US forces in an assassination attempt on communist journalist - Page 2

a_unique_person · 6th March 2005, 07:55 PM

Quote:

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 · 6th March 2005, 07:55 PM

Quote:

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 · 6th March 2005, 07:58 PM

Quote:

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 · 6th March 2005, 08:02 PM

Quote:

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 · 6th March 2005, 08:20 PM

Quote:

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 · 6th March 2005, 08:27 PM

Quote:

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 · 6th March 2005, 08:48 PM

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 · 6th March 2005, 08:50 PM

Quote:

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 · 6th March 2005, 11:19 PM

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 · 7th March 2005, 12:05 AM

Quote:

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 · 7th March 2005, 12:12 AM

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 · 7th March 2005, 12:25 AM

Quote:

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 · 7th March 2005, 12:35 AM

Quote:

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 · 7th March 2005, 01:25 AM

Quote:

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 · 7th March 2005, 05:11 AM

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

Link

Some highlights:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 7th March 2005, 05:15 AM

Quote:

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 · 7th March 2005, 05:24 AM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 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 · 7th March 2005, 05:36 AM

Quote:

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

From the OP:

Quote:

"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 · 7th March 2005, 05:52 AM

Quote:

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 · 7th March 2005, 05:54 AM

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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 · 7th March 2005, 06:02 AM

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

Quote:

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 · 7th March 2005, 06:10 AM

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

Quote:

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 JosÃ© 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 · 7th March 2005, 08:22 AM

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

Leif Roar · 7th March 2005, 08:25 AM

Quote:

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 · 7th March 2005, 08:28 AM

Quote:

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 · 7th March 2005, 08:31 AM

Quote:

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 · 7th March 2005, 08:56 AM

Quote:

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 · 7th March 2005, 09:11 AM

Quote:

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 · 7th March 2005, 09:14 AM

Quote:

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 · 7th March 2005, 09:40 AM

Dateline ROME, Italy CNN

Quote:

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)

The article does not say what CNN put in quotes. As a matter of fact it says the exact opposite.

Quote:

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 · 7th March 2005, 10:01 AM

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

She seems to have credibility problems.....

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

LTC8K6 · 7th March 2005, 10:04 AM

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 · 7th March 2005, 10:08 AM

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 · 7th March 2005, 10:10 AM

Quote:

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 · 7th March 2005, 10:11 AM

Quote:

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 · 7th March 2005, 10:20 AM

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/20050...0131-5769r.htm

Rob Lister · 7th March 2005, 10:56 AM

Quote:

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/20050...0131-5769r.htm

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

Quote:

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 · 7th March 2005, 10:58 AM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Where does these claims come from?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

And that destroyes her credibility in just what way?

Jocko · 7th March 2005, 11:09 AM

Quote:

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. How else would they have known, since even the Italians seem to be admitting they didn't communicate with US forces?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 7th March 2005, 11:12 AM

Quote:

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. 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.)

6th March 2005, 07:55 PM	#41
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,324	Quote: 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 btch 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 btch, god help you.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

6th March 2005, 07:58 PM	#43
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	Re: incredulity Quote: 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.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	__________________ In the tradition of "Stop Silvia!" Stop Hal Bidlack: http://skepticalcommunity.com/forums...hp?f=1&t=28671

6th March 2005, 08:20 PM	#45
The Fool Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 11,558	Quote: 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?
	__________________ And what is good, Phaedrus,and what is not good. Need we ask anyone to tell us these things? R. M. Pirsig. (Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance) Lose half your IQ....Ask me how.

6th March 2005, 08:27 PM	#46
The Fool Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 11,558	Re: Re: incredulity Quote: 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.
	__________________ And what is good, Phaedrus,and what is not good. Need we ask anyone to tell us these things? R. M. Pirsig. (Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance) Lose half your IQ....Ask me how.

6th March 2005, 08:50 PM	#48
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,324	Quote: 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.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

6th March 2005, 07:55 PM	#42
Elind Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Florida Posts: 6,622	Quote: Originally posted by The Fool Fool. Cut the crap and conduct a debate. Your personal insults get tiresome to have to read, even partially.

6th March 2005, 08:02 PM	#44
Elind Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Florida Posts: 6,622	Quote: 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 btch, 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 btch. 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).

6th March 2005, 08:48 PM	#47
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	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...

6th March 2005, 11:19 PM	#49
Ace_of_Sevens Thinker Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 225	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.
Ace_of_Sevens Thinker Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 225

7th March 2005, 12:05 AM	#50
Leif Roar Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,800	Quote: 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.
Leif Roar Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,800	__________________ "Our feature on cloud seeding (16 Apr, p40) should have started with the words 'Cannons blazed'. No clergy were set on fire in China's rainmaking experiment." -- New Scientist, 7th May 2005

7th March 2005, 12:12 AM	#51
Ace_of_Sevens Thinker Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 225	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_of_Sevens Thinker Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 225

7th March 2005, 12:25 AM	#52
Leif Roar Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,800	Quote: 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."
Leif Roar Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,800	__________________ "Our feature on cloud seeding (16 Apr, p40) should have started with the words 'Cannons blazed'. No clergy were set on fire in China's rainmaking experiment." -- New Scientist, 7th May 2005

7th March 2005, 12:35 AM	#53
The Fool Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 11,558	Quote: 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.
	__________________ And what is good, Phaedrus,and what is not good. Need we ask anyone to tell us these things? R. M. Pirsig. (Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance) Lose half your IQ....Ask me how.

7th March 2005, 01:25 AM	#54
AWPrime Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,929	Quote: 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.
AWPrime Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,929	__________________ Sir Arthur C. Clarke - "Any sufficiently advanced technology, to the uninformed observer, is indistinguishable from magic." c4ts - "Jesus loves the little children, Nice and fat and honey roasted..." Lancastic = Demonstrative of outstanding personal effort in the exposing of frauds. Rob Lister - "The enemy of my enemy probably tastes yummy. "

7th March 2005, 05:11 AM	#55
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Washington Post has some pretty good background on this today (March 7). Link Some highlights: Quote: 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. Quote: 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?"...
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

7th March 2005, 05:15 AM	#56
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Quote: 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.
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

7th March 2005, 05:24 AM	#57
Leif Roar Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,800	Quote: 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. Quote: 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 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.
Leif Roar Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,800	__________________ "Our feature on cloud seeding (16 Apr, p40) should have started with the words 'Cannons blazed'. No clergy were set on fire in China's rainmaking experiment." -- New Scientist, 7th May 2005

7th March 2005, 05:36 AM	#58
Mycroft High Priest of Ed Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 16,105	Quote: Originally posted by Leif Roar What crowd? I haven't seen anyone suggest that. From the OP: Quote: "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."
	__________________ Surely Israel is the party to blame? -a_unique_person I do have Mycroft on ignore, he is pretty much the Matt Giwer of your side. -a_unique_person Palestinian Refugees

7th March 2005, 05:52 AM	#59
Elind Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Florida Posts: 6,622	Quote: Originally posted by The Fool Lol.... put me on ignore... Is your line about one of the victims of this shooing being a communist bitch 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, btch makes the point, don't you think?

7th March 2005, 05:54 AM	#60
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Quote: 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: Quote: 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.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

7th March 2005, 06:02 AM	#61
Mycroft High Priest of Ed Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 16,105	It seems someone paid a hefty ransom to get this journalist released. Quote: 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?
	__________________ Surely Israel is the party to blame? -a_unique_person I do have Mycroft on ignore, he is pretty much the Matt Giwer of your side. -a_unique_person Palestinian Refugees

7th March 2005, 06:10 AM	#62
Kevin_Lowe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Queensland Posts: 10,276	I read an article about US soldiers killing journalists in Iraq recently. Quote: 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 JosÃ© 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.

7th March 2005, 08:22 AM	#63
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,068	I think it's appalling that war zones are not perfectly safe places to be. Someone should be held accountable!
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

7th March 2005, 08:25 AM	#64
Leif Roar Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,800	Quote: 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?
Leif Roar Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,800	__________________ "Our feature on cloud seeding (16 Apr, p40) should have started with the words 'Cannons blazed'. No clergy were set on fire in China's rainmaking experiment." -- New Scientist, 7th May 2005

7th March 2005, 08:28 AM	#65
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,510	Quote: 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.
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

7th March 2005, 08:31 AM	#66
Leif Roar Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,800	Quote: 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.
Leif Roar Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,800	__________________ "Our feature on cloud seeding (16 Apr, p40) should have started with the words 'Cannons blazed'. No clergy were set on fire in China's rainmaking experiment." -- New Scientist, 7th May 2005

7th March 2005, 08:56 AM	#67
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,510	Quote: 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?
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

7th March 2005, 09:11 AM	#68
Leif Roar Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,800	Quote: 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.
Leif Roar Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,800	__________________ "Our feature on cloud seeding (16 Apr, p40) should have started with the words 'Cannons blazed'. No clergy were set on fire in China's rainmaking experiment." -- New Scientist, 7th May 2005

7th March 2005, 09:14 AM	#69
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Quote: 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.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

7th March 2005, 09:40 AM	#70
BobK Muse Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: State of confusion Posts: 913	Dateline ROME, Italy CNN Quote: 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) The article does not say what CNN put in quotes. As a matter of fact it says the exact opposite. Quote: 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?
	__________________ A mind is like a parachute. It works best when open.

7th March 2005, 10:01 AM	#71
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,629	http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2005_03.php#009776 She seems to have credibility problems..... They paid for her too.......unbelievable......

7th March 2005, 10:04 AM	#72
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,629	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.

7th March 2005, 10:08 AM	#73
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,156	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.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

7th March 2005, 10:10 AM	#74
Leif Roar Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,800	Quote: 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.
Leif Roar Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,800	__________________ "Our feature on cloud seeding (16 Apr, p40) should have started with the words 'Cannons blazed'. No clergy were set on fire in China's rainmaking experiment." -- New Scientist, 7th May 2005

7th March 2005, 10:11 AM	#75
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,156	Quote: 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.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith