Six Days in Fallujah

I'm not sure what you mean. So ill explain myself better.

Yeah, but saying they are a former veterans excluding that they are a PMC is not telling the complete needed context. Refering to them as Former veterans and PMCs or Just PMCs works either way. Bottom line they have to mention they are a PMC, if they don't it disregards why they are their in the first place. Usually a former veteran not in the military wouldn't be in a combat zone for no reason, usually they are their for an organization and in this case it was Blackwater, therefore it is important they establish they are a PMC, since Blackwater provided military contractors.

In other words. Wesley Batalona, Scott Helvenston, Jerry Zovko, and Michael Teague were there not because they are former military and wanted to go on a stroll. They were there because they were were employed as private military contractors who had experience in the military.

Ommiting that they are PMCs excludes the reason why there were there providing their service in first place. Its needed context. Its also historically correct.

Also this reminds me to ask, is there a reason why they don't list/mention their names and show their photos? I think that would be important as well. Since they weren't nameless and faceless PMCs. They were human beings. Unless there is a legal reason for not showing them.

You missed my point which was simply about your thought of "inappropriate" use of term veteran preferring to use "former" veteran. By definition it means you previously served.

If I was a veteran and went to work as a PMC, I would still be considered a veteran. That's all. .......nothing to do with your request to include those other points, etc.

Kean_1 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 6:33 am Regardless of your current occupation, after you honorably serve / retire, you're still a veteran. ....PMC mention aside.

You completely missed his point. His point was not calling into question the PMC's status as veterans of the US Military. His point was that the game chooses omit their status as PMC's and focus instead on their status as veterans. While yes, they're veterans, their reason for being in Iraq at that time was based on monetary gain - not orders. Therefore their status as Private Military Contractors had more relevance than the fact they were once US Soldiers.

aggimajera wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 12:04 pm You completely missed his point. His point was not calling into question the PMC's status as veterans of the US Military. His point was that the game chooses omit their status as PMC's and focus instead on their status as veterans. While yes, they're veterans, their reason for being in Iraq at that time was based on monetary gain - not orders. Therefore their status as Private Military Contractors had more relevance than the fact they were once US Soldiers.

I forgot about this discussion and had to re-read the replies but no, I didn't miss his point and explained a couple times. In either case, not a big deal.