Ex-Blackwater Chief Hired By The UAE To Build A "Secret Force"

[Singularity]

No, the fact that they are foreigners is extremely relevant. That's the whole crutch here. This is a WHOLE unit of foreigners. Any state has a certain amount of accountability and transparancy that goes hand in hand with the legitimazy of their authority. If you have no transparancy it's very hard to be accountable for any act that breaks the trust towards your own population.

Don't you see the potential for commiting acts of crime against your own population that's beyond any constitutional legality or legitimazy?

There must be a way to train a competent and strong spec op force without excluding national members. The french foreign legion has 24% french citizens. This battalion has 0% UAE personell. And the emirate is considering to expand it to a ~10.000 strong brigade...

 

[Bugfatty300]

IMO, they inherently are. They are paid to fight in a war they have no ideological interest in.


@Bugfatty, given their motivation, the FT's were not mercenary.

There where thousands of American "volunteers" who "worked" for the Kuomintang. No one can really speak for what motivated each man so one single motivation won't cover them all. Obviously each had his own reason for going, yet I don't think it would be stretch to assume that many of them went to China for the large amounts of cash and bounties promised. Plus I don't think too many of them had a vested ideological connection with Chiang Kai-shek or the Kuomintang who were themselves quasi-fascists.

Ultimately they were American civilians, who were paid huge sums of cash by a third party to fight a country that the United States was not at war with. I dunno. To me that sounds like mercenaries. Maybe our patriotic flag waving memory of WWII tends to fog that up.

 

[wolfigor]

There is just so very, very little possibilities for revolts to take place in Norway currently. If a revolt ever did take place, a lot of people has had to to a lot of stupid things. So much so that a revolt might be the most sensible thing.

I agree with you that a full scale revolt of Norwegian population is simply unthinkable... the bases for it simply do not exists, and it will really take a lot of work and a lot of extremely stupid decisions to create them.
As well the level of general violence in Norway is very low... the viking times are far away.

Anyone stupid enough to turn to violence will quickly find the entire populace to have turned against them.

hmmm... maybe not...
in 2009 there were some very violent demonstrations in Oslo by Hamas supporters...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbZpxj_HWyI

How did the rest of the population reacted to that?
(This is a genuine question, I was not yet living in Norway at the time)

 

[Shadowbound]

Sounds like Mercenaries 3 is going to be set in the Middle East.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Sounds like Mercenaries 3 is going to be set in the Middle East.

Mercenaries 3 isn't happening. Company went under during production.

 

[Cheetah]

hmmm... maybe not...
in 2009 there were some very violent demonstrations in Oslo by Hamas supporters...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbZpxj_HWyI

How did the rest of the population reacted to that?
(This is a genuine question, I was not yet living in Norway at the time)

Hehe. Yeah, I remember that situation.

The reactions was mostly that the protesters were violent scum who vandalised other peoples property, that it was a good thing the police handled them (but not good enough, as the police got some criticism afterwards), and that whoever was found guilty of vandalism should of course be put in prison.

Then of course, it came out that many - or was it the vast majority? - of the protesters were Muslims, either first or second generation immigrants, and yeah, that definitely didn't make the general populace any less pleased about them.

 

[BuckeyeJim]

Hehe. Yeah, I remember that situation.

The reactions was mostly that the protesters were violent scum who vandalised other peoples property, that it was a good thing the police handled them (but not good enough, as the police got some criticism afterwards), and that whoever was found guilty of vandalism should of course be put in prison.

Then of course, it came out that many - or was it the vast majority? - of the protesters were Muslims, either first or second generation immigrants, and yeah, that definitely didn't make the general populace any less pleased about them.

Well this warms my heart. I propose some highly hypothetical arguments for the sake of generalities sake and you compose a huge post that's highly specific in nature regarding "revolts" or acts of political in nature. Then you turn around and talk about your country essentially putting down a partisan revolt, reflecting the partisan nature of your people, and their willingness to quell dissent should it result in the destruction of their private property. Your government paid your people to do it. So tell me, why would Bahrain be any less justified in paying foreigners to protect the private property of the people in Manama? Who you pay is really the qualifier as opposed to the acts themselves?

 

[innonimatu]

No, the fact that they are foreigners is extremely relevant. That's the whole crutch here. This is a WHOLE unit of foreigners. Any state has a certain amount of accountability and transparancy that goes hand in hand with the legitimazy of their authority. If you have no transparancy it's very hard to be accountable for any act that breaks the trust towards your own population.

Hey, it's very suitable for the UAE: most of its population are foreigners too!

Don't you see the potential for commiting acts of crime against your own population that's beyond any constitutional legality or legitimazy?

They voted against Qaddafi, but they certainly learned from Qaddafi!

Wouldn't it be funny if that Erik Prince were to pull a Bob Denard on the emirs? Of course, this one is too much a tool of his country to ever do it. Loose cannons were funnier.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Well this warms my heart. I propose some highly hypothetical arguments for the sake of generalities sake and you compose a huge post that's highly specific in nature regarding "revolts" or acts of political in nature. Then you turn around and talk about your country essentially putting down a partisan revolt, reflecting the partisan nature of your people, and their willingness to quell dissent should it result in the destruction of their private property. Your government paid your people to do it. So tell me, why would Bahrain be any less justified in paying foreigners to protect the private property of the people in Manama? Who you pay is really the qualifier as opposed to the acts themselves?

That was quite a revolt alright. It is simply amazing that such a tiny group of dangerous Muslims didn't manage to topple the legitimate government. But thankfully the authorities responded so aggressively to the use of fireworks of mass destruction.

 

[Cheetah]

Well this warms my heart. I propose some highly hypothetical arguments for the sake of generalities sake and you compose a huge post that's highly specific in nature regarding "revolts" or acts of political in nature. Then you turn around and talk about your country essentially putting down a partisan revolt, reflecting the partisan nature of your people, and their willingness to quell dissent should it result in the destruction of their private property. Your government paid your people to do it. So tell me, why would Bahrain be any less justified in paying foreigners to protect the private property of the people in Manama? Who you pay is really the qualifier as opposed to the acts themselves?

Are you unable or unwilling to understand what you read???

A couple hundred guys aged between early teens and early twenties throwing rocks through windows and trying to storm the Israeli embassy does not constitute a revolt!

Norwegian police using mace and handcuffs to arrest such people is in no way comparable to a military unit with actual weapons prepared to stop an actual popular revolt in a dictatorship!

I haven't seen you argue that the 1999 WTO protests in Seattle was the Second American Civil War yet, but by your line of reasoning I'm sure I can expect it soon?

The only thing you seemed to get correct is the last sentence. The qualifier to the ethics of this issue is who is protesting, why they are protesting, how are they protesting and how is the protest put down.

 

[BuckeyeJim]

Are you unable or unwilling to understand what you read???

A couple hundred guys aged between early teens and early twenties throwing rocks through windows and trying to storm the Israeli embassy does not constitute a revolt!

Norwegian police using mace and handcuffs to arrest such people is in no way comparable to a military unit with actual weapons prepared to stop an actual popular revolt in a dictatorship!

I haven't seen you argue that the 1999 WTO protests in Seattle was the Second American Civil War yet, but by your line of reasoning I'm sure I can expect it soon?

The only thing you seemed to get correct is the last sentence. The qualifier to the ethics of this issue is who is protesting, why they are protesting, how are they protesting and how is the protest put down.

What is the difference between Muslims in your country being angry at your country and at the injustices of Israel and the people of Bahrain protesting the injustices of their nation? Surely we can agree that everyone has the right to protest peacefully. But let's not kid ourselves and pretend like the people of Bahrain are being fired upon for simple peaceful protests. No. They turned ugly when the protests turned into violent riots and property and safety of the innocent were jeopardized. There is no verifiable difference between the two. What's even better about your scenario is how quickly you are willing to admit the inherent prejudices and xenophobia that exists within your nation. Yet, you are unwilling to admit that any possibility exists that this could turn into wrongful law, that could lead to righteous protest, and then a revolt.

Do you think that if - say - Muslims started revolting in Paris because their religious rights are being violated, that France wouldn't hesitate for a moment to put them down just like the leaders in the Middle East?

This is about players moving pawns around with no introspective examination of the hypocrisy taking place here. Criticize Bahrain all you want, but what happens in the west, including the Seattle foray, is exactly the same. If people starting revolting over taxes in America, the government would put it down. If people in Norway began revolting over conscription, they'd put it down. And again, I believe that it is morally and ethically worse to pin countryman against countryman than buy foreign mercs.

 

[Singularity]

What is the difference between Muslims in your country being angry at your country and at the injustices of Israel and the people of Bahrain protesting the injustices of their nation? Surely we can agree that everyone has the right to protest peacefully. But let's not kid ourselves and pretend like the people of Bahrain are being fired upon for simple peaceful protests. No. They turned ugly when the protests turned into violent riots and property and safety of the innocent were jeopardized. There is no verifiable difference between the two. What's even better about your scenario is how quickly you are willing to admit the inherent prejudices and xenophobia that exists within your nation. Yet, you are unwilling to admit that any possibility exists that this could turn into wrongful law, that could lead to righteous protest, and then a revolt.

Do you think that if - say - Muslims started revolting in Paris because their religious rights are being violated, that France wouldn't hesitate for a moment to put them down just like the leaders in the Middle East?

This is about players moving pawns around with no introspective examination of the hypocrisy taking place here. Criticize Bahrain all you want, but what happens in the west, including the Seattle foray, is exactly the same. If people starting revolting over taxes in America, the government would put it down. If people in Norway began revolting over conscription, they'd put it down. And again, I believe that it is morally and ethically worse to pin countryman against countryman than buy foreign mercs.

Seriously? So, you would feel better having a pure Russian spec op force that delivered the most bang for the bucks to take over some of the tasks of the US national guard and JSOC all directly under the control of the US President? Be it a battalion of 800 or a brigade of 8-10.000? Ignore the fact that US is the best player on the field of spec ops, lets imagine the Russians are both better and cheaper.

 

[Commodore]

Seriously? So, you would feel better having a pure Russian spec op force that delivered the most bang for the bucks to take over some of the tasks of the US national guard and JSOC all directly under the control of the US President? Be it a battalion of 800 or a brigade of 8-10.000? Ignore the fact that US is the best player on the field of spec ops, lets imagine the Russians are both better and cheaper.

Yes I would. In your hypothetical, the Russians are the best force around and the most capable of doing the job. As I have stated before, a government has a duty to the people to protect them with the best soldiers they can possibly find.