army syn: mercenary(a),
freelance(a)
3: profit oriented; "a commercial book"; "preached a mercantile
and militant patriotism"- John Buchan; "a mercenary
enterprise"; "a moneymaking business" syn: mercantile,
moneymaking(a)
n : a person hired to fight for another country than their own
syn: soldier of fortune

[Toucano]

16. They're all paid.

Regular soldiers in the US military are paid. The young men I know who are serving in the military chose it over a job in the private sector because they were offered an appealing compensation package that included training and money for college.

So what are the differences?

Mercenaries are distinguished from regular soldiers not merely by the fact that they are paid, but that they are paid for work in a foreign service. That's what makes it sordid because mercenaries will fight in a conflict that they have no interest in other than the money. Since Blackwater employees are working for their own government in this case, they can argue that they are also part of the "cause" of the "liberation" of Iraq. A mercenary has no consideration of the cause for which he fights.

The other difference is one of scale. This one works in favor of considering the Blackwater guys mercenaries. Perhaps you could say that the regular soldiers aren't really "profiting" from their pay, but rather they are simply having their expenses paid. They could, in most cases, make more money in the private sector. The Blackwater guys, by comparison, are working in the private sector, and could likely not be paid more if they weren't in Iraq today.

The word mercenary wouldn't historically fit these circumstances. But I guess we have to consider that the language is a living thing that has to evolve to fit our needs, and words are defined by usage. If I acknowledge that we are expanding the definition to include these unprecedented circumstances, then that is the best word to use to describe them in the PNAC world. I cannot think of a single instance where a nation has previously hired a private, domestic company to fight its war.

[SoCalDem]

15. Privatized army fits the definition..and that's exactly what they are

It's a bait & switch operation from the get-go.. It allows the "real' military to be cut to the bone.."see, we're saving you tax-payers money"...and yet they reach into the OTHER pocket and pay HUGE sums of money to private companies for soldiers, food service people,supply procurement people...Most of these "contracts" are no-bid and done with a wink-wink..

The rationale they like to use, is that it "frees up" soldiers to do the actual fighting, BUT when the private soldiers carry the same weapons and wear body armor, and uniforms, the LOCALS cannot tell that they are NOT part of the military.. These private soldiers are also not "real military", and subject to all the rules and regs that the soldiers have to follow, so when a SoF "soldier" roughs up some citizens, just for the hell of it, and then the next day a regular soldier comes into contact with them, HE/SHE bears the brunt of the "revenge"..

Coming from a career military family, I can tell you that the military "used" to be a whole community..not just "fighters".. There were military people to fill ALL the occupations..cooks,barbers,teachers,maintenance,janitorial... you name it.. Now that the government wants ONLY FIGHTERS, and seems to think that their only job is to KILL the enemy, it makes our military even LESS welcome in any part of the world..

Unless there is a dramatic change, soon, NONE of our soldiers will be "safe" anywhere in the world..

[Toucano]

18. The traditional definition said nothing about "private".

It dealt with "foreign" fighters.

But I think we can include private as a component of the 21st century definition. See post above.

[lostnfound]

9. CNN used the same adjective today. So why not say 'innocent soldiers'?

An obvious attempt to heighten the outrage that many Americans feel about it.

Guess they got the same memo as Fox.

[Toucano]

10. The innocenct aren't usually armed to the teeth!

That's just too funny to call them innocent. Thanks for the chuckle!

[FDRrocks]

11. If I was walking to work tommorow

And got shot. Could someone say I'm innocent? I mean, just use the term IINNOCENT, without clarification? I was innocent of x, just walking to work.

Surprised anyone here watches network news anymore.

[Solly Mack]

13. I grok. And the "get revenge" mentality for these 4 deaths...

which really offended my senses...


Get revenge for what? 4 people killed on the job? In a war zone?

so, do we get "revenge" for 600 dead soldiers as well?

All the deaths related to this invasion have been horrible but "get revenge"??????????.....

By that logic, aren't the Iraqis just getting "revenge" for all the civilians dying?