← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · il ragno
Thread ID: 17160 | Posts: 29 | Started: 2005-03-07
2005-03-07 04:47 | User Profile
The car had passed the first three checkpoints and got ambushed at the fourth.
[QUOTE][url]www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=38029[/url]
[B]US attack against Italians in Baghdad was deliberate: companion[/B] Published: 3/5/2005
ROME - The companion of freed Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena on Saturday leveled serious accusations at US troops who fired at her convoy as it was nearing Baghdad airport, saying the shooting had been deliberate.
"The Americans and Italians knew about (her) car coming," Pier Scolari said on leaving Rome's Celio military hospital where Sgrena is to undergo surgery following her return home.
"[B]They were 700 meters (yards) from the airport, which means that they had passed all checkpoints[/B]."
[B]The shooting late Friday was witnessed by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's office which was on the phone with one of the secret service agents, said Scolari. "Then the US military silenced the cellphones," he charged.
"Giuliana had information, and the US military did not want her to survive[/B]," he added.
When Sgrena was kidnapped on February 4 she was writing an article on refugees from Fallujah seeking shelter at a Baghdad mosque after US forces bombed the former Sunni rebel stronghold.
Sgrena told RaiNews24 television Saturday a "hail of bullets" rained down on the car taking her to safety at Baghdad airport, along with three secret service agents, killing one of them.
"I was speaking to (agent) Nicola Calipari (...) when he leant on me, probably to protect me, and then collapsed and I realized he was dead," said Sgrena, who was being questioned on Saturday by two Italian magistrates.
"They continued shooting and the driver couldn't even explain that we were Italians. It was really horrible," she added.
Sgrena, who was hospitalized with serious wounds to her left shoulder and lung after arriving back in Rome Saturday before noon, said she was "exhausted because of what happened above all in the last 24 hours".
"After all the risks I have been running I can say that I'm fine," she said.
"I thought that after I was handed over to the Italians danger was over, but then this shooting broke out and we were hit by a hail of bullets."
The chief editor of Sgrena's left-wing newspaper Il Manifesto Gabriele Polo meanwhile branded Calipari's death a "murder".
"He was hit in the head," he said.
Calipari will be given a state funeral Monday.
03/05/2005 13:43 GMT [/QUOTE]
2005-03-07 13:12 | User Profile
The whole story is pretty suspect. Sgrena claimed that her car was shot at 300 or 400 times from an armoured vehicle (a Bradley I assume). Would an armoured vehicle be posted at a checkpoint?
[url]http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1431436,00.html[/url]
[QUOTE]Sgrena told colleagues the vehicle was not travelling fast and had already passed several checkpoints on its way to the airport. The Americans shone a flashlight at the car and then fired between 300 and 400 bullets at if from an armoured vehicle. Rather than calling immediately for assistance for the wounded Italians, the soldiers' first move was to confiscate their weapons and mobile phones and they were prevented from resuming contact with Rome for more than an hour.[/QUOTE]
I doubt that anybody would be left alive in the car after that kind of firepower was directed at it. Yet only 1 occupant of the car was killed, by a single bullet wound. Either she's lying or US soldiers couldn't hit a barn door at 10 paces. I'll go with the former.
2005-03-07 13:41 | User Profile
Im surprised soldiers don't shoot up journalists (i.e. propaganda commissars) whenever they get a chance.
2005-03-07 17:25 | User Profile
Who was that CNN guy, Eason Jordan? Who said troops were doing this, and had to resign over it?
Huh.
Freepers: "That commie bitch was driving too fast. When you're a soldier and you see a car coming fast, you shoot. God bless our fighting men. They did the right thing."
DU'er: "Those soldier pigs did this on purpose. It was because she was a truth-seeking journalist of the liberal persuasion. She was probably going to reveal how the war is all about oil."
Well, who knows. I am inclined to believe that it's the Wild East out there, and that soliders just might feel license to shoot up some journos who are, in fact, against them. On the other hand, it seems an extreme reaction.
2005-03-07 17:39 | User Profile
I think there is a tendency among most Americans, American press, and thus the rest of the world, to think that American soldiers are some highly-trained, professional soldiers. Apart from officers and special forces, few could be thought of as professional level (In what field could an 18, 19 or 20-year old have the physical or mental maturity to thought of as professional?!!).
I recall reading a UK article almost two years ago about how British soldiers and SAS said things like, "the Yanks fire first and think and ask questions second."
2005-03-07 18:05 | User Profile
I tend to believe the Italian journo on this one. I heard she was saying that because the Italian government negotiated with her kidnappers for her release, that this drew the wrath of the American government since they totally oppose negotiations for hostage release. Better to let 'em die, Uncle Sam? Were journalists ever in danger of being kidnapped in Saddam's Iraq? Censored maybe, but beheaded? Never.
The Americans sure as day knew that the Italian envoy was going to be passing through to the airport. I think the shooting was deliberate.
The FReakers, however are having a party over the shooting of some European pinko commie journalist. The Freakers are the lowest form of vermin I've ever seen or heard. They're sickening people.
2005-03-07 18:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]I tend to believe the Italian journo on this one. I heard she was saying that because the Italian government negociated with her kidnappers for her release, that this drew the wrath of the American government since they totally oppose negociations for hostage release. Better to let 'em die, Uncle Sam? Were journalists ever in danger of being kidnapped in Saddam's Iraq? Censored maybe, but beheaded? Never.
The Americans sure as day knew that the Italian envoy was going to be passing through to the airport. I think the shooting was deliberate.
The FReakers, however are having a party over the shooting of some European pinko commie journalist. The Freakers are the lowest form of vermin I've ever seen or heard. They're sickening people.[/QUOTE] Bulgarian soldier killed on March 4 was killed by U.S. soldiers.
[url="http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-iraq.html?ex=1110862800&en=6ae4f727f674103b&ei=5070"]http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-iraq.html?ex=1110862800&en=6ae4f727f674103b&ei=5070[/url]
2005-03-07 18:24 | User Profile
I do believe there was intentional targeting of Al-Jezeera and Al-Aribiya news people in Iraq. Their broadcasting locations were hit multiple times, and everytime the U.S. military brushed it off as accidental. And it's more than coincidental that U.S. military commanders threatended AJ and AA numerous times over their coverage, saying it was subversive. Puppet leader Allawi banned AJ from Iraq. AJ, AA, [Arab]ABC have had many field reporters killed, despite press designations conspicuous to even the blind. And there is mentality among U.S. military in thinking they are justified in doing just about anything in the name of war-- something especially true under a guy like Bush Jr.
2005-03-07 19:09 | User Profile
QUOTE=Jack Cassidy.[/QUOTE]
Basketball, rap music and crack cocaine distribution.
2005-03-07 21:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Im surprised soldiers don't shoot up journalists (i.e. propaganda commissars) whenever they get a chance.[/QUOTE]
Like I read elwhere "if the truth hurts then it must be the truth"
About 3 weeks ago I spoke with a just returned Army Cpt. from Iraq and he sayt that here we don't really know the truth of what is going on in Iraw.
The real deaths of Americans is now over 4,000 and the reason the government says that is only 1,500 is because they don't count those wounded who die in transit or those at the hospitals.
And he would not even talk about civilians deaths in Iraq.
"When the truth comes into the light, the lies will hide in the dark"... Ponce
2005-03-08 00:00 | User Profile
Even though I don't approve of shooting journalists, I've got some sympathy for the soldiers if it was deliberate (which I doubt, I think the Italian journalist is lying). How many IEDs would the ransom money buy? How many dead or maimed soldiers does that translate into?
2005-03-08 00:23 | User Profile
It would appear that the Italians have learned a couple of Murphy's laws the hard way. 1. Friendly fire isn't 2. The only thing more accurate than incoming enemy fire is incoming friendly fire. The "hostage" that was rescued is a reporter for a vile communist newspaper. The Italians supposedly paid ransom to the insurgents to get her back, undermining efforts to cut off their funds. They also could not be bothered to advise the Americans what they were up to. When they decided to play Lone Ranger :cowboy: in a war zone they assumed full responsibilty for whatever came their way.
2005-03-08 01:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gebirgsjager]It would appear that the Italians have learned a couple of Murphy's laws the hard way. 1. Friendly fire isn't 2. The only thing more accurate than incoming enemy fire is incoming friendly fire. The "hostage" that was rescued is a reporter for a vile communist newspaper. The Italians supposedly paid ransom to the insurgents to get her back, undermining efforts to cut off their funds. They also could not be bothered to advise the Americans what they were up to. When they decided to play Lone Ranger :cowboy: in a war zone they assumed full responsibilty for whatever came their way.[/QUOTE]Have you heard what the checkpoint was??!!! A couple of US military vehicles off on the side of the road. The sequence, from alerting someone there is a checkpoint (flashing a light(s)) to firing a warning shot, to opening fire on the vehicle is often under five seconds.
As far as "playing Lone Ranger in a war zone," well, these security agents were tops, they had rescued other Italian hostages in Iraq and were thoroughly familiar with all procedures. I don't know why everyone is quick to assume the Italian agents f-d up, when you damn well know the soldier who opened fire is probably some beaner or buffer or redneck with a low IQ. Please, don't be like Fox News, were that Frankenstein-looking Brit Hume (whose son blew his brains out) could only ask "How could the Italians make such a mistake?" (I.e., some high-IQ'd white European agents are probably in error, while our fightin' brownskins are infallible).
2005-03-08 02:38 | User Profile
The excuse as always is that US soldiers need to be on a hair trigger in these situations because of the risk of suicide bombers. But one thing that I've wondered about is how do checkpoints stop suicide car bombers if the target is the checkpoint itself? Surely a smart suicide bomber (if that's not an oxymoron) can slow down when instructed/indicated to, and then when the soldier(s) come over to check his papers or whatever... kaboom! Why do they always try and barrel on in at 100 miles an hour?
2005-03-08 07:31 | User Profile
A soldier is a soldier.
And a soldier is not a peace-maker. He is a fighting man.
And he will defend his life - and rightly so. He is not a sacrifice for any pen-pushing, political journalist.
This woman was there by greedy choice - she is no heroine.
I care not for it.
Mentzer.
2005-03-08 12:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Mentzer]He is not a sacrifice for any pen-pushing, political journalist.[/QUOTE]
The man who died was not a journalist, he was a soldier also.
2005-03-10 05:16 | User Profile
When you hear all the snide news analysts and military experts dismissing this as an intentional hit, substitute the U.S.S. Liberty for the Italian security car and see if you don't think differently about this. This smug, 'we are too smart and therefore can do what we want an get away with it', attitude the Americans have adopted in all diplomatic and military matters is no doubt a result of trickle-down Hebraism.
2005-03-10 06:47 | User Profile
Excellent point, Jack (and put a skullcap on Mentzer and you've got a freshly minted Baruch Goldstein/Jonathan Pollard apologist to boot).
Bear in mind this isn't the first time Italy's been burned by the US military. Not too long ago, some frolicking US pilots decided to play Top Gun in Italian airspace and ended up severing some transport cables, sending innocent sightseers in a cable car plummeting to their deaths. This caused no end of hard feelings between Italians and their American 'benefactors', and "Communism" din't have diddly to do with it.
Stories like this underscore the basic schizophrenia necessary to be a Good Amurrican, Fox News style: one which babbles endlessly about [I]liberty [/I] and [I]defending the homeland [/I] from invading armies, yet sees 'traitors' and 'Commies' and 'America-haters' in people who similarly don't wish to be invaded, occupied or otherwise pushed around by [I]us[/I]. More than ever before, the average American is expected to see and feel and react to events as as a spoiled and selfish child would: [B]I [/B] scrape my knee and I bust out crying, hollering for sympathy; [B]you [/B] scrape your knee and I bust out laughing. Especially if I tripped you.
2005-03-10 06:53 | User Profile
Can Faux News watchers have just a fraction of the same incredulity and scepticism reserved for political-correctness dogmas televitz is feeding them? Wait a minute, it's not critical thinking we are talking around here, but just parroting televitz, in both cases.
2005-03-10 10:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]When you hear all the snide news analysts and military experts dismissing this as an intentional hit, substitute the U.S.S. Liberty for the Italian security car and see if you don't think differently about this. This smug, 'we are too smart and therefore can do what we want an get away with it', attitude the Americans have adopted in all diplomatic and military matters is no doubt a result of trickle-down Hebraism.[/QUOTE]Ding ding ding ding ding!!!
Thanks for the mental antidote for the Freeper-Fox News ("We deceive, you believe!") mentality creeping into this thread. The USA is looking and acting more and more like Isis-Ra-El every day. The arrogance and blindness is truly remarkable, as is the hypocrisy of fighting for "freedom and democracy" whilst acting in a manner in which stereotypical "Hollywood Nazis" are supposed to act, according to Hollywood.
There was a documentary on PBS the other day - I think it was on Frontline - following a group of US soldiers in Iraq, for about a month, and I think it was filmed about 6 months ago or so. Sometime in 2004 anyway. This was the documentary that PBS "censored" in some versions to remove the profanity.
Anyway, they showed a typical "checkpoint" incident, and it was not pretty. The US soldiers were driving along and they stop by a road near an overpass in the middle of nowhere, somewhere in the greater Baghdad area. All that constituted the "checkpoint" was a couple of soldiers on foot, and a few humvees, and I think some Bradleys, further up the road. All that was visible to an approaching car would have been a handful of soliers on foot, from maybe 600 yards away, easily blending into the khaki desert background.
(I just rewatched it no my TiVo to check my memory; the episode was "In the Company of Soldiers" on PBS's Frontline series.)
From about 500-600 yards away or thereabouts, a car approaches the soldiers, coming over a gentle hill/rise in the road, driving at normal speed. Here is what constituted "fair warning": at what I would guesstimate was maybe 400-500 yards, the soldier fires a warning shot (no signs, no lights, no hand waiving, no gates or orange warning cones: nothing); he fires a single warning shot into the air, and then, about one or two seconds later, he and the rest open up on the car, firing scores of shots into it; the car stops, then backs away. No attempt is made to see if the car contains anyone needing medical assistance; no concern seems to be given that if this was an alleged car bomber, that maybe someone should stop him from driving away so that he can be questioned to at least ascertain whether he was innocent or an actual car bomber; as best as I could tell, they just let him back up and drive off the opposite direction.
The narrator explains that the car was approaching at "high speed" although it looked perfectly ordinary to me; it wasn't "speeding" for the kind of road it was on. The narrator explains that after the warning shot, the soldiers believed that the car then "accelerated" towards them, so that the order to fire was given. My estimates about time and distance are probably way off, given the nature of the video and my less than perfect visual/spacial abilities, but still, the car wasn't in any immediate danger of coming within "car bomb" range of the soldiers.
I heard no actual order to fire; the person who gave the warning shot fired, followed by everyone else. After the warning shot was given, you can hear the engine of the car clearly, so it is possible it might have shifted into higher gear at that moment, but there is no indication that the driver even saw or heard the "warning shot", given the great distance involved, and at that range, by the time he might have noticed the men standing at a distance by the side of the road, they were already peppering his car with bullets.
After the shooting and while the car is backing away, you can hear the soldiers shout "he crossed the firing line" or similar; apparently they have a point at which they open fire on the theory that they can't allow cars to come too close; how Iraqis are supposed to ascertain where the "firing line" starts was not explained. The car was maybe 300 yards away when it stopped and backed away (but I am only guessing based on the video; it might have been a little closer or further away).
Given that this was an impromptu "checkpoint" thrown up very recently (narrator doesn't indicate, but from the looks of it they had only been there a short time, a few hours at most), it is highly unlikely that car bombers would target them, except as a target of opportunity. It takes time to set up a car bombing, and they are intended for static or predictable targets, not targets of opportunity: regular patrols, permanent installations, etc. The whole idea of these random, temporary checkpoints is to lessen the danger of car bombs, and increase the chances of catching the Iraqi resistance with their pants down.
Anyway, put yourselves in the drivers seat. You are driving along, going about your normal business, when you round a curve and go over a rise, off in the distance you might see some men standing around, although given that their uniforms blend into the khaki background and given the long range, you might not notice them at first. How many people pay attention to anything more than 100 yards in front of them? How many people actually stay alert all the time when driving? You may or may not see one of them raise his gun in the air a fire a "warning shot"; given that he was firing straight up, most of the noise would not reach you, and occasional gunfire in Iraq nowadays is normal. Even if you did see the "warning shot" you only have a second or two to decide what to do, before you are riddled with bullets. What do you do, assuming you realize what is about to happen? Stomp on the brakes? That would make you look suspicous. Whatever you do, you only have a second to decide, assuming that you are even aware that there is a "checkpoint" coming up.
So that's a typical "checkpoint" incident. I imagine that after dark things get even nastier, since there is a curfew. Supposedly the Italians had let the Americans know they were coming; that plus the high mortality of journalists is mighty suspicous. Given the fact that the typical "checkpoint warning" is apparently (if my daylight example above holds true for most such temporary checkpoints) so cursory that only the most paranoid and careful driver would be able to stop in time, it would be very easy to set up an incident where a shooting was likely to occur, especially if the Italians thought that they were already in the clear with the Americans, and the American GIs in turn were warned to be on the lookout for "something nasty" without being told exactly what was going on. That way, you have an "accident" without any trail of evidence leading back to the perpetrators. You just have some GIs caught holding the bag, at worst.
We don't know all the facts yet, but the military has made its opinions clear about what it will do to journalists who aren't under their thumb. We heard a steady trickle of information about targetting of non-US military broadcasting, including journalists, in Afghanistan and Iraq, and several of them were hit, that is, their broadcasting facilities were targetted. And the number of journalists that the US military has "accidently" killed is mighty suspicious; the death rate for journalists far, far exceeds what happened in WWII or Vietnam, for instance.
Is this all accidental?
Certainly these are always going to be fobbed off as accidents. The military can't admit that it is targetting journalists, but it can certainly create the conditions in which "accidents" are more likely to happen. And anyone of lower rank foolish enough to get caught - like the Abu Ghraib soldiers who were caught on camera - will be railroaded as a lone "bad apple" and the higher ups who created the system will escape unhurt, and often, undetected.
I doubt the actual soldiers who pulled the trigger in this incident knew what was going on, but I would not be surprised if they were put into that particular situation by someone higher up who calculated that the location and timing of their "checkpoint" would produce predictable results, which it did, except that it didn't quite manage to kill the primary target of the "hit".
Remember how we "accidently" bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade a few years back, under Clinton? Think about that one for a minute, and think about the post-Cold War tangent that our foreign policy has been moving along, regardless of which party is in power. When the "accidents" appear to fit someone's agenda, it is time to start looking for intent rather than mere accident.
2005-03-10 14:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]There was a documentary on PBS the other day - I think it was on Frontline - following a group of US soldiers in Iraq, for about a month, and I think it was filmed about 6 months ago or so. Sometime in 2004 anyway. This was the documentary that PBS "censored" in some versions to remove the profanity.
Anyway, they showed a typical "checkpoint" incident, and it was not pretty. The US soldiers were driving along and they stop by a road near an overpass in the middle of nowhere, somewhere in the greater Baghdad area. All that constituted the "checkpoint" was a couple of soldiers on foot, and a few humvees, and I think some Bradleys, further up the road. All that was visible to an approaching car would have been a handful of soliers on foot, from maybe 600 yards away, easily blending into the khaki desert background.
(I just rewatched it no my TiVo to check my memory; the episode was "In the Company of Soldiers" on PBS's Frontline series.)
From about 500-600 yards away or thereabouts, a car approaches the soldiers, coming over a gentle hill/rise in the road, driving at normal speed. Here is what constituted "fair warning": at what I would guesstimate was maybe 400-500 yards, the soldier fires a warning shot (no signs, no lights, no hand waiving, no gates or orange warning cones: nothing); he fires a single warning shot into the air, and then, about one or two seconds later, he and the rest open up on the car, firing scores of shots into it; the car stops, then backs away. No attempt is made to see if the car contains anyone needing medical assistance; no concern seems to be given that if this was an alleged car bomber, that maybe someone should stop him from driving away so that he can be questioned to at least ascertain whether he was innocent or an actual car bomber; as best as I could tell, they just let him back up and drive off the opposite direction.
The narrator explains that the car was approaching at "high speed" although it looked perfectly ordinary to me; it wasn't "speeding" for the kind of road it was on. The narrator explains that after the warning shot, the soldiers believed that the car then "accelerated" towards them, so that the order to fire was given. My estimates about time and distance are probably way off, given the nature of the video and my less than perfect visual/spacial abilities, but still, the car wasn't in any immediate danger of coming within "car bomb" range of the soldiers.
I heard no actual order to fire; the person who gave the warning shot fired, followed by everyone else. After the warning shot was given, you can hear the engine of the car clearly, so it is possible it might have shifted into higher gear at that moment, but there is no indication that the driver even saw or heard the "warning shot", given the great distance involved, and at that range, by the time he might have noticed the men standing at a distance by the side of the road, they were already peppering his car with bullets.
After the shooting and while the car is backing away, you can hear the soldiers shout "he crossed the firing line" or similar; apparently they have a point at which they open fire on the theory that they can't allow cars to come too close; how Iraqis are supposed to ascertain where the "firing line" starts was not explained. The car was maybe 300 yards away when it stopped and backed away (but I am only guessing based on the video; it might have been a little closer or further away).
Given that this was an impromptu "checkpoint" thrown up very recently (narrator doesn't indicate, but from the looks of it they had only been there a short time, a few hours at most), it is highly unlikely that car bombers would target them, except as a target of opportunity. It takes time to set up a car bombing, and they are intended for static or predictable targets, not targets of opportunity: regular patrols, permanent installations, etc. The whole idea of these random, temporary checkpoints is to lessen the danger of car bombs, and increase the chances of catching the Iraqi resistance with their pants down.
Anyway, put yourselves in the drivers seat. You are driving along, going about your normal business, when you round a curve and go over a rise, off in the distance you might see some men standing around, although given that their uniforms blend into the khaki background and given the long range, you might not notice them at first. How many people pay attention to anything more than 100 yards in front of them? How many people actually stay alert all the time when driving? You may or may not see one of them raise his gun in the air a fire a "warning shot"; given that he was firing straight up, most of the noise would not reach you, and occasional gunfire in Iraq nowadays is normal. Even if you did see the "warning shot" you only have a second or two to decide what to do, before you are riddled with bullets. What do you do, assuming you realize what is about to happen? Stomp on the brakes? That would make you look suspicous. Whatever you do, you only have a second to decide, assuming that you are even aware that there is a "checkpoint" coming up.
So that's a typical "checkpoint" incident. I imagine that after dark things get even nastier, since there is a curfew. Supposedly the Italians had let the Americans know they were coming; that plus the high mortality of journalists is mighty suspicous. Given the fact that the typical "checkpoint warning" is apparently (if my daylight example above holds true for most such temporary checkpoints) so cursory that only the most paranoid and careful driver would be able to stop in time, it would be very easy to set up an incident where a shooting was likely to occur, especially if the Italians thought that they were already in the clear with the Americans, and the American GIs in turn were warned to be on the lookout for "something nasty" without being told exactly what was going on. That way, you have an "accident" without any trail of evidence leading back to the perpetrators. You just have some GIs caught holding the bag, at worst.
[/QUOTE]
Grep14, I saw that part of PBS' "In The Company of Soldiers"! That's a good recap you wrote of that incident. If more people had seen that display of American arrogance right on their screens, there might be less people saying that those Italians deserved to be blown away. That part of the show made me sick. It's really no wonder why Iraqis and Muslims hate America, really no wonder. I didn't watch much after seeing that segment.
I saw another part where a few soldiers were sitting around cleaning their guns and one of them mentioned something about an anti-war demonstration back in the States. One soldier said, "They should quit complaining and instead enlist and come and help us out here".....that's when I couldn't take it anymore and turned it off. Who the F*CK is that soldier to tell anybody anything when he's nothing but a brainwashed robot doing the dirty work for the benefit of a foreign overlord??
The haughty arrogance of the Americans is certainly not lost on God Almighty.
2005-03-10 15:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Excellent point, Jack (and put a skullcap on Mentzer and you've got a freshly minted Baruch Goldstein/Jonathan Pollard apologist to boot).
Bear in mind this isn't the first time Italy's been burned by the US military. Not too long ago, some frolicking US pilots decided to play Top Gun in Italian airspace and ended up severing some transport cables, sending innocent sightseers in a cable car plummeting to their deaths. This caused no end of hard feelings between Italians and their American 'benefactors', and "Communism" din't have diddly to do with it.
Stories like this underscore the basic schizophrenia necessary to be a Good Amurrican, Fox News style: one which babbles endlessly about [I]liberty [/I] and [I]defending the homeland [/I] from invading armies, yet sees 'traitors' and 'Commies' and 'America-haters' in people who similarly don't wish to be invaded, occupied or otherwise pushed around by [I]us[/I]. More than ever before, the average American is expected to see and feel and react to events as as a spoiled and selfish child would: [B]I [/B] scrape my knee and I bust out crying, hollering for sympathy; [B]you [/B] scrape your knee and I bust out laughing. Especially if I tripped you.[/QUOTE]
Explain your comment.
I have no knowledge of the names you mention.
Be precise.
Mentzer.
2005-03-11 07:59 | User Profile
Some speculation along those lines:
[url]http://wagnews.blogspot.com/2005/03/sgrena-hit-how-they-did-it-and-why.html[/url]
P.S. I'm not so sure I find this site credible, but it does introduce some new information, e.g. the single bullet hole in the front tire, fired from the side.
2005-03-11 10:22 | User Profile
My point was: if you took your original comment and put those words into the mouth of an Israeli, that Israeli would be dismissing IDF atrocities, like those perpetrated by Baruch Goldstein or against Rachel Corrie. Using the excuse that [I]a soldier is a soldier [/I] in reference to a military occupation doesn't fly. You might as well say that the civilian population being invaded and occupied is there by "greedy choice".
An unarmed European woman just freed from captivity is [B]not [/B] a combatant. Baruch Goldstein saw himself as a "soldier" for Eretz Yisroel and machine-gunned praying Muslims in a mosque who were unarmed, on their knees and had their backs to him when he entered. I believe he executed 29 of them before he either was stopped, or ran out of ammo. He, and his apologists, said many of the same things you have. He was a 'soldier', too, who needed to answer to no one.
2005-03-14 15:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]The FReakers, however are having a party over the shooting of some European pinko commie journalist. The Freakers are the lowest form of vermin I've ever seen or heard. They're sickening people.[/QUOTE] Take a look at this: [url]http://www.freerepublic.com/~slingsandarrows/[/url] Takes a minute to download because of all the humorous little graphics making fun of Rachel Corrie's murder. I don't have any illusions about Rachel Corrie, she was probably defending the Palistinians because in her view it was a case of the White man oppressing "pipples ub colah", but she was an Americam citizen and someone should pay a price for murdering her. Of course, she's only a symptom of a disease, the disease being whoever it was that taught her that self-hatred, and that's a discussion that's strickly verboten on JudeoFreeRepublic.
2005-03-20 04:43 | User Profile
I note that the Italian woman has altered her story once again.
She now states that soldiers must not fire bullets - regardless of threat.
Why was this communist journalist released from an Islamic terrorist group? It appears this ignorant women has influenced Italian opinion - but that is not difficult. And her views and lies are of no interest or importance.
It may be correct to return all European and American soldiers from the middle-east.
It is also correct that all muslims be removed from Europe and America and returned to their homelands, to their place of worship, to where they feel at home.
And there must be no compromise.
Mentzer
2005-03-30 09:16 | User Profile
Some new details come to light:
[url]http://www.stufftoread.net/archives/2005/03/29/new-details-about-shooting-of-italian-war-correspondent/[/url]
This is a really interesting read. Amongst the new information is the fact that Sgrena was not travelling along the notorious Baghdad airport road but along a specially secured road accessible only through the "Green Zone".
2005-03-30 13:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]I doubt that anybody would be left alive in the car after that kind of firepower was directed at it. Yet only 1 occupant of the car was killed, by a single bullet wound. Either she's lying or US soldiers couldn't hit a barn door at 10 paces. I'll go with the former.[/QUOTE] Or maybe they were only trying to scare the driver and journalist. Killing the head of Italy's Foreign Military Intelligence is a very clear message indeed. Who cares about some "pinko communist jounalist"?
[QUOTE=Mentzer]It is also correct that all muslims be removed from Europe and America and returned to their homelands, to their place of worship, to where they feel at home.
And there must be no compromise.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, great idea! It is also correct that all christians be removed from America and returned to their homelands (i.e. Europe). And there must be no compromise.
2005-03-30 13:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]Some new details come to light:
[url]http://www.stufftoread.net/archives/2005/03/29/new-details-about-shooting-of-italian-war-correspondent/[/url]
This is a really interesting read. Amongst the new information is the fact that Sgrena was not travelling along the notorious Baghdad airport road but along a specially secured road accessible only through the "Green Zone".[/QUOTE]
I read that yesterday too.
It's very plausible that Sgrena's car was shot at from [U]behind[/U]. That might explain why the driver lived and why the Americans confiscated the car so the Italians can't investigate it and find out it was a deliberate hit.