US forces in an assassination attempt on communist journalist

[Elind]

Journalist Calls Shots Unjustified
Wounded Italian's Account Differs From That of U.S.

"Don't believe a word of the U.S. version," said Oliviero Diliberto, secretary of the Italian Communist party. "There's an attempt to mask what actually happened. The Americans deliberately fired on the Italians."

Here we go again. The gods are screwing with us all as usual.

[aerocontrols]

Why did these assassins leave anyone alive, I wonder?

[Ace_of_Sevens]

I'm not sure which is more disappointing. That my government is trying to assassinate journalists or that they don't seem to be very good at it.

[shuize]

As I pointed in another thread, perhaps others in Iraq will learn from this that, like playing dead, it is not such a good idea to speed into military checkpoints and ignore all orders to stop.

[a_unique_person]

Are you sure about that?

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Iraq/US-to-investigate-Italy-shooting/2005/03/06/1110044235362.html



The Italian journalist who was wounded by American troops at a checkpoint in Baghdad shortly after she was released by her Iraqi captors denied US allegations the car she was in was speeding.

Giuliana Sgrena gave her first account yesterday of the incident in which she was wounded and Italian intelligence officer Nicola Calipari was killed.

The shooting has fuelled anti-American sentiment in a country where people are deeply opposed to the war in Iraq.

''We thought the danger was over after my rescue,'' Sgrena told Rai News 24 television by telephone.

''And instead suddenly there was this shooting, we were hit by a spray of fire. I was talking to Nicola ... when he leaned over me, probably to defend me, and then he slumped over. That was a truly terrible thing.''

Her boyfriend, Pier Scolari, said she told him that the car had not been speeding.

Sgrena subsequently told interviewers the car was traveling at ''regular speed''.

The US military said the Americans used hand and arm signals, flashing white lights and fired warning shots to get the car to stop.

Advertisement
AdvertisementBut in an interview with Italian La 7 TV, Sgrena said ''there was no bright light, no signal, and at a certain point, from one side, a firestorm erupted''.

[demon]

Well, if there wasn't a check-point, which was also alleged, then the speed of the vehicle would be irrelevant. The whole point being made by way of automatic exculpation on the part of the Pentagon is that if the car was speeding toward a check-point, well, it could have been a suicide bomber. That would, if the guess were right, make it a matter of saving lives.

But if not one but two witnesses present say that, and one of them happens to be an award-winning journalist with a medal pinned on her by Berlusconi, and the other is an Italian intelligence officer, then I am inclined to trust them rather than the Pentagon. But there's an investigation afoot, so we shall see.
;)

[username]

Originally posted by shuize
As I pointed in another thread, perhaps others in Iraq will learn from this that, like playing dead, it is not such a good idea to speed into military checkpoints and ignore all orders to stop.

While I would agree that speeding through a checkpoint would be a justifiable reason to open fire, what evidence do you have that they did speed through a checkpoint?

The facts are still coming in, but the articles I have read so far say they had already gone through all checkpoints enroute to the airport.

[Elind]

Originally posted by demon
Well, if there wasn't a check-point, which was also alleged, then the speed of the vehicle would be irrelevant. The whole point being made by way of automatic exculpation on the part of the Pentagon is that if the car was speeding toward a check-point, well, it could have been a suicide bomber. That would, if the guess were right, make it a matter of saving lives.

But if not one but two witnesses present say that, and one of them happens to be an award-winning journalist with a medal pinned on her by Berlusconi, and the other is an Italian intelligence officer, then I am inclined to trust them rather than the Pentagon. But there's an investigation afoot, so we shall see.
;)

But if it had been a CIA intelligence officer you would have a different opinion?

If the intent had been to kill them, they would all be dead. As to other details; sh*t happens in war and we will no doubt hear more.

[Ziggurat]

The "speeding" part is irrelevent. What matters is whether or not they were given signal to stop and did not. And for that, the driver is really who you want to hear from, not the passenger.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Elind
But if it had been a CIA intelligence officer you would have a different opinion?Indeed. And what credibility, a priori, would demon accord to the testimony of (for example) decorated American servicemen?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ace_of_Sevens
I'm not sure which is more disappointing. That my government is trying to assassinate journalists or that they don't seem to be very good at it.

Let's play with another conspiracy theory: if we are to believe this journalist, the insurgents warned her that the Americans didn't want her to return. What if it was a setup, what if they used an informant to "warn" the Americans about a suicide bomber, with the express purpose of having the Americans attack her? That would be a VERY effective PR blow against the Americans and do much more damage to US-Italian alliance than killing a hostage. All the better for them then that she survived to tell about it: they've won an ally in the press, but still got their dead Italian.

Edit to add: Oh, and that's not even counting the possible payment of ransom. If the Italians paid a ransom, that's an even bigger transgression against both the US and especially Iraq than our shooting, because a million dollars (the reported amount) in the hands of the terrorists will lead to a lot more than one dead innocent. That should be getting a LOT more press coverage, but then, maybe the press doesn't care.

[easycruise]

From the AP newswire...

""Giuliana Sgrena, who writes for the communist newspaper Il Manifesto, described how she was wounded and Italian intelligence officer Nicola Calipari was killed as she was celebrating her freedom on the way to the airport.""

If they were celebrating in the car, it is more than likely that they were oblivious to most of what was happening outside of the car.

On another note, I'm surprised that the Communist party actually has a newspaper in Italy. You mean there are still are advocates of communism in a democracy? Wow! A mountain of evidence of a failed system and there are still people who believe. Sounds like a project for James Randi!

[Elind]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Indeed. And what credibility, a priori, would demon accord to the testimony of (for example) decorated American servicemen?

About as much as the journalist in question. She was there to dig dirt on the US, nothing more, and she was most likely released because she truthfully pleaded support for the insurgents.

[materia3]

There are now three threads on this story: the other two are
at:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870806187#post1870806187

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53539

With other theories beside the allegedly apparent one.

[Elind]

Originally posted by materia3
There are now three threads on this story: the other two are
at:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870806187#post1870806187

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53539

With other theories beside the allegedly apparent one.

We should merge them then, as they were all started at roughly the same time.

[TragicMonkey]

She's taking seriously the suggestion put to her by her captors, who kidnapped her, that their enemies want to do her harm?

What would be the point of deliberately killing her after the ransom was paid, anyway?

And what is "regular speed" for a travelling car, to an Italian?

[kalen]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey

And what is "regular speed" for a travelling car, to an Italian?

Europeans do drive on the fast side. But whatever happened to the practice of giving someone a ticket if they were driving too fast?

Seriously, though, I think this is less of an assassination conspiracy and more of a "shoot anything that moves" policy. Because, we all know, if it's moving, it's a potential threat that must be neutralized. Remember the wounded Iraqi in the mosque that ended up getting shot in the face? Apparently he moved - which was quite enough justification for killing him because no charges will be laid in that incident. Whole families of Iraqis have been wiped out because they were in moving cars. The list goes on.

[IIRichard]

I'm frankly surprised that anyone survived. My son served in Iraq and at least once manned a check point. A car tried to run the checkpoint or was unable to stop or whatever. The Marines couldn't tell how many people were in the car when the shooting was over.

The one shot through the windshield is only in the movies folks.

This lady was damn lucky.

[corplinx]

This assassination woo is funny. The cool thing is it gets people on the forum you always suspected of being woos to out themselves.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by corplinx
This assassination woo is funny. The cool thing is it gets people on the forum you always suspected of being woos to out themselves.
I think this is highly likely the result of incompetence rather than an assasination.....however I would be interested in your take on why an assasination is an impossibility...is it because Americans would be incapable of it?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx
This assassination woo is funny. The cool thing is it gets people on the forum you always suspected of being woos to out themselves.

If you are referring to me, I never calimed it was an assasination attempt, I did link to evidence that disputes the US version of what actually happened at the 'checkpoint'.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by The Fool
I think this is highly likely the result of incompetence rather than an assasination.....however I would be interested in your take on why an assasination is an impossibility...is it because Americans would be incapable of it?

I just fall on the side of occams razor. US Troops are under orders to light up cars speeding towards checkpoints since cars have been used to ram and bomb checkpoints. This is standard operating procedure.

Here is the alternative:
The Italian President calls Bush on the phone:
"George, please kill this commie for me"
"I sure will Burt"

Bush calls Rummy:
"Rummy, its time for you to pay me back for not firing your ass"
"I've been ordering troops to kill commies since before you stopped snorting coke George, dont worry"

Rummy then has people filter down through the chain of command skipping as many people as necessary until he gets the grunts manning the checkpoints.
"When the eye-talians pay the ransom, if they come through your checkpoint, light them up"
"But sir, arent these people white?"
"Private, they are italians"
"Oh, okay then"
"Now inform everyone who will be manning that checkpoint on any shift during those few days to kill anyone that looks greasy"
"Sir Yes Sir"

Now, I don't dimiss this as a possibility at all...... I just dismiss it out of hand since US Troops have opened fire at will on cars approaching checkpoints before and its the most mundane explanation short of some real otherwise to cast doubts otherwise.

You know, this is skepticism 101 fool.....

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by The Fool
I think this is highly likely the result of incompetence rather than an assasination.....however I would be interested in your take on why an assasination is an impossibility...is it because Americans would be incapable of it?

Because there is no point in assassinating her?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by corplinx

You know, this is skepticism 101 fool.....

Occams razor is a good tool for judging what is the most probable.... Once again you resort to branding something as "woo" not because it is contrary to the laws of physics but simply because of your opinion that it is the least likely explanation.....

I notice you have accepted without question that this happened at a checkpoint and the car was speeding and that the car ignored many obvious requests to stop. Is that skepticism 101 too?

[TillEulenspiegel]

Well Fool I wouldn't say incompetence. The rules ( and their strictly enforced as any can be ) are , hand signals, light signals, warning shots and finally shoot to stop. The rules have changed because a speeding car could be a car bomb, made to kill the soldiers at the check point.

Another point is the reporter claims that there was no check point and a tank just opened fire without warning I find that much harder to believe especially that the troops involved and the pentagon admitted "guilt" for the incident.

Another question in the back of my mind is , would a reporter who worked for IL Manifesto The communist daily who's main target for decades has been the imperial United States, Be trusted to be objective?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by The Fool
I think this is highly likely the result of incompetence rather than an assasination.....however I would be interested in your take on why an assasination is an impossibility...is it because Americans would be incapable of it?

There's little point to discussing whether something could or could not theoretically happen when there isn't the slightest credible evidence that it occured, and by far the most reasonable explanation points in the oposite direction.

By the way, I heard there was a murder in Australia over the weekened. I think this is highly likely it was the work of someone other than than the person posting on the JREF forum as "the Fool". However I would be interested in your take on why "the Fool" could not have committed the murder. Do you think he is incapable of it? Let's discuss.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Well Fool I wouldn't say incompetence. The rules ( and their strictly enforced as any can be ) are , hand signals, light signals, warning shots and finally shoot to stop. The rules have changed because a speeding car could be a car bomb, made to kill the soldiers at the check point.

As this was not a car bomb why didn't it stop for the hand signals, light signals, warning shots? Either they were not done by the checkpoint, or the driver ignored them....either way its incompetence...or lying to cover your arse by one or both parties involved....

Another point is the reporter claims that there was no check point and a tank just opened fire without warning I find that much harder to believe especially that the troops involved and the pentagon admitted "guilt" for the incident.

Another question in the back of my mind is , would a reporter who worked for IL Manifesto The communist daily who's main target for decades has been the imperial United States, Be trusted to be objective?
would you trust the US army to be objective? Would you trust as objective all the posters here that snap to attention and salute when they read what is claimed to be the US army version of events then parrot these as facts?

Us toops shot Italian Journalists....its a cockup. Lets see what happens out of the investigation....What I was doing was pointing out to some people the folly of describing anyone who does not choose to accept the US army explanation as "woo".

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
There's little point to discussing whether something could or could not theoretically happen when there isn't the slightest credible evidence that it occured, and by far the most reasonable explanation points in the oposite direction.

By the way, I heard there was a murder in Australia over the weekened. I think this is highly likely it was the work of someone other than than the person posting on the JREF forum as "the Fool". However I would be interested in your take on why "the Fool" could not have committed the murder. Do you think he is incapable of it? Let's discuss.

yep...witness statements from Italian journalists is not credible evidence and statements from the US army are. They say there was no checkpoint but as the US army says there was this is now a fact....there was a checkpoint. The Italian Journalists say there was no hand signals but as the US army says there was handsignals this is now a fact...there was handsignals. The people in the car say there was no warning shots but as the US army says there was warning shots this is now a fact...there was warning shots.

Now that we have all the facts there is only one logical conclusion....That conclusion is that you have been told what to believe and you do what you are told.

And as for your analogy.. Do you think I am incapable of murder?

[Ace_of_Sevens]

I doubt the assassination primarly because the US had no real reason to kill her, then there's the question of how they would have known who was in the car in the first place. Someone involved in the trade would have had to tip them off, which seems even less likely.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ace_of_Sevens
I doubt the assassination primarly because the US had no real reason to kill her, then there's the question of how they would have known who was in the car in the first place. Someone involved in the trade would have had to tip them off, which seems even less likely.

The Italians had already told the US they would be coming, and had already passed through checkpoints on the way to the airport.

[materia3]

Originally posted by Ace_of_Sevens
I doubt the assassination primarly because the US had no real reason to kill her, then there's the question of how they would have known who was in the car in the first place. Someone involved in the trade would have had to tip them off, which seems even less likely.

Exactly. Very likely. Like the terrorists themselves, tipping the U.S. contacts off to a car bomb run which, in effect, set them up and then getting the blame placed on the Americans. Within literal moments of the attack, Al Jazeera was selling a photo of the dead Italian secret service agent, Nicola Calipari, to the world's press. The event took place at 2:43 PM EST U.S. By 7:30 PM the NY Times was on the street in Manhattan and had placed the Al Jazeera sourced photo in its story. Nobody seems bothered by this and nobody has asked the arab news agency how it got this photo and then so quickly. I find it hard to believe secret service agents of any government willy nilly allow themselves to be photographed.

The terrorists negotiating with Calipari are the most likely source of the picture, probably captured on a cel phone camera as the terrorists stood outside the car he was in earlier in the day setting up the trade.

I happen to agree with the concept that the U.S. had no reason to target this woman, and even if they did, could've have found many ways to kill her which would not implicate them in any way whatsoever. The predictable political fall out alone from this would be enough to insure her safe passage by American forces rather than her assasination. It was either a SNAFU of major proportion or it was a set up engineered by the terrorists which has suited their purpose: embarass the U.S. and initiate a popular move in Italy for a highly symbolic withdrawal of its troops.

So they win again, but this time using a more devious plan than merely kidnapping foreign nationals and making demands for their withdrawal in exchange for their release ... which, er doesn't work too well as we all know.

[gnome]

Had the intent been assassination, I see no reason why there were survivors. Why stop shooting, and leave witnesses?

I am willing to believe that the "official" version exaggerates the innocence of the shooters, but I would want to learn the results of investigation before drawing a conclusion. Certainly you can't make up your mind from stories floating around before anyone does any actual investigating!

[TillEulenspiegel]

Fool I must have misread . The apperence of your statement seems to be aimed at the troops and as You have explained , Yes I guess we coudld concider this a foul-up.

Fool:"would you trust the US army to be objective? "

no.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Fool I must have misread . The apperence of your statement seems to be aimed at the troops and as You have explained , Yes I guess we coudld concider this a foul-up.

Fool:"would you trust the US army to be objective? "

no.
sorry, when I said incompetence was a likely cause I was including the occupants of the car as well as the troops on the ground...reading it again I agree that is not clear.

[Skeptic]

yep...witness statements from Italian journalists is not credible evidence and statements from the US army are. They say there was no checkpoint but as the US army says there was...

...and there are two possible explanations for the discrepancy:

1). The US army, for no reason whatsoever, decided to assassinate an Italian journalist just freed in Iraq. For this purpose, they have been tipped off by, or secretly found out about, the kidnapping Jihadists about the time of release of the hostages, and (with psychic power) knew exactly what route they will drive away and in what vehicle. They then set up an ambush. Alas, for all this evil plannings, the assassination attempt itself was a dismal failure: after firing a few inaccurate shots with light weaponry in the journalists' general direction, presumably on the assumption that bringing a tank or two (or a grenade launcher) to the ambush to get the job done right would be just too much trouble, the would-be assassins conceded failure and just let the pair drive away to tell the tale of their harrowing escape.

...or...

2). The released hostages, undestandably euphoric and celebrating their release, simply failed to notice the roadblock, an event that happened before on quite a few occassions.

Since there are the two possibilities, and (2) is so much more likely than (1), and (1) is absurd on its face in any case, it is--for all intents and purposes--practically certain that (2) (or something similar) was the case. Ergo, it is practically certain that there was a roadblock.

One would have to be a total military and political ignoramous with an axe to grind against the USA to take seriously claim (1). Oh wait, "The Fool", I forgot: you ARE a totaly military and political ignoramous with an axe to grind againt the USA. Which explains your sudden "skepticism" about (2) being the case, prefering (1), which--while absurd--makes the US look bad.

And as for your analogy.. Do you think I am incapable of murder?

Well, I was asking the question rhetorically, of course, but since you asked--yes, I'm quite sure you're incapable of murder. Too much of a coward, too comfortable of a life. You just cheer murderers and would-be murderers from the sidelines.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
yep...witness statements from Italian journalists is not credible evidence and statements from the US army are. They say there was no checkpoint but as the US army says there was...

...and there are two possible explanations for the discrepancy:

1). The US army, for no reason whatsoever, decided to assassinate an Italian journalist just freed in Iraq. For this purpose, they have been tipped off by, or secretly found out about, the kidnapping Jihadists about the time of release of the hostages, and (with psychic power) knew exactly what route they will drive away and in what vehicle. They then set up an ambush. Alas, for all this evil plannings, the assassination attempt itself was a dismal failure: after firing a few inaccurate shots with light weaponry in the journalists' general direction, presumably on the assumption that bringing a tank or two (or a grenade launcher) to the ambush to get the job done right would be just too much trouble, the would-be assassins conceded failure and just let the pair drive away to tell the tale of their harrowing escape.

...or...

2). The released hostages, undestandably euphoric and celebrating their release, simply failed to notice the roadblock, an event that happened before on quite a few occassions.

Since there are the two possibilities, and (2) is so much more likely than (1), and (1) is absurd on its face in any case, it is--for all intents and purposes--practically certain that (2) (or something similar) was the case. Ergo, it is practically certain that there was a roadblock.

One would have to be a total military and political ignoramous with an axe to grind against the USA to take seriously claim (1). Oh wait, "The Fool", I forgot: you ARE a totaly military and political ignoramous with an axe to grind againt the USA. Which explains your sudden "skepticism" about (2) being the case, prefering (1), which--while absurd--makes the US look bad.

And as for your analogy.. Do you think I am incapable of murder?

Well, I was asking the question rhetorically, of course, but since you asked--yes, I'm quite sure you're incapable of murder. Too much of a coward, too comfortable of a life. You just cheer murderers and would-be murderers from the sidelines.

Time to take another reality check. Fool has been in Vietnam, as a member of the Australian armed forces, as a foot soldier, IIRC. You really do make this up as you go along, don't you.

[Elind]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
She's taking seriously the suggestion put to her by her captors, who kidnapped her, that their enemies want to do her harm?

What would be the point of deliberately killing her after the ransom was paid, anyway?

And what is "regular speed" for a travelling car, to an Italian?

Hey, if we are gonna get on a conspiracy roll here; she went looking for her "friends" to write nice things about.

It wouldn't take a genius to arrange a little bit of an attention getting kidnapping. After all a Lebanese/US soldier did it last year, and got away with it a lot more crudely.

[Elind]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Time to take another reality check. Fool has been in Vietnam, as a member of the Australian armed forces, as a foot soldier, IIRC. You really do make this up as you go along, don't you.

AUP.....Do you have to compose your evasions, or do they just come to you naturally, like a gift?

Personal sniping aside, Skeptic laid out a very rational commonsense senario comparison and it seems most likely that that commie b*tch is milking this for whatever her pitiful ass is worth. Her 15 minutes of fame as it were.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic


...and there are two possible explanations for the discrepancy:


There are a lot more than two skeppers.....but two is all that your binary good/evil brain can handle ....how about american troops stuffed up? How about they shot up a car they should not have and manufactured the story that it was running a checkpoint to cover thier arses? How dear...thats completely implausable isn't it.


Well, I was asking the question rhetorically, of course, but since you asked--yes, I'm quite sure you're incapable of murder. Too much of a coward, too comfortable of a life. You just cheer murderers and would-be murderers from the sidelines.



I Know you desperately want to turn this into your usual false dichotomy either it is a completely implausable conspiracy theory of assasination and high intrigue....or its whatever the US army tells you to think ...What will you do if the investigation finds there was no checkpoint, no hand signals, no warning shots..........what then skeppers? will your brain explode because its forced to accept the impossible? That this may be simply yet another case of trigger happy troops?


I'm getting a little tired of you popping up in every thread like my pet poodle, begging for attention....you can go back on ignore with Mycroft, my other serial pest.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Elind
AUP.....Do you have to compose your evasions, or do they just come to you naturally, like a gift?

Personal sniping aside, Skeptic laid out a very rational commonsense senario comparison
a false dichotomy...are you also incapable of seeing any other than 2 possibilities, the US army story or the wildest most improbable alternative he can think of?




and it seems most likely that that commie b*tch is milking this for whatever her pitiful ass is worth. Her 15 minutes of fame as it were.
I bet she even arranged to be kidnapped.....probably blows Osama on the weekends. I just cannot understand people who get upset about something as trivial as being shot...sheesh.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Elind
AUP.....Do you have to compose your evasions, or do they just come to you naturally, like a gift?

Personal sniping aside, Skeptic laid out a very rational commonsense senario comparison and it seems most likely that that commie b*tch is milking this for whatever her pitiful ass is worth. Her 15 minutes of fame as it were.

No one here has said it was a conspiracy to kill her, not one. I have just pointed out discrepancies between the two accounts of what happened, Fool has wondered about other aspects of it. Skeptics input was completely irrelevent, abusive and ignorant. Maybe he should just read what people say for a change, rather than comment on what he thinks they said. As for calling here a b*tch, god help you.

[Elind]

Originally posted by The Fool


Fool. Cut the crap and conduct a debate. Your personal insults get tiresome to have to read, even partially.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by The Fool

I notice you have accepted without question that this happened at a checkpoint and the car was speeding and that the car ignored many obvious requests to stop. Is that skepticism 101 too?

Maybe the car wasn't speeding. Maybe it was going slightly faster than the other cars and a jumpy shoulder opened fire (at which point the other soldiers out of habit turn and fired also assuming there was a threat).

This is still a much more mundane rationale than a conspiracy theory that hinges on the word of a communist.

I still don't see why you keep holding out a lifeline for this nonsense. I'm not nice to people who hold out that just because theres no scientific evidence homeopathy works that it still might because some person says it works for them.

[Elind]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
No one here has said it was a conspiracy to kill her, not one. I have just pointed out discrepancies between the two accounts of what happened, Fool has wondered about other aspects of it. Skeptics input was completely irrelevent, abusive and ignorant. Maybe he should just read what people say for a change, rather than comment on what he thinks they said. As for calling here a b*tch, god help you.

I read Skeptics two scenarios. They seem commonsense, but you responded by evading them completely.

We all express displeasure with comments or commentators from time to time, but Fool seems to have a compulsion to start, or end, every sentence with a personal insult. I mostly skip his posts anymore.

As to the b*tch. From what I read about her, she is a rabid anti everything and a throwback to age of communism to boot. I hope she doesn't die, but I have no reason to express respect for her.

(PS. I didn't know you were a religious person. We should chat about god sometime, over in the other section).

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Elind
Fool. Cut the crap and conduct a debate. Your personal insults get tiresome to have to read, even partially.
Lol....

put me on ignore...

Is your line about one of the victims of this shooing being a communist b*itch who is seeking publicity the sort of standard of debate you wish me to aspire to?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by corplinx
Maybe the car wasn't speeding. Maybe it was going slightly faster than the other cars and a jumpy shoulder opened fire (at which point the other soldiers out of habit turn and fired also assuming there was a threat).

This is still a much more mundane rationale than a conspiracy theory that hinges on the word of a communist.

I still don't see why you keep holding out a lifeline for this nonsense. I'm not nice to people who hold out that just because theres no scientific evidence homeopathy works that it still might because some person says it works for them.
Well I think you are heading in the right direction...the truth of this matter does not have to be either the US army version or some kooky conspiracy theory as the false dichotomy crowd would have us think.

[Skeptic]

There are a lot more than two skeppers.....but two is all that your binary good/evil brain can handle ....how about american troops stuffed up? How about they shot up a car they should not have and manufactured the story that it was running a checkpoint to cover thier arses?

Doesn't sound like you have "more than two" scenarios there, "The Fool". Your "scenarios" seem to be:

Either:

1). There was a roadblock they didn't notice,

Or:

2). The US Army was evil and stupid in manner X.
3). The US Army was evil and stupid in manner Y.
4). The US Army was evil and stupid in manner Z.
5). The US Army was...

etc., etc.

The point of your verbal excercise seems to be: since there is one scenario you can imagine where the jouranlist was wrong, and 1,444,253 scenarios you can imagine where the US Army was evil and stupid, therefore the probability of her being wrong is 1/1,444,254, while the probabilit of the US Army being evil and stupid was 1,444,253/1,444,254.

I dunno--for some reason, this doesn't seem like REALLY having "more than two scenarios", is it? Not in any important sense. It seems like in reality you only have ONE choice--"it's the USA's fault"--which you already judge to be certain (or very nearly so). All that remains to determine is in what way exactly it happened.

So, I still prefer my brain. It's a low-grade, binary one, perhaps; two choices ("yes" or "no") aren't much, I grant you; but it's still better than your "Yes, YES, OH YES! it's all the USA's fault" one-choice brain, wouldn't you say? After all, two is better than one...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
There are a lot more than two skeppers.....but two is all that your binary good/evil brain can handle ....how about american troops stuffed up? How about they shot up a car they should not have and manufactured the story that it was running a checkpoint to cover thier arses?

Doesn't sound like you have "more than two" scenarios there, "The Fool". Your "scenarios" seem to be:

Either:

1). There was a roadblock they didn't notice,

Or:

2). The US Army was evil and stupid in manner X.
3). The US Army was evil and stupid in manner Y.
4). The US Army was evil and stupid in manner Z.
5). The US Army was...

etc., etc.

The point of your verbal excercise seems to be: since there is one scenario you can imagine where the jouranlist was wrong, and 1,444,253 scenarios you can imagine where the US Army was evil and stupid, therefore the probability of her being wrong is 1/1,444,254, while the probabilit of the US Army being evil and stupid was 1,444,253/1,444,254.

I dunno--for some reason, this doesn't seem like REALLY having "more than two scenarios", is it? Not in any important sense. It seems like in reality you only have ONE choice--"it's the USA's fault"--which you already judge to be certain (or very nearly so). All that remains to determine is in what way exactly it happened.

So, I still prefer my brain. It's a low-grade, binary one, perhaps; two choices ("yes" or "no") aren't much, I grant you; but it's still better than your "Yes, YES, OH YES! it's all the USA's fault" one-choice brain, wouldn't you say? After all, two is better than one...

OK, you've convinced me, its the the US Army being evil and stupid.

[Ace_of_Sevens]

The Fool, what are these other scenarios you keep referring to? Please offer some theories that aren't based on error on the part of driver or army or deliberate assassination. Anything I can come up with is terrorist set-up (which would be a form of army error anyway) or much stupider than any of the previously mentioned theories.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Ace_of_Sevens
The Fool, what are these other scenarios you keep referring to? Please offer some theories that aren't based on error on the part of driver or army or deliberate assassination.

Troops fired on innocent civilians. Ignoring deliberate assassination as too silly for words (*), this is not supposed to happen, so somebody has had to make an error -- either the civilians or the troops. How can The Fool be expected to present a scenario where nobody made an error, but the erronous situation (the shooting) still happened?


(*) Let's remember that the only person who has even hinted at that is the journalist herself, who is understandably rattled and angry at what happened, and can hardly be expected to by impartial and unbiased right now.

[Ace_of_Sevens]

That was my point. The Fool has chastizing people for not considering all possibilities. It seems to me that the theories presented cover the whole realm of possibilities. What are these possibilities people aren't being open to?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Ace_of_Sevens
That was my point. The Fool has chastizing people for not considering all possibilities. It seems to me that the theories presented cover the whole realm of possibilities. What are these possibilities people aren't being open to?

Not really. He chastized people for accepting without questions the US description of events (wich basically amounts to "We didn't do anything wrong! Honest!") and only consider the two options "Deliberate assassination by the US army" versus "Yep. The stupid Italians were just racing right at the checkpoint."

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Ace_of_Sevens
That was my point. The Fool has chastizing people for not considering all possibilities. It seems to me that the theories presented cover the whole realm of possibilities. What are these possibilities people aren't being open to?
Ace..

I was reminding those that presented a false dichotomy that there are quite a few possibilities of what happened....

false dichotomy 1. They drove at us really fast ignoring all our propper warnings, there was nothing we could do...

false dichotomy 2. Conspiracy theory that the US government through the army plotted and carried out an attempted assasination of an Italian journalist..

Read "skeptic"'s post, he is a great fan of false dichotomies. Thats how things are in his world.... Can you really not think of any other possibilities? With the background of a long history of Iraqis complaining that innocent people are being shot up by checkpoints? Even assuming this was a checkpoint at all?

I'll tell you this for nothing, if that car had contained a couple of baghdad bricklayers and thier dog this story would not have made the light of day....I guess these people just shot up the wrong car. Now, because of who was in it the ***** has hit the fan and the spin is going to make you dizzy.

I also took some people to task who did the usual thing of immediately starting to talk about the issue as if the claims of the US army were facts...ie, the car was speeding, there were signals, lights and warning shots, it was a checkpoint.....These claims are simply accepted as facts.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by IIRichard
I'm frankly surprised that anyone survived. My son served in Iraq and at least once manned a check point. A car tried to run the checkpoint or was unable to stop or whatever. The Marines couldn't tell how many people were in the car when the shooting was over.

The one shot through the windshield is only in the movies folks.

This lady was damn lucky.

Maybe they ran out of ammo.;)

[BPSCG]

Washington Post has some pretty good background on this today (March 7).

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12507-2005Mar6.html)

Some highlights:

The deadly shooting of an Italian intelligence officer by U.S. troops at a checkpoint near Baghdad on Friday was one of many incidents in which civilians have been killed by mistake at checkpoints in Iraq, including local police officers, women and children, according to military records, U.S. officials and human rights groups. Seems to me this lets a little air out of the "she was shot up because she was a commie" crowd.

The automobile was traversing onto a route -- the road to the airport -- where soldiers have been killed in shootings and by roadside bombs. U.S. soldiers had established an impromptu evening checkpoint at the entrance to the road about 90 minutes earlier and had stopped other vehicles. They knew a high-level embassy official would be moving to the airport on that road, and their aim was to support this movement.

But no specific coordination occurred between those involved in Sgrena's rescue and the military unit responsible for the checkpoint, according to the source, who said he cannot be named because the military's investigation into the incident is continuing. The reader is commended to the circumstances surrounding the 1863 accidental shooting death of Confederate General Thomas J. ("Stonewall") Jackson for some interesting parallels.

I think when the dust settles, the explanation for what happened will be far more prosaic than the conspiracy theories flying around here. Nervous troops in a danger zone, car approaching unexpectedly out of the darkness, "why doesn't he slow down?"...

[Ed]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Washington Post has some pretty good background on this today (March 7).

I think when the dust settles, the explanation for what happened will be far more prosaic than the conspiracy theories flying around here. Nervous troops in a danger zone, car approaching unexpectedly out of the darkness, "why doesn't he slow down?"...

Well, the soldiers were really members of the IDF.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Seems to me this lets a little air out of the "she was shot up because she was a commie" crowd.

What crowd? I haven't seen anyone suggest that.

I think when the dust settles, the explanation for what happened will be far more prosaic than the conspiracy theories flying around here.

I don't think anyone here has actually put forth a conspiracy as the reason for the incident.

Incidentally, there's an article in NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/07/international/middleeast/07patrols.html?hp&ex=1110258000&en=37202de82290cf6f&ei=5094&partner=homepage) about the US checkpoints in Iraq. You will need to register to read it if you haven't registered with the NY Times internet side already, although registration is free.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
What crowd? I haven't seen anyone suggest that.


From the OP:

"Don't believe a word of the U.S. version," said Oliviero Diliberto, secretary of the Italian Communist party. "There's an attempt to mask what actually happened. The Americans deliberately fired on the Italians."

[Elind]

Originally posted by The Fool
Lol....

put me on ignore...

Is your line about one of the victims of this shooing being a communist b*itch who is seeking publicity the sort of standard of debate you wish me to aspire to?

I didn't call you names. That woman is making far more insulting allegations about Americans without a shred of proof except her well document hatred of the US and love of certain "freedom" fighters. In fact she sounds like she has a lot in common with you, but I didn't call you names and should I have the occassion to debate with her, I probably wouldn't either. However as a simple expression of contempt, without being too wordy, b*tch makes the point, don't you think?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The Italians had already told the US they would be coming, and had already passed through checkpoints on the way to the airport. That statement appears to be in dispute, again according to the Washington Post article I quoted and linked earlier.

Re-quoting:The automobile was traversing onto a route -- the road to the airport -- where soldiers have been killed in shootings and by roadside bombs. U.S. soldiers had established an impromptu evening checkpoint at the entrance to the road about 90 minutes earlier and had stopped other vehicles. They knew a high-level embassy official would be moving to the airport on that road, and their aim was to support this movement.

But no specific coordination occurred between those involved in Sgrena's rescue and the military unit responsible for the checkpoint, according to the source, who said he cannot be named because the military's investigation into the incident is continuing.

[Mycroft]

It seems someone paid a hefty ransom to get this journalist released.

Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera reported yesterday that the Italian Government had paid a ransom of between E6-8million ($10-13.4million) to buy Sgrena's freedom. It also claimed the car's injured driver told Italian investigators the Americans "knew everything about our mission".

More than 10 million.

I wonder how many people will die because this group of insurgents has this money?

[Kevin_Lowe]

I read an article about US soldiers killing journalists in Iraq recently.


At noon on April 8, a US Abrams tank fired at the Palestine Hotel, home and office to more than 100 unembedded international journalists operating in Baghdad at the time. The shell smashed into the fifteenth-floor Reuters office, killing two cameramen, Reuters's Taras Protsyuk and José Couso of Spain's Telecinco. The United States again claimed that its forces had come under enemy fire and were acting in self-defense. This claim was contradicted by scores of journalists who were in the hotel and by a French TV crew that filmed the attack. In its report on the incident, the Committee to Protect Journalists asserted that "Pentagon officials, as well as commanders on the ground in Baghdad, knew that the Palestine Hotel was full of international journalists."

In a chilling statement at the end of that day in Iraq, then-Pentagon spokesperson Victoria Clarke spelled out the Pentagon's policy on journalists not embedded with US troops. She warned them that Baghdad "is not a safe place. You should not be there."


http://www.democracynow.org/static/Eason_Jordan.shtml


As others have pointed out, if the US armed forces really wanted to kill this woman they didn't do a terribly good job.

However given that this is just one more in a string of disturbing incidents where US forces have "accidentally" fired on independent journalists, I can see how she might at least have entertained the idea that it wasn't purely an accident.

I also understand (from fark.com) that in her most recent interview she's said she doesn't have any reason to believe the incident was anything other than a mistake. So I'm not sure that anyone at all is advancing a conspiracy thery at this point.

[TragicMonkey]

I think it's appalling that war zones are not perfectly safe places to be. Someone should be held accountable!

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I think it's appalling that war zones are not perfectly safe places to be. Someone should be held accountable!

Iraq isn't really a war zone any more though, is it?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Iraq isn't really a war zone any more though, is it?

Yes, yes it is. For all the talk about "democratic" Iraq, the fact is it's still a country under occupation where people are constantly shooting at each other.

Someone once said that reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, continues to exist. Reality is, Iraq is a war zone.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Cleon
Yes, yes it is. For all the talk about "democratic" Iraq, the fact is it's still a country under occupation where people are constantly shooting at each other.

Yes, but in my mind that doesn't actually constitute a "war zone." Hazardous yes; violent yes -- but there's no war going on -- even if there are soldiers, they are engaged in an occupation, not engaging in war.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Yes, but in my mind that doesn't actually constitute a "war zone." Hazardous yes; violent yes -- but there's no war going on -- even if there are soldiers, they are engaged in an occupation, not engaging in war.

That's just semantics. What is occupation, if not ongoing war? If there isn't a war going on, why is there an occupation?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Cleon
That's just semantics. What is occupation, if not ongoing war? If there isn't a war going on, why is there an occupation?

Hmm. I think it's more a matter of precision than semantics -- a war zone is dangerous for different reasons and in different ways than an occupation zone.

To take an example from history -- even though there were resistance fighting going on in Vichy France during the World War II, it would be wrong to describe France as a war zone until the invasion at Normandy.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Hmm. I think it's more a matter of precision than semantics -- a war zone is dangerous for different reasons and in different ways than an occupation zone. Insurrection zone.

[BobK]

Dateline ROME, Italy CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/06/italy.iraq/index.html)
In an article published Sunday in her communist newspaper, Il Manifesto, Giuliana Sgrena wrote, "Our car was driving slowly," and "the Americans fired without motive." (Read the article) (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/06/il.manifesto/index.html)
The article does not say what CNN put in quotes. As a matter of fact it says the exact opposite.The car kept on the road, going under an underpass full of puddles and almost losing control to avoid them. We all incredibly laughed. It was liberating. Losing control of the car in a street full of water in Baghdad and maybe wind up in a bad car accident after all I had been through would really be a tale I would not be able to tell.

Almost losing control avoiding puddles? Doesn't sound very slow to me.

Boy! That CNN sure has a lot of credibility. Doesn't it?

[LTC8K6]

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2005_03.php#009776

She seems to have credibility problems.....

They paid for her too.......unbelievable......

[LTC8K6]

I am seriously entertaining the idea that this was just a stunt to raise money for her friends......

She begs and pleads on the video, but then says her captors were nice and they assured her they would not kill her.

[RandFan]

I've got to go with Kevin_Lowe on this. I have problems with both accounts. I'm very troubled that this woman was fired on. I understand that there is an account that would justify the firing if it were true. However it is difficult to understand why someone would be acting in such a dangerous fashion under such dangerous circumstances.

One more point, and perhaps it is a given. The American Governemnt must accept a certain amount of responsibility. The dangerous situation exists in part because we are there.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2005_03.php#009776

She seems to have credibility problems.....

In what ways? I don't see how the link you posted shows that she does.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
I am seriously entertaining the idea that this was just a stunt to raise money for her friends...... What a sad and cynical world we live in. I hope not. If it turns out to be true I think she would be culpable in this individuals murder.

[LTC8K6]

She changes her account of the incident several times. First they were driving slow, then they were out of control in the rain. First there was no light, then there was a light.

300-400 rounds fired and there were survivors? Tanks were firing too? Either we have the worst shooters in the history of warfare, or there were a lot of warning shots fired......

She went to the U.S. military for treatment, yet we wanted to assassinate her?

A huge ransom was paid for her......

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050307-120131-5769r.htm

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
She changes her account of the incident several times. First they were driving slow, then they were out of control in the rain. First there was no light, then there was a light.

300-400 rounds fired and there were survivors? Tanks were firing too? Either we have the worst shooters in the history of warfare, or there were a lot of warning shots fired......

She went to the U.S. military for treatment, yet we wanted to assassinate her?

A huge ransom was paid for her......

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050307-120131-5769r.htm

Let me, for once and for all, lay this issue to rest...



Giuliana Sgrena wrote:
, "Our car was driving slowly,...

I've spent a few months in Italy and I find that statement to be absolutely laughable.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
She changes her account of the incident several times.

Considering the stress she has been under, I think that's only to be expected, really.

First they were driving slow, then they were out of control in the rain. First there was no light, then there was a light.

I can't see she's ever said that they were "out of control in the rain," and if she's said there was a light, I haven't seen that statement.

300-400 rounds fired and there were survivors? Tanks were firing too?[SNIP]

Where does these claims come from?

She went to the U.S. military for treatment, yet we wanted to assassinate her?

She was just released from a month long stay as a hostage, then she was shot at by US troops and had a man die literally ontop of her. I don't think a few angry, thoughtless comments spoken just days after that happened somehow completely shatters her credibility.

Yes, insinuating that the US military had deliberatedly tried to assassinate her was a stupid thing to do; but given her situation it's an understandable stupidity. People who get shot at do take it personal, even when the situation is clearly inpersonal; and they get angry, and they shoot their mouth off. That doesn't mean they are not credible -- only that they are wrong, and that they are angry.

A huge ransom was paid for her......

And that destroyes her credibility in just what way?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by The Fool

And as for your analogy.. Do you think I am incapable of murder?

I don't think you're capable of matching your shoes with the correct feet on the first try.

But back to the matter at hand... it seems the murderous US troops were able to divine the occupants of the car by psychic prowess alone. (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050307-120131-5769r.htm) How else would they have known, since even the Italians seem to be admitting they didn't communicate with US forces?
The decision by operatives of Italy's SISMI military intelligence service to keep the CIA in the dark about the deal for the release of reporter Giuliana Sgrena, might have "short-circuited" communications with U.S. forces controlling the road from Baghdad to the city's airport, the newspaper La Stampa said.

Wow, looks like the Pentagon was right all along. Even Little Miss Lenin is sheathing the hammer and sickle these days.

Miss Sgrena, whose newspaper ardently opposes Italy's deployment of 3,000 troops in Iraq as part of the U.S.-led coalition, offered no direct evidence to support the charge and toned down the suggestion in a later interview with Reuters.

"If this happened because of a lack of information or deliberately, I don't know, but even if it was due to a lack of information, it is unacceptable," she said from her hospital room.

How you like that? Please, Fool, do carry on lecturing about Occam's Razor for us. It's much more entertaining than the real thing.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Jocko


But back to the matter at hand... it seems the murderous US troops were able to divine the occupants of the car by psychic prowess alone. (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050307-120131-5769r.htm) How else would they have known, since even the Italians seem to be admitting they didn't communicate with US forces?


Wow, looks like the Pentagon was right all along. Even Little Miss Lenin is sheeathing the hammer and sickle these days.

Again, nobody in this thread is arguing in favour of the scenario that the Americans deliberatedly shot at someone they knew were Italians, so who are you talking to?

(Edited for clarity.)

[Rob Lister]

The Americans shone a flashlight at the car and then fired between 300 and 400 bullets at if from an armoured vehicle.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1431436,00.html

http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/sgrena-car.jpg

Unless this was an eposide of "A Team", I recommend our soldiers get a little more practice at the firing range.

Lief, the problem is that the press, in general, is reporting her account of the incident as fact while ignoring, it would seem, the inconsistancies. It clearly did not happen the way she described it -- first hand. It likely did not happen the way the U.S. Officials described it -- second/third hand either, but who do you think I'm going to believe?

ETA: I could easily be mistaken but I note, in particular, two .50 cal rounds -- one through the front-right bumper (edit again-i take that back) and another through the front-left fender. I suspect many more penetrated the radiator and possibly even the firewall (whoa be the driver) probably in an attempt to disable the vehicle by penetrating the engine block.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Again, nobody in this thread is arguing in favour of the scenario that the Americans deliberatedly shot at someone they knew were Italians, so who are you talking to?

(Edited for clarity.)

Well, for starters, Little Miss Lenin and the Fool, who instantly believed every paranoid word she said (obliquely, of course, 'cuz da Fool don't play dat straight answers game, yo). That's why I responded to his post and not yours.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
...but who do you think I'm going to believe?

Oh come on, if you can't trust a rabidly anti-American commie who described the way she cozied up to her "captors," who can you trust?

Christ, what a harpy she is. No wonder they let her go. If SISMI just played it cool for a few more days, they probably could have gotten the abductors to pay THEM to remove her.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1431436,00.html

http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/sgrena-car.jpg

Unless this was an eposide of "A Team", I recommend our soldiers get a little more practice at the firing range.

Agreed. The "300-400 bullets" number is not plausible. However, the article doesn't make it clear where the number is taken from.

Lief, the problem is that the press, in general, is reporting her account of the incident as fact while ignoring, it would seem, the inconsistancies.

That's not my impression. The news reports I've read have all pretty much separated between the actual facts on one side, and Sgrena's statements about the incident on the other -- most of the has also mentioned that Sgrena's version is disputed by the US army.

It clearly did not happen the way she described it -- first hand.

What's so clearly about that? If we disregard her innuendo that it was deliberate (which she never actually stated as fact,) which of her statements about what happened is clearly wrong?

It likely did not happen the way the U.S. Officials described it -- second/third hand either, but who do you think I'm going to believe?

You don't have to believe either side -- the truth might be something in between.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Leif Roar

You don't have to believe either side -- the truth might be something in between.

Well, so far the "journalist" has been wrong on several counts. I have yet to hear anything to contradict the Pentagon's version, except all the hastily-recanted venom spewing from a hospital bed in Rome.

No, I don't mean the Pope.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Jocko
Well, for starters, Little Miss Lenin and the Fool, who instantly believed every paranoid word she said (obliquely, of course, 'cuz da Fool don't play dat straight answers game, yo).

Sgrena is not participating on this thread, and The Fool has not once even hinted at the shooting having been intentional. In his very first post in this thread he said he didn't consider the assassination scenario to be likely.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Jocko
Well, so far the "journalist" has been wrong on several counts.

Which particular counts has she been wrong on, and how can you tell?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Jocko
Christ, what a harpy she is. No wonder they let her go. If SISMI just played it cool for a few more days, they probably could have gotten the abductors to pay THEM to remove her. :roll:
The Ransom of Red Chief (http://eserver.org/fiction/the-ransom-of-red-chief.html)

[BobK]

Agreed. The "300-400 bullets" number is not plausible. However, the article doesn't make it clear where the number is taken from.

Perhaps from here (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002199261_usitaly07.html)

Sgrena's editor at the daily Il Manifesto, Gabriele Polo, said Italian officials told him 300 to 400 rounds were fired at the car.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Rob Lister

http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/sgrena-car.jpg


This isn't the car she was rescued in. This is the car she was kidnapped in. News agencies have been digging up file footage and displaying it while talking about the shooting.

Personally, I am impressed they were able to stop a car with high caliber gunfire without killing everyone inside, especially leaving the driver completely uninjured.

[LTC8K6]

That car has no connection to this incident whatsoever. The AP used a picture of a car that was hit by the kidnappers when they took Sgrena.

The AP hasn't bothered to mention this error to anyone yet.

Version where she says we shined a light and then opened fire:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1431436,00.html

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Which particular counts has she been wrong on, and how can you tell?

Perhaps I overstated it. She has been retracting the romantic tale of her rescue piece by piece, and not much of the original is left. The Pentagon's story hasn't changed (unless I've missed something). Her inconsistencies don't make her a liar... but they do make her a crappy journalist to be sure.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Sgrena is not participating on this thread, and The Fool has not once even hinted at the shooting having been intentional. In his very first post in this thread he said he didn't consider the assassination scenario to be likely.

Neither, upon sober reflection, does Sgrena apparently. So why are we - or anyone else in the world - even having this discussion?

Simple.

It's because there's a dark current of sentiment permeating a lot of people's thoughts right now: "If the US didn't try to assassinate her, then they MUST be guilty of something equally bad... "

The question has been posed thus: Rank incompetence, or murderous rage? The troops are damned either way. The third - and OBVIOUS - option is that they did their jobs correctly. Not much said about that, perhaps because it's TOO obvious, just the kind of thing those sneaky American imperialists would want us to believe...?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Jocko
The question has been posed thus: Rank incompetence, or murderous rage? The troops are damned either way. The third - and OBVIOUS - option is that they did their jobs correctly. Not much said about that, perhaps because it's TOO obvious, just the kind of thing those sneaky American imperialists would want us to believe...?

Frankly, I find it rather implausible (but by all means possible) that a professional intelligence officer would speed towards a military checkpoint manned by friendly soldiers, ignore hand- and light signals and not even stop when warning shots are fired, but instead leave the troops no choice but to fire.

I find it more believable that someone at the check-point made a mistake and opened fire at the car without giving it sufficient warning to stop.

Soldiers in potentially hostile situations are often nervous, and nervous soldiers do sometimes fire when they shouldn't. Always has, always will. Speeding towards a military checkpoint, however, takes an entirely different level of plain brainless incompetence, which is why I find that less likely.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Version where she says we shined a light and then opened fire:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1431436,00.html

The writing is pretty muddled, but it doesn't actually state that she said that "The Americans shone a flashlight at the car and then fired..."

[LTC8K6]

Keep in mind that she and her partner are openly communist, they work for a communist paper, and they have made no secret of their hatred of the west and their love for the terrorist underdogs since way back.

They would not hesitate to lie about American troops, imo.

The huge payoff by Italy to these terrorist scum is absolutely despicable......

If there is any justice in the world, this will come back around to them.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Soldiers in potentially hostile situations are often nervous, and nervous soldiers do sometimes fire when they shouldn't. Always has, always will. Speeding towards a military checkpoint, however, takes an entirely different level of plain brainless incompetence, which is why I find that less likely. Would you say it was brainlessly incompetent for an army general to go out with a small party, beyond his lines, at night, to reconnoiter the enemy's positions, then return to his lines by a different route, thereby drawing friendly fire from his own soldiers, who were not expecting him?

That's what Stonewall Jackson did in May, 1863. Got killed for his troubles. And he knew a little more about being in a war zone than an Italian security guard and driver, I would bet.

People do stupid things all the time.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jocko

How you like that? Please, Fool, do carry on lecturing about Occam's Razor for us. It's much more entertaining than the real thing.
Get back to demonising the victims Jocko old son....Times a wastin.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Keep in mind that she and her partner are openly communist, they work for a communist paper, and they have made no secret of their hatred of the west and their love for the terrorist underdogs since way back.

They would not hesitate to lie about American troops, imo.

Oh please. That has to be worst example of argument ad hominem I've seen on JREF all day. "She's nothing but a lying commie bitch."

The huge payoff by Italy to these terrorist scum is absolutely despicable......

Yes, but Sgrena had no part in arranging that.

If there is any justice in the world, this will come back around to them.

Just who "them" are you referring to here?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Would you say it was brainlessly incompetent for an army general to go out with a small party, beyond his lines, at night, to reconnoiter the enemy's positions, then return to his lines by a different route, thereby drawing friendly fire from his own soldiers, who were not expecting him?

Hmm. Not so much brainless incompetence and thoughtless stupidity. Not quite as stupid, but pretty darned stupid still.


That's what Stonewall Jackson did in May, 1863. Got killed for his troubles. And he knew a little more about being in a war zone than an Italian security guard and driver, I would bet.

On the other hand, the Italian driver probably knew a lot more about driving up to a checkpoint manned by soldiers with automatic weapons than Stonewall Jackson did.


People do stupid things all the time.

Of course, and I'm not saying the Italian driver didn't cause this incident, only that I find it more plausible that the soldiers manning the checkpoint did.

[Skeptic]

Christ, what a harpy she is. No wonder they let her go. If SISMI just played it cool for a few more days, they probably could have gotten the abductors to pay THEM to remove her.

"Listen, Abdul, we've just got to get rid of her. One more lecture on the continuing opression of the proletariat by the American imperialists as I'm trying to sleep, and I swear I'll do something we'll all regret later."

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jocko
Well, for starters, Little Miss Lenin and the Fool, who instantly believed every paranoid word she said (obliquely, of course, 'cuz da Fool don't play dat straight answers game, yo). That's why I responded to his post and not yours.

liar....

but what more can we expect, what amazes me the most is the way you can lie about stuff that is there for all to see....oh well, whats the point in trying to figure what motivates you..

can you show me where I have expressed belief in "every paranoid word she said"?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by RussDill
This isn't the car she was rescued in. This is the car she was kidnapped in. News agencies have been digging up file footage and displaying it while talking about the shooting.

Personally, I am impressed they were able to stop a car with high caliber gunfire without killing everyone inside, especially leaving the driver completely uninjured.

My thought exactly. 300-400 bullets is about 10-12 M-16 ammo clips. If only one bullet in ten hit the car, everybody in it should have been dead.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by The Fool
liar....

I don't think he's lying as much as he's responding to what he thinks you've said, rather than what you've actually said. It's a common disease on internet fora, and one I must admit I'm not wholly free of myself at times.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Skeptic
My thought exactly. 300-400 bullets is about 10-12 M-16 ammo clips. If only one bullet in ten hit the car, everybody in it should have been dead.

I think if you are stopping a car from speeding into a checkpoint, m16 fire is secondary. I'm pretty sure the procedure is to fire 50 caliber ammunition directly into the engine block.

[LTC8K6]

Oh please. That has to be worst example of argument ad hominem I've seen on JREF all day. "She's nothing but a lying commie bitch."

You said it better than me.


Yes, but Sgrena had no part in arranging that.

No one but those Commies knows about that. The idea that anyone would pay such an outrageous sum to terrorists is very fishy to me. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the money transfer was just part of the plan. Her change in attitude regarding her captors is startling to me.

During:
Help me! They're going to kill me! Pull out of Iraq!

After:
"But the veteran reporter said her kidnappers had treated her well and had assured her they did not plan to kill her.

"The kidnappers seemed to me to be a very religious group, praying continually from the Koran," she wrote."


Just who "them" are you referring to here?

Italy? Perhaps an IED or an RPG purchased with this money will come home to roost? No doubt whatsoever that the money will be used to kill people..... these italians are betting that it will be used to kill other folks...... disgusting.




Sgrena again says we shined a light first:

"It wasn't a checkpoint, but a patrol that opened fire straight after it shone a beacon on us.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12461786%5E2703,00.html

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
I don't think he's lying as much as he's responding to what he thinks you've said, rather than what you've actually said. It's a common disease on internet fora, and one I must admit I'm not wholly free of myself at times.
well we will have to agree to disagree....Jocko's normal reaction to anything where US forces may be subject to critisizm is to generate as much fog and mirrors as possible...demonising the victims and misrepresenting the posts of others are his stock approach.

He can read, he knows he is lying.....

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Sgrena again says we shined a light first:

And this conflicts with what other statements she has made? (And just for the record, I do not consider "shining a beacon at" and "giving light signals" to necessarily be the same; and I also think that it would be very easy for someone to mistake the two -- so I don't consider her statement that there was "no light signals" to be in conflict.)

[Jocko]

Originally posted by The Fool
Get back to demonising the victims Jocko old son....Times a wastin.

I'd prefer to keep watching you defend her story.. whenever she gets it straight, that is.

In this equation, there are only two people with serious doubts about the troops' conduct... you, and her.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jocko
I'd prefer to keep watching you defend her story.. whenever she gets it straight, that is.

In this equation, there are only two people with serious doubts about the troops' conduct... you, and her.
Certainly no chance of you ever doubting a US army statement eh Mr independant thinker?


Your apologist tactics are seriously boring, you want to demonise this woman and you want to place me as a believer in her claims...which is, of course, not supportable from what has actually been written by me...but thats never worried you in the past has it?

straight up liar....are you proud of that?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Jocko
I'd prefer to keep watching you defend her story.. whenever she gets it straight, that is.

In this equation, there are only two people with serious doubts about the troops' conduct... you, and her.

*raises hand* I think I've expressed as much doubt about the troop's conduct as The Fool has -- that is, I consider it likely that the incident was caused by an error by the soldiers manning the checkpoint.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jocko
Well, for starters, Little Miss Lenin and the Fool, who instantly believed every paranoid word she said (obliquely, of course, 'cuz da Fool don't play dat straight answers game, yo). That's why I responded to his post and not yours.

More outright lies. You have no idea, or proof, or any evidence, that the Fool was saying anything other than what he thought. You are one more liar, peddling misinformation that is only available to a select few JREF posters with remarkable psychic powers.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
*raises hand* I think I've expressed as much doubt about the troop's conduct as The Fool has -- that is, I consider it likely that the incident was caused by an error by the soldiers manning the checkpoint.
Please don't stand in the way of an out of control liar, you may get run over....

Don't worry leif, jocko goes into lying frenzies like this every so often....he probably won't even remember it in the morning.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
*raises hand* I think I've expressed as much doubt about the troop's conduct as The Fool has -- that is, I consider it likely that the incident was caused by an error by the soldiers manning the checkpoint.

That's all I've seen said here. It appears that the Italians knew about the existing roadblocks, the existing checkpoints knew the Italians were coming. This one was put up ad hoc, and the confusion that followed produced the tragedy that resulted. It shows, at the least, why an occupation by armed forces is to be avoided. Troops are trained to kill, that's what they do. You deploy them only when you have no alternative.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
That's all I've seen said here. It appears that the Italians knew about the existing roadblocks, the existing checkpoints knew the Italians were coming. This one was put up ad hoc, and the confusion that followed produced the tragedy that resulted. It shows, at the least, why an occupation by armed forces is to be avoided. Troops are trained to kill, that's what they do. You deploy them only when you have no alternative.


thats why the also fired DU into all the other cars that went through that checkpoint that night.

[Skeptic]

More outright lies. You have no idea, or proof, or any evidence, that the Fool was saying anything other than what he thought.

The problem, AUP, is that both you and TF use the "let's blame israel/the USA by insinuation without exactly saying so" in, just about, every post you make.

Your standard method of doing so is feigning "open mindedness" and "fairness" between two stories: israel says its soldiers did not eat Palestinian babies, Islamic Jihad says they did, so "the jury is still out". The USA says it didn't use chemical warheads, some taliban supporter on the internet says it did, so "the jury is still out".

This is the exact same method used by, for instance, the creationists: hey, evolutionists say the earth was created a long time ago and species evolved, we say it was created 6000 years ago in its present form, so all we demand is for students to "suspend disbelief" and "be fair"; or by holocaust deniers: some say the nazis exterminated the jews of Europe, some say they didn't and it's all a propaganda lie by the zionists, so let's suspend disbelief and teach both sides. After all, you don't want to AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME the holocaust happened just because some people say so, right, Mr. Skeptical thinker?

In reality, however, your "skepticism" is obviously completely one-sided--like that of the creationists and holocaust deniers. By a curious conincidence, your completely objective judgment only seems to be "suspend" when considering the possiblity that what the US or israel said is, in fact, true; while on the other hand just about any tall tale told by the Jihadists or their fellow travelers is aceepted lock, stock and barrel, with you loudly demanding that in those cases, the skeptics must prove it ISN'T true.

Of course, again like the creationists and holocaust deniers, when when someone dares to question your oh-so-objective "skepticism" and "suspension of judgment", you roll your eyes with wounded innocence: "Who, me???? Can you PROVE I really am biased???? I am just suspending judgment because I want THE TRUTH!!!".

Who do you two think you're fooling, I have no idea...

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
More outright lies. You have no idea, or proof, or any evidence, that the Fool was saying anything other than what he thought.

The problem, AUP, is that both you and TF use the "let's blame israel/the USA by insinuation without exactly saying so" in, just about, every post you make.

Your standard method of doing so is feigning "open mindedness" and "fairness" between two stories: israel says its soldiers did not eat Palestinian babies, Islamic Jihad says they did, so "the jury is still out". The USA says it didn't use chemical warheads, some taliban supporter on the internet says it did, so "the jury is still out".

This is the exact same method used by, for instance, the creationists: hey, evolutionists say the earth was created a long time ago and species evolved, we say it was created 6000 years ago in its present form, so all we demand is for students to "suspend disbelief" and "be fair"; or by holocaust deniers: some say the nazis exterminated the jews of Europe, some say they didn't and it's all a propaganda lie by the zionists, so let's suspend disbelief and teach both sides. After all, you don't want to AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME the holocaust happened just because some people say so, right, Mr. Skeptical thinker?

In reality, however, your "skepticism" is obviously completely one-sided--like that of the creationists and holocaust deniers. By a curious conincidence, your completely objective judgment only seems to be "suspend" when considering the possiblity that what the US or israel said is, in fact, true; while on the other hand just about any tall tale told by the Jihadists or their fellow travelers is aceepted lock, stock and barrel, with you loudly demanding that in those cases, the skeptics must prove it ISN'T true.

Of course, again like the creationists and holocaust deniers, when when someone dares to question your oh-so-objective "skepticism" and "suspension of judgment", you roll your eyes with wounded innocence: "Who, me???? Can you PROVE I really am biased???? I am just suspending judgment because I want THE TRUTH!!!".

Who do you two think you're fooling, I have no idea...

Please understand folks...this amateur psychic regards himself as a skeptic...


Accept that what the US army says about this particular incident as being the one and only truth or you are the same as a creationist or a holocaust denier?....whatever.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Oh please. That has to be worst example of argument ad hominem I've seen on JREF all day. "She's nothing but a lying commie bitch."


First, unless someone else said it, I said "commie bitch", not liar. Someone else here, actually two, say liar whenever they have a disagreement of any sort (as in...pants on fire).

Second, you sound pompous with your "ad hominem" categorization. She probably doesn't know what she is saying or remembering from one minute to the next, but she is a commie (communist sounds too respectable) and she is a despicable person given her support for terrorists. Bitch seem a perfectly reasonable and concise way of expressing an opinion of her, don't you think?

Next thing you know we'll find she set it all up with her "nice" kidnappers.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by The Fool
Certainly no chance of you ever doubting a US army statement eh Mr independant thinker?

No more than you passing up the chance to latch onto any straw to hopefully, maybe, possibly look down your nose at the US. A rapidly-changing tale from a biased source? No problem, as long as it props up your shaky worldview, right, Fool?


Your apologist tactics are seriously boring, you want to demonise this woman and you want to place me as a believer in her claims...which is, of course, not supportable from what has actually been written by me...but thats never worried you in the past has it?

straight up liar....are you proud of that?

Am I proud of making you cry? Yes. Do I care that you are changing your spots as fast as the "reporter" in question? Not really. Oh, nice touch going with "woman" instead of "reporter," much easier to make it look like asexism/racism/bigotry/neocon/whatever issue instead.

Any luck with those shoes, by the way? Or have you finally gone with the velcro?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jocko


Am I proud of making you cry? Yes. Do I care that you are changing your spots as fast as the "reporter" in question? Not really. Oh, nice touch going with "woman" instead of "reporter," much easier to make it look like asexism/racism/bigotry/neocon/whatever issue instead.

Any luck with those shoes, by the way? Or have you finally gone with the velcro?

so...you enter threads with the aim of telling lies to try to get other posters to cry?

Lol... how old are you son, and do your parents know you are on the pc?

[Skeptic]

Please understand folks...this amateur psychic regards himself as a skeptic...

I don't see what is "psychic" about it: it's a conclusion reached after reading literally hundreds of your posts. It requires no more "psychic" power than figuring out, solely from his internet posts, that James Randi is a skeptic...

Accept that what the US army says about this particular incident as being the one and only truth or you are the same as a creationist or a holocaust denier?

But your position isn't "I refuse to accept what the US army says is the one and only truth". It really is, "I automatically assume the US army is lying about everything and that its accussers are invariably correct."

How do I know this? Well, consider David Irving: he claims not to be a holocaust denier, and merely "skeptical" of it. But in reality, he is ONLY and INVARIABLY skeptical of those who say the holocaust happened, giving the deniers (or the self-interested post-war claims by the perpetrators that they "didn't know anything") a free pass. For this reason, a court recently ruled that his "skeptical" attitude is nothing but a transparent smokescreen, and that his real position is rather obviously that the holocaust never happened.

Same with you. It is easy to see that this is your real position because, whenever there are two versions (USA's version and somebody else's), you are ONLY and INVARIABLY "skeptical" of USA's version, either ignoring or openly defending the other side's story. Thus, and by the same logic as that of the court which ruled against Irving, it is easy to see that your real position is that the USA is evil, and that your "skepticism" charade is merely a verbal smokescreen.

If you don't want to be compared to holocaust deniers and creationists, well, perhaps you should stop using the very same "but I am just ASKING/ I am just being SKEPTICAL" propaganda methods they use, hmmmm?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Please understand folks...this amateur psychic regards himself as a skeptic...

I don't see what is "psychic" about it: it's a conclusion reached after reading literally hundreds of your posts. It requires no more "psychic" power than figuring out, solely from his internet posts, that James Randi is a skeptic...

Accept that what the US army says about this particular incident as being the one and only truth or you are the same as a creationist or a holocaust denier?

But your position isn't "I refuse to accept what the US army says is the one and only truth". It really is, "I automatically assume the US army is lying about everything and that its accussers are invariably correct."

How do I know this? Well, consider David Irving: he claims not to be a holocaust denier, and merely "skeptical" of it. But in reality, he is ONLY and INVARIABLY skeptical of those who say the holocaust happened, giving the deniers (or the self-interested post-war claims by the perpetrators that they "didn't know anything") a free pass. For this reason, a court recently ruled that his "skeptical" attitude is nothing but a transparent smokescreen, and that his real position is rather obviously that the holocaust never happened.

Same with you. It is easy to see that this is your real position because, whenever there are two versions (USA's version and somebody else's), you are ONLY and INVARIABLY "skeptical" of USA's version, either ignoring or openly defending the other side's story. Thus, and by the same logic as that of the court which ruled against Irving, it is easy to see that your real position is that the USA is evil, and that your "skepticism" charade is merely a verbal smokescreen.

If you don't want to be compared to holocaust deniers and creationists, well, perhaps you should stop using the very same "but I am just ASKING/ I am just being SKEPTICAL" propaganda methods they use, hmmmm?
stfu about the holocaust for one minute ...not every thread has to gravitate towards your personal wierd fetishes. If you want to rant on about holocaust deniers start a thread about them...

two simple questions....Have a go at them, extra points will be awarded if you can avoid ranting about the holocaust....The US army has made a statement about this shooting. Do you accept it as the truth? Do you believe ANY other explanation is possible?

[demon]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ceo_esq
Indeed. And what credibility, a priori, would demon accord to the testimony of (for example) decorated American servicemen?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Elind
About as much as the journalist in question. She was there to dig dirt on the US, nothing more, and she was most likely released because she truthfully pleaded support for the insurgents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gee let's see Elind.
Almost all pro-Coalition journalists go to Iraq partly to dig up dirt on and publish crap about the insurgents and the "war". Almost 100% of them strongly support the Coalition invaders. According to your twisted logic, 0% of the pro-Coalition journos over there are, therefore, reliable sources.

When you are done genuflecting before power, go fill up on twinkies.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by demon
[BGee let's see Elind.
Almost all pro-Coalition journalists go to Iraq partly to dig up dirt on and publish crap about the insurgents and the "war". Almost 100% of them strongly support the Coalition invaders. According to your twisted logic, 0% of the pro-Coalition journos over there are, therefore, reliable sources.

When you are done genuflecting before power, go fill up on twinkies. [/B]

Can you name any of these pro-Coalition journalists?

[demon]

We all know, without a doubt and beyond question that many US armed forces shoot first and ask questions, if at all, later. Thats a fact, period, full stop. End of debate on that score. They have little or no regard for human life and we know it to be true. They deliberately fire on anyone and everyone, as far as they are concerned Iraq is a free fire zone.

Did these particular Italians want to die? Did they ignore warnings and think to themselves that the Americans wont really shoot at us, and if they do we will write to the US embassy and complain afterwards? I dont think so.

Were the Americans in question told to kill all the people in the car because it carried Italians who were digging up dirt on the occupation? Were the Americans in question told that a car carrying Italians was not to be fired on, as is usuall practice withoutout warning, because it carried Italians who are not the enemy? I dont think so.

****, American forces claim dying unarmed men lying on the ground bleeding to death and barely breathing are a threat.

They don t shoot because they are scared so much as they are trained to shoot "things". Be it British soldiers on the last day of the war or women and children, and yes, they are trained to do just that.

The point is, this is not the exception but the rule. Yes, I`d say they were targeted (but probably not in any conspiatorial way), because everyone and anyone is. You only have to look at the "revenge for 9/11" stuff to know that.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by demon
We all know, without a doubt and beyond question that many US armed forces shoot first and ask questions, if at all, later. Thats a fact, period, full stop. End of debate on that score. They have little or no regard for human life and we know it to be true. They deliberately fire on anyone and everyone, as far as they are concerned Iraq is a free fire zone.


:dl:

[demon]

"Prosecutors in Rome, who have opened an inquiry into Calipari's death, announced last night that Italian officials in Iraq had taken possession of the car in which he was travelling with Ms Sgrena when he was killed.
They said that it would be flown back to Italy for a forensic examination. Their investigation continues to be classified as a murder inquiry."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/italy/story/0,12576,1432655,00.html

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by demon
We all know, without a doubt and beyond question that many US armed forces shoot first and ask questions, if at all, later.

I, for one, certainly don't "know that without a doubt and beyond question."

[Skeptic]

We all know, without a doubt and beyond question that many US armed forces shoot first and ask questions, if at all, later. Thats a fact, period, full stop. End of debate on that score.

We all know, without a doubt and beyond question, that demon likes to molest little children. Thats a fact, period, full stop. End of debate on that score.

We all know, without a doubt and beyond question, that the earth is flat. That's a fact, period, full stop. End of debate on that score.

We all know, without a doubt and beyond question, that 2+2=17. That's a fact, period, full stop. End of debate on that score.

(This is fun, isn't it?)

And don't you start contradicting me and saying you aren't a child molester, demon--I SAID that it's the end of the debate, so there!

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
I, for one, certainly don't "know that without a doubt and beyond question."

Here you go debating again! Didn't you HEAR demon said that he's right and that's the "end of the debate on that score"? Please try to keep up--demon had already announced THE TRUTH(tm). It's no longer debatable.

[LTC8K6]

http://www.corriere.it/english/editoriali/Galli_della_Loggia/070305.shtml

Italian paper asks questions.

Also note the line "Take the anguish of Giuliana Sgrena, abducted by the very people she thought she was defending."

Even in Italy, they are taking her well known sympathies into account.

Demon, the policy for an unknown vehicle running a checkpoint in Iraq is indeed "Shoot first." That's as it should be, as any reasonably competent heroic Italian "payoff agent" should have known.

There has been plenty of time for tampering with the car by now.... I have been wondering why there are no photos of the car.

The AP keeps releasing photos of Iraqi cars for some odd reason, but none of the car in question.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Demon, the policy for an unknown vehicle running a checkpoint in Iraq is indeed "Shoot first." That's as it should be, as any reasonably competent heroic Italian "payoff agent" should have known.

Which is why some of us are skeptical of the US Army's description of the incident. Why would someone in the Italian driver's position "run a checkpoint" manned by American soldiers?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
We all know, without a doubt and beyond question that many US armed forces shoot first and ask questions, if at all, later. Thats a fact, period, full stop. End of debate on that score.

We all know, without a doubt and beyond question, that demon likes to molest little children. Thats a fact, period, full stop. End of debate on that score.

We all know, without a doubt and beyond question, that the earth is flat. That's a fact, period, full stop. End of debate on that score.

We all know, without a doubt and beyond question, that 2+2=17. That's a fact, period, full stop. End of debate on that score.

(This is fun, isn't it?)

And don't you start contradicting me and saying you aren't a child molester, demon--I SAID that it's the end of the debate, so there!
still not interested in having a go at the easy question skeptic? Do you accept as fact the US army statement on this shooting? yes? no? maybe?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by The Fool
still not interested in having a go at the easy question skeptic? Do you accept as fact the US army statement on this shooting? yes? no? maybe? Just for grins and giggles, Fool: I know you said early on here that you thought it was more likely the result of incompetence than assassination. But you didn't say where you thought the incompetence lay. The car's driver? Nervous, undertrained U.S. soldiers? Both?

I realize this is still very speculative for now; just wondering.

BTW, happy Labo(u)r Day and/or Eight Hours Day (what'sthat about?), as the case may be.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Just for grins and giggles, Fool: I know you said early on here that you thought it was more likely the result of incompetence than assassination. But you didn't say where you thought the incompetence lay. The car's driver? Nervous, undertrained U.S. soldiers? Both?

I realize this is still very speculative for now; just wondering.

BTW, happy Labo(u)r Day and/or Eight Hours Day (what'sthat about?), as the case may be.
I actually clarified this for someone else but it was in the middle of a whole lot of other stuff so you probably missed it....

My opinion is this is most likely to be the result of either incompetence on the part of US troops, incompetence on the part of Italian secret service agents or both. My life experience has tended to show me that when there is a huge cockup the truth most often lies somewhere in between the versions presented by the two sides that are trying to avoid responsibility.... From that you can apparently conclude that I support some conspiracy theory that george bush wanted her killed or I'm a creationist or a holocaust denier or all three (its been a fun thread).

I'm currently trying to lure "skeptic" into a trap....If I can drag him away from calling demon a child molester and ranting about the holocaust I'm trying to find out if someone who calls themselves "skeptic" on a skeptics board accepts the US army story as fact without question...He has already clearly stated that its USA all the way or crazy conspiracy murder....nothing in between. This paints him into the position of having to proclaim something as truth without evidence (the US statement) or support the kooky conspiracy theory..... Do you think he will fall for it? Do you think that if he doesn't fall for it he may still learn some of the pitfalls of presenting false dichotomies dressed up as debate?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by BPSCG


BTW, happy Labo(u)r Day and/or Eight Hours Day (what'sthat about?), as the case may be.
sorry, forgot this bit...


I'm not sure, I think its some sort of commie festival.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Which is why some of us are skeptical of the US Army's description of the incident. Why would someone in the Italian driver's position "run a checkpoint" manned by American soldiers?

Perhaps a spotlight in your face makes it hard to see who is behind the guns? Just speculating of course. Perhaps fear caused the wrong reaction in the second or so that a decision needs to be made. Perhaps fear on both sides? Perhaps the last words were "I F**ing SAID we should wait till morning!! Damned Italian airline schedules aren't worth Sh*t!"

On the other hand you could just go with some of the other highly definitive conclusions drawn by one or two others here.

[Elind]

Originally posted by The Fool

My opinion is this is most likely to be the result of either incompetence on the part of US troops, incompetence on the part of Italian secret service agents or both. My life experience has tended to show me that when there is a huge cockup the truth most often lies somewhere in between the versions presented by the two sides that are trying to avoid responsibility.... From that you can apparently conclude that I support some conspiracy theory that george bush wanted her killed or I'm a creationist or a holocaust denier or all three (its been a fun thread).

I'm currently trying to lure "skeptic" into a trap....If I can drag him away from calling demon a child molester and ranting about the holocaust I'm trying to find out if someone who calls themselves "skeptic" on a skeptics board accepts the US army story as fact without question...He has already clearly stated that its USA all the way or crazy conspiracy murder....nothing in between. This paints him into the position of having to proclaim something as truth without evidence (the US statement) or support the kooky conspiracy theory..... Do you think he will fall for it? Do you think that if he doesn't fall for it he may still learn some of the pitfalls of presenting false dichotomies dressed up as debate?

The first paragraph is perfectly rational. The second is misinformation since the quotes you make were originally made as sarcastic analogies, yet you twist them into something else.

I say this not in defense of Skeptic, who I'm sure can take care of himself, but because you have used the same technique on me in the past and because you could not be satisfied with the first paragraph alone, without starting another childish slanging match.

Does that not qualify as trolling, if performed consistently enough? (don't tell me that he started it first)

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by The Fool
My opinion is this is most likely to be the result of either incompetence on the part of US troops, incompetence on the part of Italian secret service agents or both. My life experience has tended to show me that when there is a huge cockup the truth most often lies somewhere in between the versions presented by the two sides that are trying to avoid responsibility.... My take is slightly different: When there's a huge inexplicable cock-up, the explanation is more likely to be in the realm of carelessness or stupidity than evil.

In other words, I'm perfectly prepared to believe that this one happened because the driver screwed up, and the fault was 100% on his side.

I'm also perfectly prepared to believe that this one happened because a new, green soldier who'd been hearing what a touchy situation he was now in got a little anxious and fired off a round for no good reason, precipitating a burst of shooting, and that the fault was 100% on the U.S. side.

Slightly different from your view, which seems to suggest that it was probably a screwup on both sides, which, I acknowledge, may also well be true. ETA: Re-reading your post, I see you acknowledge my possible likely scenarios also.

Conspiracy? Bah. Haven't seen any evidence of that - just speculation, which is worth about ten cents an acre.

[LTC8K6]

Why would someone in the Italian driver's position "run a checkpoint" manned by American soldiers?

Incompetence? Poor Intel? Stupidity?

They were so excited about having scammed a few mil for their terrorist friends that they forgot exactly where they were?

Those nice helpful kidnappers misled them into the American ambush? Right after they gave them all that money too! So that they would be killed and couldn't talk, of course.

You really need to tune up your conspiracy detector, Leif. :D

Obviously, they wanted the U.S. to shoot at the car to create this incident and bring about the departure of Italian forces. What is the loss of a couple of people to the communists? ;)

[Ed]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Conspiracy? Bah. Haven't seen any evidence of that - just speculation, which is worth about ten cents an acre.


You don't have enough money to buy the JREF crop since 9/11.

[LTC8K6]

Personally, I believe that they just didn't plan this payoff operation very well.

Ockhams razor.

They attempted to run a checkpoint for whatever reason, and were fired upon. With predictably tragic results.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Ed
You don't have enough money to buy the JREF crop since 9/11. Correction: There isn't enough money to buy the JREF crop since 9/11. :D

[LTC8K6]

The car has now become an inconspicuous rented pickup truck.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050308-121240-1847r.htm

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Personally, I believe that they just didn't plan this payoff operation very well.

Ockhams razor.

They attempted to run a checkpoint for whatever reason, and were fired upon. With predictably tragic results.

How is that a simpler answer than "a nervous soldier started shooting when he shouldn't have"?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
How is that a simpler answer than "a nervous soldier started shooting when he shouldn't have"?

In THIS PARTICULAR CASE, the "they just didn't notice the roadblock" is a far simpler explanation, since those shot at explicitly said that they did not see any roadblock while the Army said it was there; and them not seeing the roadblock is therefore the simplest explanation for the discrepancy between the two stories, while a "nervous soldier" does not explain this discrepancy. If they had said, "we stopped at the roadblock/soldiers/etc. and were still shot at for no reason" (or something similar), THEN the "nervous soldier opens fire by mistake" would have possibly been the simplest explanation.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by demon
We all know, without a doubt and beyond question that many US armed forces shoot first and ask questions, if at all, later. Thats a fact, period, full stop. End of debate on that score. They have little or no regard for human life and we know it to be true. They deliberately fire on anyone and everyone, as far as they are concerned Iraq is a free fire zone.


What the hell kind of bullsh*t statement is that? If that was true, everycar that went through the checkpoint that night would have been lit up. I'm sure if someone is shooting directly at them, or a car is barreling directly towards them, not heeding warnings, they shoot first and ask questions later. But if some guy is walking down the street, and looks "funny", they just don't shoot them.


Did these particular Italians want to die? Did they ignore warnings and think to themselves that the Americans wont really shoot at us, and if they do we will write to the US embassy and complain afterwards? I dont think so.


I don't know, but she seemed to be under the impression that if the US saw her, she would be shot, maybe she encouraged the driver to speed through.


****, American forces claim dying unarmed men lying on the ground bleeding to death and barely breathing are a threat.


Say that after your friend was killed by one of these "dying unarmed men".


They don t shoot because they are scared so much as they are trained to shoot "things". Be it British soldiers on the last day of the war or women and children, and yes, they are trained to do just that.


They are trained to meet their objective, protect their buddies, and protect themselves. "Shooting things", or marksmenship, as you call it, is a small part of this training.


The point is, this is not the exception but the rule. Yes, I`d say they were targeted (but probably not in any conspiatorial way), because everyone and anyone is. You only have to look at the "revenge for 9/11" stuff to know that.

If they were targetted, they would all be dead, if we were targeting iraqi civilians, they would be dying in the thousands everyday, and fallujia would be a smoldering crater with no brick standing on another.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Just for grins and giggles, Fool: I know you said early on here that you thought it was more likely the result of incompetence than assassination. But you didn't say where you thought the incompetence lay. The car's driver? Nervous, undertrained U.S. soldiers? Both?

I realize this is still very speculative for now; just wondering.

BTW, happy Labo(u)r Day and/or Eight Hours Day (what'sthat about?), as the case may be.

I don't think the fool is really that out on a limb on this. He says that someone was incompotent, which is probably true. Although he may have his suspicions, I think he's reserving judgement, and waiting for the various reports to come in.

[LTC8K6]

How is that a simpler answer than "a nervous soldier started shooting when he shouldn't have"?

We know that many cars passed safely through the checkpoints on the road that night, including one carrying an LA Times reporter. No "nervous soldiers" fired at any of them. Probably because they were familiar with the area and the checkpoints.

Possible photo, finally, of the car from La Repubblica. This paper already said the vehicle was a pickup truck, though, so I don't know what to make of this, or if this is even the car.

http://www.repubblica.it/

Again, I have no idea if that is actually what the picture is.

[RussDill]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/He219/7827811.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/He219/7827829.jpg

In this photo released Tuesday March 8, 2005 by the Italian RAI TG1 national television network, military personnel are seen near a car said to be that n which Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena was travelling with deceased secret service operative Nicola Calipari, during her release in Baghdad, Iraq, last Friday March 4, 2005. Sgrena returned to Italy but Calipari was killed in what appears to be a friendly fire incident by U.S. troops. (AP Photo/TG1, Rai)

Aparently, they were able to count 8 bullet holes.

Of course, this clearly isn't a pickup truck, so, as always, the stories don't connect. If this is the car, there wasn't 10-15 seconds of gunfire, 300-400 rounds, armored vehicles or tanks, the reporter being able to pick up handfulls of bullets off the back seat, etc.

[LTC8K6]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1358640/posts

Fre Republic thread with more pictures of the car shown in La Repubblica.

If that is the car in question, then the Italian's story doesn't add up, imo.

[RussDill]

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050308-121240-1847r.htm


The left-leaning Italian newspaper La Repubblica reported yesterday that Mr. Calipari decided not to use available escort protection from the elite commandos who protect Italy's Baghdad embassy.
Instead, he rented an inconspicuous pickup trick to recover Miss Sgrena, wrote La Repubblica's top investigative reporter, Giuseppe D'Avanzo.
"In Iraq, the United States makes the rules and the Italian ally also must respect them. If it wants to break them, it must do so with a double game and some crafty tricks," Mr. D'Avanzo wrote.
Italian magistrates have opened an inquiry into the killing and are arranging for the truck to be flown to Italy for examination by ballistic experts, judicial sources said. The magistrates also have obtained from the U.S. military the cellular phone that Mr. Calipari was carrying when he was shot.


Maybe they switched cars at somepoint?

[RussDill]

Source for claim that it was an armored vehicle donig the firing:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/04/news/iraq.html


A U.S. armored vehicle in Iraq fired on a car carrying an Italian hostage who had just been freed Friday, wounding her and killing an Italian intelligence officer, said Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi

[TillEulenspiegel]

Slightly OTT. I had a passing affair with the study of “Complex Systems� a while back. That being the behavior of disparate elements that are all joined and work toward an outcome. Kind of a sort of OOPS programing each module is separate from all others but lend themselves to the overall task.
I have found that failures in most complex behaviors are not simple in cause ( alto they can be ) but rather a series of mis-steps conspiring to failure. Had any of these mis-steps not occurred, the failure wouldn't happen. This happens in catastrophic and mundane scenarios.
An example:
A girl was run over and killed on her way home from school.
She was waving to her friends on the bus and was not looking out.
She was let off on the wrong side of the street so she had to cross heavy traffic.
That was because the driver was a last minute replacement where the regular bus driver would've known her drop off point.
The temp had a route schedule, which was wrong.
The wrong schedule was printed because information was being transferred between the old system and the new system.
And so on.
A journalist and agent of the Itialian government were shot.
They were shot because they didn't slow down.
The Americans state that they used the accepted warnings under the ROI.
The Italians didn't have any knowledge of a checkpoint at that location.
There was a temporary checkpoint that the Americans move around.
The movable checkpoint is constructed to deal with insurgents who ambush and plant IEDs.
The rescue squad used a vehicial favored by insurgents.
The information of the release and route was not shared with American forces.

I think it's silly that people are making concrete statements and reaching conclusions , without the benefit of fact. Shall we wait to make judgment until all the information rolls in? Like good little skeptics?

[RussDill]

Source for "handfulls of bullets" (contrast with picture of car)

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.


Also contrast the first paragraph with:

http://www.repubblica.it/2005/c/sezioni/esteri/iraq45/nveloc/nveloc.html


"Non era un check point, ma una pattuglia che ha sparato appena dopo averci illuminato con un faro. Non si è capita la provenienza dei proiettili, precedentemente non avevamo incontrato posti di blocco."

"It was not a checkpoint but a patrol that shot at us immediately after having turned a light on us. We couldn’t understand where the bullets were coming from, before that we hadn’t encountered any checkpoints.�


and of course you can controst that with:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/06/italy.iraq/


But in an interview with Italy's La 7 Television, the 56-year-old journalist said "there was no bright light, no signal."


Point being though, this woman was through a very, very tramatic experience, and its natural that her mind will be like mush for a few days (or maybe weeks). All we can really do is wait for an investigation.

[HopkinsMedStudent]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Which particular counts has she been wrong on, and how can you tell?

1) Sgrena told AT LEAST 2 different stories to different media outlets. For example, in one interview, she said the car passed multiple checkpoints before the one where she was shot. IN another interview, she claimed there were NO checkpoints on the road. This isnt a minor detail, this is a MAJOR change in story.

2) Sgrena said that she was frantically chatting with the security guy in the backseat after her release. Yet somehow she wants us to believe that despite this euphoric state of affairs, she was paying explicit attention to the lights, sounds, warning shots, etc happening outside the car. I find this conflict to be dubious. I dont believe she was really paying attention to what was going on outside the vehicle, and thus all her statements about tanks firing/etc are suspect.

My guess is that in the state of euphoria following her release, the driver of the vehicle and the occupants were in a semi-frantic state and wanted to get out of the area as quickly as possible. Conversely, young inexperienced american soldiers got jumpy at the site of a car rapidly approaching and maybe opened fire a bit early.

For this woman to claim there was an organized conspiracy to kill her is ridiculous and laughable however.

[HopkinsMedStudent]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Which is why some of us are skeptical of the US Army's description of the incident. Why would someone in the Italian driver's position "run a checkpoint" manned by American soldiers?

Perhaps the driver became confused. For example, they thought the firing was coming from the side or rear of the vehicle and not from the frontside where the checkpoint was. I believe this incident occurred during the middle of the night in dark conditions. The driver probably couldnt see that far ahead.

My best guess is that the car didnt heed the warning signs by the americans, and the americans were a little jumpy/nervous and opened fire before they absolutely had to. Maybe the americans opened fire 30 yards before the car reached the checkpoint, when in fact they could have waited just a bit longer before resorting to opening fire.

Reality is usually somewhere in the middle of 2 opposing accounts.

[a_unique_person]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200503/s1319106.htm

Italy's version, from their own foreign minister.



Foreign Minister Gianfranco Fini has urged Washington to punish any soldiers found guilty of wrongdoing in the shooting.

Mr Fini told the Italian Parliament an initial US military statement on the shooting did not coincide with what Italy believes happened, and he says the car was not going too fast.

"The vehicle was travelling at a speed that could not have exceeded 40 kilometres an hour," he said.

"About halfway round a bend, a very strong light was turned on, like a headlight from a position above the car and about 10 metres away.

"As the vehicle slowed down in response and came to an almost immediate halt, there was an explosion of gunfire."

The commander of the multi-national forces in Iraq, General George Casey, says the shooting of the Italians will be investigated by a joint US-Italian team, and will take up to four weeks.



The vehicle was given no chance, despite attempting to halt. The evidence is going to be coming from the Italian agents in the car, not just the journalist.

[BobK]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200503/s1319106.htm

Italy's version, from their own foreign minister.



The vehicle was given no chance, despite attempting to halt. The evidence is going to be coming from the Italian agents in the car, not just the journalist.

Jumping to conclusions already?

Taking the word of someone, who has at best 2nd hand information and a vested interest in his side being right, allows you to assert they were given no chance?

Also, the agents will present testimony. It's unlikely they have any evidence.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
In THIS PARTICULAR CASE, the "they just didn't notice the roadblock" is a far simpler explanation, since those shot at explicitly said that they did not see any roadblock while the Army said it was there; and them not seeing the roadblock is therefore the simplest explanation for the discrepancy between the two stories, while a "nervous soldier" does not explain this discrepancy. If they had said, "we stopped at the roadblock/soldiers/etc. and were still shot at for no reason" (or something similar), THEN the "nervous soldier opens fire by mistake" would have possibly been the simplest explanation.

still not interested in having a go at the easy question skeptic? Do you accept as fact the US army statement on this shooting? yes? no? maybe?

[Elind]

Originally posted by RussDill
What the hell kind of bullsh*t statement is that?


The only question you need to ask is, why do you conduct any exchanges with demon?

;)

[NoZed Avenger]

The paper La Republica has a slide show with pictures of the vehicle involved.

http://www.repubblica.it/index.html


That's the paper -- don't think the javascript on the show will work, but here it is, just in case:

javascript:window.open('/2003/e/gallerie/cronaca/autosgrena/1.html','gal','width=557,height=604,scrollbars=yes ');void(0);


I would direct your attention to pictures 3 and 6 for a view of the car showing the 300-400 bullet holes . . . or complete lack thereof.


I am waiting for more information regarding the sequence of events, but the vehicle's condition is consistent with the US version -- small arms fire that was directed low into the engine block. One bullet (it appears) went through the windshield or ricocheted through the windshield.

N/A

[demon]

RussDill:
"If they were targetted, they would all be dead, if we were targeting iraqi civilians, they would be dying in the thousands everyday..."

Inter alia, this legendary US targeting wouldn't be of the kind that managed to land a cruise missile in Pakistan in 1998 when it was aimed at Afghanistan, would it?
I'm not doubting the capacity for mass murder of the US military, but infallibility? Best you look at the graceless retreat from Ramadi last week.

RussDill:
"...and fallujia would be a smoldering crater with no brick standing on another."

As opposed to a smouldering crater with the odd intact building?

[NoZed Avenger]

Whoops -- missed that someone already linked to these.

Sorry.

[demon]

The problem is that it isn't even good enough to say: "These are all honest mistakes. Our soldiers are tired, scared and they face a constant threat. We regret all loss of civilian life."

The fact is, there are civilians dying at checkpoints and on the roads of Iraq. Whether they were killed intentionally (as in, with the knowledge that they were civilians as opposed to a belief that they were a terrorist threat) is neither here nor there in terms of the Iraqi experience of American occupation. We do not accept doctors who make a series of honest mistakes remaining in place. We look to change the system, or at least apportion blame to those who engineered the system so.

But here we find that we are reluctant to apportion blame to those who have engineered the current state of Iraq. Whether Iraq is a better place at this moment without Saddam is debatable, but if it is not, if the people suffer from tyranny and fear that does not go by the name that does not go by the name of Saddam, but is dispersed between the guns of US troops and the bombs of insurgents, then the mission has not, yet, been a success for the Iraqi people.

The US Administration made the choice to put US soldiers into Iraq on false premises. They made the choice to occupy Iraq. Mistakes at checkpoints are a direct consequence of decisions that were entirely within the power of US leaders to have been made differently.

[demon]

Checkpoint killings are quite ordinary events in Iraq these days, and if you trawl through the Iraq Body Count website, you`ll find examples. However, a huge number of these don't become bodies thanks to the hospitals. For example, see this:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/07/news/check.html

Meanwhile, an AP report (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.a...0,5744,12487919^314 77,00.html) tells how:

"Yarmouk Hospital - just one of several large medical facilities in Baghdad - receives several casualties a day from friendly fire shootings.

On Saturday, for example, US soldiers opened fire on a civilian vehicle in Baghdad, injuring a man and killing his wife."

But lets never forget that this is the land of impunity, where a President can perpetrate huge crimes against a defenseless country with no penalties at all, yet has to juggle with impeachment if anyone but his wife sucks his cock.
For:

"...some shootings - involving trigger-happy foreign security contractors - will never be investigated. Late last month, in Baghdad, unidentified foreigners in a convoy of three white four-wheel-drive vehicles opened fire on a small car that had come too close.

The woman driver was killed, her body left slumped in the front seat, splattered with blood and shards of glass. A male pedestrian was hit in the spine and paralysed. Those responsible are unlikely ever to be brought to book."

Still, no one can beat the good old "Whitehouse spokesman"
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...1432656,00.html) when it comes to suggestions that our boys, yes, our boys, target civilians:

"The White House rejected Ms Sgrena's claims. "I think it's absurd to make any such suggestion that our men and women in uniform deliberately targeted innocent civilians. "That's just absurd," said spokesman Scott McClellan.

However the Third Infantry Division, whose troops include those that fired on the Italians' car last Friday, came under investigation in April last year for opening fire on carloads of Iraqi women and children at checkpoints, according to US army documents obtained by the Guardian.

"The order was given to shoot anything that moves, but it wasn't meant to be taken literally," one soldier told the US army investigator."

So, they are giving out orders now that aren`t meant to be taken literally? Right lol...and here`s me thinking that irony is not a strong point among Americans, especially among those who join the army because they think it will put them through college.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BobK
Jumping to conclusions already?

Taking the word of someone, who has at best 2nd hand information and a vested interest in his side being right, allows you to assert they were given no chance?

Also, the agents will present testimony. It's unlikely they have any evidence.

I said the basis the statement was made, the foreign minister for Italy, presumably from the surviving agents in the car. Take it or leave it, as you please.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I said the basis the statement was made, the foreign minister for Italy, presumably from the surviving agents in the car. Take it or leave it, as you please.

Yeah, and Jimmy Carter said he saw a UFO once (not to be confused with the carnivorous aquatic rabbit attack, that's a whole other story). Too bad Carter didn't have a mountain of physical evidence to back up his story, like the Italian reporter does... er, never mind.

I can't tell what make of car that is, but whoever produces it is about to make billions. Can you see the ads?

It takes 300-400 50mm rounds and keeps on rolling!
Side curtain airbags mean an end to pesky artillery shells!
It's so amazing, you'll drive like you're bulletproof!

Take it or leave it, huh? I'll leave it. Unlike some folks, I don't need to pick up a dog turd and smell it to know it's not something I want to take home.

Edited to add that at least Carter never changed his story when people laughed.

[a_unique_person]

As I said, there were surviving agents. I presume this is what where the minister got his information. As demon points out, there are numerous, documented events at checkpoints where innocent people have been killed and wounded.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
As I said, there were surviving agents. I presume this is what where the minister got his information. As demon points out, there are numerous, documented events at checkpoints where innocent people have been killed and wounded.

There are numerous intersections in every major city where people get wounded and killed often, too. Yet people still brave the sidewalks... amazing, isn't it?

AUP, when I recommended that you not pick up every turd you see, I should have specifically mentioned that I'd include any turd demon hands you.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jocko
There are numerous intersections in every major city where people get wounded and killed often, too. Yet people still brave the sidewalks... amazing, isn't it?

AUP, when I recommended that you not pick up every turd you see, I should have specifically mentioned that I'd include any turd demon hands you.

Can you spot the fallacy in your argument? It's a pretty common one.

[csense]

Originally posted by demon


The fact is, there are civilians dying at checkpoints and on the roads of Iraq. Whether they were killed intentionally (as in, with the knowledge that they were civilians as opposed to a belief that they were a terrorist threat) is neither here nor there in terms of the Iraqi experience of American occupation.



Absent of course, in your post, is any evidence at all that "the Iraqi people" actually feel this way, or better stated, and more to the point, actually think this way. I'm not one to toss around terms like racist lightly, but as far as Im concernced, you're coming dangerously close to a racist attitude here.

What makes you, or anyone else, think that these people are not interested in whether they are being intentionally killed.

You seem to be interested in our motives. Everyone here on this thread seems to be interested in our motives. In fact, every government in the world seems to be interested in our motives....except of course, the Iraqis.

It seems to me that you're the one who is indifferent toward their suffering.

You need to take a good long look, deep inside your soul son, because you're words don't reflect that which you think they do.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Jocko
I can't tell what make of car that is, but whoever produces it is about to make billions. Can you see the ads?

It takes 300-400 50mm rounds and keeps on rolling!
Side curtain airbags mean an end to pesky artillery shells!
It's so amazing, you'll drive like you're bulletproof!
If Ted Kennedy had been driving one at Chappaquidick, he'd be President now!

[Ed]

Originally posted by demon
RussDill:

As opposed to a smouldering crater with the odd intact building?

Are you claiming that it is essentially leveled? Evidence please.

[LTC8K6]

The only thing with a lot of holes in it is the story told by those Italians.

The car looks exactly like it should look if some warning shots were fired at it, followed by a single shot to the engine. It matches what our forces say.

Sgrena's story (whatever version you want to use) is particularly strange. I can only think that her "handfuls of bullets" were actually casings, which leads the story in a whole other direction that I don't want to go in.

How anyone can believe a word she has said is beyond me. Handfuls of bullets, hundreds of rounds, fired on for a few minutes, driving slow, driving fast, light, no light, checkpoints, no checkpoints....etc., etc.

I personally think these communists are nothing but liars taking advantage of an unfortunate incident of their own making.

So anyway, where is the outrage over Italy's terrorist subsidy plan? It's too bad that Fabrizio Quattrochi appears to have died in vain, having no effect on the Italian subsidy payments to the Iraq "insurgents".

The worst thing about this incident in my mind, is the terrorist subsidy plan.

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/42042.htm

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
The only thing with a lot of holes in it is the story told by those Italians.

The car looks exactly like it should look if some warning shots were fired at it, followed by a single shot to the engine. It matches what our forces say. http://www.corriere.it/gallery/Esteri/2005/03_Marzo/auto_calipari/1/autocalipari.jpg

Obviously, you can throw out the 300-400 rounds story. If you want to be charitable, you can say she was just so utterly freaked by the whole incident (who wouldn't be?) that she has no clear recollection of what happened.

Of course, if that's the case, then how can you credit any of her testimony?
Sgrena's story (whatever version you want to use) is particularly strange. I can only think that her "handfuls of bullets" were actually casings, which leads the story in a whole other direction that I don't want to go in.All them bullets went through the engine but were too spent to get through the car's upholstery?

Or: All them bullets went through the windshield but were too spent to go out the rear window?

Where are those bullets today?
The worst thing about this incident in my mind, is the terrorist subsidy plan.Agreed. I read that a high-powered rifle costs only about $200. Sgrena's ransom was six million. $6,000,000 / $200 = 30,000. Thanks for helping the fight against terrorists. I wonder how many people will die so that Sgrena could live?

[Elind]

Originally posted by BPSCG
[IMG]I wonder how many people will die so that Sgrena could live?

You assume she would have been killed. Since the early pleas for her release that I read were in the vein that she was their "friend". It is quite possible that she would have been released eventually, as others have been without ransoms, so that she could continue to write propaganda for terrorists.

I have to say that I find it incredible that the Italian government still pays ransoms to terrorists, and it is not just a matter of how many guns that money will buy, but how many other kidnappings it will encourage. If it was from her family one could understand, but if it was government money it's pitiful.

[Elind]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
The only thing with a lot of holes in it is the story told by those Italians.

The car looks exactly like it should look if some warning shots were fired at it, followed by a single shot to the engine. It matches what our forces say.


I think I've seen at least three pictures of different cars by now. Exactly what kind of car was it? Which one? (And who owned it anyway. Just curious because I thought all macho secret services drove SUVs, not little toys)

[RussDill]

Originally posted by demon
RussDill:
"If they were targetted, they would all be dead, if we were targeting iraqi civilians, they would be dying in the thousands everyday..."

Inter alia, this legendary US targeting wouldn't be of the kind that managed to land a cruise missile in Pakistan in 1998 when it was aimed at Afghanistan, would it?
I'm not doubting the capacity for mass murder of the US military, but infallibility? Best you look at the graceless retreat from Ramadi last week.


Even if the cruise missile defect rate was as low as .01% (probably higher), you'd still get a cruise missile where it isn't supposed to be. Equiptment fails. However, taking one small failure, and then saying that all the equiptment is crap is like pointing to an airline crash, and then saying that the airline can't get anyone to their destination alive.



"...and fallujia would be a smoldering crater with no brick standing on another."

As opposed to a smouldering crater with the odd intact building?

All the pictures I see show lots of buildings and mosques

[RussDill]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
As I said, there were surviving agents. I presume this is what where the minister got his information. As demon points out, there are numerous, documented events at checkpoints where innocent people have been killed and wounded.

Personally, I lay the blame there on suicide bombers. The soldiers have to engage cars that do not follow procedure because it might be a suicide bomber. Just like cops shoot anyone who raises a weapon towards them. Heck, some kids with unloaded or even realistic looking toy weapons die that way.

[LTC8K6]

Elind, the pictures of the car have been well publicised by La Repubblica. It is the car in the above photo and the phots posted by RussDill


http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/International/story?id=563069&page=1


But, according to the senior U.S. military official, the car was traveling at speeds of more than 100 mph. The driver almost lost control several times before the shooting as the car hydroplaned through large puddles, the official told ABC News. The car had not gone through any previous checkpoints, the source added.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/International/story?id=563069&page=1

Bah, unnamed sources quoting unnamed senior officials. I'm not putting any merit in it.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by The Fool
still not interested in having a go at the easy question skeptic? Do you accept as fact the US army statement on this shooting? yes? no? maybe?

STILL not interested at answering the easy question whether you stopped beating your wife, Fool?

Wait, let me guess: your "cunning plan" is--whatever I answer--to ask yet another complex questions that will "force" me to "admit" what an awful person I am. Sorry, "Fool", but I'm not playing your "loaded questions as weapons" game.

Wait, I am psychic, let me guess your reply: "Skeppers had REFUSED to answer my PERFECTLY INNOCENT QUESTION which I just said was an attept to lure him into a trap, therefore PROVING he is a racist zionist which...", etc. etc,.

P.S.

If you are trying to "lure me into a trap", you shouldn't have advertised it--not that it really damages your reputation anyway, since just about ALL your posts are rather pathetic attempts to "force" your online "enemies" to admit how awful, AWFUL they are by asking complex questions or using other logical fallacies.

You're very transparent, Fool.

[BPSCG]

Any info yet on what make/model of car?

Any info on what kind of ammo checkpoint troops use to stop cars? I'm thinking 300-400 50 caliber ammo would have killed everyone in the car even if Hellen Keller had been shooting.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
STILL not interested at answering the easy question whether you stopped beating your wife, Fool?

Wait, let me guess: your "cunning plan" is--whatever I answer--to ask yet another complex questions that will "force" me to "admit" what an awful person I am. Sorry, "Fool", but I'm not playing your "loaded questions as weapons" game.

Wait, I am psychic, let me guess your reply: "Skeppers had REFUSED to answer my PERFECTLY INNOCENT QUESTION which I just said was an attept to lure him into a trap, therefore PROVING he is a racist zionist which...", etc. etc,.

P.S.

If you are trying to "lure me into a trap", you shouldn't have advertised it--not that it really damages your reputation anyway, since just about ALL your posts are rather pathetic attempts to "force" your online "enemies" to admit how awful, AWFUL they are by asking complex questions or using other logical fallacies.

You're very transparent, Fool.
Damn, I knew I'd blown my cunning plan as soon as I told BPSCG of the trap...

you want to know what is the most pathetic aspect of your paticipation in this thread? You trumpet a false dichotomy and berate everyone who won't accept it, comparing them to creationists and holocaust deniers...but when asked the simple question of which of your only two options are true your resolve collapses, you retreat into yet another rant about zionism....what is it with your religion "skeptic"? this thread has nothing to do with judaism yet you rant about it in evcery post.....

You want to abuse anyone who suggests that any alternative to the US story is possible yet you are unable to say that the US story is true....you provide me with endless laughs skeppers, I could not pay for better entertainment.

[csense]

Originally posted by The Fool

"You want to abuse anyone who suggests that any alternative to the US story is possible yet you are unable to say that the US story is true...."

Not that I want to involve myself with your dispute, I do however want to address the general theme of this issue.

What we do know, is that the Italians are giving very conflicted information. In addition to what has already been raised by other posters concerning that, we have this from a sub link, to an original link, that LTC8K6 just recently posted:


Foreign Minister Gianfranco Fini told parliament that the car carrying the intelligence officer and an ex-hostage to freedom was not speeding and was not ordered to stop by U.S. troops at a checkpoint, contrary to what U.S. officials say.
(empasis mine)

Here, Fini says that they were never ordered to stop...






Fini said the car was traveling at no more than 25 mph. He said a light was flashed at the car after a curve, and gunfire lasting 10 or 15 seconds started immediately afterward, disputing U.S. military claims that several attempts were made to stop the vehicle.

Yet here he acknowledges that they were indicated to stop.
(Note that the primary dispute here is in the number of indications, rather than if such indications occured at all.)


So far, and as others have already pointed out, the administration has been consistent in whatever they've said.

Who do you think has more credibility?

source: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=562503

[RussDill]

You guys need to all chill, I don't agree with the way the Fool is leaning, but I agree with his premise. There are *lots* of conflicting stories. There is no way to say which story is right.

Patience, don't pass judgement yet.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by RussDill
...Patience, don't pass judgement yet.

What kind of attitude it that?

This is JREF, where manly men call cops and soldiers cowards and scumbags from behind the safety of their computer keyboards, and then fall strangely silent when the rest of the story trickles in.

:p

[The Fool]

Originally posted by RussDill
You guys need to all chill, I don't agree with the way the Fool is leaning, but I agree with his premise. There are *lots* of conflicting stories. There is no way to say which story is right.

Patience, don't pass judgement yet.
I agree russ....But its not the easiest thing in the world to continue to discuss issues calmly in the face of raving idiots comparing you to holocaust deniers because you will not accept as truth the version presented by one party in a disputed story.....What makes it even more humerous is when the raving idiot who wants everyone else to accept the story does not even have the spine to back the story themselves.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by csense



So far, and as others have already pointed out, the administration has been consistent in whatever they've said.

Who do you think has more credibility?

source: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=562503
If the Italian government issued one story and had the power to prevent anyone else from saying anything then they would have a consistent story too.

I agree that consistency is a very important indicator of credibility in a story if you are questioning a number of witnesses to the event over a period of time.

The US story is consistent and unchanged because it is an official statement from an organisation with a system in place to ensure they provide only one version....The commander of the soldiers involved or any of trhe soldiers are not allowed to be interviewed by newspapers or make statements about the shooting, nor should they...I don't have any problem with a policy that issues one single consistant position.....but don't mistake it for a consistancy in the story from a group of people involved.....its an official statement.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by The Fool
Damn, I knew I'd blown my cunning plan as soon as I told BPSCG of the trap...Well, jeeze, the dumber of my two cats figured that out as soon as I pulled the message up. You need to get more sleep.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Well, jeeze, the dumber of my two cats figured that out as soon as I pulled the message up. You need to get more sleep.
yes, and for years I have wondered why I was not accepted as a spy by the Australian secret service....That sneaky "skeptic" reads other threads... never suspected he was so clever... I will need an even more cunning plan.

Anyway he has dodged the cunning trap by refusing to support the US version of events....doesn't that make him a holocaust denier, or something? I'm still a bit confused by that Holocaust denier thingie he loves so much......

[Skeptic]

If the Italian government issued one story and had the power to prevent anyone else from saying anything then they would have a consistent story too.

I like "The Fool"'s logic: if the American story were inconsistent, or comes in conflicting versions, then the Americans are lying. But if it's consistent and not self-contradictory, well, that's just the evil American cesnorship "preventing" people from saying anything that conflicts with the official version.

[Skeptic]

yes, and for years I have wondered why I was not accepted as a spy by the Australian secret service....

I wouldn't. For what it's worth, I don't think you're stupid. Your problem is, that your mouth is in fifth gear while your brain is still in "park". As someone else noted, get more sleep or drink less coffee--that might help.

[csense]

Originally posted by The Fool
If the Italian government issued one story and had the power to prevent anyone else from saying anything then they would have a consistent story too.


:hit: Hello, Mcfly...the inconsistencies are not coming from different people.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
If the Italian government issued one story and had the power to prevent anyone else from saying anything then they would have a consistent story too.

I like "The Fool"'s logic: if the American story were inconsistent, or comes in conflicting versions, then the Americans are lying. But if it's consistent and not self-contradictory, well, that's just the evil American cesnorship "preventing" people from saying anything that conflicts with the official version.
keep it up skeppers...your efforts in this thread are hillarious.

wtf is your problem...I say "...I don't have any problem with a policy that issues one single consistant position" and you turn that into "that's just the evil American cesnorship "preventing" people from saying anything that conflicts with the official version"
even though I have clearly said I don't have a problem with the US army preventing anyone and everyone mouthing off to newspapers. I know of no other armies that would allow it, it would be stupid for an army to have any other policy...Thats why the story from one US source is consistant...Its from one source! A variety of stories from a variety of other sources are not...they are from multiple sources! If there were mutiple versions from multiple American sources they would be inconsistant too....nothing to do with lying, everything to do with the real world, something you don't seem to have much contact with....

you simply make up stuff as you go along. Ranting about the holocaust, Israel and zionism when it is irrelevant to the thread. You simply manufacture whatever position for me you think will suit your argument ....please f*ck off, you are a nutcase.

I'm trying my hardest not to put you on ignore......but your bizzare behavior is making it an increasingly attractive option.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by csense
:hit: Hello, Mcfly...the inconsistencies are not coming from different people.
different sources.....different interviews... Give me some statements from the US soldiers involved (or just one soldier if you like) taken and then retaken over a period of a few days.......what do you think they would be like? People involved in experiences like this do show inconsistancies when telling the story, its a pretty well known fact of life.If you want to call one official restatement of checkpoint procedure by the US army an example of consistancy in a story then go ahead.....This is probably filed under standard reply to shot up car.

If the Italian position was "It was murder" just three words and no more.... and nobody said anything else but those 3 words because of government policy that all those involved obeyed then I suppose you would be saying that the wonderfull consistancy implies a more truthfull story?

Anyway make whatever you want of the fact that there is one US version. That is US army policy..if you think that makes it more likely to be true then good on you.

[demon]

csense:
"Absent of course, in your post, is any evidence at all that "the Iraqi people" actually feel this way, or better stated, and more to the point, actually think this way. I'm not one to toss around terms like racist lightly, but as far as Im concernced, you're coming dangerously close to a racist attitude here.
What makes you, or anyone else, think that these people are not interested in whether they are being intentionally killed."


Call it a hunch, but they're probably more concerned with the "being killed" bit, and less concerned with the "intention". I dunno, people are funny that way. They just don't like being killed. Except where you come from apparently, where people are all too happy to be killed as long as it was an accident from somebody with good intentions.

I`d say that the "Iraqi experience" of American occupation is an institutionalized one, *we* put he troops there and *we* should look at that in the same way we do with other institutions such as we do with doctors and the medical profession back home.

You know, change the system or give additional training, like how to recognise the Union Jack etc.

Maybe advance to a little humanity.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by demon
csense:
"Absent of course, in your post, is any evidence at all that "the Iraqi people" actually feel this way, or better stated, and more to the point, actually think this way. I'm not one to toss around terms like racist lightly, but as far as Im concernced, you're coming dangerously close to a racist attitude here.
What makes you, or anyone else, think that these people are not interested in whether they are being intentionally killed."


Call it a hunch, but they're probably more concerned with the "being killed" bit, and less concerned with the "intention". I dunno, people are funny that way. They just don't like being killed. Except where you come from apparently, where people are all too happy to be killed as long as it was an accident from somebody with good intentions.

I`d say that the "Iraqi experience" of American occupation is an institutionalized one, *we* put he troops there and *we* should look at that in the same way we do with other institutions such as we do with doctors and the medical profession back home.

You know, change the system or give additional training, like how to recognise the Union Jack etc.

Maybe advance to a little humanity.

You are wrong.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by demon

Call it a hunch...

Oh, it's barely noticeable. Really.

...but they're probably more concerned with the "being killed" bit, and less concerned with the "intention". I dunno, people are funny that way. They just don't like being killed. Except where you come from apparently, where people are all too happy to be killed as long as it was an accident from somebody with good intentions.[/b[]

Good intentions, like, say, Saddam's? You never voiced much objection to his wholesale slaughters, at least not like this.

[b]I'd say that the "Iraqi experience" of American occupation is an institutionalized one, *we* put he troops there and *we* should look at that in the same way we do with other institutions such as we do with doctors and the medical profession back home.



That's a hell of a comparison. Doesn't make a lick of sense, but I give you full points for ambition.

Tell me, demon, is your location listed as "England/USA" because you spend time in both, or because you're just not that sure of where you are, exactly?

[BPSCG]

Here's your conspiracy theory for you: U.S. has let Italy know it is utterly opposed to Italy's policy of ransoming hostages. It only encourages terrorists to take more hostages, and supplies them with financing. Bush asks Berlusconi, "How can you claim to be supporting the mission in Iraq when you're financing the killing of American soldiers?"
Berlusconi replies, "Stiamo avendo tempo bello sul Mare Mediterraneo questo volta dell'anno."
U.S. finds out there's another ransomed hostage coming through a checkpoint.
Unpleasant incident.
Bush says to Berlusconi, "Oh, my, we're terribly sorry. I assure you I will have Congress appoint a blue-ribbon commission to do a thorough investigation of this regrettable incident. Six million bucks and you have nothing to show for it? That's a damned shame. We should all cooperate to make sure this kind of tragedy never happens again."
Berlusconi: "Voi bastardo scopante."

[LTC8K6]

So far, the US Military's story matches the evidence, and it matches one of Sgrena's versions of her story.

Union Jack?

Looks sorta like a confederate rebellion flag to me. :D

Maybe they should fly copies of the guardian?

Seriously, the idea that U.S. soldiers don't recognize the British flag is absolutely absurd.

The fact that a pilot or a unit may not have seen the flag does not mean much, either.

The idea that they wouldn't recognize a Scimitar or Challenger is not absurd, but it's quite normal in wartime.

The fact that there have been friendly fire incidents is also quite normal. It happens in every military and every war and it is not any indication of anything regarding the troops, except that combat is confusion X10.

This is nothing but typical USA bashing, imo and I should have ignored it.

[csense]

Originally posted by The Fool

Anyway make whatever you want of the fact that there is one US version. That is US army policy..if you think that makes it more likely to be true then good on you.

Actually, I'm not making anything of the fact that there is consistency in the U.S version. As you alluded to earlier, consistency, in and of itself, does not infer truth. However, statements which conflict, do indeed infer a false premise somewhere. The only question now being, is such a premise deliberate, or otherwise.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by demon

Call it a hunch, but they're probably more concerned with the "being killed" bit, and less concerned with the "intention". I dunno, people are funny that way. They just don't like being killed. Except where you come from apparently, where people are all too happy to be killed as long as it was an accident from somebody with good intentions.


Incidents involving people getting caught in the crossfire between police and suspects occur in the US. I don't see the families of those people blowing up police stations. Why? Because they understand that it was not the police at fault. It matters to the family whether or not an officer intentionally shot their family member, shot them out of negligence, or shot them out of mallice. Hell, it even matters in a court of law.


I`d say that the "Iraqi experience" of American occupation is an institutionalized one, *we* put he troops there and *we* should look at that in the same way we do with other institutions such as we do with doctors and the medical profession back home.


Define "look at it the same way"


You know, change the system or give additional training, like how to recognise the Union Jack etc.


You spot a 12 inch by 18 inch flag at 1000 meters traveling at 250mph.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by LTC8K6

The idea that they wouldn't recognize a Scimitar or Challenger is not absurd, but it's quite normal in wartime.


Even a challenger tank failed to recognize another challenger tank.

[csense]

Originally posted by demon

Call it a hunch, but they're probably more concerned with the "being killed" bit, and less concerned with the "intention". I dunno, people are funny that way. They just don't like being killed.



Well, obviously they do like being killed, according to your logic, if they're not interested in why they're being killed.

Of course, I really don't expect you to understand this.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by csense
Actually, I'm not making anything of the fact that there is consistency in the U.S version. As you alluded to earlier, consistency, in and of itself, does not infer truth. However, statements which conflict, do indeed infer a false premise somewhere. The only question now being, is such a premise deliberate, or otherwise.
what???

if you are now claiming you were not making anything of the consistancy of he US version why did you say this?

"So far, and as others have already pointed out, the administration has been consistent in whatever they've said.

Who do you think has more credibility?"

you were clearly suggesting that the consistancy of the US position makes it more credible....If you want to change your mind thats ok but.... please....lets maintain a little consistency ourselves eh?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
So far, the US Military's story matches the evidence, and it matches one of Sgrena's versions of her story.

Union Jack?

Looks sorta like a confederate rebellion flag to me. :D

Maybe they should fly copies of the guardian?

Seriously, the idea that U.S. soldiers don't recognize the British flag is absolutely absurd.

The fact that a pilot or a unit may not have seen the flag does not mean much, either.

The idea that they wouldn't recognize a Scimitar or Challenger is not absurd, but it's quite normal in wartime.

The fact that there have been friendly fire incidents is also quite normal. It happens in every military and every war and it is not any indication of anything regarding the troops, except that combat is confusion X10.

This is nothing but typical USA bashing, imo and I should have ignored it.

That was vehicles on an open road, with plenty of time to make sure of the target. IIRC, the was more to IFF than just the flag, which would have been hard to see. There were rules of engagement that were broken. This appears to be a relatively common problem, as the Canadians know.

[crimresearch]

Soooo...

How many of those 400 bullet holes have been found?

Surely some enterprising blogger has PhotoShopped...
Errr... I meant ...... 'uncovered' the incriminating evidence by now??

[csense]

Originally posted by The Fool
what???

if you are now claiming you were not making anything of the consistancy of he US version why did you say this?

"So far, and as others have already pointed out, the administration has been consistent in whatever they've said.

Who do you think has more credibility?"

you were clearly suggesting that the consistancy of the US position makes it more credible....If you want to change your mind thats ok but.... please....lets maintain a little consistency ourselves eh?


Nooooo...I was suggesting that the inconsistency of the Italians makes the U.S. more credible.

The U.S. makes a statement.
The Italians make a statement.
Statement A may or may not be correct.
Statement B may or may not be correct.
They are equal.


The U.S. makes additional statements which are not contradictory.
The Italians make additional statements which are conradictory.

The premise of A may or may not be correct.
The premise of B is false, since a true premise can not yield a false consequence, and two consequential statements which conflict, must necessarily infer that one is false, since they both can't be true at the same time.


So, yes, I think at the present time, the U.S has more credibility.

That said, tell me why you think they are both equal, if you do indeed feel that way.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by csense
Nooooo...I was suggesting that the inconsistency of the Italians makes the U.S. more credible.

The U.S. makes a statement.
The Italians make a statement.
Statement A may or may not be correct.
Statement B may or may not be correct.
They are equal.


The U.S. makes additional statements which are not contradictory.
The Italians make additional statements which are conradictory.

The premise of A may or may not be correct.
The premise of B is false, since a true premise can not yield a false consequence, and two consequential statements which conflict, must necessarily infer that one is false, since they both can't be true at the same time.


So, yes, I think at the present time, the U.S has more credibility.

That said, tell me why you think they are both equal, if you do indeed feel that way.
I'm not going to explain this again. The US has issued a stock statement. That is why there is no inconsistency because the stock statement is specifically designed to prevent that...It is simply a statement of the policy regarding checkpoints and an assumption that pending finding otherwise that is what is assumed to have happened. On the other hand you have every newspaper and web news service grabbing anyone they can to make a statement. So whoop de do that the US story is more consistant than all the others lumped together.

It seems strange to me that if you now claim you were not trumpeting the consistancy of the american story as a confirmation of its truthfullness people can read if they want to go back and see for themselves. As I have said before, give me statements from all the US soldiers at the scene or even from one soldier taken immediately after then again the next day and I would show you plenty of the same sort of variation.....you must realise this?

In the end I cannot judge which is the "better story" because the US "story" is not a story at all....its someone flipping the book to "replies to questions regarding a car shooting" and reading out the standard reply. The only thing other than the official stock statement I have seen is some rubbish that a newspaper is putting about that is supposedly from a mysterious "US military official" claiming the car was doing over 100mph.

by the way...when you claim the US has made "additional statements" what are you referring to? can you show me these "additional statements" do you mean when they said they have nothing to add to thier initial stock reply?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Soooo...

How many of those 400 bullet holes have been found?

Surely some enterprising blogger has PhotoShopped...
Errr... I meant ...... 'uncovered' the incriminating evidence by now??

You are comparing the official US government statement with the statement of a civilian who nearly died. Perhaps you should compare the official Italian goverment statement to the US government statement.

[BPSCG]

Wow, we're on page SIX of this thread already, and the only thing we know for sure is that the Italian security guy got killed.

I predict that when and if we get to page ten, we'll be no closer to the truth of the matter. Maybe we should just give it a rest until the joint Italian-American investigation reports their findings.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Maybe we should just give it a rest until the joint Italian-American investigation reports their findings.

What's the fun in that?

[Gaga]

if i may add my 2 pence

The whole story it's still really controverse in italy.
the journalist herself isn't probably in the best position to give a reliable account because 1- she's been fired upon (that's a stressful situation I suppose) 2- she's strongly biased against US action in Iraq.

As to what regards the various declarations:
Our involvement in Iraq has been strongly adversed by a part of a political world and by most of us common people. It's not strange at all that such accidents provide fuel for a debate that's still quite hot.

[Gaga]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Berlusconi replies, "Stiamo avendo tempo bello sul Mare Mediterraneo questo volta dell'anno."
Berlusconi: "Voi bastardo scopante."


I suppose that automatic online translation is not that reliable.
anyway you'd be surprised to know how bad is Berlusconi's italian sometimes :D

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Gaga
I suppose that automatic online translation is not that reliable.
anyway you'd be surprised to know how bad is Berlusconi's italian sometimes :D Whoa! You're right!

I ran this by a friend who actually speaks fluent Italian. I thought, Stiamo avendo tempo bello sul Mare Mediterraneo questo volta dell'anno meant, "We're having very nice weather here at the Mediterranean Sea this time of year." Imagine my mortificatino to find out it means, "You smell like sheep's ladders."

And whereas I thought Voi bastardo scopante! meant "You @#$%%ing bastard!", it actually means "I believe seven of those those lepers are stealing my earmuffs!"

At least I got the punctuation right. :(

[csense]

I'm not going to explain this again. The US has issued a stock statement. That is why there is no inconsistency because the stock statement is specifically designed to prevent that...It is simply a statement of the policy regarding checkpoints and an assumption that pending finding otherwise that is what is assumed to have happened. On the other hand you have every newspaper and web news service grabbing anyone they can to make a statement. So whoop de do that the US story is more consistant than all the others lumped together.

It seems strange to me that if you now claim you were not trumpeting the consistancy of the american story as a confirmation of its truthfullness people can read if they want to go back and see for themselves. As I have said before, give me statements from all the US soldiers at the scene or even from one soldier taken immediately after then again the next day and I would show you plenty of the same sort of variation.....you must realise this?

In the end I cannot judge which is the "better story" because the US "story" is not a story at all....its someone flipping the book to "replies to questions regarding a car shooting" and reading out the standard reply. The only thing other than the official stock statement I have seen is some rubbish that a newspaper is putting about that is supposedly from a mysterious "US military official" claiming the car was doing over 100mph.

You didn't really answer my question here, 'least as far as I'm concerned, but that's alright, you're not obligated to.





by the way...when you claim the US has made "additional statements" what are you referring to?

Details


Both countries made initial statements of responsibility, something that you would expect in situations such as this, and then, as I said, additional statements are made as to details.

[Gaga]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Whoa! You're right!
[...]

sorry, I admit I was nitpicking, obviously the meaning is right, it was just too funny to read it :)
I suppose that's just the same for you folks when you read my english...
have a nice day
[\DERAIL]

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Gaga
sorry, I admit I was nitpicking, obviously the meaning is right, it was just too funny to read it :)
I suppose that's just the same for you folks when you read my english...
have a nice day
[\DERAIL] It's okay (BTW, welcome to the forum!); I'd be curious to know how my version of the Italian translates back into English.:D

[LTC8K6]

In interviews published Friday, Sgrena said that no light was flashed at the vehicle and that the shots were not fired in front of the car.


"It's not true that they shot into the engine," she told Corriere della Sera, adding that the shooting came "from the right and from behind."


In a parliament speech earlier this week, Foreign Minister Gianfranco Fini said photos of the vehicle, which is still in Iraq, show that the fire "hit the right side of the car."



For us to shoot at the back of the car, it means the car must have actually overrun the checkpoint. They must have been going fast and paying absolutely no attention to do that.

I wonder why they are now emphasising the right side of the car? Conveniently, we don't have any photos of the right side of the car.....I'll bet there are holes in it now, though......


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050311/ap_on_re_eu/italy_iraq_hostage

[RussDill]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
For us to shoot at the back of the car, it means the car must have actually overrun the checkpoint. They must have been going fast and paying absolutely no attention to do that.

I wonder why they are now emphasising the right side of the car? Conveniently, we don't have any photos of the right side of the car.....I'll bet there are holes in it now, though......


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050311/ap_on_re_eu/italy_iraq_hostage

...thats why the left tire is blown and there is a hole in the windshield....

[Edited to add, the news agency that took photos of the car reported that they found 8 bullet holes.]

[Skeptic]

Whoa! You're right!

I ran this by a friend who actually speaks fluent Italian. I thought, Stiamo avendo tempo bello sul Mare Mediterraneo questo volta dell'anno meant, "We're having very nice weather here at the Mediterranean Sea this time of year." Imagine my mortificatino to find out it means, "You smell like sheep's ladders."

And whereas I thought Voi bastardo scopante! meant "You @#$%%ing bastard!", it actually means "I believe seven of those those lepers are stealing my earmuffs!"

At least I got the punctuation right. :(

(Obligatory Monty Python reference)

Actually, the first statement means "My hovecraft is full of eels", and the second means, "please fondle my bottocks"...

[Skeptic]

I'm not going to explain this again.

Wanna bet?

The US has issued a stock statement. That is why there is no inconsistency because the stock statement is specifically designed to prevent that...

TRANSLATION: "The fact that the US story is consistent is proof of a USA coverup of the awful truth." So if the USA story is inconsistent, they're lying. If it is consistent, they're covering up.

So whoop de do that the US story is more consistant than all the others lumped together.

TRANSLATION: Both the US version and the journalist's version were reported in many newspapers. The journalists' versions of the reporter's story showed inconsistencies, while the US's version did not.

To lesser souls, this might suggests mean that the reporter gave an inconsistent story while the US gave a consistent one.

But that's FAR too simple to be true.

In reality, "The Fool" assures us, the inconsistencies in the journalist's story are all the fault of lousy reporting (what other reason could there be?). On the other hand, the consistency in the same lousy reporters' reporting of the official US version is due to the US version being stupid, simple, obvious, or otherwise specifically designed by Karl Rove to be immune to misquoting and distortion.

(And, of course, if different reporters DID give different versions of the US story, that would NOT be sloppy reporting, but "evidence" of the inconsistency and lies of the evil US coverup story.)

As I have said before, give me statements from all the US soldiers at the scene or even from one soldier taken immediately after then again the next day and I would show you plenty of the same sort of variation.....you must realise this?

TRANSLATION: "The US story is in reality inconsistent, because, if I only had evidence proving it is inconsistent, I could show you that it is inconsistent! Surely you realize this?"

In the end I cannot judge which is the "better story"

TRANSLATION: In the end the US version appears more credible, but that's not a conclusion I could accept, for psychological reasons. So I'll claim we "must" suspend judgment.

because the US "story" is not a story at all....its someone flipping the book to "replies to questions regarding a car shooting" and reading out the standard reply.

TRANSLATION: "The US story was consistent, so it is a lie. But if it was inconsistent it would have been a lie, too. Damn, it's so difficult to make sense of all those USA lies!"

The only thing other than the official stock statement I have seen is some rubbish that a newspaper is putting about that is supposedly from a mysterious "US military official" claiming the car was doing over 100mph.

TRANSLATION: "The only other thing I saw is more evidence the journalist was speeding, so it must be rubbish because it corroborates the US's story."

(The point, which you missed, is that while the "100 MPH" is of course only an estimate by the official, and people are notoriously bad in estimating absolute speeds and distances, it IS good evidence that the car WAS speeding and therefore probably simply didn't notice the roadblock.)

You didn't really answer my question here, 'least as far as I'm concerned, but that's alright, you're not obligated to.

"The Fool" doesn't DO answers. You should have realized that by now. He only makes proclamations of what "the truth" is and why everybody who disagrees isn't a REAL skeptic, and, probably, a racist or a zionist or something.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
For us to shoot at the back of the car, it means the car must have actually overrun the checkpoint. They must have been going fast and paying absolutely no attention to do that.

I wonder why they are now emphasising the right side of the car? Conveniently, we don't have any photos of the right side of the car.....I'll bet there are holes in it now, though......



H E R E (http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=bonnie+and+clyde+car/v=2/SID=e/l=IVI/SIG=12h5u83du/EXP=1110665955/*-http%3A//www.americasroof.com/image/la-bonnie-and-clyde-car.jpg) is the right side of the death car...

http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=bonnie+and+clyde+car/v=2/SID=e/l=IVI/SIG=12h5u83du/EXP=1110665955/*-http%3A//www.americasroof.com/image/la-bonnie-and-clyde-car.jpg

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I'm not going to explain this again.

Wanna bet?

The US has issued a stock statement. That is why there is no inconsistency because the stock statement is specifically designed to prevent that...

TRANSLATION: "The fact that the US story is consistent is proof of a USA coverup of the awful truth." So if the USA story is inconsistent, they're lying. If it is consistent, they're covering up.

So whoop de do that the US story is more consistant than all the others lumped together.

TRANSLATION: Both the US version and the journalist's version were reported in many newspapers. The journalists' versions of the reporter's story showed inconsistencies, while the US's version did not.

To lesser souls, this might suggests mean that the reporter gave an inconsistent story while the US gave a consistent one.

But that's FAR too simple to be true.

In reality, "The Fool" assures us, the inconsistencies in the journalist's story are all the fault of lousy reporting (what other reason could there be?). On the other hand, the consistency in the same lousy reporters' reporting of the official US version is due to the US version being stupid, simple, obvious, or otherwise specifically designed by Karl Rove to be immune to misquoting and distortion.

(And, of course, if different reporters DID give different versions of the US story, that would NOT be sloppy reporting, but "evidence" of the inconsistency and lies of the evil US coverup story.)

As I have said before, give me statements from all the US soldiers at the scene or even from one soldier taken immediately after then again the next day and I would show you plenty of the same sort of variation.....you must realise this?

TRANSLATION: "The US story is in reality inconsistent, because, if I only had evidence proving it is inconsistent, I could show you that it is inconsistent! Surely you realize this?"

In the end I cannot judge which is the "better story"

TRANSLATION: In the end the US version appears more credible, but that's not a conclusion I could accept, for psychological reasons. So I'll claim we "must" suspend judgment.

because the US "story" is not a story at all....its someone flipping the book to "replies to questions regarding a car shooting" and reading out the standard reply.

TRANSLATION: "The US story was consistent, so it is a lie. But if it was inconsistent it would have been a lie, too. Damn, it's so difficult to make sense of all those USA lies!"

The only thing other than the official stock statement I have seen is some rubbish that a newspaper is putting about that is supposedly from a mysterious "US military official" claiming the car was doing over 100mph.

TRANSLATION: "The only other thing I saw is more evidence the journalist was speeding, so it must be rubbish because it corroborates the US's story."

(The point, which you missed, is that while the "100 MPH" is of course only an estimate by the official, and people are notoriously bad in estimating absolute speeds and distances, it IS good evidence that the car WAS speeding and therefore probably simply didn't notice the roadblock.)

You didn't really answer my question here, 'least as far as I'm concerned, but that's alright, you're not obligated to.

"The Fool" doesn't DO answers. You should have realized that by now. He only makes proclamations of what "the truth" is and why everybody who disagrees isn't a REAL skeptic, and, probably, a racist or a zionist or something.
Why do you insist on calling strawmen and/ or complete fabrications "translations". I have no intention of paying attention to the rantings of a lunatic. Could you please pick someone else to stalk? You are starting to get creepy.
I seriously suggest you seek help.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by The Fool
Why do you insist on calling strawmen and/ or complete fabrications "translations". I have no intention of paying attention to the rantings of a lunatic. Could you please pick someone else to stalk? You are starting to get creepy.
I seriously suggest you seek help. Dammit, Fool, while reading Skeptics post, I thought to myself, "Self, The Fool is gonna have a serious coronary event when he reads this. I can't wait to see what he posts back."

C'mon, you can do better than this.

Let's you and him fight.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Dammit, Fool, while reading Skeptics post, I thought to myself, "Self, The Fool is gonna have a serious coronary event when he reads this. I can't wait to see what he posts back."

C'mon, you can do better than this.

Let's you and him fight.

I really don't think he deems it necessary or fruitfull to spend any time on it.

[Skeptic]

Why do you insist on calling strawmen and/ or complete fabrications "translations". I have no intention of paying attention to the rantings of a lunatic. Could you please pick someone else to stalk? You are starting to get creepy.

But, if you're not paying any attention to me, just how would you know, let alone care, I'm "stalking" you? Isn't it sort of impossible to be creeped out by someone you ignore?

For crying out loud, "Fool"... that your "serious" posts are invariably self-contradictory is to be expected; after all, your carefully researched worldview is, in effect, "everything the US does is wrong but I'm not anti-American", so one could hardly expect consistency. But to actually have your insults logically inconsistent, that takes er, special talent.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Why do you insist on calling strawmen and/ or complete fabrications "translations". I have no intention of paying attention to the rantings of a lunatic. Could you please pick someone else to stalk? You are starting to get creepy.

But, if you're not paying any attention to me, just how would you know, let alone care, I'm "stalking" you? Isn't it sort of impossible to be creeped out by someone you ignore?

For crying out loud, "Fool"... that your "serious" posts are invariably self-contradictory is to be expected; after all, your carefully researched worldview is, in effect, "everything the US does is wrong but I'm not anti-American", so one could hardly expect consistency. But to actually have your insults logically inconsistent, that takes er, special talent.
The only mistake I made about you is taking you off ignore when you returned from your last theatrical exit...

so welcome back to Mr Ignore list, I am not this boards psychiatrist so I cannot help you any further. Go find someone else to provide what you crave.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Skeptic
For crying out loud, "Fool"... that your "serious" posts are invariably self-contradictory is to be expected; after all, your carefully researched worldview is, in effect, "everything the US does is wrong but I'm not anti-American", so one could hardly expect consistency. But to actually have your insults logically inconsistent, that takes er, special talent.Originally posted by The Fool
The only mistake I made about you is taking you off ignore when you returned from your last theatrical exit...

so welcome back to Mr Ignore list, I am not this boards psychiatrist so I cannot help you any further. Go find someone else to provide what you crave. Does this mean you guys won't be pairing up at TAM4 in the tennis doubles tournament against Shanek and Claus...? :(

[demon]

"Does this mean you guys won't be pairing up at TAM4 in the tennis doubles tournament against Shanek and Claus...?"

Do it Fool;)

[Jocko]

Originally posted by The Fool
The only mistake I made about you is taking you off ignore when you returned from your last theatrical exit...

so welcome back to Mr Ignore list, I am not this boards psychiatrist so I cannot help you any further. Go find someone else to provide what you crave.

Speaking of dramatics... (http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2715)

3) IF LOSING AN ARGUMENT, FEIGN FRUSTRATION AND THEN CLAIM YOU'RE BLOCKING THE PERSON. Every person on the Internet harbors a secret fear of having their communications blocked by somebody, particularly when they're devastating that person in an argument. If you ever make a critical mistake and discover you cannot match either the intensity or intelligence of the person whom you're facing up against, simply descend into a spiral of frustration, one ending with a curt goodbye and notice that this person will never, ever, ever, ever be able to contact you again because you are putting them on your fabled ignore list of doom. Tell them in explicit, concrete terms you're absolutely fed up with their idiocy and simply cannot bear to read another word of their text, and if you somehow accidentally receive another communication from them, your head will explode and shower the surrounding tri-metro area with fragments of your brain atoms. The announcement of your impending communications blockade serves as a true trump card, one capable of not only ending the argument, but additionally declaring you the winner because there's no possible way for your opponent to get the last word, and as everybody on the Internet knows, the only way to win an argument is to get the final word!

[Skeptic]

Tell them in explicit, concrete terms you're absolutely fed up with their idiocy and simply cannot bear to read another word of their text, and if you somehow accidentally receive another communication from them, your head will explode and shower the surrounding tri-metro area with fragments of your brain atoms

Ah, if only...

[Elind]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
If you are referring to me, I never calimed it was an assasination attempt, I did link to evidence that disputes the US version of what actually happened at the 'checkpoint'.

You know, I liked your old picture better. Let's just say it seemed slightly more intellectual. Been sunning in southern climes have we?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Elind
You know, I liked your old picture better. Let's just say it seemed slightly more intellectual. Been sunning in southern climes have we?

I'm just glad it's not any figure I recognize. I think any picture put in that place would soon become repugnant from association with the ideas placed with it.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I'm just glad it's not any figure I recognize. I think any picture put in that place would soon become repugnant from association with the ideas placed with it.

We should try that. Now, let's start with convincing AUP to change his avatar to a nude picture of Hale Barrie...

[Elind]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I'm just glad it's not any figure I recognize. I think any picture put in that place would soon become repugnant from association with the ideas placed with it.

I think it's AUP on holiday in Sydney.

[The Fool]

Lol...multiple posts in a row concerning A_U_P's avatar? And you say you guys have not got an obsession with this guy?
still, I suppose any distraction will do..

[Elind]

Originally posted by The Fool
Lol...multiple posts in a row concerning A_U_P's avatar? And you say you guys have not got an obsession with this guy?
still, I suppose any distraction will do..

We are hoping you will change to a less dated self image, and we note that you also joined the distraction. :p

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by The Fool
Lol...multiple posts in a row concerning A_U_P's avatar? And you say you guys have not got an obsession with this guy?
still, I suppose any distraction will do..

Where did I say I didn't have an obsession with him?

[LTC8K6]

Sgrena again says it was a tank that fired at her car. She also says we shoot at cars for no reason at all every day. She says that even if there had been Iraqi guerillas in her car, we shouldn't have fired at it. Pretty odd thing to say....

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

In this report, the Italians were swerving around cement blocks in the road....

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uswit13,0,6822979.story?coll=ny-nation-big-pix

[LTC8K6]

http://xtramsn.co.nz/news/0,,11965-4190767,00.html

Maybe Italy will give her back and ask for a refund.....

[shuize]

The more this woman talks, the more confusing her story becomes. After reading her statements in the links above, I find it hard to believe anyone still takes her seriously.

[Ed]

The Italians say the car was swerving around cement blocks in the road when a bright light went on and, with no warning, the car was pummeled with automatic weapons fire for 10 to 15 seconds. U.S. military officials say troops made hand and arm signals, flashed white lights and fired warning shots to no avail.


600 rounds/minute= about 150 rounds per weapon. There were "weapons" so 300, 600 1000 rounds were fired? And they are alive? Something smells bad with the account here.

[RussDill]

We didn't see a checkpoint, we were moving slowly as we were swerving around large concrete barriers...right...

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Ed
600 rounds/minute= about 150 rounds per weapon. There were "weapons" so 300, 600 1000 rounds were fired? And they are alive? Something smells bad with the account here.

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

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Sgrena again says it was a tank that fired at her car. She also says we shoot at cars for no reason at all every day. She says that even if there had been Iraqi guerillas in her car, we shouldn't have fired at it. Pretty odd thing to say....

http://www.agi.it/english/news.pl?doc=200503112037-1274-RT1-CRO-0-NF11&page=0&id=agionline-eng.oggitaliaNot in this link. She mentions a tank, but doesn't say it fired on her. I think if it had, she'd be very, very quiet right now.

[Jocko]

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).

She must have very small hands.

[aerocontrols]

Here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28924-2005Mar12.html) is an article about checkpoints generally. Very informative.