US forces in an assassination attempt on communist journalist

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jocko
She must have very small hands.
My bet is you actually think she said this rather than the truth which is somebody claimed she said it to them...(the picking up handfulls of bullets story)...

Automatic acceptance of hearsay, one of the foundations of critical thinking. Actually I may be a bit hard on you Jocko, its also quite possible that you have just accepted as fact claims of other uninformed posters.

If I quoted a girlfriend of one of the soldiers saying that her boyfriend said to her that they had got crazy on bourbon and drawn straws to see who got to ambush the commie bitch would you accept that too?

[Ed]

Originally posted by RussDill
Yes, and 8 bullets hit the car. She was picking them up in handfulls of the back seat (all 8 of them aparently).

That is what, a 3% hit rate, conservatively? Either the US forces cannot shoot worth a damn, the car was hard to hit (like swerving and speeding) or one guy popped off at them.

Take yer pick.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Ed
That is what, a 3% hit rate, conservatively? Either the US forces cannot shoot worth a damn, the car was hard to hit (like swerving and speeding) or one guy popped off at them.

Take yer pick.
these are checkpoint troops ed, not special forces. Your estimates of the number of rounds expended is a joke and your understanding of the sort of hit rates that occur in the field is limited.

[Skeptic]

Not in this link. She mentions a tank, but doesn't say it fired on her.

Oh just you wait. The way her story is evolving, by this time next week she would swear it was Karl Rove firing at her from an F-15 while shouting "DIE COMMIE PIG!!!".

[RussDill]

Originally posted by The Fool
My bet is you actually think she said this rather than the truth which is somebody claimed she said it to them...(the picking up handfulls of bullets story)...

Automatic acceptance of hearsay, one of the foundations of critical thinking. Actually I may be a bit hard on you Jocko, its also quite possible that you have just accepted as fact claims of other uninformed posters.

If I quoted a girlfriend of one of the soldiers saying that her boyfriend said to her that they had got crazy on bourbon and drawn straws to see who got to ambush the commie bitch would you accept that too?

Right, that's why I have a source, an interview with Sgrena and her boyfriend. She was there, if it wasn't true, she could have contested it:

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1317277.htm


PIER SCOLARI (translated): I have heard it said that the Americans signalled many times to the car to stop, but Giuliana told me she didn't see anything. They were driving calmly. They had already passed many checkpoints, therefore everybody had been informed. They phoned and warned that they were going to the airport.

Suddenly as they were talking to each other without any signal a flashlight was switched on and three or four hundred bullets were shot towards the car. Giuliana told me she collected handfuls of bullets on the seats.


Not only that, but trying such a feat if someone bullets did find their way onto the seat, would certainly burn one's hands.

[Skeptic]

these are checkpoint troops ed, not special forces.

Oh, so now all of a sudden there WAS a checkpoint? I thought that she originally said there was none, and that there is no reason to think she is wrong... and that in any case the whole "checkpoint" story is just standard-issue US army coverup story...

As you yourself said, "she says there is no checkpoint, the US Army says there is... who do you believe, Skeppers?"

Well, who do YOU believe, Fool? WAS there a checkpoint or wasn't there? If you now think there was, would you apologize for the heap of insults you poured on the head of everybody in this thread who dared to suggest as much only yesterday?

[Elind]

Originally posted by The Fool


If I quoted a girlfriend of one of the soldiers saying that her boyfriend said to her that they had got crazy on bourbon and drawn straws to see who got to ambush the commie bitch would you accept that too?

No, but I would believe that they called her a commie bitch.:D

[Elind]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Not in this link. She mentions a tank, but doesn't say it fired on her.

Oh just you wait. The way her story is evolving, by this time next week she would swear it was Karl Rove firing at her from an F-15 while shouting "DIE COMMIE PIG!!!".

Please, let's keep the terms consistent. That's "DIE COMMIE BITCH", as we all know.

[Ed]

Originally posted by The Fool
these are checkpoint troops ed, not special forces. Your estimates of the number of rounds expended is a joke and your understanding of the sort of hit rates that occur in the field is limited.


Why?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Ed
Why?

Sorry Ed, can't help you with that one. I don't know why you don't know what you are talking about.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by RussDill
Right, that's why I have a source, an interview with Sgrena and her boyfriend. She was there, if it wasn't true, she could have contested it:

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1317277.htm



Not only that, but trying such a feat if someone bullets did find their way onto the seat, would certainly burn one's hands. [/B]
Russ, read your link again. It is not an "interview with Sgrena and her boyfriend" its a report using grabs from her and grabs from her boyfriend...how did you come to the conclusion they were being interviewed together? I would caution you that these are also translations....for all we know she was commenting on the number of cases lying around on the ground.

The amount of "massaging to fit" this story is getting in this thread is becoming silly....

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by RussDill
Right, that's why I have a source, an interview with Sgrena and her boyfriend. She was there, if it wasn't true, she could have contested it:

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1317277.htm



Not only that, but trying such a feat if someone bullets did find their way onto the seat, would certainly burn one's hands. [/B]

I'm trying to picture this in my head. Driving along...everything is fine and dandy. Bullets rip through the car killing driver. Passenger picks up bullets off the seats.

Picks up bullets off the seats?!

These are very odd bullets indeed. They enter the car, each and every one it seems, travel through whatever it is in their way, including the driver, stop in midair, and land on the seats ready to be picked up by the passenger. I knew the U.S. military had some neat technology but only a military run by Carl Rove and Rumsfield could come up with this sort of technology. I like it.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
I'm trying to picture this in my head. Driving along...everything is fine and dandy. Bullets rip through the car killing driver. Passenger picks up bullets off the seats.

Picks up bullets off the seats?!

These are very odd bullets indeed. They enter the car, each and every one it seems, travel through whatever it is in their way, including the driver, stop in midair, and land on the seats ready to be picked up by the passenger. I knew the U.S. military had some neat technology but only a military run by Carl Rove and Rumsfield could come up with this sort of technology. I like it.

I'm willing to bet, dollars to donuts, that what she calls "Bullets" are actually spent shell CASTINGS... which are shiny copper or zinc and thus easy to find, as opposed to the bullet itself, a formless small mass of black lead after it hits. If THAT is the case, well...

[Skeptic]

So, "Fool"... WAS there a checkpoint or WASN'T there?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I'm willing to bet, dollars to donuts, that what she calls "Bullets" are actually spent shell CASTINGS... which are shiny copper or zinc and thus easy to find, as opposed to the bullet itself, a formless small mass of black lead after it hits. If THAT is the case, well... Doesn't make sense. How would the casings get into the car?

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Doesn't make sense. How would the casings get into the car?

In the usual way?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Doesn't make sense. How would the casings get into the car?

Remember...this is hearsay, the reported words of her boyfriend who claims she said this......and its a translation....who knows, she may have been talking about a lot of brass on the ground or it could be a figment of her boyfriends imagination or it could be a figment of her imagination.
I imagine there are a lot of people trying to talk up thier favoured versions of this story. Thats one reason why the US army puts out a stock statement and gags people from shooting thier mouths to news service. It helps prevent the festival of speculation we are seeing. There are also all the news services digging for anything to print....so we get rubbish from unnamed sources with lofty claims they are high placed officals (but no names)... I'm amazed none of us have been asked for a comment by CNN as "highly placed Internet nerds";)

[Elind]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Doesn't make sense. How would the casings get into the car?

I think he means the jacketing on the bullet. That would peel off on impact and strew copper/brass pieces here and there. They are not meant to be the deadliest part. I don't know, but it makes some sense.

[a_unique_person]

Just on the radio, huge demonstrations in Italy, against the involvement in Iraq.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Just on the radio, huge demonstrations in Italy, against the involvement in Iraq.

Just on the internet, AUP shoots another load.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jocko
Just on the internet, AUP shoots another load.

Try this then, for another example of how the US army may be misleading.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200503/s1323591.htm



A US government watchdog agency says Pentagon data on Iraqi security forces was "unreliable" and also showed there was an escalating insurgency.

Assessing the readiness of Iraqis to take over national security has become a crucial factor in judging when the United States and coalition partner Australia will be able to start withdrawing from Iraq.

,,,,

The US goal is to train and equip about 271,000 Iraqi security forces, police and military combined, by July 2006.

The Pentagon has been forced to scale back its estimates of ready forces from about 206,000 as it became apparent many were not combat-ready, particularly after the November offensive in Fallujah.

"This is like fantasy land. This is as fictive as the weapons of mass destruction," Dennis Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat Congressman, told Rear Admiral Sullivan of the Pentagon's figures.

"I'm embarrassed for you that you would come to a congressional committee with this kind of a phony report."

Rear Admiral Sullivan said the latest numbers were verified by General David Petraeus, who is in charge of developing Iraqi forces, and General George Casey, commander of US forces in Iraq, although he said they admit there are gaps in knowing how many are on duty on a given day.

The GAO report also said that members of the Interior Ministry's security forces "committed numerous, serious human rights abuses" including the killing of 10 members of the Baath Party and the killing of a mother and daughter accused of prostitution.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jocko
Just on the internet, AUP shoots another load.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0321-01.htm

[Jocko]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0321-01.htm

Well, you're improving. Instead of two-year-old articles, you're up to one-year-old articles.

As to the question above of US military snafus, communication problems and cover-ups, show me a single organization of similar size - military, commercial, religious or otherwise - that isn't guilty of the same thing. I'm not excusing it, simply pointing out the glaringly obvious fact that as far as demonization of the US goes, this isn't very impressive.

I'll grant you this: you probably never saw this kind of problem under Saddam's ruthlessly efficient regime. But then, I suppose that's your point, isn't it?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
A US government watchdog agency says Pentagon data on Iraqi security forces was "unreliable" and also showed there was an escalating insurgency.

Assessing the readiness of Iraqis to take over national security has become a crucial factor in judging when the United States and coalition partner Australia will be able to start withdrawing from Iraq.

,,,,

The US goal is to train and equip about 271,000 Iraqi security forces, police and military combined, by July 2006.

The Pentagon has been forced to scale back its estimates of ready forces from about 206,000 as it became apparent many were not combat-ready, particularly after the November offensive in Fallujah.

"This is like fantasy land. This is as fictive as the weapons of mass destruction," Dennis Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat Congressman, told Rear Admiral Sullivan of the Pentagon's figures.

"I'm embarrassed for you that you would come to a congressional committee with this kind of a phony report."

Rear Admiral Sullivan said the latest numbers were verified by General David Petraeus, who is in charge of developing Iraqi forces, and General George Casey, commander of US forces in Iraq, although he said they admit there are gaps in knowing how many are on duty on a given day.

The GAO report also said that members of the Interior Ministry's security forces "committed numerous, serious human rights abuses" including the killing of 10 members of the Baath Party and the killing of a mother and daughter accused of prostitution. And AUP wins the first annual "Ides of March Derail of the Day Award."

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Doesn't make sense. How would the casings get into the car?

Of course; that's why I'm suspecting she made it up if it is castings.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Of course; that's why I'm suspecting she made it up if it is castings. Not following. Are you saying there were no casings, or that she misidentified casings as bullets?

If the former, then she's just flat-out lying about having picked up a handful of bullets.

If the latter, then you're suggesting there was shooting going on from inside the car.

[Elind]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0321-01.htm

Are you running short of material? "commondreams" no less.


Sounds like a wet dream shared by a bunch of wankers who either want to see the US turn tail so that they can blame them for the civil war that follows; or hate the Iraqis so much that they want to more of the fools killing each other; or they are in a time warp and don't know the war happened some time ago.

Or they are just like you. Take your pick.

[Skeptic]

If the former, then she's just flat-out lying about having picked up a handful of bullets.

I'll bet she is.

[LTC8K6]

Not in this link. She mentions a tank, but doesn't say it fired on her.

BPSCG, she has already flat out stated that a tank fired at her. She has said so more than onec, in fact.

She is clearly talking about the same tank that fired on her, not a different one.

She has been in war zones long enough to know what a tank is.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
BPSCG, she has already flat out stated that a tank fired at her. She has said so more than onec, in fact.Okay, I missed it, so you got a link?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jocko
Well, you're improving. Instead of two-year-old articles, you're up to one-year-old articles.

As to the question above of US military snafus, communication problems and cover-ups, show me a single organization of similar size - military, commercial, religious or otherwise - that isn't guilty of the same thing. I'm not excusing it, simply pointing out the glaringly obvious fact that as far as demonization of the US goes, this isn't very impressive.

I'll grant you this: you probably never saw this kind of problem under Saddam's ruthlessly efficient regime. But then, I suppose that's your point, isn't it?

The whole point is that you just can't trust the first story the US armed forces put's forward. It's as simple as that.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BPSCG
And AUP wins the first annual "Ides of March Derail of the Day Award." [/B][/QUOTE]

Once again, you just can't trust the word of the US armed forces official communication channels. The information is going to be carefully 'spun' to put forward the officially approved message.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Once again, you just can't trust the word of the US armed forces official communication channels. Translation: U.S. armed forces spokesmen are habitual liars - unlike the Italian reporter who changes her story as frequently as most people change their underwear.

And you wonder why people accuse you of being anti- U.S.

AUP, let me ask you: Do you consider it at least theoretically, hypothetically possible that when the facts are all in, they will show that her driver did not in fact stop at the checkpoint despite warnings, and that the U.S. side of the story is the accurate one?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Translation: U.S. armed forces spokesmen are habitual liars - unlike the Italian reporter who changes her story as frequently as most people change their underwear.

And you wonder why people accuse you of being anti- U.S.

AUP, let me ask you: Do you consider it at least theoretically, hypothetically possible that when the facts are all in, they will show that her driver did not in fact stop at the checkpoint despite warnings, and that the U.S. side of the story is the accurate one?

I have never claimed one thing or the other, IIRC,

http://randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54010

[RussDill]

Originally posted by The Fool
Remember...this is hearsay, the reported words of her boyfriend who claims she said this......and its a translation....who knows, she may have been talking about a lot of brass on the ground or it could be a figment of her boyfriends imagination or it could be a figment of her imagination.


It's a comment by her boyfrind, which she personally speaks to, he says he is quoting her. Find me a retraction. Find my any indication that they were not interviewed together.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Just on the radio, huge demonstrations in Italy, against the involvement in Iraq.

Just on the radio, huge demonstrations in Iraq, against the jordanian involvement in Iraq.

[RussDill]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/7/93727.shtml


Now Giuliana Sgrena, who writes for the anti-American newspaper Il Manifesto, insists that U.S. forces used a tank to gun her and her entourage down.

"A tank started to shoot at us without any sign or any light," Sgrena maintained to reporters on Monday. "It was not a checkpoint, so I can't explain it."

...

"Our car was driving slowly," and "the Americans fired without motive," she wrote in a report for Il Manifesto on Sunday.


Don't forget that there was a light, and they were swerving around concrete barriers.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by BPSCG
AUP, let me ask you: Do you consider it at least theoretically, hypothetically possible that when the facts are all in, they will show that her driver did not in fact stop at the checkpoint despite warnings, and that the U.S. side of the story is the accurate one?

Sgrena has already covered this, as I'm sure she is prepared for the report saying so by saying that the US would be unjustified firing at any car in the area, regardless of it's behavior:

http://www.agi.it/english/news.pl?doc=200503112037-1274-RT1-CRO-0-NF11&page=0&id=agionline-eng.oggitalia


We were in an area monitored by American troops, close to the airport. Obviously Iraqi guerrillas couldn't get there, and even if there had been any of them in our car, the soldiers' behaviour would still be unacceptable. You can't shoot point blank on a car and on the people riding in it.


But then she backtracks a bit for whatever reason:


We weren't given any notice, nor were we told to stop. Had they told us to and had we refused to comply, then their reaction would have been explainable


More confusion. They shoot for no reason, vs, they had no excuses this time, eh?


But that just wasn't the case. Similar episodes occur every day. Americans shoot at cars, for no reason. This time, though, they had no excuses.


Yes, good question, why weren't the americans involved?


They should have known we were riding. That's why I demand answers. I'd like to know why the US tank was not informed we were passing through. We didn't even notice it


Suppose you were too busy swerving around concrete barriers. I'm not sure at what speed you need to be traveling to not notice a tank.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by RussDill
It's a comment by her boyfrind, which she personally speaks to, he says he is quoting her. Find me a retraction. Find my any indication that they were not interviewed together.
sorry russ I don't do the prove a negative thingie....you claimed they were interviewed together, show me what supports that claim. Certainly the link you posted is not claiming to be an interview of the two together...so what are you basing the claim on?

It is you that is specifically saying she was there when he said this and would have corrected him if it was wrong....your claim russ. whats it based on?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I have never claimed one thing or the other, IIRC,

http://randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54010 I understand that - you're careful not to get caught out, I'll say that much for you. But what I asked was, do you consider it at least theoretically, hypothetically possible that when the facts are all in, they will show that her driver did not in fact stop at the checkpoint despite warnings, and that the U.S. side of the story is the accurate one?

I'm not asking for what you think the ultimate findings will be. I'm just asking if you think it's possible an honest investigation will support the U.S. army's version of events?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by RussDill
Suppose you were too busy swerving around concrete barriers. I'm not sure at what speed you need to be traveling to not notice a tank.
100+ mph? as claimed by news sources from an unknown "highly placed US official"..... Lol....maybe the driver can get a seat in a rally team after the war? 100+ mph through a concrete chicane is damn impressive.

[Skeptic]

"Fool", I have to admit, you DO have me confused. First, in this thread, you said, sarcastically:

They say there was no checkpoint but as the US army says there was this is now a fact....there was a checkpoint.

...obviously meaning that you believe the journalist over the US army, that is, that there was no checkpoint.

But when you tried to explain how, of the "hundreds" of bullets fired (according to the journalist), only eight hit the car, you said:

these are checkpoint troops ed, not special forces.

So, WAS there a checkpoint or was there not? If there wasn't, what were the "checkpoint troops" doing there? If there was, why do you accept the journalist's statement that there wasn't one?

Please explain this one to me. What's the truth about the existence of the checkpoint, as you see it, right now?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BPSCG
I understand that - you're careful not to get caught out, I'll say that much for you. But what I asked was, do you consider it at least theoretically, hypothetically possible that when the facts are all in, they will show that her driver did not in fact stop at the checkpoint despite warnings, and that the U.S. side of the story is the accurate one?

I'm not asking for what you think the ultimate findings will be. I'm just asking if you think it's possible an honest investigation will support the U.S. army's version of events?

Careful not to get caught out. ???? WTF is that? Maybe if you just address what I say rather than what you think I am really saying, we can get along just fine. As it is, I am sick of all the accusations based on fantasy that happen around here.

When the findings come out, I'll be all ears. However, I fear this will be yet another of those events in which we will never know just what happened. I have raised this problem years ago, here. Despite the internet, news agencies that are global, etc, how do we ever really know for a fact what happens in incidents like this. An internal investigation, with limited scope, is just a waste of time, as the Abu Grahib investigation demonstrates. The only we could ever really know is to have an independent, judicial investigation at which all witnesses present are questioned.

People are keen to attack the journalist, but there are Italian agents also present, who will not be talking to the press, but presumably are talking to the Italian government.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Careful not to get caught out. ???? WTF is that? My, I seem to have touched a nerve here. My apologies.

You just seem to be typing an awful lot to answer - or not answer - what really amounts to a simple question, with a simple yes-or-no answer. Much easier question than I asked you a couple of weeks ago (you remember, the one about what we should do to remove Saddam...), since that one basically was an essay question. This is a simple multiple choice.
Maybe if you just address what I say rather than what you think I am really saying, we can get along just fine. As it is, I am sick of all the accusations based on fantasy that happen around here. Well, sometimes it gets tedious wading through all the verbiage. Really, I just want to know one little thing: I'm just asking if you think it's possible that an honest investigation will support the U.S. army's version of events. Yes NoJust pick one or the other. It's easy. I'm not even asking you to justify or explain, though I'm sure that would make the discussion a lot more interesting than a simple yes or no.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by BPSCG
I understand that - you're careful not to get caught out, I'll say that much for you. But what I asked was, do you consider it at least theoretically, hypothetically possible that when the facts are all in, they will show that her driver did not in fact stop at the checkpoint despite warnings, and that the U.S. side of the story is the accurate one?

I'm not asking for what you think the ultimate findings will be. I'm just asking if you think it's possible an honest investigation will support the U.S. army's version of events?

The main problem with trying to argue against the line that everything the US army says is truth is that you have to put up with the inevitable line that you are claiming that none of it is true....

There is a difference between refusing to accept something as true and claiming its a lie....

It is quite possible that this driver received adequate warning and drove on through. It is also quite possible that this was incompetence and a case of troops shooting up a car with no justification..... Just try disagreeing with those that accept the statements of the US army as gospel, you will end up being told you believe and accept fully the other sides version as those addicted to the false dilema fallacy seem to have no other way of responding....

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BPSCG
My, I seem to have touched a nerve here. My apologies.

You just seem to be typing an awful lot to answer - or not answer - what really amounts to a simple question, with a simple yes-or-no answer. Much easier question than I asked you a couple of weeks ago (you remember, the one about what we should do to remove Saddam...), since that one basically was an essay question. This is a simple multiple choice.
[B]Well, sometimes it gets tedious wading through all the verbiage. Really, I just want to know one little thing: I'm just asking if you think it's possible that an honest investigation will support the U.S. army's version of events. Yes NoJust pick one or the other. It's easy. I'm not even asking you to justify or explain, though I'm sure that would make the discussion a lot more interesting than a simple yes or no.

Of course, Yes. It would not surprise me at all what the facts are. When you read of investigations into all kinds of events, from plane crashes to political scandals, the facts are often not what you expect, or exactly what was being claimed.

However, I would want to see a truly independent investigation that includes all sides, not one by the armed forces. Such investigations are often worthless, because they are set up to reach a conclusion, not discover facts.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Of course, Yes. It would not surprise me at all what the facts are. When you read of investigations into all kinds of events, from plane crashes to political scandals, the facts are often not what you expect, or exactly what was being claimed. Thank you. And I agree, it would not surprise me if all kinds of weird things were to come out - from either side, or both.
However, I would want to see a truly independent investigation that includes all sides, not one by the armed forces. Such investigations are often worthless, because they are set up to reach a conclusion, not discover facts. My understanding is the investigation is a joint U.S.-Italian one, and my impression is that the mood in Italy right now is such that they won't stand for the Italian investigators' rolling over and playing dead.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by The Fool
100+ mph? as claimed by news sources from an unknown "highly placed US official"..... Lol....maybe the driver can get a seat in a rally team after the war? 100+ mph through a concrete chicane is damn impressive.

right, because "concrete barriers" automatically means a chicane.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

When the findings come out, I'll be all ears. However, I fear this will be yet another of those events in which we will never know just what happened. I have raised this problem years ago, here. Despite the internet, news agencies that are global, etc, how do we ever really know for a fact what happens in incidents like this. An internal investigation, with limited scope, is just a waste of time, as the Abu Grahib investigation demonstrates. The only we could ever really know is to have an independent, judicial investigation at which all witnesses present are questioned.


Why, because you disgree with the findings? In other words, you made up you might first, and then waited to see if the findings agree. If they agree, than hooray, sucessful fact finding mission. If they disagree with your worldview, then boo, it's a conspiracy!!!

Somehow, I don't think you will truly be "all ears". You will be waiting to hear one story, and if you don't hear it, you'll scream "CONSPIRACY, COVERUP!!!"

[RussDill]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
However, I would want to see a truly independent investigation that includes all sides, not one by the armed forces. Such investigations are often worthless, because they are set up to reach a conclusion, not discover facts.

The investigation already includes the italians, would you like it to include the iraqi terrorists too? I'm sure if you don't agree with the outcome, you'll find some way to claim the investigation is flawed. Reminds me of dowsers and prayer tests.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I have never claimed one thing or the other, IIRC,

http://randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54010

It amazes me how much time you spend posting some variation of "now, I didn't exactly say THAT, did I?"

Ever consider that you ought to either:

A. Work on improving your communications skills, or
B. Just come out of the closet and admit your hatred? It's not much of a secret anyway.

Let me guess... it's the rest of the world who has the problem understanding, not you, right?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RussDill
Why, because you disgree with the findings? In other words, you made up you might first, and then waited to see if the findings agree. If they agree, than hooray, sucessful fact finding mission. If they disagree with your worldview, then boo, it's a conspiracy!!!

Somehow, I don't think you will truly be "all ears". You will be waiting to hear one story, and if you don't hear it, you'll scream "CONSPIRACY, COVERUP!!!"

If, as BPSCG claims, the investigation is an independent one, I will take it as read. If it is just an internal investigation, it will be open to accusations of cover up. "Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done."

I haven't made my mind up at all. Well, I have in one respect, internal investigations are often worthless.

[Skeptic]

If, as BPSCG claims, the investigation is an independent one, I will take it as read. If it is just an internal investigation, it will be open to accusations of cover up.

More precisely, if the investigation dares to conclude the USA's story is basically correct, you will find all sorts of excuses to claim it wasn't really an independent investigation, so it's still a coverup.

If they had God almighty on the committee, and He pronounced "The American version in correct" in giant letters that appeared in the sky, you'd still claim it's a worthless, biased internal invesitgation because:

a). Bush claims to know God, so obviously we have one friend helping another here, and

b). Bush prayes to God more than the communist journalist does (with all probability), so God was in effect bribed by Bush for years to decide his way.

Clearly, we cannot stand for the Almighty, with all this vested interest, buddy-buddy, I-like-Bush's-prayers stuff, to decide such matters.

No, the almighty won't do. We need someone REALLY unbiased and omniscient to head the committee--why, someone just like yourself, for example.

If only they put you on the investigative committee, the objective truth would instantly come out, since, after all, you are COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE about the United States' actions; you have just said that

I haven't made my mind up at all.

...and who could possibly doubt that? Only evil zionist neocons, I'm sure.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The whole point is that you just can't trust the first story the US armed forces put's forward. It's as simple as that.

What evidence to the contrary has surfaced - and STAYED surfaced - to repudiate it so far?

Talk about missing the simple stuff...

[The Fool]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Thank you. And I agree, it would not surprise me if all kinds of weird things were to come out - from either side, or both.
[B]My understanding is the investigation is a joint U.S.-Italian one, and my impression is that the mood in Italy right now is such that they won't stand for the Italian investigators' rolling over and playing dead.
My understanding is that it will be an investigation conducted by the US army, I don't see how an army in a combat zone could submit to an independent inquiry until the units under investigation are withdrawn from the combat zone. I also note that the US have told the Italian government that they can put observers on the investigation if they wish...if this is true and they actually allow them the access needed to audit the process then I think thats a good thing and all that could be reasonably expected of the US army.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jocko
What evidence to the contrary has surfaced - and STAYED surfaced - to repudiate it so far?

Talk about missing the simple stuff...

Put it this way, all scientific research and progress is only possible by a process of peer review and independent checks. That is because it is known that if you just take the word of a scientist that he has acheived something, you just can't take his word for it, or his employers.

The justice system understands this, and goes to great lengths to ensure that an impartial body is involved in all trials, to ensure they are fair.

Internal investigations of a body by itself just cannot be trusted. The scientific process doesn't do it, the justice system doesn't do it. Governments do it all the time, because they don't want the truth to come out, they only want the results they want to hear coming out. The internal investigations into the WMD farce, for example, were done by a person appointed by the government. The result was totally predictable.

Anything other than an impartial investigation that is open and has input from all sides is likely to produce the truth. It can happen that an investigator does just report what is true, eg, the armys investigation into Abu Grahib, but that was because this was only for internal consumption. When you are producing a report for political purposes, the political imperative means that it is usually just an act of spin, ref WMD investigations.

However, you are correct, the most basic facts are still true. A journalist was not killed by the insurgents, but was lucky to escape with her life after contact with American forces, and her body guard died.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Put it this way, all scientific research and progress is only possible by a process of peer review and independent checks. That is because it is known that if you just take the word of a scientist that he has acheived something, you just can't take his word for it, or his employers.

The justice system understands this, and goes to great lengths to ensure that an impartial body is involved in all trials, to ensure they are fair.

Sound and fury, signifying nothing. Who's saying that the only authority involved in the investigation is the US military?

You're confusing the fact that just because it's the only solid (so far) version of the story doesn't mean that it's the ONLY version. Hell, how many versions of the Italian side have been posted here alone? And how many of them have held up for even 24 hours?

You're railing against an issue that doesn't exist, which burns your ass because you'd so love it to exist. What a coup for you if it did, right?



Internal investigations of a body by itself just cannot be trusted. The scientific process doesn't do it, the justice system doesn't do it. Governments do it all the time, because they don't want the truth to come out, they only want the results they want to hear coming out. The internal investigations into the WMD farce, for example, were done by a person appointed by the government. The result was totally predictable.

What, the result being that they ruled there were no WMDs at the time of the invasion? That's problematic for you? Let me guess, it didn't paint quite enough evil intent into the picture to satisfy your rabid hatred, did it?

It must really suck to have your opinion so blithely dismissed by another country' government, huh?

Anything other than an impartial investigation that is open and has input from all sides is likely to produce the truth. It can happen that an investigator does just report what is true, eg, the armys investigation into Abu Grahib, but that was because this was only for internal consumption. When you are producing a report for political purposes, the political imperative means that it is usually just an act of spin, ref WMD investigations.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. You mean the military investigations into prison abuses that were already in progress when the story broke? The ones that have resulted in convictions? Cheese 'n crackers, are you out of your gourd. Even now the courts martial are big news and there is no love of the accused here. Some coverup, AUP. Some spin.

However, you are correct, the most basic facts are still true. A journalist was not killed by the insurgents, but was lucky to escape with her life after contact with American forces, and her body guard died.

That is not a fact, that is an inference heavily seasoned with your well-known bias.

Why don't you wait for your fellow propagandists to get their story straight before you start repeating it ad nauseam in hopes that enough repitition will make your embarrassingly stupid position appear less so?

I am suspending judgment. My opinion, based on the type of evidence revealed up till now, is that the driver did something stupid and the reporter is milking the event for every drop of publicity it can produce. When something reliable surfaces to contradict that, I'll reconsider.

But if nothing reliable contradicts that, then I expect you to announce that you were completely wrong in this case.

Frankly, I like my odds on this one. Obviously you don't, otherwise you wouldn't spend so much time in spin mode yourself.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Put it this way, all scientific research and progress is only possible by a process of peer review and independent checks. That is because it is known that if you just take the word of a scientist that he has acheived something, you just can't take his word for it, or his employers.


It's all a question of degrees of seperation. How many degrees of seperation do you feel is adequate. With scientific experiments, anyone can redo the experiment and validate results, with investigations, you don't really have this opportunity, as people won't submit to endless interviews for the rest of their life.

Is having a jury made up of other members in their unit impartial, since it does not include anyone at the checkpoint?

No? How about another unit in their batallion?

What about another batallion from their bridage? They probably don't even know anyone in that batallion, and have a vested interest in seeing justice done.

Ok, what about another company? No?

Maybe another arm of the armed forces? They always would surely be impartial.

Ok, how about a civilian oversight committee.

Not even then because they are american? Ok, what about if they contain canadians.

No you say? Because they are part of north america? Mabye if we add britains and austrailians? Not good enough because they are allies?

OK, then we need members of countries that aren't our allies? Still not good enough because it is led by an american?

It's similar to saying that a jury from your own town would not be impartial. No matter what group of people will find, someone will want one more degree of seperation.


However, you are correct, the most basic facts are still true. A journalist was not killed by the insurgents, but was lucky to escape with her life after contact with American forces, and her body guard died.

She was stupid enough to think that terrorists would not be a threat to her, and put herself into dangerous situations thinking she was immune. And to say that she "was lucky to escape with her life after contact with American forces", given that american forces were searching for her, risking their own lives.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Jocko
Yeah, yeah, yeah. You mean the military investigations into prison abuses that were already in progress when the story broke? The ones that have resulted in convictions? Cheese 'n crackers, are you out of your gourd. Even now the courts martial are big news and there is no love of the accused here. Some coverup, AUP. Some spin.


Duh, bush and rumsfield aren't behind bars, where they belong, everyone knows they sent secret orders for that code red.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by RussDill
Duh, bush and rumsfield aren't behind bars, where they belong, everyone knows they sent secret orders for that code red.

Well, it applies in at least one way. AUP definitely can't handle the truth. :D

[Skeptic]

However, you are correct, the most basic facts are still true. A journalist was not killed by the insurgents, but was lucky to escape with her life after contact with American forces,

Gee, maybe them speeding through a checkpoint had something to do with that? You gotta love AUP's "logic":

--"Have you heard??? Bush killed a peace activist without trial at a party!!!!"

--"Yes, I did. Of course, you forget to mention that the man pulled a gun on the President and shouted 'death to the warmonger!' before the President's bodygaur..."

--"Even if that is true, the FACT REMAINS that this man was NOT killed by Islamic terrorists, but by members of the US armed forces!!!"

This is, in technical terms, known as the inductive "fallacy of exclusion": ignoring relevant evidence (in this case, that the US troops were not just shooting at people randomly, but shooting at a car that refused to stop at a checkpoint) in order to get the conclusion ("USA is EVIL!!!") that you want.

By the way, if you see someone start an argument with "the fact remains that...", there is a 90% probability that the writer is trying to pull a "fallacy of exclusion" on you: making you look at fact A while ignoring fact B, when fact B changes the situation completely. It is a favorite tool of demagogues, from Al Sharpton to our own bush-league Chomsky, AUP.

[LTC8K6]

AUP, the investigation is being done by a joint Italian - U.S. team.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
AUP, the investigation is being done by a joint Italian - U.S. team.

Well, if we can dominate and occupy South Korea while still maintaining the pretense of being invited, I'm sure we can dominate any joint investigation.

There you go, AUP, take the rest of the day off. I've got you covered here.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Jocko
Well, if we can dominate and occupy South Korea while still maintaining the pretense of being invited, I'm sure we can dominate any joint investigation.

There you go, AUP, take the rest of the day off. I've got you covered here. It's 3:00 pm Thursday, eastern time in the U.S. I think AUP's Friday is just starting.

Maybe he can get an early start on the weekend if you keep covering his butt for him like this.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Jocko
Well, if we can dominate and occupy South Korea while still maintaining the pretense of being invited, I'm sure we can dominate any joint investigation.

Not to mention horribly punishing France without anybody there seeming to notice, until our resident psychic Australian had uncovered the horrible truth.

I keep picturing AUP on a trip to France, shouting "You've been punished! You've been opressed!!!!" to the growing amusement of a crowd of puzzled Parisians, until the friendly men in white coats come to take him away.

[The Fool]

How about along with the book club we have an AUP obsession club....It will give you dudes somewhere to hang out.

Honestly, if dissenting opinion is too much for you guys maybe you should can the giggling festival and all just follow Mycrofts sig link to the we all agree little green football club.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by The Fool
How about along with the book club we have an AUP obsession club....It will give you dudes somewhere to hang out.

Honestly, if dissenting opinion is too much for you guys maybe you should can the giggling festival and all just follow Mycrofts sig link to the we all agree little green football club.

No need to get catty. Clowns always draw a crowd.

[Skeptic]

Oh, howyadoin', Fool. Care to answer this question?

Originally posted by Skeptic
("the fool" wrote: )
these are checkpoint troops ed, not special forces.

Oh, so now all of a sudden there WAS a checkpoint? I thought that she originally said there was none, and that there is no reason to think she is wrong... and that in any case the whole "checkpoint" story is just standard-issue US army coverup story...

As you yourself said, "she says there is no checkpoint, the US Army says there is... who do you believe, Skeppers?"

Well, who do YOU believe, Fool? WAS there a checkpoint or wasn't there? If you now think there was, would you apologize for the heap of insults you poured on the head of everybody in this thread who dared to suggest as much only yesterday?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jocko
No need to get catty. Clowns always draw a crowd.

If I was him I'd be selling merchandise....He could make a fortune of you guys.
;)

[Jocko]

Originally posted by The Fool
If I was him I'd be selling merchandise....He could make a fortune of you guys.
;)

That's nothing, you ought to see the capital poured into American Idol around here these days. That shames me more than Mai Lai.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Oh, howyadoin', Fool. Care to answer this question?
sorry skep....not going to explain the obvious over and over to idiots....go back to my post where you think you understand what I said and what it meant, then ask one of your family to explain it to you.

edited to add...thats just a bonus reply because you seemed to be getting a bit frantic....I'm really not interested in listening to your crap any longer.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by The Fool
How about along with the book club we have an AUP obsession club....It will give you dudes somewhere to hang out.

Honestly, if dissenting opinion is too much for you guys maybe you should can the giggling festival and all just follow Mycrofts sig link to the we all agree little green football club.

You're invited to the club, btw. I hope you choose to participate. I think it would be nice to draw you into a discussion that's a little more deep than your usual sarcasm.

Dissenting opinions in and of themselves are not a problem. It's the dissenting opinion that's so relentlessly anti-American no matter what the topic or no matter what the contrary evidence that's laughable.

[BPSCG]

We're up to page nine on this topic. What do we know today that we didn't know back on page one?

BTW, The Fool and AUP, please make some recommendations for the book club. Contrary to what you seem to believe, Fool, it's not a right-wing lovefest. Varwoche just recommended Imperial Hubris, which I'm told is not exactly a love letter to Bush.

[Skeptic]

Care to answer the question, Fool?

sorry skep....not going to explain the obvious over and over to idiots....

Hmmmmmmmm. I guess that's a "no".

Pretty please, Fool?

Your enormous brain can obviously understand how there was no checkpoint but there were "checkpoint troops" better than my puny one.

I asked my family members, but none of them could figure it out, either, as we are all idiots, you know, it runs in the family.

So, please, I am appealing to your infinitely superior intellect to explain it anyway, as an act of charity to the mentaly retarded.

P.S.

While you're at it, you might be able to explain a few other such mysteries, which only the infinitely superior progressive thinkers seem to understand. Such as, for example, why Chomsky is considered a sage when (just about) every single thing he predicted turned out 100% wrong.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BPSCG
We're up to page nine on this topic. What do we know today that we didn't know back on page one?

Well, for starters, we know more about "The Fool"'s and AUP's anti-USA paranoia.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Contrary to what you seem to believe, Fool, it's not a right-wing lovefest. Varwoche just recommended Imperial Hubris, which I'm told is not exactly a love letter to Bush.

I was afraid this book club thing would become a tit-for-tat thing with people nominating books which backup their points of view.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by corplinx
I was afraid this book club thing would become a tit-for-tat thing with people nominating books which backup their points of view.

Looking at the books nominated so far, there doesn’t seem to be much danger of that. At the same time, part of the point is for us to expose ourselves to the sort of reading material we might not choose for ourselves, so if we stick with it I expect we will all end up reading something that supports a worldview that’s very different from our own.

At the rate of a book a month, I think a certain amount of culling is inevitable in the process if even a small portion of the participants nominate books. I expect this will leave plenty of room for discussion on which books should be excluded and why, or which books may deserve to be advanced, etc.

Or maybe not, it could also be that after we get settled, nominations will slow to about one a month.

[kalen]

It's sad and funny at the same time. A comic:

BTAF - Diplomatic Immunity (http://angryflower.com/immuni.html)

[RussDill]

I think we should make one comic for each version of Sgrena's story.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Care to answer the question, Fool?

sorry skep....not going to explain the obvious over and over to idiots....

Hmmmmmmmm. I guess that's a "no".

Pretty please, Fool?

Your enormous brain can obviously understand how there was no checkpoint but there were "checkpoint troops" better than my puny one.

I asked my family members, but none of them could figure it out, either, as we are all idiots, you know, it runs in the family.

So, please, I am appealing to your infinitely superior intellect to explain it anyway, as an act of charity to the mentaly retarded.

P.S.

While you're at it, you might be able to explain a few other such mysteries, which only the infinitely superior progressive thinkers seem to understand. Such as, for example, why Chomsky is considered a sage when (just about) every single thing he predicted turned out 100% wrong.

sigh...ok one last time for the road eh?

The US troops that are on this road are there primarily to setup and man checkpoints...thats why I called them "checkpoint troops" If I had to choose which troops to assign to checkpoint duties and which to assign to actively searching out insurgents guess what.....the superior troops would not be checking paperwork on checkpoints. Now I may be wrong here but I would guess the troops involved were reservists and not elite special forces or even regulars.

Now because the troops in the area are described by me as "checkpoint troops" somehow means that they spend 24X7 manning checkpoints...they are never travelling between checkpoints they are never travelling to or from duty on a checkpoint or even having a day off and heading to a rest area...they are never doing anything else...."skeptic" decides that if they shoot at someone then because I described them as checkpoint troops it must have been because I accept that it was a checkpoint..... Do you think members of the regimental band spend 24 hours a day blowing a f*cking trumpet? If members of the regimantal band were involved in a shooting would you say it must have been at a concert?

This may very well have happened at a checkpoint....that is the story you accept as fact. I can't help it if you cannot understand how someone else may not.


In conclusion...
wtf are you ranting about Chomsky for? isn't it the holocaust you normally add into irrelevant situations....Chomsky??? I have never read anything of his, I have never quoted him in this thread or on this forum Please knock yourself out looking That was one of Zenith-Nadirs lies that he could never back up either........so what on earth has chomsky got to do with anything.

You are a raving loonie.....please go away.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by RussDill
I think we should make one comic for each version of Sgrena's story.
Russ.
There are a number of obvious reasons why there are variations in the stories we read. among others

1. Eyewitness accounts are notorious for this anyway
2. she is a biased player in a controversial topic.
3. stories are translated from one language to another by different people, many of them are also biased.
4. some of it is hearsay which leads to even more variation.

I think that comparing this to a single official statement and drawing any conclusions about thier relative "honesty" is very dangerous. If you had available statements reported by different news services from US soldiers involved taken from different people or the same people at different times. Add in hearsay reports on what they said from relatives all of which have been translated by different people from a foreign language do you imagine there would still be no variation?

I have been involved in helping research the official history of my old unit and I can assure you that even though none of the people involved were liars you would swear you were reading accounts of different contacts. When I read the few contact reports from our unit archives where I was actually there I see things written in the official history that I swear did not happen. I also clearly remember things that did happen that are not there....thats life.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by The Fool
2. she is a biased player in a controversial topic.
3. stories are translated from one language to another by different people, many of them are also biased.That's true. I read that in the original Italian, the "three hundred bullets" was "three kilos of Gorgonzola..."

[Skeptic]

The US troops that are on this road are there primarily to setup and man checkpoints...thats why I called them "checkpoint troops"

Nah, that's just your post-hoc rationalization of being caught in a direct contradiction.

Gimme a break, will ya? Nobody calls "regular" army troops "checkpoint troops" because they occassionally man checkpoints any more than you call them "latrine troops" because they occassionally clean latrines, or "KP troops" because they occassionally do kitchen duty. You call them "regular" troops" or "conscripts", or "GIs", or "grunts", or just "troops".

If "checkpoint troops" is simply a name for non-elite troops in your vocabulary, why was the FIRST TIME you had EVER used this term is in an attempt to explain the extremely poor hit ratio alleged by the journalist? If it is just a name to distinguish beteen "regulars", you would have used it before, would you not?

No, Fool, the truth--and the rather obvious one, at that--is that you got caught in a contradiction. Rushing to explain away yet anoher contradiction in the journalists story ("they shot hundreds of bullets at me! Look, here are eight of them!") while making yet another sneering remark at the US troops, you simply forgot your "there was no checkpoint!" party line for a second.

You know who you sound like, "Fool"? You sound like someone caught cheating in scrabble and trying to talk his way out of it by pompous claims of superior intelligence and education: "OF COURSE 'Xywdda' IS a word! It's an Anglo-Saxon name for the third prelate's assistant during the reign of Edward III! It's not MY fault that you IDIOTS and the STUPID dictionary makers don't know that! Ask someone in your family to explain it to you, if you're not intelligent enough to play with me!!!"

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by The Fool
I think that comparing this to a single official statement and drawing any conclusions about thier relative "honesty" is very dangerous.

How about not comparing her story to anything...and still coming to the conclusion she's full of it?

[Elind]

Originally posted by Mycroft
How about not comparing her story to anything...and still coming to the conclusion she's full of it?

Why bother. She's just a commie bitch.;)

[The Fool]

Originally posted by BPSCG
That's true. I read that in the original Italian, the "three hundred bullets" was "three kilos of Gorgonzola..."
see what I mean...inconsistency and lies. There is no way known anyone could survive the impact of 3 kilos or Gorganzola...its obviously a lie.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
The US troops that are on this road are there primarily to setup and man checkpoints...thats why I called them "checkpoint troops"

Nah, that's just your post-hoc rationalization of being caught in a direct contradiction.


Lol.... contradiction? The only contradictions you find are those between peoples actual position and your lineup of strawman versions of those positions...

I'd love to know where you got this Idea that I accept the claim that there was no checkpoint as fact. What I have been trying to do is point out to you the humor of you maintaining you are a skeptic when you are happy to accept the US army statement as unquestioned fact. The only place I accept as fact that there was no checkpoint is in your imagination........ And why does describing the troops in a unit tasked to running checkpoints as "checkpoint troops" baffle you so much. Can you at least make it a bit difficult to stump you?

[Skeptic]

Lol.... contradiction? The only contradictions you find are those between peoples actual position and your lineup of strawman versions of those positions...

I'd love to know where you got this Idea that I accept the claim that there was no checkpoint as fact.

Oh, I dunno. How about calling everybody who did accept it "stupid" and "naive"? How about claiming that it is a "standard" coverup story by the US administration? Most people would imagine this means you disbelieve the checkpoint story.

Apparently, we have not understood that the TRUE REASON you insulted everybody who accepted the story and implied deep conspiracies on the US' part is your disinterested, objective love of skepticism...

But that's your fate, being so much more intelligent than us, you see: you're constantly misunderstood.

And why does describing the troops in a unit tasked to running checkpoints as "checkpoint troops" baffle you so much.

Please, "Fool".

Pretending it wasn't an obvious contradiction by claiming we are just TOO STUPID to understand what you REALLY meant isn't going to make you look more intelligent.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Lol.... contradiction? The only contradictions you find are those between peoples actual position and your lineup of strawman versions of those positions...

I'd love to know where you got this Idea that I accept the claim that there was no checkpoint as fact.

Oh, I dunno. How about calling everybody who did accept it "stupid" and "naive"? How about claiming that it is a "standard" coverup story by the US administration? Most people would imagine this means you disbelieve the checkpoint story.

Apparently, we have not understood that the TRUE REASON you insulted everybody who accepted the story and implied deep conspiracies on the US' part is your disinterested, objective love of skepticism...

But that's your fate, being so much more intelligent than us, you see: you're constantly misunderstood.

And why does describing the troops in a unit tasked to running checkpoints as "checkpoint troops" baffle you so much.

Please, "Fool".

Pretending it wasn't an obvious contradiction by claiming we are just TOO STUPID to understand what you REALLY meant isn't going to make you look more intelligent.
Why does attempting to communicate with you remind me of a merry go round?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by The Fool
Why does attempting to communicate with you remind me of a merry go round?

Funny, I get the same feeling about you.