Quoting NWA742 (Reply 2): Sounds like the only reason they're publishing this story is to play on emotions to get more to people to dislike Blackwater. That, when in reality of course they and every other American civilian trotting around in Iraq is goddamn lucky to have Blackwater there. -NWA742

Exactly.

It's convenient for them to come up with this article to further stir up the pot on whether Blackwater is doing the right thing and to further muddy their murky reputation based on utter crap once again. It's a short article with no substance.


"Blackwater spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell said the dog had attacked one of Blackwater's bomb-sniffer dogs while a security team was sweeping the compound for explosives."

"The K-9 handler made several unsuccessful attempts to get the dog to retreat, including placing himself between the dogs. When those efforts failed, the K-9 handler unfortunately was forced to use a pistol to protect the company's K-9 and himself," she said in an e-mail to Reuters.

Totally justified. You don't interfere with police work, period.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 24): As stated in the article, the compound was only being checked because a diplomat was visiting the NY Times.

Do you really think that the visitation of high level or otherwise important people to a major international media outlet is a rare thing?

For some reason it seems to me that this would be a daily thing. Hence, the NYT staff should be very familiar with the security protocols surrounding such an event.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 24): However, since Blackwater is so familiar with bomb sweeps in general, there are even fewer excuses for this debacle.

Excuse?

You only make excuses when you do something wrong. No excuses here. The handler acted accordingly. Blackwater isn't the pound. It's not thier job to secure your animal. Don't want your dog shot, don't let it get after the security team. I would have, and have done the exact same thing.

Don't like it? TFB, cry me a river, SFW, yatta yatta yatta. Like I said, don't send a resume to Triple Canopy, you aren't cut out for this line of work.

Quoting NWA742 (Reply 2): That, when in reality of course they and every other American civilian trotting around in Iraq is goddamn lucky to have Blackwater there.

*Trying to hold it in...No, can't sit by in silence any longer* Obviously the Iraqi civilians aren't quite as lucky, but hey, if you liberate someone, they better expect to get shot up a little by private security firms. What was is Rumsfeld said? "Freedom's messy"?

Cheers
Mats

So any damn thing can be considered news as long as it happens in the sandbox...err, Iraq?

Why does the US embassy use Blackwater for security? Isn't that job done by the Marines ?

Quoting NWA742 (Reply 29): I take it you don't own a dog, Wellhung. When you have guests, strangers, contractors, or simply anyone that your pet(s) doesn't know, entering your home, it is your job to secure it properly, not the guest's.

I don't own a gun either, but I do know that when you are a guest, stranger, contractor or anyone entering someone else's home, it's common courtesy to not kill their pets.

And if you are bringing valuable property into their home that may be damaged by pets, it is your responsibility to alert them so they may act accordingly. But hey, that's just common sense.

Quoting NWA742 (Reply 29): Not their responsibility, plain and simple.

If they're about to bring their million dollar baby into a strange place, it is their responsibility to make sure there is no threat before entering. If these things are valuable enough to kill for, they are certainly valuable enough to warrant a cursory assessment of the area.

Quoting NWA742 (Reply 29): What's next? Are you going to blame the woman who nearly gets chewed to death by a pit bull for not preparing herself for random pitbull attacks on her daily jog, or the owner of the pit bull?

There is not enough information for me to decide either way. Please provide a link with a more detailed explanation.

Quoting NWA742 (Reply 29): perhaps even obtaining a box and buying postage to Antarctica, inserting yourself in that box and nailing it shut..........something like that

Aside, of course, from the physical impossibility of such a task, but that's just common sense again. Common sense would also dictate that killing a pet because you didn't do your homework would be frowned upon.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 31): Do you really think that the visitation of high level or otherwise important people to a major international media outlet is a rare thing? For some reason it seems to me that this would be a daily thing.

I imagine such visits would be unnecessary, what with the proliferation of the tele-horn a few years back.

Nevertheless, if they are common, Blackwater would be familiar with the dog and therefore remiss if they did not insist that it be secured prior to them entering.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 31): don't send a resume to Triple Canopy, you aren't cut out for this line of work.

I'm not really interested in a job where I would be expected to kill people's pets because of my own negligence. But if Mike Vick can't get back into the NFL, he may be exactly what they're looking for.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 37): And now, for the truth.

Is this the actual truth, or, you know, the truth like putting one dog on a leash in a newsroom means an entire embassy has to shut down?

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 31): For some reason it seems to me that this would be a daily thing. Hence, the NYT staff should be very familiar with the security protocols surrounding such an event.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 47): Observation directly contradicted by the flood of face to face interviews on television everyday.

Um, the New York Times is a print publication.    Therefore, it does not require the "daily" visits you suggest above in order to produce these face to face television interviews, because, well, it doesn't produce face to face television interviews.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 47): Unfounded assumption.

If the sweeps happen 'daily' as you claim and the NYT dog has been there for years, how can Blackwater, this highly specialized government contractor/mercenary force charged to protect government officials, not know it exists?

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 47): Then perhaps you shouldn't try criticizing those that do

Shoot people's pets for a living after failing to do their job... I'd hate to give them a bad name.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 47): Assumption based out of ingnorance of the job and the duties it entails.

It's quite clear what it doesn't entail... common sense and being prepared.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 53): Um, the New York Times is a print publication.

No, really?

Quoting WellHung (Reply 53): Therefore, it does not require the "daily" visits you suggest above in order to produce these face to face television interviews, because, well, it doesn't produce face to face television interviews.

Dear resident genious, not all face to face interviews are televised.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 53): If the sweeps happen 'daily' as you claim and the NYT dog has been there for years, how can Blackwater, this highly specialized government contractor/mercenary force charged to protect government officials, not know it exists?

Knowing it exists and being familiar with the dog are two different things. People who have owned dogs for many years are often surprised by their behavior. Want me to drag up the stories of peoples pit bulls attacking their own children?

Quoting WellHung (Reply 53): Shoot people's pets for a living after failing to do their job...

He didn't fail to do his job. He did his job perfectly. See a threat, nuetralize a threat.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 53): It's quite clear what it doesn't entail... common sense and being prepared.

Not prepared? Evidence suggests that his sidearm was loaded.

[Edited 2007-12-19 09:17:44]

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 54): Dear resident genious, not all face to face interviews are televised.

   You are straying farther and farther from the topic.

You claim that diplomatic visits to a print publication for face to face interviews are commonplace because you've seen some interviews on television?    What is the equation? For every x number of face to face interviews in Iraq that appear on MDorBust's television screen, there are y face to face interviews at print publication compounds that are not aired...

Or, more simply, the face to face interviews you see on tv (none of which occur at the NYT compound) have no correlation to the number of face to face or telephone interviews conducted by a print publication and therefore your original statement is irrelevant.

You have obviously never known a newspaper reporter with a deadline.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 54): Knowing it exists and being familiar with the dog are two different things.

It is no secret how unfamiliar dogs act around each other. If they knew it existed (and according to your theory they must have) then it should have been secured prior to the bomb sniffing dog entering the premises.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 54): He did fail to do his job. He did his job perfectly. See a threat, nuetralize a threat.

More like 'fail to see a threat, kill someone's pet'.

[Edited 2007-12-19 09:40:58]

Quoting WellHung (Reply 55): You claim that diplomatic visits to a print publication for face to face interviews are commonplace because you've seen some interviews on television?

Not quite there buddy.

I said that visits by high level personel to media outlets are a common occurance, and used the prevalence of face to face interviews as a supporting device.

If the crux of your argument is going to be to continue to insist that the media are somehow unaware of the security protocols associated with high level personel you might as well start posting your collection of crying baby picture now since your argument is done.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 55): If they knew it existed (and according to your theory they must have)

This is again speculation on your part.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 55): More like 'fail to see a threat, kill someone's pet'.

Fail to see a threat? So are you now contending the dog was shot accidentally by a ND on the part of the Blackwater dog handler?

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 55): I said that visits by high level personel to media outlets are a common occurance, and used the prevalence of face to face interviews as a supporting device.

And what evidence do you have that the interviews took place at the media compounds and not the embassy or whatever?

How do you plan to link television interviews on television channels to the number of on-site visits to a newspaper compound especially when most newspaper interviews are not conducted face to face?

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 55): If the crux of your argument is going to be to continue to insist that the media are somehow unaware of the security protocols associated with high level personel

The crux of the argument is that the security contractors are unaware of the security protocols.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 55): This is again speculation on your part.

Either they knew and didn't do their job or they didn't know and therefore didn't do their job. No speculation.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 55): Fail to see a threat? So are you now contending the dog was shot accidentally by a ND on the part of the Blackwater dog handler?

No, but by their negligence, the unnecessarily put their dog at risk. This is a failure to recognize the threat.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 38): And what evidence do you have that the interviews took place at the media compounds and not the embassy or whatever?

What evidence do I have that the media interviews people? Well, as entertaining a concept as that would be to finally prove that the media just makes junk up, I think we can take it as given that the media do in fact conduct interviews and that those interviews are conducted to best fit every ones schedules and security requirements... meaning, that yes Virginia, the NYT was very likely regularly having visitors of significant stature to their compound.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 38): The crux of the argument is that the security contractors are unaware of the security protocols.

These would be the security protocols you don't know about because you've admitted to having no interest in the field and are therefore just whilly nilly making up protocols to suit your agenda?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 38): No speculation.

Yes it is. It's speculation to the presence of the dog during other bomb sweeps.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 38): This is a failure to recognize the threat

He most certainly recognized the threat. That's why he shot the dog.

Is it really this difficult for you to say the NYT should have kenneled their mutt?

Quoting WellHung (Reply 45): I do know that when you are a guest, stranger, contractor or anyone entering someone else's home, it's common courtesy to not kill their pets.

Oh really? Do you also know that when you are a guest, stranger, contractor, or anyone authorized to enter someone else's home, it's common courtesy for them to control and secure anything that might try to harm you?

Quoting WellHung (Reply 45): And if you are bringing valuable property into their home that may be damaged by pets, it is your responsibility to alert them so they may act accordingly.

This was asked to you before - how many times to do you think these bomb-checks using bomb dogs go on? Don't assume that the fucktards who owned the attacking dog weren't aware of the common presence of bomb-sniffing dogs - that's bullshit. Also, don't assume that they weren't contacted by Blackwater informing them of the bomb inspection prior to entering the area.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 45): But hey, that's just common sense.

Yes.......common sense........like trying to back up an argument that simply doesn't hold water. Very common for you.........I'm having doubts about the sense though............  

Quoting WellHung (Reply 45): If they're about to bring their million dollar baby into a strange place, it is their responsibility to make sure there is no threat before entering.

That's true - but what makes you think this was a strange place for them to enter? AGAIN - how many times do you think these security inspections go on?!

Quoting WellHung (Reply 45): There is not enough information for me to decide either way. Please provide a link with a more detailed explanation.

It was hypothetical, although I'm sure there are many real-life examples, we hear about pit bull attacks all the time.

But to go into more detail - here's the situation:

Sally jogs on the same path around her block every morning. She was not aware that one house had a pit bull but because the owner always kept it chained up to the house, behind the protective steel fence of the backyard, and out of her visibility. Sally also lives in a great neighborhood with security patrols and an HOA, where crime has never been an issue, so she doesn't carry mace or any protective gear on her jog.

One morning Sally is jogging past the pit bull owner's house when she sees the pitbull unchained and freely walking around the front yard. The pit bill was freed by it's owner because the owner assumed it wasn't aggressive enough to pose a threat. Sally walks to the other side of the street, but the pit bull begins to chase after her, catches her, and begins ripping her apart. She is not nearly powerful enough to fight back, and all she can do is scream.

Luckily soon after this begins, a security officer on patrol sees the pit bull attacking Sally, drives up and shoots it to death. Sally's life is saved, but barely.

Who would you blame for this death? Sally or the owner of the dog?

Quoting WellHung (Reply 45): Aside, of course, from the physical impossibility of such a task, but that's just common sense again.

It's physically impossible to nail yourself inside a box? Seems to me all it would take is a flashlight, a hammer, nails, or just a nail gun.

Common sense, eh? Besides, it was sarcasm. Common sense would dictate that you could detect sarcasm when it was being layed on pretty thick.




-NWA742