Confusing stories re: the executed hostages

[theHandpuppet]

First of all, my sincere condolences go to the families of the men who were killed.

That said, I have to admit I'm quite confused about the info regarding just why these men were in Iraq to begin with. The bits and pieces just aren't adding up for me.

Number one, after the first hostage (Armstrong?) was executed, his wife said he was over there to "help rebuild Iraq". This conflicts with some other early news reports which stated the men were there to build a U.S. military base. In addition, the man's own cousin said he wasn't quite clear why he (the hostage) was over there, but admitted the guy was an adrenaline junkie who liked to put himself in dangerous situations to be "where the action is".

Later news reports referred to the dangers faced by private contractors in "rebuilding Iraq" but no mention of the fact that they were actually there to build U.S. military bases -- made them sound as if they were there with the Peace Corps or something!

So what is the REAL story of why these guys were over there? Who were they working for, and what were their jobs? I'm not at all trying to make excuses, I'm just trying to figure out who is really using the deaths of these guys for political gain and why the American people can't seem to get a straight story from the media.

[Texasgal]

1. Are you suggesting that

his beheading was a hoax?

[theHandpuppet]

3. No, I'm not...

And I don't see how you could have possibly read that into my post.

All I'm saying is that the stories of what the men were actually doing over there hasn't been made clear. Certainly, the GOP isn't beyond making hay from the death of "private contractors" as they did in Fallujah, and saying these men were just there to "help rebuild Iraq" paints a distorted picture of humanitarian workers as opposed to highly-paid contractors building military bases.

I'm just wondering what the real story is behind their presence in Iraq.

[Texasgal]

4. Does it really matter?

Who gives a shit why he was there.... he was beheaded because of chimpy.... I fail to see what difference it makes WHY he was there.

[theHandpuppet]

5. As a side issue, yes

If only because I'm curious how what's being reported may be distorted to suit the propagandizing of the American public. To be told that these men were just regular, good-hearted samaritan Joes over there to help "rebuild Iraq" paints a totally different portrait than that of high-paid private contractors, one an adrenaline junkie according to a relative, who were in Iraq to build US military bases. Such twisting of facts would be just an extention of the Baghdad Bush version of what's really going on in Iraq. The indictment is not of the men who died but of the media's reporting of what's really going on over there.

BTW, no need to curse at me for simply asking questions. Your anger is misdirected.

[Texasgal]

7. Sorry Handpuppet....

Your right, I shouldn't have cursed. I had just reviewed the beheading, and was emotional. I apologize. I will watch my P's and Q's.

[theHandpuppet]

8. No prob...

An update on the latest reporting... on CNN they have reported that at least one of the executed men was working on power plants and was described as doing "humanitarian work". So now we have at least a dozen different versions of the same story. I wonder if we'll ever get the truth in whole cloth.

[marano]

2. Totally agree.

I read the story in the paper this morning and I had the exact same questions you had. Who did they work for. The Mobile press stated that they worked out of the United Arab Emerites.

[Disturbed]

6. Building US Military bases.

If these men were helping to build US bases doesn't the Insugency has legitimacy to kill them? Sure, beheading is brutal and I don't condone it but if these men were there to do that then they were part of an illegal Occupying force. The invasion of Iraq was illegal and so is the Occupation. What gives the US the right to build bases on Iraqi land?