5 ms·

From the last line of the article: > If you’d like to support my work, you can purchase prints of my photos. You can also learn about and support the world of

by Doches 9y ago

From the last line of the article: > If you’d like to support my work, you can purchase prints of my photos. You can also learn about and support the world of the Free Burma Rangers here. http://www.kainoalittle.com/prints/ http://www.kainoalittle.com/prints/

nl 9y ago
While I strongly support this journalist's work, I'm extremely hesitant to support the Free Burma Rangers. In Iraq they are an armed religious group, and while their goal of supporting refugees is admirable, their methods seem likely to make things worse. To be clear, their methods involve actively seeking out firefights. See http://www.freeburmarangers.org/international/kurdistan/ http://www.freeburmarangers.org/international/kurdistan/ for some idea of how they think about this.
- notacoward 9y ago
  They are armed and they are religious, but they don't seem to be acting as combatants. The article you cite doesn't indicate that FBR members participated in any fighting. Yes, they actively seek out firefights because - rather obviously - that's where their services are likely to be needed. There are arguments for and against being armed in such an environment, but none of that suggests they're an "armed religious group" in the same sense as ISIS or the Badr Brigades. Perhaps you could explain why you think their methods are likely to make things worse, more than is true for any foreign group up to and including Red Cross/Crescent or MSF.
  - farss 9y ago
    They're a bunch of ex-military cowboys running around playing saviors, but they're not humanitarians. They're missionaries with guns. They endanger probably more lives than they save and screw things up for the actual humanitarian agencies who have to clean up their mess, while they get their egos stoked on puff pieces on the Omaha evening news. Do NOT support FBR.
  - rdl 9y ago
    Not being armed in such an environment is insane. I spent most of a decade in Iraq and Afghanistan, and unless I was on US bases with vastly better security, was armed in any situation where it was possible (there were a couple exceptions in Afghanistan and they were horrendously stupid.) (Not religious, and not a "security contractor" -- we ran wifi and satellites and such -- but zero interest in being kidnapped and beheaded in a crappy video like one of my high school classmates. Never had anything bigger than a .30cal, and generally low profile vs big armored trucks, but also never got kidnapped.) Given the lack of US QRF in the conflict areas of Iraq today, the case for every humanitarian or commercial entity being armed is even stronger now. Some form of neutral, armed-for-self-defense entities for both commercial and NGO services would make a lot more sense than relying on foreign governments. While I love a lot of what MSF does, they have been criminally negligent in securing their personnel in places like Afghanistan.
    - scott_karana 9y ago
      Aside from the political/ethical discussion here: logistically, how did you arm yourself when abroad as a private citizen in the Middle East? I'm guessing you get blessing from Iraqi and/or American embassies in advance? How do you ship arms without falling afoul of carrier and export issues? Or are there arms corporations that allow for pickup on location (or on US bases)?
      - rdl 9y ago
        In Iraq in 2003-2004 it was "send one of my guards to the market to see what was on offer". I spent the entire time I was there trying to get a Sig or Glock; had a Browning Hi Power pretty early on, then upgraded to a CZ 97B once I found a way to get .45acp ammo. Also spent the entire time trying to get a decent AKM, never found one, ended up with an RPK. I saw some MP5s as well, but they were $3-5k, and 9mm isn't really a great round in FMJ, so I never got one. Obviously everything remained in country when I left. I was locally contracted with DOD/etc and had letters from my customers authorizing me to be armed. (There was policy that such authorization had to come from the combatant commander, but in reality it got delegated pretty far down, and even if people in my customer orgs were not individually authorized to sign, no random MP would challenge those orgs.) It was a pretty ambiguous situation, but being American, I was essentially exempt from local law, and private citizens (Iraqis) were allowed one rifle for self defense in any case. There were some US bases where I wasn't allowed to carry, but the commanders were able to authorize that as well. The absolute worst thing that could happen from the US side would be "sent back to the US", but there was really no risk of that, and the most routine thing was at worst "please deposit your weapons with our office until you leave our base, if you don't have weapons authorization" on the biggest bases toward the end of the occupation -- and those are the places where I would have just secured it anyway in an armory because I didn't want to carry it around, and in any serious incident I would have been around professionals or could have picked up M4s off the ground. Most private contractors were prohibited by their US issued contracts and their insurers from being armed, unless they were security companies. Many outside the wire contractors still armed themselves the same way I did. The international shipping of arms is really the only problem; within a country like Iraq it really isn't a big deal. I did end up learning to do armorer level maintenance on the AK and Hi Power platforms while there, and made friends with a gunsmith.
  - nl 9y ago
    They are armed and fight. Look at the OP photos, or Google for news coverage. Fighting armed Christian groups fits perfectly with the ISIS narrative of a religious war.
    - notacoward 9y ago
      There is nothing in the OP that shows them fighting. Couldn't find anything on Google either, or on their website. If you have any actual specific evidence of what you claim, show it. Otherwise I'd have to conclude you're either delusional or deliberately defaming a humanitarian group.
      - nl 9y ago
        At 15 second it shows them firing on ISIS: http://www.nbcnews.com/video/dave-eubanks-free-burma-rangers-face-isis-fighters-in-mosul-iraq-966101571612 http://www.nbcnews.com/video/dave-eubanks-free-burma-rangers... As far as the OP photos go, this one here shows them as a well armed militia: https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2017/07/J9bqC3X.jpg https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2017/07/J9bqC3X.jpg In Burma they fought for sure: http://www.thedailybeast.com/myanmars-free-burma-rangers-are-like-doctors-without-borderswith-guns http://www.thedailybeast.com/myanmars-free-burma-rangers-are... https://www.outsideonline.com/1910476/jesus-kissed-war-fringed-love-swirled-rangers https://www.outsideonline.com/1910476/jesus-kissed-war-fring...
        notacoward 9y ago
        Covering fire while they're visibly rescuing wounded? Your "well armed militia" is two out of twelve carrying weapons in a group photo? News stories that repeat others' complaints about FBR members being armed, but still no evidence of a single person ever having been hit by an FBR bullet? And yet you put them in the same category as ISIS. You're going way out of your way to exaggerate what you from your comfy armchair see as problems with how they go about saving lives. Yes, FBR allows members to arm themselves. They provide training that might be militarily useful to anti-government groups in Burma. They're clearly not pacifists. They're clearly not as genocidal-government-friendly as ICRC. Maybe you disagree with their methods philosophically, but that's no excuse for basically making stuff up.

by Doches 9y ago

nl 9y ago

While I strongly support this journalist's work, I'm extremely hesitant to support the Free Burma Rangers. In Iraq they are an armed religious group, and while their goal of supporting refugees is admirable, their methods seem likely to make things worse. To be clear, their methods involve actively seeking out firefights. See http://www.freeburmarangers.org/international/kurdistan/ http://www.freeburmarangers.org/international/kurdistan/ for some idea of how they think about this.

notacoward 9y ago
They are armed and they are religious, but they don't seem to be acting as combatants. The article you cite doesn't indicate that FBR members participated in any fighting. Yes, they actively seek out firefights because - rather obviously - that's where their services are likely to be needed. There are arguments for and against being armed in such an environment, but none of that suggests they're an "armed religious group" in the same sense as ISIS or the Badr Brigades. Perhaps you could explain why you think their methods are likely to make things worse, more than is true for any foreign group up to and including Red Cross/Crescent or MSF.
- farss 9y ago
  They're a bunch of ex-military cowboys running around playing saviors, but they're not humanitarians. They're missionaries with guns. They endanger probably more lives than they save and screw things up for the actual humanitarian agencies who have to clean up their mess, while they get their egos stoked on puff pieces on the Omaha evening news. Do NOT support FBR.
- rdl 9y ago
  Not being armed in such an environment is insane. I spent most of a decade in Iraq and Afghanistan, and unless I was on US bases with vastly better security, was armed in any situation where it was possible (there were a couple exceptions in Afghanistan and they were horrendously stupid.) (Not religious, and not a "security contractor" -- we ran wifi and satellites and such -- but zero interest in being kidnapped and beheaded in a crappy video like one of my high school classmates. Never had anything bigger than a .30cal, and generally low profile vs big armored trucks, but also never got kidnapped.) Given the lack of US QRF in the conflict areas of Iraq today, the case for every humanitarian or commercial entity being armed is even stronger now. Some form of neutral, armed-for-self-defense entities for both commercial and NGO services would make a lot more sense than relying on foreign governments. While I love a lot of what MSF does, they have been criminally negligent in securing their personnel in places like Afghanistan.
  - scott_karana 9y ago
    Aside from the political/ethical discussion here: logistically, how did you arm yourself when abroad as a private citizen in the Middle East? I'm guessing you get blessing from Iraqi and/or American embassies in advance? How do you ship arms without falling afoul of carrier and export issues? Or are there arms corporations that allow for pickup on location (or on US bases)?
    - rdl 9y ago
      In Iraq in 2003-2004 it was "send one of my guards to the market to see what was on offer". I spent the entire time I was there trying to get a Sig or Glock; had a Browning Hi Power pretty early on, then upgraded to a CZ 97B once I found a way to get .45acp ammo. Also spent the entire time trying to get a decent AKM, never found one, ended up with an RPK. I saw some MP5s as well, but they were $3-5k, and 9mm isn't really a great round in FMJ, so I never got one. Obviously everything remained in country when I left. I was locally contracted with DOD/etc and had letters from my customers authorizing me to be armed. (There was policy that such authorization had to come from the combatant commander, but in reality it got delegated pretty far down, and even if people in my customer orgs were not individually authorized to sign, no random MP would challenge those orgs.) It was a pretty ambiguous situation, but being American, I was essentially exempt from local law, and private citizens (Iraqis) were allowed one rifle for self defense in any case. There were some US bases where I wasn't allowed to carry, but the commanders were able to authorize that as well. The absolute worst thing that could happen from the US side would be "sent back to the US", but there was really no risk of that, and the most routine thing was at worst "please deposit your weapons with our office until you leave our base, if you don't have weapons authorization" on the biggest bases toward the end of the occupation -- and those are the places where I would have just secured it anyway in an armory because I didn't want to carry it around, and in any serious incident I would have been around professionals or could have picked up M4s off the ground. Most private contractors were prohibited by their US issued contracts and their insurers from being armed, unless they were security companies. Many outside the wire contractors still armed themselves the same way I did. The international shipping of arms is really the only problem; within a country like Iraq it really isn't a big deal. I did end up learning to do armorer level maintenance on the AK and Hi Power platforms while there, and made friends with a gunsmith.
- nl 9y ago
  They are armed and fight. Look at the OP photos, or Google for news coverage. Fighting armed Christian groups fits perfectly with the ISIS narrative of a religious war.
  - notacoward 9y ago
    There is nothing in the OP that shows them fighting. Couldn't find anything on Google either, or on their website. If you have any actual specific evidence of what you claim, show it. Otherwise I'd have to conclude you're either delusional or deliberately defaming a humanitarian group.
    - nl 9y ago
      At 15 second it shows them firing on ISIS: http://www.nbcnews.com/video/dave-eubanks-free-burma-rangers-face-isis-fighters-in-mosul-iraq-966101571612 http://www.nbcnews.com/video/dave-eubanks-free-burma-rangers... As far as the OP photos go, this one here shows them as a well armed militia: https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2017/07/J9bqC3X.jpg https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2017/07/J9bqC3X.jpg In Burma they fought for sure: http://www.thedailybeast.com/myanmars-free-burma-rangers-are-like-doctors-without-borderswith-guns http://www.thedailybeast.com/myanmars-free-burma-rangers-are... https://www.outsideonline.com/1910476/jesus-kissed-war-fringed-love-swirled-rangers https://www.outsideonline.com/1910476/jesus-kissed-war-fring...
      - notacoward 9y ago
        Covering fire while they're visibly rescuing wounded? Your "well armed militia" is two out of twelve carrying weapons in a group photo? News stories that repeat others' complaints about FBR members being armed, but still no evidence of a single person ever having been hit by an FBR bullet? And yet you put them in the same category as ISIS. You're going way out of your way to exaggerate what you from your comfy armchair see as problems with how they go about saving lives. Yes, FBR allows members to arm themselves. They provide training that might be militarily useful to anti-government groups in Burma. They're clearly not pacifists. They're clearly not as genocidal-government-friendly as ICRC. Maybe you disagree with their methods philosophically, but that's no excuse for basically making stuff up.